Two gay men kicked out of Chico's Tacos restaurant for kissing

Originally posted by Bombeni
Does anyone have an explanation as to why, if homosexuality is so "normal", why has it been considered a deviant abnormal practice since the beginning of time? Why NOW are we supposed to be zombified into going with the flow and believing homosexuality is "normal"? I've asked that question before, never seem to find anyone willing (or able) to respond.

Bombeni, first of all, what is normal? There is no normal everything is relative. We are not all from the same cookie cutter. Homosexuality, like race, like ethnicity, like culture, like anything out of our range of experience that we've never taken the time to study was and is feared because it is not understood. Fear and hatred breaks down with understanding. It's far easier to fear, hate and destroy than to take the time to learn. That's been the easiest road since the beginning of time.

Why now? Because we've learned a thing or two. It's also that homosexuality has had fewer advocates through the ages. Don't you think the validity of other groups' differences were questioned during the 60's civil rights movement? "They've always been subservient, why now? Why in my lifetime?" It's hard to compete with entire races, sexes or ethnicities for equal rights. The biggest groups have had their say, have been studied and are now understood to be equal. It's now a smaller groups' turn.

reply to post by Death_Kron

One poster has turned around and said they knew he/she was a homosexual at the age of 5. So tell me, if children are not sexual at that age then how would you know you preferred boys rather than girls?

Everyone's experiences with their maturation is different. Certainly, if you wish to accept the "Kinsey Scale" as is proposed, there are degrees of "straight" and "Gay" in what we call the Human condition.

en.wikipedia.org...

“ Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.
While emphasizing the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history... An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life.... A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist." (Kinsey, et al. (1948). pp. 639, 656)


Today, many sexologists see the Kinsey scale as simplistic. They suggest that sexual orientation and sexual identity are more complex and varied..

'Kinsey' is likely too simplistic...and I'm sure many will argue about it.

Of course, I don't think it's as simple as one gene, or set....I'm certainly not a biologist, but I have at least a basic understanding of how complexly proteins, hormones, amino acids, et al, must interact in an organism....it is, at its heart, all a kind of chemistry, to use a hackneyed term...

But, it is. It's as simple as "What Floats One's Boat"...or, to be blunt, what turns you on.

AGAIN, that statement comes dangerously close to giving the impression in some people's (heterosexual's) minds, those who are vehemently opposed and disgusted by the very thought of homosexual sex, it puts in their minds the appearance of "choice".

In fact, if you use logic, and stay dispassionate for a bit, you can see that the "choice" aspect is a sub-set of the whole.

A 'premise' firstly is: The individual has a propensity, either 'straight' or 'Gay'. Each of those 'SETS' may over-lap, but not necessarily. Some are mutually exclusive, and that would equate to teh "Kinsey" theory, and his 'scale'...the two extremes.

Within the 'SETS' are the 'sub-sets', and THAT is where the heterosexual has a choice, or even that word 'preference'....blonde, brunette, caucasion, hispanic, tall, short, breasts, butt...etc, etc. THAT is the ineffable quality of attraction, that has no measure.

It works same way, whether 'straight' or 'Gay'...it's a matter of taste, and attraction...and no one can judge another by what he/she is attracted to. I say, wear your own shoes, don't give a flying fig about mine!!!







[edit on 13 July 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker

I say, wear your own shoes, don't give a flying fig about mine!!!

Couldn't agree more my friend, although that statement and method of thinking also works both ways.

I would also argue that there doesn't need to be a scientific explanation for heterosexual behaviour as that is, and always has been, the norm.

If you want to liken homosexuality to "random diversity" then I'm all for that, I don't think I could describe it any better. An anomaly that occurs within the human species...

Nice theory regarding a population that includes members who do not have the desire to procreate in an effort to achieve balance, but I honestly believe that isn't the case.

As you said though, this isn't your personal theory - merely an attempt to explain homosexualism.

I'm not sure if a rational explanation does exist to be perfectly honest with you, I will never accept homosexualism unfortunately.

That doesn't mean I hate gays and that also doesn't mean I'll discriminate towards them.

It does mean however that I will not personally tolerate their actions as in my opinion everything they do is against normal human nature.

That is their choice and how they live their own life is basically nothing to do with me, as said previous it only becomes a problem when it starts to affect me.

