Homophobia

[EuroTroll]

I've been thinking a lot, over the past few minutes, about homosexuality and all that it entails and provokes.

The most interesting aspect of it all seems to be homophobia. What provokes it? Is it at all rational or only emotional?

This is what I would like to discuss with you, dear fellow forumer, because I'm bored and have nothing better to do. ;) :D

What's your attitude to gays, and homosexuality in general? More interestingly, why do you think you have this attitude?

[henners88]

Last time we had a thread discussing homosexuality it brought to the attention how backward some parts of the world are from the input here. It was even suggested it was attention seeking and that people chose to do it. Probably asking for a flashpoint opening this discussion again.

[Mark]

Myself and my friends are XXX. Those people over there are different because of YYYY. Kill them.

Sums up a good deal of human history.

[A FONDO]

Myself and my friends are XXX. Those people over there are different because of YYYY. Kill them.

Sums up a good deal of human history.

Homosexuality is not the same difference as fans of different football clubs or political sights. It is antinatural sickness, degeneracy. No different than pedofilia, necrofilia, family-filia etc.

[Mark]

Homosexuality is not the same difference as fans of different football clubs or political sights. It is antinatural sickness, degeneracy. No different than pedofilia, necrofilia, family-filia etc.

Which is part of the problem. People like yourself who have views which are completely incorrect. Even if you were to characterise being gay as a 'sickness', then it can't be compared to the likes of peadofilia, as that causes genuine harm to innocent individuals. Whereas being gay does nothing of the the sort.

(BTW normally if you came out with such things you'd get an instant and permanent ban; however it's relevant to the debate at hand in this case, I would ask those who may be offended by comments in this thread to show tolerance to opposing viewpoints, even if distasteful)

[EuroTroll]

Homosexuality is not the same difference as fans of different football clubs or political sights. It is antinatural sickness, degeneracy. No different than pedofilia, necrofilia, family-filia etc.

I'd like to focus on the word 'antinatural'.

I believe there are over 1500 animal species that have been observed with homosexual behaviour. Are they also 'antinatural'?

If so, what is 'natural', i.e. 'of nature'?

[A FONDO]

Whereas being gay does nothing of the the sort.

Mark you know when the term homofobia was invented? When the homos began posing with it and aggressively spreading their views over the world, attacking everyone who disagrees with them! When they started making parades in big cities and started making political pressure from very high levels on countries who didnt allow them (let alone marriages and child adoption)! When they started paying celebrities to defend their views in public and movie producers to promote them. When they started sponsoring schools and kindergardens to explain it to fragile little kids as something equal to normal and modern! There was homosexuality all the time, it is mentioned even in the jewish bible and ancient greek myths, but there's not written anything about homofobia because there were not parades and massive propaganda.

[dj_bytedisaster]

Homosexuality is not the same difference as fans of different football clubs or political sights. It is antinatural sickness, degeneracy. No different than pedofilia, necrofilia, family-filia etc.

And this years tolerance award goes to...

No seriously. Be careful where you let something like that fall out of your skull, because it makes you look like a bit of a tool. Homosexuality is not a sickness. It is also not comparable to pedophilia or necrophilia, which are classified paraphilia, which homosexuality isn't. It is also not degenerative, as it is as old a humanity itself.

No your finest hour, there... ;)

[henners88]

I'm not going to get wound up by Slowsons comments however backward and disgusting I think they are. I think it's frightening we still have views like this and no wonder we have so many hate crimes. I think I've found a use for my ignore list after quite a while.

[EuroTroll]

I think it's frightening we still have views like this and no wonder we have so many hate crimes. I think I've found a use for my ignore list after quite a while.

You would be surprised how common SlowSon's view is in post-communist Europe. (I'm willing to bet a princely sum that he's an Easty, based on his comments..)

But let's not ignore, eh? ;) Let's try to help. :)

[pettersolberg29]

Homosexuality is not the same difference as fans of different football clubs or political sights. It is antinatural sickness, degeneracy. No different than pedofilia, necrofilia, family-filia etc.


I'd like to focus on the word 'antinatural'.

I believe there are over 1500 animal species that have been observed with homosexual behaviour. Are they also 'antinatural'?

If so, what is 'natural', i.e. 'of nature'?

First of all I'd like to clarify that I'm not homophobic... though I know saying that immediately makes it suspicious!

However, though I disagree massively with it being like pedophilia as that causes direct harm and has a victim, I sort of see Slowson's view.If homosexuality is acceptable, why is incest so frowned upon, and necrophilia? Surely a man and a woman is the 'normal' scheme of things, so why is a brother and sister in a relationship so disgusting and frowned upon, yet 2 unrelated men is acceptable?

As for EuroTroll's, point using natural is dangerous - you get mutations which cause weird effects in all species, but doesn't mean they're stereotypically natural. Also in many animal kingdoms incest is prevalent, so saying it's ok because it's ok in nature is not correct.

Therefore despite believing everyone is able to do what they like and that homosexuality is not 'evil', I do certainly sometimes wonder why it is so widely accepted nowadays when other things are so unacceptable.

[SGWilko]

Homosexuality is not the same difference as fans of different football clubs or political sights. It is antinatural sickness, degeneracy. No different than pedofilia, necrofilia, family-filia etc.

You are missing the point by a millenium! It may be un-natural to some, and that is fine, but equally, it is as natural as day and night to others. Consent is a major issue that sets aside your point about paedophilia, necrophilia etc........ from homosexuality.

[SGWilko]

why is incest so frowned upon

Well, for one, it messes up the gene pool and can lead to some serious birth defects. This of course is where we appear to differ in genetic compatability - as far as reproduction goes - to the animal kingdom.....

[henners88]

I don't think there is ever going to be a danger that our entire species is suddenly going to turn homosexual so I don't see why reproduction has to come into things in debates like this. Not everybody enters a relationship with the intent to reproduce of course. There are many heterosexual couples who have long relationships and decide not to have children. We don't seem to have prejudices against such individuals because people think they are wasting their abilities to have children but choose not to. Homosexuality is not a choice but a genetic fault, if that can be said, not meaning its wrong. We can't help who we are attracted to and as long as it is between two consenting adults, it can't be compared to the other awful things listed in this thread IMO. I don't see why we can't be tolerant of others even if they don't meet our own selfish expectations and I certainly don't think Children need to be shielded from such people. Its about educating those who are naive to such instances and lack of education is always going to breed intolerance. Not everybody is the same and homosexuality does no harm to anybody.

[EuroTroll]

As for EuroTroll's, point using natural is dangerous - you get mutations which cause weird effects in all species, but doesn't mean they're stereotypically natural. Also in many animal kingdoms incest is prevalent, so saying it's ok because it's ok in nature is not correct.

I'm not saying it's ok because it's ok in nature. I'm saying that you can't say it's not ok because it's 'antinatural', or alien to nature.

To me, homosexuality and homosexual acts need no justification. Consenting adults can do what they like, so long as there are no victims to their actions.

Incest. Now that's an interesting point, actually. Should we accept an adult brother and sister having recreational sex? Perhaps we should. After all, they are free consenting adults, and noone gets hurt.

[pettersolberg29]

Well, for one, it messes up the gene pool and can lead to some serious birth defects. This of course is where we appear to differ in genetic compatability - as far as reproduction goes - to the animal kingdom.....

As henners88 says, this point is irrelevant. There is no need for them to reproduce, that can still be seen as 'wrong' or illegal because there is then a risk of harm to any children. Also, like gay couples they could adopt or have IVF with another's sperm - why is this more wrong than homosexuals doing the same? The act itself is no better or worse than homosexuality in my view - both are not 'the norm', and neither cause direct harm beyond offence to others. And offence is only taken not given so that shoudn't be an issue.

I'm not condoning incest, nor am I saying homosexuality is wrong - but it's interesting that these differences arise.

[pettersolberg29]

I'm not saying it's ok because it's ok in nature. I'm saying that you can't say it's not ok because it's 'antinatural', or alien to nature.

To me, homosexuality and homosexual acts need no justification. Consenting adults can do what they like, so long as there are no victims to their actions.

Incest. Now that's an interesting point, actually. Should we accept an adult brother and sister having recreational sex? Perhaps we should. After all, they are free consenting adults, and noone gets hurt.

Okay, that is a fair enough point and one I agree with.

As are the other two actually! If people are consenting (and of an age where decisions are rational!) and no harm comes to anyone then why are the two viewed differently?

[A FONDO]

So you plead for tolerance to different ones, but when one refuses to agree with the mainstream homosexualism propaganda he is satanized and ridiculed. Hypocritical isn't it :dozey:

[SGWilko]

As henners88 says, this point is irrelevant. There is no need for them to reproduce, that can still be seen as 'wrong' or illegal because there is then a risk of harm to any children. Also, like gay couples they could adopt or have IVF with another's sperm - why is this more wrong than homosexuals doing the same? The act itself is no better or worse than homosexuality in my view - both are not 'the norm', and neither cause direct harm beyond offence to others. And offence is only taken not given so that shoudn't be an issue.

I'm not condoning incest, nor am I saying homosexuality is wrong - but it's interesting that these differences arise.

I take issue IMHO with the idea of IVF in same sex couples, as I would with siblings wanting to have children together. Homosexuals cannot naturally have children, and so why should nature be overriden?

Because we can I suppose?

And do we then allow siblings to bear children, and the birth defects that are known can arise to occur?

[BDunnell]

I take issue with the idea of IVF in same sex couples, as I would with siblings wanting to have children together. Homosexuals cannot naturally have children, and so why should nature be overriden?

Because to deny them the right to do so is inherently unfair. While I appreciate your very tolerant comments further up this thread, what are you afraid of in this particular instance? We've been over this before, I know, but I resent the notion that I would automatically be an unsuitable person in your eyes to become a parent merely on grounds of my sexuality.

[BDunnell]

You would be surprised how common SlowSon's view is in post-communist Europe. (I'm willing to bet a princely sum that he's an Easty, based on his comments..)

But let's not ignore, eh? ;) Let's try to help. :)

I think he is beyond help.

[SGWilko]

Because to deny them the right to do so is inherently unfair. While I appreciate your very tolerant comments further up this thread, what are you afraid of in this particular instance? We've been over this before, I know, but I resent the notion that I would automatically be an unsuitable person in your eyes to become a parent merely on grounds of my sexuality.

I am not afraid anything, I just hold that view.

[Mark]

You cannot rightly say that those who are intollerant of intollerance are themselves intollerent! (if you see what I mean!!)

[EuroTroll]

So you plead for tolerance to different ones, but when one refuses to agree with the mainstream homosexualism propaganda he is satanized and ridiculed. Hypocritical isn't it :dozey:

No tolerance for intolerance! :devil:

[EuroTroll]

I think he is beyond help.

You never know!

[SGWilko]

I resent the notion that I would automatically be an unsuitable person in your eyes to become a parent merely on grounds of my sexuality.

Were you able, as a couple, to have children naturally, my view of course would be different. You may then turn out to be an awful parent - who knows?

The woman who suffers cancer and ends up with a hysterectomy cannot have children. That is not fair either.

Many areas of life we as a race have looked at and deemed unfair - famine, flood etc. SO we dam rivers, irrigate, send ££gazillions to prolongue life.

As a result we have a vastly overpopulated planet that before long, will choke under the strain. All because it wasn't fair......

I don't expect you to agree, and shan't lose any sleep over that.

So long as you understand I am not singling you out....

[BDunnell]

So long as you understand I am not singling you out....

I didn't think you were. Needless to say, I have no time for your view at all.

[BDunnell]

You cannot rightly say that those who are intollerant of intollerance are themselves intollerent! (if you see what I mean!!)

Exactly. This is an opinion heard often these days, and it's utter nonsense.

[Sprocket]

I take issue IMHO with the idea of IVF in same sex couples, as I would with siblings wanting to have children together. Homosexuals cannot naturally have children, and so why should nature be overriden?

Because we can I suppose?

And do we then allow siblings to bear children, and the birth defects that are known can arise to occur?

You could say the same about heterosexual couple who for some reason could not have children. They cannot have children naturally, so should they be denied the right too? I don't see the gender of the couple makes a difference.

Not sure what to make of the sibling thing, we all know there are reasons why that is not a good concept and I can't relate it to homosexuality at all.

In all though a refreshing thread, I've been to a fair few events and generally I would think motorsport tends to be a mainly heterosexual male pursuit (looking at me making assumptions there!) and it is good to see most here are willing to discuss their thoughts and are generally tolerant live and let live people.

I always think of homophobia as the phobia part. People who have nothing to fear have no phobia. It's a concept worth exploring.

[Zico]

I always think of homophobia as the phobia part. People who have nothing to fear have no phobia. It's a concept worth exploring.

You mean that homophobic people may have a deep hidden homosexual tendancy that scares them?

[BDunnell]

You mean that homophobic people may have a deep hidden homosexual tendancy that scares them?

Not in all instances, but this is far from unknown.

[Sprocket]

You mean that homophobic people may have a deep hidden homosexual tendancy that scares them?

Certainly not unknown. Particularly those that are very vocally homophobic.

But there could be more to it, that is one possibility.

There are others, such as threats to one owns moral concepts, religious concepts, own view on social structure and family values, it could run very deeply in some individuals and be complex.

The point really is phobia is fear of something that is not actually a threat...

[A FONDO]

You mean that homophobic people may have a deep hidden homosexual tendancy that scares them?

:rotflmao:

The Chit-chat section of this forum is really amazing, you can meet so different species here :D Sorry that Rally Mexico is getting underway and gotta leave you, but for tomorrow I have an idea for a new topic, something like this:

"I am a proud necrofile! I harm nobody so if you critise me you are a rotten xenofob! Try to abuse me or even call me not normal and I will moan to the admin of the forum and the international human rights watch! In a few months I and my fellows will organize parades on the streets of some of Europe's biggest cities! ...."

[BDunnell]

:rotflmao:

What is it about gay people that so scares you?

[Zico]

I have two boys and hope neither of them turn out to be gay.. not because I have anything against gay people but because (in the West coast of Scotland) I'd imagine life would become very difficult for them.
Maybe my perception needs updated but I think a lot of parents would feel that way and its probably a reflection on the lack of tolerance in society... well, in this particular area at least.

[henners88]

I take issue IMHO with the idea of IVF in same sex couples, as I would with siblings wanting to have children together. Homosexuals cannot naturally have children, and so why should nature be overriden?

Because we can I suppose?

And do we then allow siblings to bear children, and the birth defects that are known can arise to occur?
Because it is possible for a gay man or woman to have to desire to father/mother a child regardless of their sexual orientation. I have a gay friend who would love to be a father but his partner isn't paternal at all. Discussing this with him opened my eyes to things. He may fancy men but the father instinct is still in his genetics. If a child has the opportunity to be brought up by two loving parents regardless of their gender I will always support it. I don't agree it puts a child at risk or always encourages bullying later on.