I don't hate gays and I don't particulary dislike gays, I don't like what they do and I also don't understand the reasons for it.

I'll tell you what I do find strange though, the amount of people who have starred posts like yours i.e. supporting gays/lesbians

I don't know if thats because A.) there are a lot of homosexuals on this board, B.) there are a lot of PC people on here or C.) I'm stuck in my ways as old fashioned and the "modern" population disagree with me...

reply to post by Hemisphere


Well I do appreciate the civil manner in which you go about your arguments.

I don't think we need anymore studies on homosexuals. They are here, we all know that. And contrary to what some think, most of us don't "hate" someone just because he or she is homosexual. But I will never be forced to agree that homosexuality is normal, for lack of a better word. You ask what is normal. Normal is a man and a woman, their thingies were made to fit together. It isn't rocket science.

We live in an age where we are asked to forget what seems "normal" and just go with the flow. Well, homosexuality is not nor ever will be normal. It is a deviance of nature, I don't care if frogs and spotted hoot owls have been observed TRYING to get it on. Animals are stupid. The only reason they would try to copulate with the same sex is to produce offspring. They aren't acting on a conscience choice of taking a male rather than a female. They are too stupid to know little froggys and little hoot owls won't be the end result.



[edit on 13-7-2009 by Bombeni]

reply to post by DimensionalDetective

People have the right to love whomever they want. That said, I believe that all public displays of affection, regardless of the couples sexual orientation should not be allowed in restaurants. When I go out to eat I go to eat, not watch people suck face.

reply to post by Bombeni


Excellent post, sums up entirely how I feel about the subject, star for you!

Going out on a limb here but I'm pretty sure perverts feel quite normal about their desires aswell.

Now I'm not for one second comparing an adult abusing a child to a same sex relationship.

I'm comparing the fact that to each individual, it feels normal. So where do you draw the line?

reply to post by ShAuNmAn-X


And would you be happy explaining to your 6 year old daughter why the two men accross the room were kissing each other and stroking each others leg?

I really doubt it!

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by Bombeni

 

Excellent post, sums up entirely how I feel about the subject, star for you!

Going out on a limb here but I'm pretty sure perverts feel quite normal about their desires aswell.

Now I'm not for one second comparing an adult abusing a child to a same sex relationship.

I'm comparing the fact that to each individual, it feels normal. So where do you draw the line?

Comparing paedophiles who prey on young innocent children to two consenting adults in a loving relationship is for lack of a better term,silly.Do you feel normal? where do we draw the line with blatant homophobia when people think its normal?...on and on.History teaches us that such views usually die out and the new generation has a tad more acceptance and understanding than the last...race,womans rights...homosexuality is just the next hurdle.

reply to post by Solomons


You obviously didn't read my post correctly, I did not compare an adult abusing a child with a same sex relationship.

I actually said as much to ensure what I posted wasn't taken the wrong way, looks like that didn't work.

I was comparing the fact that both sets of people who both engage in activities outside the norm think its normal for them to do what they do.

A pervert finds his behaviour the norm and so does a queer. While I'm not comparing the actions of each individual, I am bringing into context the mindset of which each person is operating in.

Let me ask you a serious question? Why is being a pervert with a child any worse off than allowing a child to witness a man snogging another mans face off?

Isn't it the same?

[edit on 14/7/09 by Death_Kron]

reply to post by Death_Kron


I did read your post correctly...and many other people try the same tactic.Would you be fine if i called your relationship with your wife akin to pedophilia and perversions of such a nature? why would i even say such a thing in the first place? it has no correlation to two conselting adults so why would it even be in your post? do you normally compare hetrosexuals couples to paedophiles?

Originally posted by Bombeni
reply to post by Hemisphere

 

Animals are stupid. The only reason they would try to copulate with the same sex is to produce offspring. They aren't acting on a conscience choice of taking a male rather than a female. They are too stupid to know little froggys and little hoot owls won't be the end result.
[edit on 13-7-2009 by Bombeni]

I'm going to take issue with that. Animals are not stupid. A specific level of intelligence has nothing to do with animals mating. Animals don't mate thinking they are reproducing. They are conforming to a "sex drive". They have the urge and carry through. Animals evolved a sex drive. They were no longer single cell creatures that simply split to reproduce.

That there are animals with atypical sex drives and thus are attracted to the same sex with no chance of reproducing just proves my point. It is a condition of genetics. You are born that way. It might not be normal in your thinking but it happens and is a part, a small part, of nature.

reply to post by Death_Kron


Oh I am so disappointed...from your posts with me, I really thought you were starting to understand...lol

Let me ask you a serious question? Why is being a pervert with a child any worse off than allowing a child to witness a man snogging another mans face off?

In that long post I wrote I explained how homosexual children are bombarded with imagery from a young age. Imagery of heterosexuality. kissing, snogging someone's face off, actors pretending to make love...and does that somehow scar homosexuals for life? Are heterosexual's children so vulnerable that they cannot cope with seeing one kiss? Children who may of course be gay themselves. And by denying them the teaching that it is ok to be gay and just another facet of life, if your child is gay you will not have helped them one bit.
When I read a lot of these posts about this subject the people who appear to be scarred somehow and therefore psychologically vulnerable are the heterosexuals. These are the ones foaming at the mouth and wishing untold ill on people who have done nothing to them.
And indeed all homosexuals from your thinking should not only be psychologically damaged beyond belief but also have turned heterosexual from exposure to heterosexual content....content much more explicit than a mere kiss. But the homosexuals seem to be the much more rational, balanced and tolerant group.
So I wonder what causes this reaction? Do you think maybe that it is the societal brainwashing that has not been questioned. Society...the powers that be and the religions are what dictate how people think. In some countries it is perfectly normal within that culture to have child brides as young as ten...marrying 12-14 year olds.
Native Americans revered homosexuals as more spiritually advanced. It is only when some of the tribes were influenced by christian thinking that some succumbed to the same prejudices.
So maybe it is the christian teachings in western society that has created this irrational loathing of your fellow man.
Gay people by definition being outside that society to a great degree often will not have been subjected quite so much to that brainwashing. If you have never had to question your place in the world then you will not have many answers.

And why on a thread about gay people can nobody stick to the subject?
If you want to talk about paedophiles (who mainly exhibit within the heterosexual community) let's start a new thread.
If you want to talk about animals sexual behaviour let's start a new thread.
If you want to talk about bestiality let's start a new thread because they have bugger all to do with the gay community and the argument then becomes nothing but irrational and degrades the poster.

as a gay man, i dont care if i see people kissing, gay or not, but harsh making out like some suburban hicks is always grose.. with that said, there are disgusting gays and normal ones like myself just like straight people..

what is wrong is the stereotypes...

its like saying all americans are stupid and fat... its not true, but people still think it.

it sucks cause people are just to ignorant, what happen to the appreciation for the human race now all we wanna do is hate ourselves and others.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by hautmess]

reply to post by oneclickaway


I apologise about that, I started to go off on a bit of a tangent.

I do understand what your saying about homosexual children being bombarded with heterosexual images.

However not being myself I don't quite understand a homosexual childs way of thinking.

Presumably a queer child would view a heterosexual couple kissing as strange?

Well, no they wouldn't. Because they've been brought up seeing mummy & daddy kissing. That child should also realise if mummy had never had sex with daddy then he/she wouldn't exist - kids learn from an early age they come from their parents, even if they don't know all the specific details.

Therefore the media bombardment regarding heterosexuality will not affect them as they already know its normal but their own sexuality isn't.

For clarification, I am not likening paedophilia to homosexuality.

The point I was trying to make is a lot of people believe that paedophiles have something wrong with them and that they are actually born the way they are. They believe it's something to do with the persons gene's.

Most paedophiles also view themselves as normal with the exception of a small few who realise that they are different.

Can you see the similarities? I'm not likening the physical act of abusing a child to being gay, I'm outlining the comparisons above.

Why is being a pervert with a child any worse off than allowing a child to witness a man snogging another mans face off?

Just wanted to quickly elaborate on the above statement I made as re-reading my posts this morning I've realised what a foolishly stupid and ignorant thing it was to say.

Of course a pervert abusing a child is ALOT worse than a child seeing two gay men kiss. It's obviously illegal, the child has no idea whats going, is basically being violated etc

I'm not going to fully describe why its so wrong as I'm pretty sure everyone on here knows why.