[BDunnell]

I have two boys and hope neither of them turn out to be gay.. not because I have anything against gay people but because (in the West coast of Scotland) I'd imagine life would become very difficult for them.
Maybe my perception needs updated but I think a lot of parents would feel that way and its probably a reflection on the lack of tolerance in society... well, in this particular area at least.

I don't believe you should hope they turn out any particular way, so long as they are good people. You won't be able to change them if they are gay, either. How will attitudes ever change unless people face up to those doling out the abuse?

[Zico]

I don't believe you should hope they turn out any particular way, so long as they are good people. You won't be able to change them if they are gay, either. How will attitudes ever change unless people face up to those doling out the abuse?

I know that and it wouldn't change my love for them... but naturally I don't want them to experience difficult lives, that's all.

[BDunnell]

I know that and it wouldn't change my love for them... but naturally I don't want them to experience difficult lives, that's all.

So, if one of them told you they were gay, what would you do?

[EuroTroll]

:rotflmao:

The Chit-chat section of this forum is really amazing, you can meet so different species here :D Sorry that Rally Mexico is getting underway and gotta leave you, but for tomorrow I have an idea for a new topic, something like this:

"I am a proud necrofile! I harm nobody so if you critise me you are a rotten xenofob! Try to abuse me or even call me not normal and I will moan to the admin of the forum and the international human rights watch! In a few months I and my fellows will organize parades on the streets of some of Europe's biggest cities! ...."

You harm nobody?? What about the corpse of the deceased who is no longer able to give his consent to your sexual initiative?

Yeah. Go ahead and start that thread. ;)

[Zico]

So, if one of them told you they were gay, what would you do?

Accept it.. but probably pray that it was just a 'phase' he was going through?

[BDunnell]

Accept it.. but probably pray that it was just a 'phase' he was going through?

I hate to tell you this, but, if someone comes out, such a scenario is quite unlikely. Hoping your child isn't really gay because you worry about them suffering abuse as a result doesn't solve anything. It subconsciously legitimises homophobia and it does no good to your child. The best option is to accept it and support them as necessary. Don't hope they'll turn into a person they're not.

[Starter]

You could say the same about heterosexual couple who for some reason could not have children. They cannot have children naturally, so should they be denied the right too? I don't see the gender of the couple makes a difference.
Gay people have children all the time, just, and obviously, not with a gay partner. Personally, I never saw what the big deal is about gays. They are, for the most part, just people trying to live their lives. Doesn't bother me a bit. I will say I don't have much use for those who try and flaunt it it my face - doesn't have anything to do with their being gay, as I object to anyone behaving like that no matter the reason.

[Zico]

I hate to tell you this, but, if someone comes out, such a scenario is quite unlikely. Hoping your child isn't really gay because you worry about them suffering abuse as a result doesn't solve anything. It subconsciously legitimises homophobia and it does no good to your child. The best option is to accept it and support them as necessary. Don't hope they'll turn into a person they're not.

I would accept it and support them but please don't take the hope that they are not a target for haters as a subconscious legitimisation of homophobia... it's just the reality of the situation.

[BDunnell]

I will say I don't have much use for those who try and flaunt it it my face - doesn't have anything to do with their being gay, as I object to anyone behaving like that no matter the reason.

Exactly. However, there are those — this is not directed at you — who clearly don't have a problem with people flaunting other characteristics ('manly' toughness, wealth, etc), yet mysteriously have objections to gay people doing so.

[BDunnell]

I would accept it and support them but please don't take the hope that they are not a target for haters as a subconscious legitimisation of homophobia... it's just the reality of the situation.

But how does it ever get tackled otherwise? If all parents took your view, and if people stayed in the closet as a result, what good would that do? The homophobes would have 'won', and there would be a lot of very unhappy individuals unable to be true to themselves and their sexuality. I really think your attitude, as genuinely-meant as it might be, is counterproductive.

[Zico]

But how does it ever get tackled otherwise? If all parents took your view, and if people stayed in the closet as a result, what good would that do? The homophobes would have 'won', and there would be a lot of very unhappy individuals unable to be true to themselves and their sexuality. I really think your attitude, as genuinely-meant as it might be, is counterproductive.


Perhaps, but maybe we are just both looking at it from completely different perspectives.

[SGWilko]

You could say the same about heterosexual couple who for some reason could not have children.

Whilst, prima facie, unfair, perhaps that is a natural way to keep population numbers in check.

[BDunnell]

Perhaps, but maybe we are just both looking at it from completely different perspectives.

I believe one should always strive for the best outcome for any individual. I can't see how your stance does the best for anyone except those meting out homophobic abuse.

[BDunnell]

Whilst unfair, perhaps that is a natural way to keep population numbers in check.

There are plenty of other ways, the main ones being the numbers of single people, and couples who decide not to have children.

[Zico]

I believe one should always strive for the best outcome for any individual.

Yes, absolutely.. and I did say that if it turned out to be the case I'd still love and support him.


I can't see how your stance does the best for anyone except those meting out homophobic abuse.

I'm not homophobic but as a heterosexual man naturally I am not 'pro gay'. I just don't see how my stance of hoping my son doesn't turn out to be gay (because he would likely suffer for it) is actually supportive of those meting out homophobic abuse.

[henners88]

I have two boys and hope neither of them turn out to be gay.. not because I have anything against gay people but because (in the West coast of Scotland) I'd imagine life would become very difficult for them.
I don't think its a bad thing to say that as a preference you don't want you children to be gay, but as long as you can accept whatever you children turn out to be and not do what some parents do and hold it against them. They will be what they will be and its a parents duty to love and support their children IMO. I've heard of a few mixed experiences from friends and family members who have 'come out' to their parents and its often quite difficult process that is met with anger and denial from their parents when its first broke. I think the first thing that goes through the parents mind is the loss of potential grandchildren, likes its their right that has been taken away. Whenever I've asked a gay person if they were given the choice would they be gay, their answer is of course not but I didn't really have a choice. I hope if any of my children in future turn out to be gay that I am sensitive and loving enough to give them the support they need. I think my wife would be due to her brother living with his same sex partner.

[Sprocket]

Whilst, prima facie, unfair, perhaps that is a natural way to keep population numbers in check.

I could agree more with that than singling out gay people as not suitable. If it is a case of population numbers I wouldn't argue it is an issue and do we really need more people on the planet. But as a parent I would not like to think my views would prevent any other person from experiencing being one too, particularly based on a factor such as their sexuality.

[BDunnell]

I'm not homophobic but as a heterosexual man naturally I am not 'pro gay'.

Why 'naturally'? And what do you mean by 'pro-gay'? The reverse — saying that, as a gay man, I am naturally not 'pro-straight' — would be and is nonsensical.

I would have thought everyone should be 'pro-good human beings', without sexuality coming into it.



I just don't see how my stance of hoping my son doesn't turn out to be gay (because he would likely suffer for it) is actually supportive of those meting out homophobic abuse.

Because, if someone stays in the closet as a result of fear of abuse, it means those responsible for said abuse have 'won'. Rather, they should be stood up to and their views challenged, rather than those views being the cause of people not coming out.

[henners88]

I don't think its unreasonable for a parent to hope their children are straight, but support whatever they turn out to be. That's not being anti gay its just a paternal instinct. In an ideal world first we want our children to be healthy, happy, and confident within themselves. It might seem selfish but we also want our children to grow up, get married, have children and follow in our footsteps. It doesn't always work out like that but its our duty to support our children and make sure they are happy. That's when the selfish hopes have to take a back seat IMO. I don't think what Zico said was unreasonable to be honest. He gives the impression he'd be a supportive father regardless.

[BDunnell]

I don't think its unreasonable for a parent to hope their children are straight, but support whatever they turn out to be. That's not being anti gay its just a paternal instinct. In an ideal world first we want our children to be healthy, happy, and confident within themselves. It might seem selfish but we also want our children to grow up, get married, have children and follow in our footsteps. It doesn't always work out like that but its our duty to support our children and make sure they are happy. That's when the selfish hopes have to take a back seat IMO. I don't think what Zico said was unreasonable to be honest. He gives the impression he'd be a supportive father regardless.

If I had even the slightest impression that my parents would rather I'd been straight, I wouldn't be happy. I'd also take issue with the 'paternal instinct' bit, since not all parents — thankfully, I might add — have the same instincts.

[EuroTroll]

I don't think its unreasonable for a parent to hope their children are straight, but support whatever they turn out to be. That's not being anti gay its just a paternal instinct. In an ideal world first we want our children to be healthy, happy, and confident within themselves. It might seem selfish but we also want our children to grow up, get married, have children and follow in our footsteps. It doesn't always work out like that but its our duty to support our children and make sure they are happy. That's when the selfish hopes have to take a back seat IMO. I don't think what Zico said was unreasonable to be honest. He gives the impression he'd be a supportive father regardless.

The way I see it, hoping your kid turns out to be straight is a lot like hoping he/she turns out to be right-handed.

We don't consider it a problem, though, if the child turns out to be left-handed, so why should a parent regret if his/her child turns out to be gay?

Grandchildren? Well, grandchildren are possible if gays are allowed to adopt.

[BDunnell]

The way I see it, hoping your kid turns out to be straight is a lot like hoping he/she turns out to be right-handed.

We don't consider it a problem, though, if the child turns out to be left-handed, so why should a parent regret if his/her child turns out to be gay?

Grandchildren? Well, grandchildren are possible if gays are allowed to adopt.

Exactly. I find it all very strange. 'I love you, but I'd still rather you were X'. 'I love you' should never, ideally, be followed by the word 'but'.

[Zico]

Why 'naturally'? And what do you mean by 'pro-gay'? The reverse — saying that, as a gay man, I am naturally not 'pro-straight' — would be and is nonsensical.

Fair enough... By 'pro gay' I mean someone who promotes that lifestyle, seriously... you don't ever meet genuinely straight gay activists do you?





Because, if someone stays in the closet as a result of fear of abuse, it means those responsible for said abuse have 'won'. Rather, they should be stood up to and their views challenged, rather than those views being the cause of people not coming out.

I wasn't suggesting anyone stay in any closet.



Thank you Henners!

[henners88]

If I had even the slightest impression that my parents would rather I'd been straight, I wouldn't be happy. I'd also take issue with the 'paternal instinct' bit, since not all parents — thankfully, I might add — have the same instincts.
Its not something most parents would admit to their children either though. Good parents don't try and make their children feel guilty about something out of their control.

[BDunnell]

Fair enough... By 'pro gay' I mean someone who promotes that lifestyle, seriously... you don't ever meet genuinely straight gay activists do you?

I've never met anybody gay who 'promotes' the gay lifestyle, whatever that means. What, in fact, do you mean? These phrases get thrown around without people stopping to think what they're saying.



I wasn't suggesting anyone stay in any closet.

In effect, you are, though, aren't you? You would rather your sons were straight rather than gay. If one turns out to be gay, you'd hope it was a 'phase'. It seems to me that you'd be happier if, should one of them be gay, they kept it very much hidden so as to avoid potential bullying. Is this a fair representation?

[BDunnell]

Its not something most parents would admit to their children either though. Good parents don't try and make their children feel guilty about something out of their control.

Far better for all concerned if they don't have those feelings at all. To my mind, no parent should care about what their child is in terms of sexuality. Why does it need to enter the equation?

[Zico]

If I had even the slightest impression that my parents would rather I'd been straight, I wouldn't be happy.

Even if it was just because they didn't want you to be a target of homophobic people?

[BDunnell]

Even if it was just because they didn't want you to be a target of homophobic people?

To me, this is a bit like saying that black people should 'white up' in order not to be the target of racists. You wouldn't argue that, I presume? So, what's the difference?

[henners88]

Far better for all concerned if they don't have those feelings at all. To my mind, no parent should care about what their child is in terms of sexuality. Why does it need to enter the equation?
I don't think you can help having such emotional feelings but we are all different. We don't have to agree on that particular point but everything else you say and stand for gets my full support. :)

[Zico]

I've never met anybody gay who 'promotes' the gay lifestyle, whatever that means. What, in fact, do you mean? These phrases get thrown around without people stopping to think what they're saying.

Well as one of the most active people on this thread telling everyone else what they should or shouldn't feel/think regarding someones sexuality I'd say you are effectively promoting it.. no?




In effect, you are, though, aren't you? You would rather your sons were straight rather than gay. If one turns out to be gay, you'd hope it was a 'phase'. It seems to me that you'd be happier if, should one of them be gay, they kept it very much hidden so as to avoid potential bullying. Is this a fair representation?

No, its not, I never mentioned anything anywhere about anyone hiding it. Look, I'm sure most other parents on the thread understand where I'm coming from even if you dont. I'm sorry you don't understand it but rightly or wrongly that's my viewpoint on the subject.

[EuroTroll]

I think what BDunnell is getting at is that we should achieve a full acceptance of homosexuality, and not consider it an inferior state of being at all! Am I right?

If such a thing is achieved, all problems disappear.

[Zico]

To me, this is a bit like saying that black people should 'white up' in order not to be the target of racists. You wouldn't argue that, I presume? So, what's the difference?


Sigh.. no, I think there is a fundamental difference. Let me put it to you another way... If my partner was say half caste and our child turned out to be white... would it be so wrong of me to feel slightly relieved to know that they wouldn't be on the receiving end of racist comments? That in no way legitimises racists, can't you see that?

[BDunnell]

I think what BDunnell is getting at is that we should achieve a full acceptance of homosexuality, and not consider it an inferior state of being at all! Am I right?

If such a thing is achieved, all problems disappear.

Precisely.

[EuroTroll]

Sigh.. no, I think there is a fundamental difference. Let me put it to you another way... If my partner was say half caste and our child turned out to be white... would it be so wrong of me to feel slightly relieved to know that they wouldn't be on the receiving end of racist comments? That in no way legitimises racists, can't you see that?

"Heal the world,
Make it a better place
For you and for me,
And the entire human race." ;)

I.e. don't be a coward, dear Zico, and stand up for what you believe in.

PS. See you on the Wor Thread (http://www.motorsportforums.com/feedback/157410-wor-thread.html)? :D

[BDunnell]

Sigh.. no, I think there is a fundamental difference. Let me put it to you another way... If my partner was say half caste and our child turned out to be white... would it be so wrong of me to feel slightly relieved to know that they wouldn't be on the receiving end of racist comments? That in no way legitimises racists, can't you see that?

I do actually think this is a bit wrong, I'm afraid.

Don't misunderstand me — I can see you mean entirely well and that your view is held for a caring reason. However, I think the stance is, as I've said, counterproductive and does nothing to tackle the underlying problems. Rather, it seeks to hope they'll go away.

[BDunnell]

Well as one of the most active people on this thread telling everyone else what they should or shouldn't feel/think regarding someones sexuality I'd say you are effectively promoting it.. no?

No.

To promote something, you have to suggest that it's a good thing to be, to own, to do, etc. I'm not doing this at all. People are what they are in terms of sexuality. There is no need to 'promote' the various alternatives.

[Zico]

"Heal the world,
Make it a better place
For you and for me,
And the entire human race." ;)

I.e. don't be a coward, dear Zico, and stand up for what you believe in.


So I'm a coward? lol. Totally uncalled for.

Let me ask what is so cowardly about wanting your child to not have a difficult life, ie; to not be on the receiving end of negative comments whether it be about their creed, colour, sexuality, gingerness etc... of course I'd stand up, defend and protect them because as a parent that is my responsibility to my children, but I can't be there in their lives 24/7 to protect them. The fact of the matter is... unfortunately the world is full of these types of people and that isn't likely to change any time soon.

You're accusations are misplaced, go attack the real hate crime perpetrators.

[EuroTroll]

So I'm a coward? lol. Totally uncalled for.

Let me ask what is so cowardly about wanting your child to not have a difficult life, ie; to not be on the receiving end of negative comments whether it be about their creed, colour, sexuality, gingerness etc... of course I'd stand up, defend and protect them because as a parent that is my responsibility to my children, but I can't be there in their lives 24/7 to protect them. The fact of the matter is... unfortunately the world is full of these types of people and that isn't likely to change any time soon.

You're accusations are misplaced, go attack the real hate crime perpetrators.

Oh, don't take it so seriously. ;) It was a light-hearted "attack". :)

Though if I were to continue, I would say that not wanting your child to be something that may be attacked (by these other, evil, perpetrators), even though you know there's nothing wrong with it, is indeed cowardly.

[Zico]

No.

To promote something, you have to suggest that it's a good thing to be, to own, to do, etc. I'm not doing this at all. People are what they are in terms of sexuality. There is no need to 'promote' the various alternatives.

Ok, I'll accept that, fair enough.



as I've said, counterproductive and does nothing to tackle the underlying problems. Rather, it seeks to hope they'll go away.

No, not at all.. it would just be better if there was no issue to arise in the 1st place. As for tackling the underlying problem, your right it doesn't in itself but that does not mean I would not defend my son (I think I covered it well enough in my reply to Eurotroll?)


Oh, don't take it so seriously. ;) It was a light-hearted "attack". :)

Though if I were to continue, I would say that not wanting your child to be something that may be attacked (by these other, evil, perpetrators), even though you know there's nothing wrong with it, is indeed cowardly.


I can think of better examples of a coward... one happens to be calling someone such from behind a keyboard thousands of miles away.

[EuroTroll]

I can think of better examples of a coward... one happens to be calling someone such from behind a keyboard thousands of miles away.

I don't think my view would be any different if we were face to face. ;) Unless you were a psychopath and much bigger than me. :uhoh: But that's unlikely. :)

[Zico]

Unless you were a psychopath and much bigger than me.

Precisely my point.

[EuroTroll]

Precisely my point.

What is? That there are psychopaths around who might be bigger than your children? That they might hurt your children if they found out they were gay?

I'm not going to call you the C-word again, but don't you think that's a bit of a phobia, i.e. an irrational fear?

[Zico]

What is? That there are psychopaths around who might be bigger than your children? That they might hurt your children if they found out they were gay?

I'm not going to call you the C-word again, but don't you think that's a bit of a phobia, i.e. an irrational fear?


I'm from the west coast of Scotland where men are men and the woman are often even manlier. As a teenager at high school in the 80's early 90's we had an extremely effiminate classmate who was bullied day in day out, the ribbing, bullying and practical jokes he had to endure can only be described as evil. It got so bad that he soon left for another school. I'm not sure what happened to him after that but he wasn't a very strong person mentally and I'm not sure he would have been able to cope with it continuing throughout the rest of his school years.
To see or envisage my son going through similar at school (If he was gay) is a thought that makes me shudder... is that an irrational fear?

[EuroTroll]

I'm from the west coast of Scotland where men are men and the woman are often even manlier. As a teenager at high school in the 80's early 90's we had an extremely effiminate classmate who was bullied day in day out, the ribbing, bullying and practical jokes he had to endure can only be described as evil. It got so bad that he soon left for another school. I'm not sure what happened to him after that but he wasn't a very strong person mentally and I'm not sure he would have been able to cope with it continuing throughout the rest of his school years.
To see or envisage my son going through similar at school (If he was gay) is a thought that makes me shudder... is that an irrational fear?

Mhmm, food for thought...

Perhaps you're not such a "c-word" after all... :p :cheese:

[Zico]

Mhmm, food for thought...

Perhaps you're not such a "c-word" after all... :p :cheese:


Thanks.

[BDunnell]

No, not at all.. it would just be better if there was no issue to arise in the 1st place.

That will only happen when homosexuality is completely normalised, which it is in the minds of many but not, clearly, all.

[BDunnell]

I'm from the west coast of Scotland where men are men and the woman are often even manlier. As a teenager at high school in the 80's early 90's we had an extremely effiminate classmate who was bullied day in day out, the ribbing, bullying and practical jokes he had to endure can only be described as evil. It got so bad that he soon left for another school. I'm not sure what happened to him after that but he wasn't a very strong person mentally and I'm not sure he would have been able to cope with it continuing throughout the rest of his school years.
To see or envisage my son going through similar at school (If he was gay) is a thought that makes me shudder... is that an irrational fear?

Yes, I think it is, not least because what you describe occurred quite some years ago, and in that period attitudes really have changed.

Want this sort of prejudice, where it still exists, to stop? In that case, it must be tackled head-on, not put to one side.

[steveaki13]

Firstly In the evolution of Life the most useful combination in a species is Male + Female as that makes the next generation.

However due to a Genetic & Hormonal inbalance some Genders are Gay.


The way I feel is that it doesn't matter one bit if someone is straight or Gay. It is something that happens a natural ? (Cant think of the word), but no one can do anything about which way they turn out.

So why some people seem to resent people for being gay is beyond me.

All that matters is how good a person you are.

As for Incest as discuss earlier. I think as long as they are both adults and take a responsibilty to not reproduce (as Genetics can cause problems) then peope should be able to do what they like.

Also Gay people should be allowed to adopt or use IVF. For adoption I am sure there are may loving gay couples that would make much better parents than some of the hetrosexual couples I see allowed to have children. As for IVF, as soon as Humans as a species discovered a way to control life there shouldn't be a ban on certain people using it.

The only thing that should be looked at is if the parents to be are decent people.

Also Zico. I can see your point of view, but rather than hope your children aren't gay, you should be hoping that the poor idiots that are bullying people get a life.


So a final thought.
People are made as they are by nature and should be accepted whatever their Race, sexual orientation or whatever else is. People should live their lives in peace respecting others wishes whether they choose to marry, have children or stay single.

Leave people alone and live your life.

[airshifter]

Great thread ET, and so far great tolerance for opposing views from many here. I'm actually quite shocked as such a caustic subject for many would usually have been shut down by now. Thumbs up to Mark for reminding all of us to avoid the personal and discuss the issue.


For me homosexuality is something I understand as not a choice to most people. Similar to how I had sexual and/or emotional feelings towards the opposite sex, homosexuals experience those feelings towards the same sex. The same is probably true of a "true" bisexual person. Nobody told me to be straight, or told anyone else to be gay or bi. It is their natural human instinct, and from my understanding largely driven due to various hormone balances in a persons body.

The best man at our wedding was gay and a great friend to both me and my wife. This was in the 80's when much of the US was still opposed to gay rights and the existence of gay people in general. He was also in the armed services at a time when being homosexual would get you put straight out the door. He was also very flamboyant, something I usually can't tolerate much regardless of sexual orientation. But a good enough person that I could overlook that one trait I didn't care for.

As for our child, I hope she grows up to be her own person regardless of sexual orientation. I can at least understand what some are seeing as a homophobic view though. Here in the US I think we as a whole have become much more tolerant and open minded in regards to gay people. That being said I still think life would present more hurdles to a gay person than it would to a straight person. If my daughter realized she was gay I would help her overcome those hurdles, but I would still accept that her life might be harder than if she was straight. Being that no good parent want's a difficult life for their children, part of me might still wonder if her life could have been better or easier had she been straight.

Even when I was younger I had no problem with gay people, especially men. I figured the more gay men that were out there reduced competition for the women! :)

[Zico]

Yes, I think it is, not least because what you describe occurred quite some years ago, and in that period attitudes really have changed.

Want this sort of prejudice, where it still exists, to stop? In that case, it must be tackled head-on, not put to one side.


I sincerely hope period attitudes really have changed. I know some teenage girls in my partners daughters class at high school have 'come out' and it is accepted there.. probably even considered trendy? Although I have suspicions that negative attitudes will still exist to a degree with the boys.

[EuroTroll]

Great thread ET, and so far great tolerance for opposing views from many here. I'm actually quite shocked as such a caustic subject for many would usually have been shut down by now. Thumbs up to Mark for reminding all of us to avoid the personal and discuss the issue.

And thumbs up to Mark for modifying the thread title! :cheese: It was originally something perhaps not entirely conductive to a good, serious discussion. :)

[pettersolberg29]

I sincerely hope period attitudes really have changed. I know some teenage girls in my partners daughters class at high school have 'come out' and it is accepted there.. probably even considered trendy? Although I have suspicions that negative attitudes will still exist to a degree with the boys.

I think there still exists a huge difference between male and female homosexuality. Gay males are mocked, openly, and there is no point denying it. Society hasn't yet fully evolved to be accepting of difference, and I know several gay men who all have tales about bullying, difficulty coming out etc. It isn't right, but it is the case, and to pretend we're in a society where being gay isn't an issue would be naive andcounterproductive. If it was so normalised then things like a footballer coming out as gay wouldn't even be news, but it's massive news because it's still a massive deal.

As for lesbians, they seem to be much more accepted by society from what I've been witness to. There is gentle ribbing now and then, but no different to guys mocking other guys for getting off with an ugly girl or something. This gender divide is really interesting, and not sure why it is present, but lesbianism is definitely seen as far more normal and even trendy as you say. I know very few girls at Uni who haven't tried it at least once. I know no straight guys who have 'experimented'. Why the difference?

Guess it's not helped by the generally increasing sexualisation of society either.

[EuroTroll]

Why the difference?

That's an interesting question and, for the life of me, I can't come up with an answer.

Any suggestions?

[Sprocket]

Well from a female perspective, female gayness is not a threat to most males, therefore to them it is nothing to fear. If they meet a lesbian woman she is just 'off the list' like one of their male mates.

Gay men though present the apparent threat to other 'straight' males. Sadly the gender divide is due to the males who have fear of gayness. Women generally are not threatened by gay men or women. Not to say you do not get women who are actively homophobic I have met a few. But in general, we are more accepting of sexuality.

I think the being openly gay in school for males is beginning to be trendy. It doesn't seem too big a deal now in some areas of the UK at least. Bullying is now moving more towards other more subtle differences than sexuality, sad but true.

I think it comes from the male perspective on life, most 'straight' men seem to weigh up the sexual value of woman they meet. I guess the concept to a straight man that another man might be doing that to them, might just be something to do with it? On the other hand women are use to this, so it doesn't set off alarm bells when a man or perhaps occasionally another woman does it?

[steveaki13]

This may not be true but I would think on the whole its only men who except Lesbians more than Gay men. We all know why that is with the modern computer culture.

I am not sue women would be that fussed.

Difficult to phrase without sounding weird, but bascially men as a whole probably fantasise more about Lesbians than men or women do about gay men.

Just a consideration. I may be wrong just an idea

[tfp]

Well from a female perspective, female gayness is not a threat to most males, therefore to them it is nothing to fear. If they meet a lesbian woman she is just 'off the list' like one of their male mates.

Gay men though present the apparent threat to other 'straight' males. Sadly the gender divide is due to the males who have fear of gayness. Women generally are not threatened by gay men or women. Not to say you do not get women who are actively homophobic I have met a few. But in general, we are more accepting of sexuality.

I think the being openly gay in school for males is beginning to be trendy. It doesn't seem too big a deal now in some areas of the UK at least. Bullying is now moving more towards other more subtle differences than sexuality, sad but true.

I think it comes from the male perspective on life, most 'straight' men seem to weigh up the sexual value of woman they meet. I guess the concept to a straight man that another man might be doing that to them, might just be something to do with it? On the other hand women are use to this, so it doesn't set off alarm bells when a man or perhaps occasionally another woman does it?

This is IMO exactly why gays are less tolerated in society than lesbians. The fact that us men "know what we are like" when we see women, especially good looking ones! And the fact that other men could possibly be doing that to us is a bit strange....

My mates brother is gay, although I swear he is lying just so he gets all the girls :D

[tfp]

Ps I know that last post may have been a bit controversial, but this is just my opinion of course ;)

[Sprocket]

Ps I know that last post may have been a bit controversial, but this is just my opinion of course ;)

I think you have it, perhaps not the bit about your mates brother ;) I've known some quite 'aggressive' lesbians in my life, I use to work in a field where for some reason there was a very high proportion of lesbians. Some were very 'blokey' in their attitude to other women they fancied. So in a way straight men just related to them as being the same as them so accepted it. The same guys though see the gay guy as very much, not the same as them. As a women I'm already use to blokes being blokes, so when a woman is a bit or a lot like that, it's no big deal. It's like a total reversal of perspective between the genders.

[Anubis]

Homosexuality is not the same difference as fans of different football clubs or political sights. It is antinatural sickness, degeneracy. No different than pedofilia, necrofilia, family-filia etc.

May I ask if you do any of the following?

a) wear clothing
b) drink cow's milk
c) have ever flown in an aeroplane

How about a thought experiment. I'm not for a moment wishing it upon you, but let's say you are stricken down with an illness that will prove terminal unless treated. Do you accept or refuse treatment? Are you willing to stand fully behind your anti-natural viewpoint in every aspect of day to day life, or does it just serve as a useful flag to justify things you dislike anyway?

[Anubis]

Difficult to phrase without sounding weird, but bascially men as a whole probably fantasise more about Lesbians than men or women do about gay men.


I think you're spot on with that. You can guarantee a lot of the men who are very anti-gay will have hard drives full of lesbian pornography at home. I think a lot of men feel threatened by the thought of the homosexual act itself not for any physical reason (you can bet they'd partake if their wife/girlfriend requested it...), more by the fact to be on the receiving side of the equation is a submissive gesture, which doesn't play well with a lot of the macho male image society has drummed into us over generations.

[Knock-on]

I don't mind Slowsons opinion at all. It's refreshing to have someone that is honest in their views even though they fly in the face of what is considered acceptable. We complain when the forum is too sanitised yet some want to silence contrary opinions :confused:

So no, I won't condemn his post but would rather understand it better.

Also, I perfectly understand Zico. I have 2 boys and a daughter. I would prefer they grow up heterosexual as that's what I am. I would also prefer they support England Rugby, McLaren and Spurs but if they don't, then I won't love them any less. I suppose we all cast a shadow and hope our offspring share the same values.