The point I was trying to make was that in my opinion allowing a child to view homosexual behaviour, you are in essence taking away that childs innocence.

That was the comparision I was trying to make, in both case's the child is losing its innocence.

Kids have enough on their plates to deal with, they don't need added pressure in understanding why two men or women are kissing each other.

reply to post by Death_Kron

I would think that seeing two men or women kissing briefly is the least of any child’s problems in this world. In a world where their innocence has already been destroyed not by homosexuals but by the heterosexual mainstream which shows explicit nudity, sex and violence as normal, a media which has sexualised children as young as 5 (with parents express permission and indeed encouragement…or lack of any parenting at all) to wear provocative clothing and make up. A child’s innocence is much more damaged by images of war and an all pervading sense of the danger of life and that it may all end any second. A child’s innocence is damaged by video games where characters are being shot, blown up, murdered and that is portrayed as not only fun but as normal. A child’s innocence is destroyed by seeing drunks and drug addicts, especially in those acting as their role models. A child’s innocence is already compromised when it sees violence in the home and shouting deemed as normal. And that is just in the western world. In other countries a child’s innocence may have been destroyed by famine, rape, seeing your parents and relatives hacked to death by machetes. I think a simple kiss by two men pales into insignificance in comparison. However, with good parenting and explanation of the world, children grow up perfectly ok and well rounded. The most well rounded kids I know are those that have been exposed to gay people as friends of the family from a young age and embrace them as people, just like anyone else, and do not see it as abnormal, just (if they think of it at all) as different as to how they will express their innate sexuality. It’s no big deal to them as they have seen this since very young.

Presumably a queer child would view a heterosexual couple kissing as strange?

Well, no they wouldn't. Because they've been brought up seeing mummy & daddy kissing. That child should also realise if mummy had never had sex with daddy then he/she wouldn't exist - kids learn from an early age they come from their parents, even if they don't know all the specific details.

Therefore the media bombardment regarding heterosexuality will not affect them as they already know its normal but their own sexuality isn't.

A homosexual child thinks like any other child…they are not an alien race…lol I do see your points. I suppose my argument was more to do with explaining the exclusion and trying to get a heterosexual to think how they would feel and deal with such exclusion. However, it also adds to the argument that if it is your nature to be gay, then no amount of exposure to heterosexual imagery will change that, just as no exposure to homosexual imagery would change a child’s innate heterosexual nature. That thinking is merely fear. Also, do you see that by your argument, exposure to seeing gay men kissing (innocent kissing not overtly sexual behaviour) will in fact allow your child to not think anything of it. It will be nothing to do with their inner beings and will not change their natures but will appear as something normal, not remarkable and will engender tolerance of difference.

Therefore the media bombardment regarding heterosexuality will not affect them as they already know its normal but their own sexuality isn't.

No, it’s not that heterosexuality is ‘normal’ but that it is the norm in that the majority are of that persuasion. Homosexuals in my view are equally ‘normal’ but have to do that inner fight for self worth because of being outside the ‘norm’, outside the majority behaviour… (and have to deal with a great deal of negative input if not abuse…) but that does not make it abnormal or unnatural…just a difference in life’s rich tapestry…just like people with ginger hair.

reply to post by DataWraith


Your guess about Turkey may be wrong since it is considered a sin in Islam to be a homosexual, no ifs, ands, or buts. Of course it could vary region to region but if they were holding hands and even kissing, they'd get shot or stoned to death or hung in accordance to the backwards Sharia law. Same thing happens in Iran.

People should just cool off, you want to push rights, try other countries where its punishable by death.

And on an unrelated point to your post yet related to this topic: I don't have a problem with a quick peck on the cheek from anyone to anyone, but if its full-on make out city there, show them the door.

reply to post by Death_Kron

If you would have read my post you would have seen where I said there should be no PDA in restaurants regardless of if the couple is heterosexual or homosexual. I would tell my six year old that whatever the people were doing is their own personal business and that they should not do that in public. I wouldn't go any deeper than that.

I'd leave the store with my kids if some gay guys were making out where I was eating. Its disgusting no matter who is doing it.

Gross me out!! Gag me with a spoon! GAAAAA !!

That is discusting to say the least!! Especially with guacamolie on the corner of their mouths!

Nobody should be lip locking in a hot cha cha mexican restaurant.