Just human nature I suppose?

[Dave B]

Homosexuality is not the same difference as fans of different football clubs or political sights. It is antinatural sickness, degeneracy. No different than pedofilia, necrofilia, family-filia etc.
Words fail me. That is all.

[ioan]

I've been thinking a lot, over the past few minutes, about homosexuality and all that it entails and provokes.

The most interesting aspect of it all seems to be homophobia. What provokes it? Is it at all rational or only emotional?

This is what I would like to discuss with you, dear fellow forumer, because I'm bored and have nothing better to do. ;) :D

What's your attitude to gays, and homosexuality in general? More interestingly, why do you think you have this attitude?

People with certain intellectual level have always been afraid of everything which is different from what they think is normal.
You can add religious indoctrination to the list as well.

[ioan]

Words fail me. That is all.

You're not the only one.

[ioan]

As for lesbians, they seem to be much more accepted by society from what I've been witness to. There is gentle ribbing now and then, but no different to guys mocking other guys for getting off with an ugly girl or something. This gender divide is really interesting, and not sure why it is present, but lesbianism is definitely seen as far more normal and even trendy as you say. I know very few girls at Uni who haven't tried it at least once. I know no straight guys who have 'experimented'. Why the difference?


First thing that springs to mind is the difference in the sexual act.
I might be wrong though.

[BDunnell]

I don't mind Slowsons opinion at all. It's refreshing to have someone that is honest in their views even though they fly in the face of what is considered acceptable.

Why is it 'refreshing'? I don't know anyone on here who isn't honest in their views, no matter what they might be. In no way do I consider his contribution refreshing.


I have 2 boys and a daughter. I would prefer they grow up heterosexual as that's what I am.

In more detail, why the preference?

[steveaki13]

I am not a father, so I dont really have that parental instinct so I dont know how it would feel, but maybe it is just a wish to see your children have offspring of their own and continue the family tree.

The whole proccess of Life (as a whole) is to continue the species and pass on your genes.

Could be that.

As for me, I look at the world and see overcrowding and think as of now, I may prefer to help control numbers by not having children. Who knows though. I often wonder why it is that people see this as a strange view.

Afterall we are all allowed to decide our own reasons and lives.

[BDunnell]

The whole proccess of Life (as a whole) is to continue the species and pass on your genes.

Really? Seems a rather narrow, soulless definition to me.



As for me, I look at the world and see overcrowding and think as of now, I may prefer to help control numbers by not having children. Who knows though. I often wonder why it is that people see this as a strange view.

Fair enough, but I don't see sexuality as really coming into this. After all, it's not a choice.

[steveaki13]

When I say Life. I mean Life (animals, plants, fungi) The whole existance of life is to continue the species.

I do not mean Life as in a persons Life. As the individuals choice is to do whatever they wish. travel, love, learn.

There is a difference.


My second point you highlighted was just a point that people should be left to enjoy, make decisions and live there life as they choose. Not directly about Homophobia

[pettersolberg29]

Also, I perfectly understand Zico. I have 2 boys and a daughter. I would prefer they grow up heterosexual as that's what I am. I would also prefer they support England Rugby, McLaren and Spurs but if they don't, then I won't love them any less. I suppose we all cast a shadow and hope our offspring share the same values.

Just human nature I suppose?


In more detail, why the preference?

Surely you can understand this, you seem like a smart man! In no way is being gay 'worse', but I want my children to love motorsport, want them to be successful and likewise want them to be straight. If not then as Knock-On says I won't love them less, but it's just personal preference because that's what I am and it'll make us have more in common etc. It's like saying I hope they support Arsenal cos all of the people round here support Arsenal and if he becomes a Spurs fan he'll be mocked, possibly bullied - likewise you hope someone is straight because that's the norm in society and will give them an easy life. If though they are gay then it makes no difference, just makes their life a bit harder (rightly or wrongly) due to small-minded individuals around.


First thing that springs to mind is the difference in the sexual act.
I might be wrong though.

Very true, there is a huge difference in the imagery of both - and one bing more 'delicate' and less penetrative perhaps explains why it is more accepted.

[Starter]

http://www.motorsportforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Dave B http://www.motorsportforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.motorsportforums.com/chit-chat/157435-homophobia-4.html#post1112963)
Words fail me. That is all.

Posted at 17:39 my local time:


You're not the only one.

Posted at 17:46 my local time:


First thing that springs to mind is the difference in the sexual act.
I might be wrong though.

I think the failure failed. :p :

[keysersoze]

What I want to know is why a person who is a follower of any of the world's major religions (all of which condemn homosexuality) have to tolerate being called a hater because of those beliefs? My religion provides me a code of behavior yet also demands that I not be judgmental. Some here may think that notion is inherently paradoxical, but I don't think so. I think a person may reject such an act (in their heart) yet not be guilty of judging others.

Frankly, labeling someone as "homophobic" is a brilliant tactic to try to control & judge others. It cuts no ice with me, but over time I see how the liberal elite have attempted to quell any discourse by exploiting this term.

[EuroTroll]

Why is it 'refreshing'? I don't know anyone on here who isn't honest in their views, no matter what they might be. In no way do I consider his contribution refreshing.

I think what Knock-on is saying is that the conversation would be duller if everyone agreed. And since many people hold SlowSon's view anyway, isn't it good that one such person actually has the guts to come out with it, so it can be discussed?

Am I right Knockers? :p

[EuroTroll]

What I want to know is why a person who is a follower of any of the world's major religions (all of which condemn homosexuality) have to tolerate being called a hater because of those beliefs? My religion provides me a code of behavior yet also demands that I not be judgmental. Some here may think that notion is inherently paradoxical, but I don't think so. I think a person may reject such an act (in their heart) yet not be guilty of judging others.

I think the problem is that many religious people not only follow their code of conduct (which is fine IMO), but also demand that others follow it (which isn't fine IMO), and vocally condemn any dissent from what they think is right. In the extreme, they actually hate those who do something they consider wrong, and therefore the "hater" label is appropriate.

Of course, this doesn't apply to all religious people, and the reality that all religious people tend to get painted with the same brush is unfortunate.


Frankly, labeling someone as "homophobic" is a brilliant tactic to try to control & judge others. It cuts no ice with me, but over time I see how the liberal elite have attempted to quell any discourse by exploiting this term.

Well, the evil liberal elite of your country isn't here - as far as I'm aware - so you're free to discourse. ;)

[ioan]

Words fail me. That is all.

Posted at 17:39 my local time:



You're not the only one.


Posted at 17:46 my local time:



First thing that springs to mind is the difference in the sexual act.
I might be wrong though.

I think the failure failed. :p :

Any chance you could clarify? I can't really get the point you are trying to make.

[Knock-on]

I think what Knock-on is saying is that the conversation would be duller if everyone agreed. And since many people hold SlowSon's view anyway, isn't it good that one such person actually has the guts to come out with it, so it can be discussed?

Am I right Knockers? :p

Pretty much old son.

Personally, I find Slowsons opinion completely contrary to my own but it's good that he feels empowered enough to state it. He must know he would be condemned for his post but without contrasting opinions, it would be a fairly hopeless thread.

There are quite a few Slowsons out there that might not want to admit their personal opinion on an open forum for fear of being slated. We have all come across these people who in 'civilised' company are tollerant and plausible but whose personal opinions are somewhat less reasoned. Even people on here who are not Homophobic may feel reluctant to make a contribution in case they get labled as such.

So, when I say I would prefer my children to be Hetrosexul, it's because that's what I feel. I am making no claim that it's because I want Grandchildren, or that I would be worried about them being bullied. As far as I'm concerned, I cant see any reason why Gay couples can't adopt and wether a child is a biological descendent or adopted matters not a jot to me. As long as the child is well cared for in a happy home is all that matters. Similarly, the bullying point is moot as well. As a parent, it is up to me to ensure that my relationship with my child is an open one where views and worries are discussed and explored. If my child is being bullied, I would know about it and work with the school to identify the source of the bullying and ensure it's addressed.

So, there is no practical reason why I would prefer my children to be Hetrosexual so that must mean I'm Homophobic then? Err, no. I wouldn't dream of treating anyone differently because of their sexuality just as I wouldn't if they were black or whatever. I really do struggle with why we treat people differently when we're all basically the same. The only real difference between us is our personality which is what defines us.

So, when it comes down to it, its just personal opinion. I would 'prefer' it. It is my 'preference'. It's not to say I would treat them any different if they were gay but if they are not, I wouldn't be upset.

Much more of a dissapointment is that the little tossers support Arsenal. Ho hum. So much for preference :(

[SGWilko]

Really? Seems a rather narrow, soulless definition to me.


If reproduction was not the purpose of life, it would not have been made an intensely pleasurable process, surely? I mean, who'd bother otherwise?

[BDunnell]

Surely you can understand this, you seem like a smart man! In no way is being gay 'worse', but I want my children to love motorsport, want them to be successful and likewise want them to be straight. If not then as Knock-On says I won't love them less, but it's just personal preference because that's what I am and it'll make us have more in common etc.

No, I don't understand this, because it again implies some sort of difference between gay and straight people that doesn't exist. I don't consider that I have more or less in common with anyone as a direct result of my sexuality.


If though they are gay then it makes no difference, just makes their life a bit harder (rightly or wrongly) due to small-minded individuals around.

Again, my experience of reality is completely different. My life has been no harder, nor easier, as a result of being gay.

[keysersoze]

People with certain intellectual level have always been afraid of everything which is different from what they think is normal.
You can add religious indoctrination to the list as well.

This is what I mean when I discuss the liberal elite--labeling others as afraid (or hateful) in an attempt to control.

Certainly, there are members of my religion (Christianity) who have been guilty of being judgmental, and I do not condone that either. They would be better served if they had adopted a Golden Rule or "love they neighbor" ethos while being permitted to make their case (and allowing others to make theirs).

[BDunnell]

If reproduction was not the purpose of life, it would not have been made an intensely pleasurable process, surely? I mean, who'd bother otherwise?

People do have sex for reasons other than to procreate, you know.

This notion that there is one overriding purpose to life I really find most odd.

[BDunnell]

This is what I mean when I discuss the liberal elite--labeling others as afraid (or hateful) in an attempt to control.

Or, perhaps, it's just what they feel. My views on the subject are in no way intended as an attempt to control — they are my genuinely felt beliefs. Those who moan about the 'liberal elite' trying to stifle contrary views are, in my view, only perplexed or even unsettled the manner in which society has changed and come over time to deem certain things acceptable that once were not.

Do you not feel that homophobia as a concept exists, or should be considered to exist?

[SGWilko]

People do have sex for reasons other than to procreate, you know.



Yes, because it is pleasurable to do so. Would they have sex if it were not pleasurable?

[BDunnell]

Yes, because it is pleasurable to do so. Would they have sex if it were not pleasurable?

Clearly not. What is your point?

[SGWilko]

Clearly not. What is your point?

That we appear to be the only species who have sex recreationally, because it is pleasurable. Perhaps, as beings able to rationalise and with our intelligence, we could not be relied upon to reproduce were there not an incentive....

Animals reproduce instictively, and yet population of animals appears to be naturally controlled.

It is only the 'superior' species - i.e. us, that seem unable to control ourselves.

[BDunnell]

That we appear to be the only species who have sex recreationally, because it is pleasurable. Perhaps, as beings able to rationalise and with our intelligence, we could not be relied upon to reproduce were there not an incentive....

Animals reproduce instictively, and yet population of animals appears to be naturally controlled.

It is only the 'superior' species - i.e. us, that seem unable to control ourselves.

But this has nothing, or should have nothing, to do with attitudes towards sexuality. Neither, to my mind, does it reinforce any notions of the primary purpose of humans being to reproduce. I object to the notion that one should be expected to fulfill any alleged purpose that one doesn't choose oneself.

Not much of a thing to say to one's kids, is it? 'Why did you have us?' 'To fulfill what some consider to be a societal norm.'

[pettersolberg29]

No, I don't understand this, because it again implies some sort of difference between gay and straight people that doesn't exist. I don't consider that I have more or less in common with anyone as a direct result of my sexuality.

Again, my experience of reality is completely different. My life has been no harder, nor easier, as a result of being gay.

I appreciate you're trying to be positive, but generalising your experiences to everyone is unfair. And think of small things that has made your life harder - coming out, telling your parents, working out if the person you fancy is also gay etc. Not to mention the abuse many homosexuals recieve in certain countries, including the fact that homosexuality is a crime in many countries still. So for many homosexuals life is harder.

And of course there is a difference. I as a straight man will never need to consider things like will I be allowed to marry in my country, or have a child, or even be able to admit my sexuality. Being straight means every door is open to you. Being gay means that these sort of things are potential issues. This may be unfair, but it's just true.

[BDunnell]

I appreciate you're trying to be positive, but generalising your experiences to everyone is unfair. And think of small things that has made your life harder - coming out, telling your parents, working out if the person you fancy is also gay etc. Not to mention the abuse many homosexuals recieve in certain countries, including the fact that homosexuality is a crime in many countries still. So for many homosexuals life is harder.

And of course there is a difference. I as a straight man will never need to consider things like will I be allowed to marry in my country, or have a child, or even be able to admit my sexuality. Being straight means every door is open to you. Being gay means that these sort of things are potential issues. This may be unfair, but it's just true.

Yes, good points all. However, I can still say with utter certainty that in no way, other than in those matters directly relevant to my sexuality, does my sexuality influence the extent to which I have anything in common, or not, with anyone else. The point I'm making is that it's easy for some who aren't gay to assume a greater difference between gay and straight people than generally exists.

[pettersolberg29]

Yes, good points all. However, I can still say with utter certainty that in no way, other than in those matters directly relevant to my sexuality, does my sexuality influence the extent to which I have anything in common, or not, with anyone else. The point I'm making is that it's easy for some who aren't gay to assume a greater difference between gay and straight people than generally exists.

Yeh that's a fair point - in no way would I ever suggest you're a different person because of your sexuality, but when it comes to these sort of delicate topics which are hard enough if you're straight I can only imagine how hard it would be as a homosexual! However I believe these views of 'difference' between gay and straight people are forced through by media - people on British TV who are gay are all exceedingly camp and annoying, strengthening an incorrect stereotype which does nothing for society's acceptance of gays!

[EuroTroll]

However I believe these views of 'difference' between gay and straight people are forced through by media - people on British TV who are gay are all exceedingly camp and annoying, strengthening an incorrect stereotype which does nothing for society's acceptance of gays!

Except Stephen Fry, of course. ;)

But here's another question: why does camp annoy us? It does annoy me as well, I have to admit.

[BDunnell]

I believe these views of 'difference' between gay and straight people are forced through by media - people on British TV who are gay are all exceedingly camp and annoying, strengthening an incorrect stereotype which does nothing for society's acceptance of gays!

I was in complete agreement with your remarks until that one. 'All' gay people on British TV are exceedingly camp and annoying? Literally all?

Also, if that's how they want to be, so be it. Again, lack of acceptance is not their problem; rather, it's that of the people not doing the accepting. They are the ones who can't see past the stereotype.

[BDunnell]

But here's another question: why does camp annoy us? It does annoy me as well, I have to admit.

And me as a gay man, for that matter. But how do you expect your question to be answered? Lots of things annoy people. I can't bear the sort of macho aggression that characterises a certain type of straight bloke, for example.

[BDunnell]

Except Stephen Fry, of course. ;)

Who now annoys me by being omni-present on the TV — it used to be a treat to see him, but no longer, because he's everywhere and I'm a bit sick of him. But I digress.

[EuroTroll]

And me as a gay man, for that matter. But how do you expect your question to be answered? Lots of things annoy people. I can't bear the sort of macho aggression that characterises a certain type of straight bloke, for example.

Well, there's always a reason why something annoys us, even if we're not aware of it. I'm not aware of the reason why camp annoys me. I thought perhaps someone else is, and can possibly introduce me to the psychological mechanism that might be at work, in him and me both.

[BDunnell]

Well, there's always a reason why something annoys us, even if we're not aware of it. I'm not aware of the reason why camp annoys me. I thought perhaps someone else is, and can possibly introduce me to the psychological mechanism that might be at work, in him and me both.

You may as well ask this of anything, not just 'camp'. It's akin to me saying I don't like the taste of coffee — I can't explain it any further than that.

[Sprocket]

I think the camp gay on television is just like any other television stereotyping, be it the attractive woman with perfect figure, or the white middle class successful man - it's just not a reflection of the real world, it is whatever brings in the viewing figures. I think the camp device is mostly to say 'this is the token gay' no? Else we might not notice and think they were 'normal' (which of course in the real world gay people are). Hence why I think mostly it is damaging but there you go.

It is like when you hear people say they are surprised when someone is gay, why should they be surprised at all about someone else's sexuality, other than they are applying silly television style stereotyping.

PS I wonder if 'camp' only annoys you blokes? It doesn't bother me at all!

[EuroTroll]

You may as well ask this of anything, not just 'camp'. It's akin to me saying I don't like the taste of coffee — I can't explain it any further than that.

You probably could if you tried. You could say you don't like it because it's too bitter, for example, if that is the case.

But I, too, digress. This is not particularly important. Just something that I find curious.

[BDunnell]

I think the camp gay on television is just like any other television stereotyping, be it the attractive woman with perfect figure, or the white middle class successful man - it's just not a reflection of the real world, it is whatever brings in the viewing figures. I think the camp device is mostly to say 'this is the token gay' no? Else we might not notice and think they were 'normal' (which of course in the real world gay people are). Hence why I think mostly it is damaging but there you go.

Camp people aren't always gay, let's not forget. It's also an ancient theatrical tradition.

[pettersolberg29]

I was in complete agreement with your remarks until that one. 'All' gay people on British TV are exceedingly camp and annoying? Literally all?

Also, if that's how they want to be, so be it. Again, lack of acceptance is not their problem; rather, it's that of the people not doing the accepting. They are the ones who can't see past the stereotype.

Okay my mistake, saying all was an exaggeration on my part. But there are loads of them - Alan Carr, Graham Norton, Paul O'Grady etc. who further exaggerate this stereotype. And I agree it's the problem of people accepting it, but there is still a problem there. This is my point throughout. There is a probelm with homosexuality and acceptance of difference. Why is a very hard question to answer though.

[BDunnell]

Okay my mistake, saying all was an exaggeration on my part. But there are loads of them - Alan Carr, Graham Norton, Paul O'Grady etc. who further exaggerate this stereotype. And I agree it's the problem of people accepting it, but there is still a problem there.

What is the 'problem'? I don't particularly like the style of any of the performers you mention, but I wouldn't say they present a 'problem' any more than I'd say Jeremy Clarkson damages the image of straight men.

[EuroTroll]

What is the 'problem'? I don't particularly like the style of any of the performers you mention, but I wouldn't say they present a 'problem' any more than I'd say Jeremy Clarkson damages the image of straight men.

I guess the problem might be that if many people find camp annoying and gay people are thought to be camp, many people will find gay people annoying. Which doesn't help with the acceptance thing...

[SGWilko]

What is the 'problem'? I don't particularly like the style of any of the performers you mention, but I wouldn't say they present a 'problem' any more than I'd say Jeremy Clarkson damages the image of straight men.

I think clarkson quite likes his image - it's a deliberate act he uses to see which of the chinless wonders will write in to complain next with their faux shock at what they have seen. It's a bit like the average Howard Stern listener, they listened despite not liking him to hear what he'd say next!

[pettersolberg29]

What is the 'problem'? I don't particularly like the style of any of the performers you mention, but I wouldn't say they present a 'problem' any more than I'd say Jeremy Clarkson damages the image of straight men.

No perhaps not, but this is saying how it changes the image of gay people in general as these type of people are generalised to represent the homosexual community. The issue in this discussion is your unwillingness to accept there is a problem here - you've been lucky to avoid issues but your case is rare I'd suggest. I know a gay man who has had to have counselling due to bullying, I know another who has been beaten up for being 'too camp'. The problem exists, it's how we stop others having this problem.

[BDunnell]

I guess the problem might be that if many people find camp annoying and gay people are thought to be camp, many people will find gay people annoying. Which doesn't help with the acceptance thing...

Again, that's not the fault of camp people, nor gay people generally.

[BDunnell]

I think clarkson quite likes his image - it's a deliberate act he uses to see which of the chinless wonders will write in to complain next with their faux shock at what they have seen. It's a bit like the average Howard Stern listener, they listened despite not liking him to hear what he'd say next!

The bigger problem, perhaps, is the way in which some people assume that any offence at what these people say can't possibly be genuine. But this is a separate topic.

[EuroTroll]

Again, that's not the fault of camp people, nor gay people generally.

No, of course not. But the problem is there.

[BDunnell]

No perhaps not, but this is saying how it changes the image of gay people in general as these type of people are generalised to represent the homosexual community. The issue in this discussion is your unwillingness to accept there is a problem here - you've been lucky to avoid issues but your case is rare I'd suggest. I know a gay man who has had to have counselling due to bullying, I know another who has been beaten up for being 'too camp'. The problem exists, it's how we stop others having this problem.

I'm not denying any of that at all. But you seem to be suggesting, if not explicitly, that if there were fewer camp gay people there wouldn't be such problems with the acceptance of homosexuality. I'm saying — and, from what you said above, you accept this too — that the problem lies with those who generalise and don't accept.

[BDunnell]

No, of course not. But the problem is there.

So, what can be done about it?

[pettersolberg29]

I'm not denying any of that at all. But you seem to be suggesting, if not explicitly, that if there were fewer camp gay people there wouldn't be such problems with the acceptance of homosexuality. I'm saying — and, from what you said above, you accept this too — that the problem lies with those who generalise and don't accept.


So, what can be done about it?

Agreed, but it's a cause/effect problem here. If there were more gay people on TV who reflected real life then tolerance and acceptance may be higher? The problem does lie with those not accepting gays/lesbians, however if perhaps they were portrayed differently then acceptance would be easier to come by? Likewise acceptance for people like Piers Morgan is low because of the way they come across! If all white middle-aged men were represented by him then there would probably be a lack of tolerance to that group too. It's hard to explain in a text box but can you see where I'm coming from?

And your second question is unanswerable I'd say. Tolerance comes with time, and progress over the last century has been rapid. Give it another 30 years and the 'problem' may be a thing of the past. There is no quick fix.

[donKey jote]

That we appear to be the only species who have sex recreationally, because it is pleasurable.

? cornfused ?

[EuroTroll]

So, what can be done about it?

Well, there are two aspects to the problem:
1 - People think gay people are camp.
2 - Camp annoys people.

Consequently, I think we have to, either:
1 - Explain and demonstrate that not all gay people are camp, or
2 - Try to understand why camp annoys us. ;)

...or preferably both.

[BDunnell]

Agreed, but it's a cause/effect problem here. If there were more gay people on TV who reflected real life then tolerance and acceptance may be higher? The problem does lie with those not accepting gays/lesbians, however if perhaps they were portrayed differently then acceptance would be easier to come by? Likewise acceptance for people like Piers Morgan is low because of the way they come across! If all white middle-aged men were represented by him then there would probably be a lack of tolerance to that group too. It's hard to explain in a text box but can you see where I'm coming from?

Absolutely.

[BDunnell]

2 - Camp annoys people.

Not everyone. Far from it, in fact.

[SGWilko]

So, what can be done about it?

A lot of people don't like certain religious denominations because of the way they try to 'win them over' with their door to door preaching. There would be a lot more tolerance if religion learned to accept people do not wish to forced or coerced into a religious belief.

In the same way that some gay men, as has been alluded to earlier in this thread, when on 'gay rights' domonstrations for example feel the need to force this 'gayness' upon everyone. Now, if you don't like the OTT campness of Julien Clarey for example, you turn him off - right?

If you get urinated on, or even worse some oik decides to sew his seed all over you - what choice do you have?

It merely breeds contempt and resentment. Maybe that is the object?

[SGWilko]

? cornfused ?

Is this a quorn related play on words....?

[EuroTroll]

Not everyone. Far from it, in fact.

True.

[BDunnell]

A lot of people don't like certain religious denominations because of the way they try to 'win them over' with their door to door preaching. There would be a lot more tolerance if religion learned to accept people do not wish to forced or coerced into a religious belief.

In the same way that some gay men, as has been alluded to earlier in this thread, when on 'gay rights' domonstrations for example feel the need to force this 'gayness' upon everyone. Now, if you don't like the OTT campness of Julien Clarey for example, you turn him off - right?

If you get urinated on, or even worse some oik decides to sew his seed all over you - what choice do you have?

It merely breeds contempt and resentment. Maybe that is the object?

Utterly exaggerated examples. In fact, this sums up perfectly the erroneous views to which I, and others, have been referring. That this is the first thing that comes to mind to you in discussing the subject speaks volumes. Yes, if you don't like Julian Clary, you can turn him off. Similarly, if you don't want to experience a gay rights march, don't go near one. You seem to be suggesting that they're everywhere, that it's all but impossible to avoid them.

I'd imagine your pre-existing views on aspects of homosexuality — that we shouldn't be allowed to marry, that we shouldn't be allowed to adopt, and so forth — influence your thinking somewhat.

[SGWilko]

You seem to be suggesting that they're everywhere, that it's all but impossible to avoid them.

Of course not, just as there are not Clarksons everywhere for example.


I'd imagine your pre-existing views on aspects of homosexuality — that we shouldn't be allowed to marry, that we shouldn't be allowed to adopt, and so forth — influence your thinking somewhat. I don't agree with it. There is a difference between dissagreement and dissallowing.

[BDunnell]

Of course not, just as there are not Clarksons everywhere for example.

I wasn't suggesting there were. You, however, brought up an example of extreme behaviour — not one I recognise, incidentally — as a serious means of making a point as to why gay people have trouble with acceptance.



I don't agree with it.

With what?

[Sprocket]

Camp people aren't always gay, let's not forget. It's also an ancient theatrical tradition.

I fully appreciate that in the real world. I've known some very camp gays and camp guys who were straight. It is the television stereotyping that links gay with camp on the whole. Perhaps because it is easier to have a character act camp and therefore be assumed gay, than it is to write a decent script!

[SGWilko]

I wasn't suggesting there were. You, however, brought up an example of extreme behaviour — not one I recognise, incidentally — as a serious means of making a point as to why gay people have trouble with acceptance.



With what?

The baggage retrieval system at Heathrow.....

Really, I don't agree with same sex marriage or adoption. Whether it is allowed or not is not up to me, and I shall never put myself in a position for it to be my decision.

[BDunnell]

Really, I don't agree with same sex marriage or adoption. Whether it is allowed or not is not up to me, and I shall never put myself in a position for it to be my decision.

Oh, that. Yes, I know. I thought for a moment you meant homosexuality per se, which, even though I may disagree vehemently with you about many things, surprised me. Thanks for the clarification.

[EuroTroll]

Whether it is allowed or not is not up to me, and I shall never put myself in a position for it to be my decision.

You're a voter, aren't you? :)

[SGWilko]

You're a voter, aren't you? :)

Yes. But I wouldn't vote for a party based on their sexual stance, rather how they will best look after the interests of me and mine.

[BDunnell]

Yes. But I wouldn't vote for a party based on their sexual stance, rather how they will best look after the interests of me and mine.

In that I'd suggest that, despite all the fuss made about gay marriage at the moment, you're hardly unique. It's a big issue within the older rank-and-file of the Conservative party, but not generally.

[EuroTroll]

Now that there seems to be a little lull in the discussion, I thought I'd address this post.. I hope you won't mind this temporary digression.


That we appear to be the only species who have sex recreationally, because it is pleasurable.

This is by no means true. Let me tell you about a little fellow called the bonobo ape. ;)

http://primategallery.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/bonobo_eg.jpg

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behavior) - "Sexual intercourse plays a major role in bonobo society, being used as what some scientists perceive as a greeting, a means of forming social bonds, a means of conflict resolution, and postconflict reconciliation. Bonobos are the only nonhuman animal to have been observed engaging in all of the following sexual activities: face-to-face genital sex, tongue kissing, and oral sex."


Animals reproduce instictively, and yet population of animals appears to be naturally controlled.

It is only the 'superior' species - i.e. us, that seem unable to control ourselves.

Might it not be more to do with the fact that all animals are hunted - not least by humans - except humans?

[Starter]

Any chance you could clarify? I can't really get the point you are trying to make.
At 17:39 you said that words also fail you. At 17:46 you seem to have found some. Was it really that hard to figure out?

[SGWilko]

Now that there seems to be a little lull in the discussion, I thought I'd address this post.. I hope you won't mind this temporary digression.



This is by no means true. Let me tell you about a little fellow called the bonobo ape. ;)

http://primategallery.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/bonobo_eg.jpg

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behavior) - "Sexual intercourse plays a major role in bonobo society, being used as what some scientists perceive as a greeting, a means of forming social bonds, a means of conflict resolution, and postconflict reconciliation. Bonobos are the only nonhuman animal to have been observed engaging in all of the following sexual activities: face-to-face genital sex, tongue kissing, and oral sex."



Might it not be more to do with the fact that all animals are hunted - not least by humans - except humans?

Gosh, what happened before humans evolved then? Was there a population explosion that led to a global collapse?

[EuroTroll]

Gosh, what happened before humans evolved then? Was there a population explosion that led to a global collapse?

Before humans evolved, there was no species that was so "above" nature. Populations were kept in check by hunting and/or limited food resources. We have overcome both.

[SGWilko]

We have overcome both.

And look at us now.........

[EuroTroll]

And look at us now.........

I think we've done pretty well so far. :) Here we are, happy as pigs in ****, discussing a topic that is not a matter of life and death. Luxury! ;)

[Sprocket]

I think we've done pretty well so far. :) Here we are, happy as pigs in ****, discussing a topic that is not a matter of life and death. Luxury! ;)

Good way to past the time whilst ignoring our dying planet really... ;)

[SGWilko]

I think we've done pretty well so far. :) Here we are, happy as pigs in ****, discussing a topic that is not a matter of life and death. Luxury! ;)

Meanwhile, we continue the destruction of rainforests, discard thousands of tonnes of misshaped food every week despite millions in third world countries remain malnurished - oh yes, aren't we the superior species?

[EuroTroll]

Good way to past the time whilst ignoring our dying planet really... ;)

Plenty of miles left in the old girl yet! ;) Unless we blow it up, of course.. :erm:

[EuroTroll]

Meanwhile, we continue the destruction of rainforests, discard thousands of tonnes of misshaped food every week despite millions in third world countries remain malnurished - oh yes, aren't we the superior species?

Yes, we are. Just not perfect!

[SGWilko]

Good way to past the time whilst ignoring our dying planet really... ;)

Makes you want to hug a tree, does it not? :p

[EuroTroll]

Anyway, it's been an interesting little philosophical contemplation about the general nature of man, but it's probably best to get back on topic now, before BDunnell gets angry. :p

[SGWilko]

Anyway, it's been an interesting little philosophical contemplation about the general nature of man, but it's probably best to get back on topic now, before BDunnell gets angry. :p

Don't confuse strong opinions with anger. But I get it that you were joshing......

[EuroTroll]

But I get it that you were joshing......

Good. I was. :)

[SGWilko]

Plenty of miles left in the old girl yet! ;) Unless we blow it up, of course.. :erm:

Don't jest, those North Koreans have an inexperienced whippersnapper keen to do his dad proud at the helm......

[EuroTroll]

Don't jest, those North Koreans have an inexperienced whippersnapper keen to do his dad proud at the helm......

Yeah, it would be a real pity if we ****ed it all up now, before we even got to space properly. :dork:

[steveaki13]

Yeah, it would be a real pity if we ****ed it all up now, before we even got to space properly. :dork:

This topic deserves its own thread really. Maybe called humanity.

[wedge]

Seeing homosexual males being intimate/kissing passionately can sometimes make me flinch/skin crawl. I can't give a reason for it.

I've viewed gay porn out of curiosity and to test my own sexuality and I can honestly I dont have a problem.

As strange as this sounds: given the choice i'd rather see men giving and receiving and exchange bodily fluids than the kissing.

[Zico]

As strange as this sounds: given the choice i'd rather see men giving and receiving and exchange bodily fluids than the kissing.


Wedge, that comment is so Sig worthy. Do it! :D

[ioan]

At 17:39 you said that words also fail you. At 17:46 you seem to have found some. Was it really that hard to figure out?

Now that you say...
Thanks! )

[Knock-on]

Interesting Wedge. Wonder why that is?? I would prefer not to see overt kissing by 2 men but equally, I don't like seeing overt kissing by heterosexuals. Bit of decorum required in public I think.

Now, 2 ladies is different :devil:

:laugh:

[Garry Walker]

I think the problem is that many religious people not only follow their code of conduct (which is fine IMO), but also demand that others follow it (which isn't fine IMO), and vocally condemn any dissent from what they think is right. In the extreme, they actually hate those who do something they consider wrong, and therefore the "hater" label is appropriate.

And exactly how are gay activists any different? They are the ones who preach for tolerance, yet someone who is against their opinion is massacred at once and hated. Whoever dares to say something that gay activists consider "anti-gay" is labelled a bigot and a homophobe at once. Pretty much a death sentence to that person's career. So I always find it weird how gay activists who claim to fight for tolerance are actually the most intolerant group out there.
That isn't to say I am religious. I have had my share of dealings with religious types before and they tend not to like my opinions too much :laugh:

As for my opinion on homosexuals - well, if you are two consenting adults, then I really don't care even slightly what you do in your home. It is not my business, nor anyone else's and one should be free to do whatever he/she pleases. On the overall scheme of things, I dont agree and I don't see myself ever agreeing with gays adopting or marrying, because I just don't consider those things normal (I could expand on that view, but a short explanation will be just fine for now). Simple, those are my views and no matter how much certain groups try to silence people who share my opinion, it will make no difference to mine, it might only strenghten it.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I think the difference is that a gay activist is passionate about something they have no control over. A religious activist is passionate about something that they choose to be.

[Garry Walker]

I think the difference is that a gay activist is passionate about something they have no control over. A religious activist is passionate about something that they choose to be.

There are plenty of heterosexual homoactivists. Besides, there are plenty of gays who don't demonize everyone who doesn't agree with their views. Simply because you are gay or religious, does not mean everyone who does not subscribe to your views should be demonized and attacked.
So what you said is not of much substance.

[BDunnell]

Interesting Wedge. Wonder why that is?? I would prefer not to see overt kissing by 2 men but equally, I don't like seeing overt kissing by heterosexuals.

My view exactly, for whatever reason.

[BDunnell]

Simply because you are gay or religious, does not mean everyone who does not subscribe to your views should be demonized and attacked.

The end result of your view would be the expression of no critical opinions whatsoever.

[keysersoze]

I think the difference is that a gay activist is passionate about something they have no control over. A religious activist is passionate about something that they choose to be.

I do not believe that sexual attraction necessarily trumps religious passion. My faith is as natural as blinking. Likewise, as a human my tendency to sin is in my nature but I also own my wrongdoings, too.

[keysersoze]

I would prefer not to see overt kissing by 2 men but equally, I don't like seeing overt kissing by heterosexuals. Bit of decorum required in public I think.

Now, 2 ladies is different :devil:

:laugh:

I don't mind that people show affection in public (and I will glady engage in a PDA with my wife) but I always look the other way no matter who it is.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I do not believe that sexual attraction necessarily trumps religious passion. My faith is as natural as blinking. Likewise, as a human my tendency to sin is in my nature but I also own my wrongdoings, too.

I don't know what faith you follow but if you are part of a major religion then it is probably is due to historical reasons and where you happened to be born. Not nature.

[keysersoze]

I don't know what faith you follow but if you are part of a major religion then it is probably is due to historical reasons and where you happened to be born. Not nature.

It doesn't matter what major religion it is (incidentally, I'm a Christian). It may have been passed down to me via my parents, but a life without religion--that is, to say, one in which a person views themself as not of (a) God, but their own agent, exercising their own free will--is an unnatural state in my view.

[airshifter]

Interesting Wedge. Wonder why that is?? I would prefer not to see overt kissing by 2 men but equally, I don't like seeing overt kissing by heterosexuals. Bit of decorum required in public I think.

Now, 2 ladies is different :devil:

:laugh:

You're such a tool at times Knocky. Women shouldn't kiss in public either. They should do it behind closed doors.



Preferably MY closed doors. :)

[rjbetty]

And exactly how are gay activists any different? They are the ones who preach for tolerance, yet someone who is against their opinion is massacred at once and hated. Whoever dares to say something that gay activists consider "anti-gay" is labelled a bigot and a homophobe at once. Pretty much a death sentence to that person's career. So I always find it weird how gay activists who claim to fight for tolerance are actually the most intolerant group out there.
That isn't to say I am religious. I have had my share of dealings with religious types before and they tend not to like my opinions too much :laugh:

As for my opinion on homosexuals - well, if you are two consenting adults, then I really don't care even slightly what you do in your home. It is not my business, nor anyone else's and one should be free to do whatever he/she pleases. On the overall scheme of things, I dont agree and I don't see myself ever agreeing with gays adopting or marrying, because I just don't consider those things normal (I could expand on that view, but a short explanation will be just fine for now). Simple, those are my views and no matter how much certain groups try to silence people who share my opinion, it will make no difference to mine, it might only strenghten it.

I haven't said much (anything) here, but I have to say I agree with this unpopular opinion. I will by now already have been labelled a hater or something worse in the minds of the tolerant people reading this.

It might be a surprise to find out that I don't hate people for having inclinations. But in my experience there are a few bad eggs who want to flaunt their stuff and are campaigning vigorously to saturate their lifestyle etc into education. I know enough of how anyone who has with the utmost kindness and gentleness politely disagreed (simply on grounds on their conscience, or (something else) have been viciously beaten and savaged, and more. I disagree with the person who suggested it isn't happening. Sadly it kinda is. I can't say I feel that is good and right. I have actually experienced enough first hand and been called the most anti-gay person ever. That was a couple of years ago and was amazing because I can't think of any time I've been anything but cordial and friendly :confused: I just wish someone would tell me why on earth I would be anti-gay. I think it's just that some people are so used to expecting verbal attacks that they see them when they just aren't there.

If people preach so much tolerance, maybe they can do something really radical and actually apply that to themselves also, and simply learn to tolerate the fact that some people just can't find it in their conscience to find that homosexual inclinations are good and right. I know people who feel this way, yet I just cannot see them as haters. The ones doing the hating are the people who proudly declare themselves tolerant.

If this means I am homophobic, then so be it. :) I've actually never been scared of homosexuals btw (maybe a lit In fact I was talking to someone earlier who's inclined that way, and it just ain't an issue for me.



Is it so wrong to simply mention, no matter how kindly, your opinion when badgered for it, that it simply seems physically incompatible for two males or two females to be intimate in that way? If you think about it, the parts look made for one to fit in the other to me.

Has anyone actually read this and realised that I actually haven't attacked anyone (to my knowledge)?!

I look forward to my ban for being so intolerant. Goodbye everyone. :)

Peace :cool:

[rjbetty]

I just said all that cos I get exasperated sometimes at the behaviour of people, which I've experienced towards myself too. I will always accept anyone regardless of whether they like girls, guys or Echidnas. I get tired sometimes of people screaming about tolerance, but not seeming to give much out themselves.

I just agree with what Garry said: It seems no-one is less tolerant than the people who keep screaming about tolerance, and throw the words "bigot" "hater" etc around, causing them to go out of fashion. The stuff that he describes does very much happen sadly.

[call_me_andrew]

Now that there seems to be a little lull in the discussion, I thought I'd address this post.. I hope you won't mind this temporary digression.



This is by no means true. Let me tell you about a little fellow called the bonobo ape. ;)

http://primategallery.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/bonobo_eg.jpg

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behavior) - "Sexual intercourse plays a major role in bonobo society, being used as what some scientists perceive as a greeting, a means of forming social bonds, a means of conflict resolution, and postconflict reconciliation. Bonobos are the only nonhuman animal to have been observed engaging in all of the following sexual activities: face-to-face genital sex, tongue kissing, and oral sex."



Might it not be more to do with the fact that all animals are hunted - not least by humans - except humans?

People in prision have a lot of sex too. Is that for the pleasure of all parties involved?

[EuroTroll]

People in prision have a lot of sex too. Is that for the pleasure of all parties involved?

In case of rape, obviously not. But what is your point?

[gadjo_dilo]

That isn't to say I am religious. I have had my share of dealings with religious types before and they tend not to like my opinions too much :laugh:


That reminds me that Easter is coming and you'll probably start the usual debate on religious issues. :devil:

[henners88]

I just wish someone would tell me why on earth I would be anti-gay......

If people preach so much tolerance, maybe they can do something really radical and actually apply that to themselves also, and simply learn to tolerate the fact that some people just can't find it in their conscience to find that homosexual inclinations are good and right. I know people who feel this way, yet I just cannot see them as haters. The ones doing the hating are the people who proudly declare themselves tolerant.......

If this means I am homophobic, then so be it. :)
If you look upon someone else as living their life in an incorrect way because its not how you live yours, it means you are intolerant of that particular person in a simplistic way. In this case you admit to not being able to find it in your conscience to accept gay people and you don't think its right. That to me suggests you are homophobic to a degree as I can't think of any other word for it.

What annoys me in this society is the fact racism causes public outcry yet homophobia is still somewhat accepted because of old fashioned views being passed on. If someone was to say 'I really just don't like black or Asian people and can't justify it in my conscience to change that view', then there would likely be shock and condemnation, and rightly so IMO. Its not something that is acceptable to freely admit without some form of backlash. I can't get my own head around the stance when people claim 'to have nothing against gay people, but suggest its wrong and wouldn't accept it'..... That to me sounds like a contradiction as you either accept something or you don't IMO. Nobody gets a choice whether they are black, white, heterosexual, or gay. We get what we're given and as rational human beings we should accept everyone equally within reason. Racists and Homophobes are the ones society are best off without.

[EuroTroll]

Nobody gets a choice whether they are black, white, heterosexual, or gay. We get what we're given and as rational human beings we should accept everyone equally within reason.

That's really the point, isn't it. It's not a choice, it's what you're given. Like your race, your right- or left-handedness, your height, and many other things. Saying "I don't accept homosexuality" is essentially no different from saying "I don't accept short people". It's just pathetic, and does no good to anyone.


But in my experience there are a few bad eggs who want to flaunt their stuff and are campaigning vigorously to saturate their lifestyle etc into education.

And what is wrong with teaching children about homosexuality? I just don't understand.



If people preach so much tolerance, maybe they can do something really radical and actually apply that to themselves also, and simply learn to tolerate the fact that some people just can't find it in their conscience to find that homosexual inclinations are good and right. [...] The ones doing the hating are the people who proudly declare themselves tolerant.

We tolerate you. We have no choice, really. We just think your intolerance is neither "good" nor "right".


Racists and Homophobes are the ones society are best off without.

This is, perhaps, OTT. There are many types of offenders who society would be better off without IMO. Murderers, paedophiles, etc. People who not only think anti-socially, but act anti-socially.

[SGWilko]

If you look upon someone else as living their life in an incorrect way because its not how you live yours, it means you are intolerant of that particular person in a simplistic way. In this case you admit to not being able to find it in your conscience to accept gay people and you don't think its right. That to me suggests you are homophobic to a degree as I can't think of any other word for it.

What annoys me in this society is the fact racism causes public outcry yet homophobia is still somewhat accepted because of old fashioned views being passed on. If someone was to say 'I really just don't like black or Asian people and can't justify it in my conscience to change that view', then there would likely be shock and condemnation, and rightly so IMO. Its not something that is acceptable to freely admit without some form of backlash. I can't get my own head around the stance when people claim 'to have nothing against gay people, but suggest its wrong and wouldn't accept it'..... That to me sounds like a contradiction as you either accept something or you don't IMO. Nobody gets a choice whether they are black, white, heterosexual, or gay. We get what we're given and as rational human beings we should accept everyone equally within reason. Racists and Homophobes are the ones society are best off without.

Maybe it is an intolerance of the way SOME homosexuals portray themselves, rather than homosexuality itself that rjbetty is talking about?

[SGWilko]

And what is wrong with teaching children about homosexuality? I just don't understand.

Nothing. But - assuming we are talking school education as opposed to a perent child 'birds and the bees' chat - is your average teacher really qualified to teach this and answer some of the more pressing but innocent questions children may have? A heterosexual dicussing/teaching about homosexuality may not be able to answer an innocent childs probing question correctly.

If my son were to ask me about homosexuality, I don't think I would be able to answer his questions correctly. Certainly, my opinion wont be the same as that of a homosexual, and would therefore be biased. Do I tell him to go read a book?

ANd if my son were to be homosexual, he'd be best getting the best advice. Don't get me wrong he'd get my unconditional love, but would I be qualified to give him the correct advice?

[henners88]

Maybe it is an intolerance of the way SOME homosexuals portray themselves, rather than homosexuality itself that rjbetty is talking about?
Possibly, but that sort of intolerance is also difficult to explain. I quite often see the opinion that people don't mind homosexuals as long as they don't show it in public in any form. For example if a young heterosexual couple kissed each other goodbye in the street it possibly would go unnoticed, but if two gay men did the same, they would be accused of pushing it down peoples throats. I don't like that kind of intolerance. I think the only reason gay pride aims to publicize itself so much is because we still have a fair chunk of society who stigmatize those they don't agree with. We quickly condemn the laws in Dubai who don't allow couples to even hold hands in the street, yet here we often have a very narrow view of what we accept to see in public.

[henners88]

Nothing. But - assuming we are talking school education as opposed to a perent child 'birds and the bees' chat - is your average teacher really qualified to teach this and answer some of the more pressing but innocent questions children may have? A heterosexual dicussing/teaching about homosexuality may not be able to answer an innocent childs probing question correctly.

If my son were to ask me about homosexuality, I don't think I would be able to answer his questions correctly. Certainly, my opinion wont be the same as that of a homosexual, and would therefore be biased. Do I tell him to go read a book?

ANd if my son were to be homosexual, he'd be best getting the best advice. Don't get me wrong he'd get my unconditional love, but would I be qualified to give him the correct advice?
Homosexuality is covered in schools and has been seen I attended secondary school in the 90's. I don't think you necessarily need to b gay in order to teach children what it is. Of course you want your children taught about such topics by teachers who are not prejudiced against it themselves in order for a fair teaching.

[SGWilko]

Homosexuality is covered in schools and has been seen I attended secondary school in the 90's. I don't think you necessarily need to b gay in order to teach children what it is. Of course you want your children taught about such topics by teachers who are not prejudiced against it themselves in order for a fair teaching.

I am clearly of a generation that missed that then. Our sex education lesson in junior school comprised of an animated video and lots of sniggering children! This was early 80's mind you. I don't recall any real sex education in secondary school.

[henners88]

I am clearly of a generation that missed that then. Our sex education lesson in junior school comprised of an animated video and lots of sniggering children! This was early 80's mind you. I don't recall any real sex education in secondary school.
Our lesson was know as HHC. 'Home, Health, Community'. It covered a wide range of subjects from sex, drugs, contraception, health conditions, crime etc and we had it once a week for the first 3 years of secondary school. Not everything was directly taught by a teacher and video's were used also. I do think these types of lessons are valuable to children as they raise awareness they often wouldn't get from their parents. It also makes parents lives easier when difficult questions pop up. I finished school in 1998 so I would imagine these types of lessons are more informed for teens who are even more street-wise than 15 years ago.

[airshifter]

I haven't said much (anything) here, but I have to say I agree with this unpopular opinion. I will by now already have been labelled a hater or something worse in the minds of the tolerant people reading this.

It might be a surprise to find out that I don't hate people for having inclinations. But in my experience there are a few bad eggs who want to flaunt their stuff and are campaigning vigorously to saturate their lifestyle etc into education. I know enough of how anyone who has with the utmost kindness and gentleness politely disagreed (simply on grounds on their conscience, or (something else) have been viciously beaten and savaged, and more. I disagree with the person who suggested it isn't happening. Sadly it kinda is. I can't say I feel that is good and right. I have actually experienced enough first hand and been called the most anti-gay person ever. That was a couple of years ago and was amazing because I can't think of any time I've been anything but cordial and friendly :confused: I just wish someone would tell me why on earth I would be anti-gay. I think it's just that some people are so used to expecting verbal attacks that they see them when they just aren't there.

If people preach so much tolerance, maybe they can do something really radical and actually apply that to themselves also, and simply learn to tolerate the fact that some people just can't find it in their conscience to find that homosexual inclinations are good and right. I know people who feel this way, yet I just cannot see them as haters. The ones doing the hating are the people who proudly declare themselves tolerant.

If this means I am homophobic, then so be it. :) I've actually never been scared of homosexuals btw (maybe a lit In fact I was talking to someone earlier who's inclined that way, and it just ain't an issue for me.



Is it so wrong to simply mention, no matter how kindly, your opinion when badgered for it, that it simply seems physically incompatible for two males or two females to be intimate in that way? If you think about it, the parts look made for one to fit in the other to me.

Has anyone actually read this and realised that I actually haven't attacked anyone (to my knowledge)?!

I look forward to my ban for being so intolerant. Goodbye everyone. :)

Peace :cool:

I can completely understand where your point of view is formed. I think the "bad apples" you mention often skew the image of gays in the community. But that being said I always try to view things in a fair manner. The "bad apples" within the hetero crowd do the same when they go out of their way to bash gays as well. Both sides of the coin in this instance set bad examples IMO. In reality statistics show that there are likely chances that you have gay friends or acquaintances that either have never come out of the closet or simply never discussed that they are gay. I think some people picture the stereotype of a gay person that they may have is the only indication that a person is gay. I'm not saying this is done with any hatred in mind at all, I know for years I had somewhat formed a stereotype of how gay men acted due to the fact that all gay men I had met to that point were the more flamboyant type.

Here in the US I think that there is still enough stigma attached to gay men that there are likely still a lot of gay men in the closet. If those men came out more of us might see examples of gay men being just as "normal" in other than sexual behaviors as straight men. Until then we often only recognize the examples of the flamboyant, in your face, half their life is consumed with telling being they are gay, on the prowl for a man, etc, gay men.



The only friend or close acquaintance that is an out of the closet gay man that I know right now somewhat fits some of the stereotype. He isn't overly flamboyant but will openly state that if any other men want to "switch sides" to let him know. He will also often pursue friendly relationships with straight men in hope that they will "change their ways". But deep down he does understand that straight people, just like gay people, didn't one day wake up and make a choice to be straight. They were born with those inclinations and it's the only sexual orientation choice that feels "natural" to them.

One day working around him at work we were talking and some gay issues stuff was brought up. He asked me and another person if maybe he should try a female partner to have physical relations with just to "give it a try", even though he knew that the very thought of kissing a female was disgusting to him. He seems kind of shocked when I told him he shouldn't. I told him I saw it as a "lose, lose" situation with only two likely outcomes. 1) it would further reinforce it as a disgusting act to him or 2) he might actually enjoy it and then realize what he was missing the rest of his life.



But in any case RJBETTY, I don't see your view as homophobic at all.

[airshifter]

Our lesson was know as HHC. 'Home, Health, Community'. It covered a wide range of subjects from sex, drugs, contraception, health conditions, crime etc and we had it once a week for the first 3 years of secondary school. Not everything was directly taught by a teacher and video's were used also. I do think these types of lessons are valuable to children as they raise awareness they often wouldn't get from their parents. It also makes parents lives easier when difficult questions pop up. I finished school in 1998 so I would imagine these types of lessons are more informed for teens who are even more street-wise than 15 years ago.

Back in my day the word gay probably wasn't even used in schools. But it was probably a good thing because half the teachers were likely gay bashing, racists idiots back then as well. Tolerance in the US was behind much of the EU countries.

I'm not sure if my daughter learned anything in school about anything other than straight sexual orientation. I'll have to ask her. I do know that she is aware of gay people and accepting of it and that myself and wife have spoken to her about it to better inform her.

[BDunnell]

Homosexuality is covered in schools and has been seen I attended secondary school in the 90's. I don't think you necessarily need to b gay in order to teach children what it is. Of course you want your children taught about such topics by teachers who are not prejudiced against it themselves in order for a fair teaching.

And I managed to be gay without being taught about it.

[SGWilko]

And I managed to be gay without being taught about it.

If you don't mind my asking, who did you seek/speak to for advice, and at what age were you aware of your sexuality? Please tell me to bugger off if this is an innapropriate question!

[Knock-on]

Rjbetty holds what, imho, is quite a mainstream view.

Homophobia is a very emotive word an people automatically think of active discrimination when it's mentioned. Yet here we have someone that says they don't mind what people do as long as they don't have to condone it. I see very little wrong with this view and although Rjbetty has, as he admits, a homophobic attitude to an extent but it is passive. You cant just change peoples minds because you want to or condemn him out of hand in an intollerant way.

I think we need to be careful when we label people because sometimes, it forces someone into adopting a black or white stance. I don't think it's necessary for someone to be pro-gay as long as they are tollerant and not discriminatory. When we try and force people down channels, they resent.

Overt homophobia and discrimination is the pressing problem that needs to be addressed, not alienating people that are tollerant although not necessarily in agreement.

[BDunnell]

If people preach so much tolerance, maybe they can do something really radical and actually apply that to themselves also, and simply learn to tolerate the fact that some people just can't find it in their conscience to find that homosexual inclinations are good and right. I know people who feel this way, yet I just cannot see them as haters. The ones doing the hating are the people who proudly declare themselves tolerant.

This sort of thing is heard increasingly now — that those who oppose and criticise the intolerance of others are themselves as intolerant as those they brand intolerant. I think it's nonsense, to be honest. In the case of homophobia, we are asked to believe that those against the opinion that homosexuals are bad, inferior or whatever are as intolerant as those who dismiss an entire group of people on the grounds of sexuality. Same with race, same with whatever other subject you care to mention in which there are opposing views. Take this view to extremes, and the natural conclusion is that some people are against anyone expressing any opinion, ever.

I am tolerant of all races, of all creeds, of all sexualities. I have little time for those who are not. I don't believe the two things are equivalent in the slightest. To do so is an example of very lazy thinking indeed.



Is it so wrong to simply mention, no matter how kindly, your opinion when badgered for it, that it simply seems physically incompatible for two males or two females to be intimate in that way? If you think about it, the parts look made for one to fit in the other to me.

Er, I hate to tell you...

[BDunnell]

I see very little wrong with this view and although Rjbetty has, as he admits, a homophobic attitude to an extent but it is passive. You cant just change peoples minds because you want to or condemn him out of hand in an intollerant way.

As I said in my post above, I object to being branded in any way intolerant on the grounds that I object to homophobic opinions. It follows that the only way to be tolerant in this scenario is not to express an opinion opposing said homophobic views.



I think we need to be careful when we label people because sometimes, it forces someone into adopting a black or white stance. I don't think it's necessary for someone to be pro-gay as long as they are tollerant and not discriminatory. When we try and force people down channels, they resent.

It's this 'pro-gay' bit I don't understand. There should be no reason to be 'pro-gay'. To my mind, we're all humans, and referring to someone as 'pro-gay' is rather like saying you're 'pro-human', which would be absurd. I've said it before in this thread, but I think a lot of straight people, including very tolerant and liberal ones, see differences between straight and gay people that simply don't exist.

[BDunnell]

If you don't mind my asking, who did you seek/speak to for advice, and at what age were you aware of your sexuality? Please tell me to bugger off if this is an innapropriate question!

Not at all. Awareness of my sexuality: probably at about 12. I didn't come out until I was 22. Who did I speak to for advice: a friend. I didn't find the whole process easy, but this was my own fault for not dealing with it in, I've since come to realise, a sensible way.

[Knock-on]

You have very set, solid and entrenched views Ben. I accept that. However, others may not have such solid views or even different views. Are they wrong?

You say if things are taken to extremes then you cannot express any view at all. Well, that's childish debating IMHO. We are not taking things to extremes but discussing different views. You have to accept that people hold different opinions and just because you don't agree with them, makes then no less valid. If you were more tollerant of others opinions, you might understand them more and where they are coming from. This may not be where you think ;)

[SGWilko]

Not at all. Awareness of my sexuality: probably at about 12. I didn't come out until I was 22. Who did I speak to for advice: a friend. I didn't find the whole process easy, but this was my own fault for not dealing with it in, I've since come to realise, a sensible way.

Thanks for sharing that. Interesting that you cite yourself for it not being easy, rather than taking the easy route of blaming others.

I do find threads and discussions such as this very much open the mind. It is teaching me a lot about myself, and how I percieve others.

[henners88]

And I managed to be gay without being taught about it.
Indeed, much like I managed to be straight without being taught about it.

[henners88]

Homophobia is a very emotive word an people automatically think of active discrimination when it's mentioned. Yet here we have someone that says they don't mind what people do as long as they don't have to condone it. I see very little wrong with this view and although Rjbetty has, as he admits, a homophobic attitude to an extent but it is passive. You cant just change peoples minds because you want to or condemn him out of hand in an intollerant way.
I'm trying to understand for Ben how difficult it must be to not be accepted by others. I suppose you have to try and put yourself in a situation where you could be judged for something you can't help. Imagine if a good friend of yours suddenly admitted out of the blue that he had nothing against you personally, but because you chose a blonde/brunette wife, he didn't quite see you as equal. I know that's a silly example on the face of it but gets the point across. Would it affect your relationship with the friend or would you accept his point of view knowing what he was thinking every time he was in your company? I had a friend at University who I got on with very well, but one evening we discussed this very topic (homosexuality) and he had some very strong views against it. I'm sorry to say it changed my whole opinion of him and our friendship ceased to exist. We still socialise occasionally in the same group and things aren't quite so awkward these days, but I couldn't be close with him again. Some might say I'm being equally intolerant of him and I suppose I am, but we can choose our friends and views can be changed, sexuality can't.

[BDunnell]

I'm trying to understand for Ben how difficult it must be to not be accepted by others. I suppose you have to try and put yourself in a situation where you could be judged for something you can't help. Imagine if a good friend of yours suddenly admitted out of the blue that he had nothing against you personally, but because you chose a blonde/brunette wife, he didn't quite see you as equal. I know that's a silly example on the face of it but gets the point across. Would it affect your relationship with the friend or would you accept his point of view knowing what he was thinking every time he was in your company? I had a friend at University who I got on with very well, but one evening we discussed this very topic (homosexuality) and he had some very strong views against it. I'm sorry to say it changed my whole opinion of him and our friendship ceased to exist. We still socialise occasionally in the same group and things aren't quite so awkward these days, but I couldn't be close with him again. Some might say I'm being equally intolerant of him and I suppose I am, but we can choose our friends and views can be changed, sexuality can't.

Exactly. Thank you.

[Knock-on]

I'm trying to understand for Ben how difficult it must be to not be accepted by others. I suppose you have to try and put yourself in a situation where you could be judged for something you can't help. Imagine if a good friend of yours suddenly admitted out of the blue that he had nothing against you personally, but because you chose a blonde/brunette wife, he didn't quite see you as equal. I know that's a silly example on the face of it but gets the point across. Would it affect your relationship with the friend or would you accept his point of view knowing what he was thinking every time he was in your company? I had a friend at University who I got on with very well, but one evening we discussed this very topic (homosexuality) and he had some very strong views against it. I'm sorry to say it changed my whole opinion of him and our friendship ceased to exist. We still socialise occasionally in the same group and things aren't quite so awkward these days, but I couldn't be close with him again. Some might say I'm being equally intolerant of him and I suppose I am, but we can choose our friends and views can be changed, sexuality can't.

Totally agree. I wouldn't associate with someone so intollerant no matter what their particular views but then again I don't have to. If I like someone or if someone likes me, that's a choice, not fate.

There are people on these boards that might not like me for my views or my brusque manner. There are certainly people on here that I have met that don't like me for various reasons but it doesn't keep me awake at night. Every single one of them are people who I would choose not to be associated because if someone doesn't like me or I don't lke them for who they are, then what's the problem.

I'm not going to get on with intollerant people so the quicker I know them, the less time I waste :) However, I suggest that people with passive homophobia are generally like that because of naievity and stereotypes. Let me give an example.

When I was growing up in the early 70's, rascism was alive and kicking in the UK. My Mother would say that blacks came over here and committed a variety of crimes from being dirty to rape. She didn't realise that she was being rascist but that's just 'how it was'. My first and most important lesson in rascism came when I ws about 6 when my Mum said something along the lines of "all blacks being wrong'uns". I asked abut my friend Ben who lived opposite and who I used to play with. He was Black and so was his parents which was quite a rare thing in Essex at the time.

"Obviously not them, we know them" was my mothers reply. It was like a balloon bursting. Even at 6 years of age, I realised my Mother was talking rubbish and this myth that she was infalliable was shattered. It made no sense and suddenly my fear of the Black man evaporated.

However, unlike Blacks, the people out there that feel uncomfortable socialising with Gay people don't realise that they do it every day. At work, down the pub, in the street. Gays don't walk out of their house in a Pink TuTu and Mankini. They walk in a pair of Jeans, Sneakers and a T Shirt. In winter a coat and scarf may be donned or even a baseball cap. Sometimes they don't even have a moustache!!!

Best way to find out who is gay is to get 9 mates together and ask who's Gay. If none of them say yes, then it's you :p

If people want to feel uncomfortable then that's their right but sooner or later, they will realise, like my mother did over the duration of the 70's, that their fear is imaginary and people are people. Good or bad, gay or straight, black or white. We're all basically the same. but it's just our personalities that distinguish us.

[Spafranco]

You know, this is exactly the type of arcane and erudite post that has to be expected from the intolerant types. This is the type of person that would find solace in the Westbury Church group. Of course I'm referring to SlowSon. Very appropriate username.
Your ignorance and inability to express your point of view in a cognitive manner indicates, to me at least, your lack of a basic and very basic at that , knowledge of homosexuality.
Explain to the forum what family-filia is? How is homosexuality even remotely akin to any of the identified;by you, anti-social or even inhuman ailments that you appear to just rattle off with ease but, I would bet your inability to explain why you view these as comparable to each other when in fact they are not.
Yo could just as soon used a fracture of the femur, a head cold, pneumonia or myocardial infarction to your own analogy as it makes about as much sense as the contents of this sentence.
Mark mentioned harm to others! You, sir or madam with this post display a dysfunctional ability to understand a condition from that of a lifestyle that is not of their choosing but a biological mishap they have to endure because of the likes of you.

[Spafranco]

Which is part of the problem. People like yourself who have views which are completely incorrect. Even if you were to characterise being gay as a 'sickness', then it can't be compared to the likes of peadofilia, as that causes genuine harm to innocent individuals. Whereas being gay does nothing of the the sort.

(BTW normally if you came out with such things you'd get an instant and permanent ban; however it's relevant to the debate at hand in this case, I would ask those who may be offended by comments in this thread to show tolerance to opposing viewpoints, even if distasteful)

You know, this is exactly the type of arcane and erudite post that has to be expected from the intolerant types. This is the type of person that would find solace in the Westbury Church group. Of course I'm referring to SlowSon. Very appropriate username.
Your ignorance and inability to express your point of view in a cognitive manner indicates, to me at least, your lack of a basic and very basic at that , knowledge of homosexuality.
Explain to the forum what family-filia is? How is homosexuality even remotely akin to any of the choices identified;by you, anti-social or even inhuman ailments that you appear to just rattle off with ease but, I would bet your inability to explain why you view these as comparable to each other when in fact they are not.
Yo could just as soon used a fracture of the femur, a head cold, pneumonia or myocardial infarction to your own analogy as it makes about as much sense as the contents of this sentence.
Mark mentioned harm to others! You, sir or madam with this post display a dysfunctional ability to understand a condition from that of a lifestyle that is not of their choosing but a biological mishap they have to endure because of the likes of you.

[Spafranco]

Please excuse the double post. New and could not correct the error. The actual correct post is in reply to Slow Sam and Mark's clear distaste of the content. I agree. It is a sad indication of what society can breed.
The irony is that you are a sad uneducated neanderthal knuckle dragger that is more dangerous to society than the people you so cruelly dislike.

[BDunnell]

If people want to feel uncomfortable then that's their right but sooner or later, they will realise, like my mother did over the duration of the 70's, that their fear is imaginary and people are people. Good or bad, gay or straight, black or white. We're all basically the same. but it's just our personalities that distinguish us.

To me, that's pretty much the last word on this subject. Well said indeed.

[BDunnell]

You, sir or madam with this post display a dysfunctional ability to understand a condition from that of a lifestyle that is not of their choosing but a biological mishap they have to endure because of the likes of you.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but: mishap?

[ioan]

It doesn't matter what major religion it is (incidentally, I'm a Christian). It may have been passed down to me via my parents, but a life without religion--that is, to say, one in which a person views themself as not of (a) God, but their own agent, exercising their own free will--is an unnatural state in my view.

:rolleyes:

[ioan]

Nothing. But - assuming we are talking school education as opposed to a perent child 'birds and the bees' chat - is your average teacher really qualified to teach this and answer some of the more pressing but innocent questions children may have? A heterosexual dicussing/teaching about homosexuality may not be able to answer an innocent childs probing question correctly.

If my son were to ask me about homosexuality, I don't think I would be able to answer his questions correctly. Certainly, my opinion wont be the same as that of a homosexual, and would therefore be biased. Do I tell him to go read a book?

ANd if my son were to be homosexual, he'd be best getting the best advice. Don't get me wrong he'd get my unconditional love, but would I be qualified to give him the correct advice?

As a parent you are the most qualified person to advise your kids in the best possible way.

[ioan]

I am clearly of a generation that missed that then. Our sex education lesson in junior school comprised of an animated video and lots of sniggering children! This was early 80's mind you. I don't recall any real sex education in secondary school.

We've had nothing worth calling sexual education either.
All that has been done by our teacher was to send all boys out and presumably explain to all girls about the menstrual cycle.
My parents didn't do much better either, they just told me to make sure I use a condom.

I am sure nowadays everything is done in a more professional way, both in the school and by parents.

[N4D13]

As a parent you are the most qualified person to advise your kids in the best possible way.
Not really. You might be the one who has the most authority with regards to your son, but that doesn't make you inherently right. Many (usually narrow-minded) parents impose to their children a set of moral or religious rules/beliefs that I don't really agree with, to put it softly. Fathers and mothers have the responsibility to educate their sons and daughters, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they will do it right. I'd rather have a son who didn't say "thank you" rather than one who would despise, let's say, inmigrants - even though I would obviously try to have both traits in my son.

[ioan]

Not really. You might be the one who has the most authority with regards to your son, but that doesn't make you inherently right. Many (usually narrow-minded) parents impose to their children a set of moral or religious rules/beliefs that I don't really agree with, to put it softly. Fathers and mothers have the responsibility to educate their sons and daughters, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they will do it right. I'd rather have a son who didn't say "thank you" rather than one who would despise, let's say, inmigrants - even though I would obviously try to have both traits in my son.

Believe me, I didn't even think about authority, I though about wanting to give it your best to help them as much as possible.
What I want my future kids to learn is:
1. to trust themselves first of all
2. to respect life of any kind
3. to make the best of the opportunities that they get in life
in that exact order of importance.
I learned all the above on my own and I would like to be able to help them discover these three things about life by the time they leave home, until than I would do my best to be a worthy example for them and first of all to be honest to them.
There isn't much more you can do, especially if they spend more time at school then with the parents.

[rjbetty]

:rolleyes:

Excuse me, but would you mind showing some tolerance towards a view other than your own?

Thank you.

[BDunnell]

Excuse me, but would you mind showing some tolerance towards a view other than your own?

Thank you.

If ioan disagrees with said view, I don't really see why he should be tolerant towards it. I don't mind people holding and expressing views with which I don't agree, but if I really disagree strongly with them I don't think I should be expected to respect them. After all, none of us can truthfully say we respect every single view held by other human beings, can we?

[BDunnell]

Believe me, I didn't even think about authority, I though about wanting to give it your best to help them as much as possible.
What I want my future kids to learn is:
1. to trust themselves first of all
2. to respect life of any kind
3. to make the best of the opportunities that they get in life
in that exact order of importance.
I learned all the above on my own and I would like to be able to help them discover these three things about life by the time they leave home, until than I would do my best to be a worthy example for them and first of all to be honest to them.
There isn't much more you can do, especially if they spend more time at school then with the parents.

ioan, I am sure from the above that you are an excellent parent. However, I do agree with the view that being a parent doesn't automatically make you the best-qualified person to advise your children. After all, one does come across, or see examples, of parents whose skills in this area could clearly be improved upon.

[Knock-on]

Ben, you don't have to respect people's views. That's not what he said. However, respecting his right to post those views and being tolerant of people that might differ from you might go a good way to them giving your views more consideration. Otherwise it just descends into an intolerant pissing contest and a closed thread. ;)

[slorydn1]

I have never cared about someone's sexuality. It really has never been a factor for me one way or the other. I have straight friends, and I have gay friends; at the end of the day, they are all still my friends.

Just like I have friends that have the same interest in racing, and cars, that I do, and friends that cant understand WHY I would like something that "wastes so much fuel and creates so much pollution" (etc, etc, etc). I have far right wing conservative friends and friends that are as far to the left as a tree hugger can get. I have always embraced diversity, it has made my life much more interesting over the years, seeing things through other peoples eyes. Sexuality, race, none of that has really been something I have taken into consideration as to whether I befriend someone or not. Either we hit it off and have something to discuss or we don't. About the only "class" I discriminate against are criminals, and even then its really only against career criminals, not people who have just made an error in judgement and did something that they knew or should have known was wrong one time.


Look, I am a perfectly happy straight male with a beautiful straight female for a wife and that's the way I like it :D

But what's good for me may not be good for someone else and that's ok too.

I'm not going to sit here and lie to you and say that I understand how a guy can look at a guy and say "Oh yeah, I gotta have me some of THAT!" because I don't. I don't see it at all.

But just because I don't see it doesn't make it wrong. Who am I to judge people in that manner? And if people would sit back and really look at life in general that way I believe the world would be a much better place. But what do I know, I am just a 911 dispatcher and not a psychologist.

[call_me_andrew]

In case of rape, obviously not. But what is your point?

The point is that having sex does not qualify as evidence for enjoying sex.

[EuroTroll]

The point is that having sex does not qualify as evidence for enjoying sex.

So what are you really trying to say? :) That we are in fact the only species who has sex recreationally? I don't think that's true, but what if it was? What would it mean in the context of this discussion?

[BDunnell]

I have always embraced diversity, it has made my life much more interesting over the years, seeing things through other peoples eyes.

Exactly! I cannot for the life of me understand the views of those who criticise 'diversity' and 'multiculturalism'. The world would be a far duller place without these aspects.

[airshifter]

I have never cared about someone's sexuality.

I'm glad that you clarified later that statement doesn't apply to your wife switching teams! You would have left yourself wide open.

Overall one of the posts that reflects my views as well as your own.

[A FONDO]

Believe it or not but I've always found dunnels posts "strange". I mean not exactly what he says but the way he explains it, combines the sentences etc.

Anyone else to confess? I have some suspects :D :D :D

[henners88]

Are you suggesting BDunnel writes strange in your opinion because he's admitted to be gay? Or am I reading that wrong?

[SGWilko]

Believe it or not but I've always found dunnels posts "strange". I mean not exactly what he says but the way he explains it, combines the sentences etc.

Anyone else to confess? I have some suspects :D :D :D

You mean because he is clearly well educated and is able to articulate well what he wants to convey? That's not strange, it is eloquence IMO.

[EuroTroll]

You mean because he is clearly well educated and is able to articulate well what he wants to convey? That's not strange, it is eloquence IMO.

Considering the "depth" of his views, I'm not at all surprised SlowSon finds it strange for a person to be educated and articulate...

[A FONDO]

You mean because he is clearly well educated and is able to articulate well what he wants to convey? That's not strange, it is eloquence IMO.

Of course not. Education depends on money and time and has nothing to do with natural intelect. I mean his flow of thoughts, logical/rational thinking etc.

[henners88]

I suppose we can't all come from educated backgrounds and those that don't often show jealousy to those that do. Taking the micky out of someone because they are able to construct a sentence in a well thought out manner without dribbling all over their keyboard is silly when compared to what is being discussed here IMO.

[SGWilko]

Of course not. Education depends on money and time and has nothing to do with natural intelect.

To a degree, yes. But to wish to want make your life better - through education - can only come from within. You get out of education - within your own limits - what you put in.

[henners88]

You can also get a very good education without the need for vast amounts of money too.

[SGWilko]

You can also get a very good education without the need for vast amounts of money too.

Indeedy! My children get a very good education from their school, but the amount of effort we (the wife mostly - and I) also put in with homework, getting them to read, discussing and answering their questions etc is equally important to their education.

[BDunnell]

Indeedy! My children get a very good education from their school, but the amount of effort we (the wife mostly - and I) also put in with homework, getting them to read, discussing and answering their questions etc is equally important to their education.

A good opportunity for me to apologise for things I've said before about your parenting.

[SGWilko]

A good opportunity for me to apologise for things I've said before about your parenting.

Thanks, but actually, you have never been rude or offensive.

I can appreciate that some bad taste humour I have used in the past WAS offensive, and for that I apologise.

[EuroTroll]

Since everybody is apologising, I think I'll join in. :) I'd like to apologise for post #241. I lost my temper a little, I was rude, and I neglected the golden rule of "discuss the post, not the poster".

Who's next? :)

[SGWilko]

It is very easy, is it not, to allow oneself to be lulled into a false sense of isolation form behind the keyboard. When your body language cannot be viewed along with the comment, its meaning and or intention can easily be misconstrued.