It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"I have gay friends, but..." Umm... No, you don't...
page: 54share:
**** ATTENTION ****
Get back on topic.
You will have your post removed and could be Post Banned.
Get back on topic.
You will have your post removed and could be Post Banned.
reply to post by davespanners
Yes hi Dave,
This thread from a few years ago catches the spirit of the OP.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I know hat the OP is refering to it is the slightly Archie Bunkeresque comment that some people come out with when confronted with their homophobia. I hope that the thread get back on track.
Yes hi Dave,
This thread from a few years ago catches the spirit of the OP.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I know hat the OP is refering to it is the slightly Archie Bunkeresque comment that some people come out with when confronted with their homophobia. I hope that the thread get back on track.
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by seeashrink
Um, I don't remember anywhere in the OP where I asked about your opinions concerning homosexuals or homosexuality, but you do make a great example of the type of person I was talking about in the OP! Now the question is are you just a really crappy friend or a hypocrite?
First, let me say, the OP was a statement, but as there are counter statements, it becomes an argument. Once again, a natural process of.. people If you wish to make a statement, at least hear the counter arguments to prove wether the statement is true among the people you present it to. Make sense?
I feel some of the things that Seeashrink mentioned are also how I feel as well. Am I a hipocrite? No. Do/Did I have friends that were gay? Yes, a good few. I never secluded myself from much of the world as I was growing up. Everyone was friend to me untill they proved unworthy. The same as much of the world's youth today. Colleges and Highschools promote this, as do clubs, bars and what not.
Stay with me, because I will prove to you that your statements are false.
This is just one account of a few gay Friends I've had. Out of highschool, my best friend dated this girl we went to school with. Over the year, she and I became like brother and sister as my best friend and I partied together nearly every night. Her family was the calm that I didnt have in my family. I became one of the wayward sons They had a tendency of taking in the down and out youth, as I witnessed over the many years. Her little brother especially was like my own little brother. I watched him hit and grow through his teen years and eartly 20s. He was as my own blood. He was the only one I could sit back and argue every damn thing under the sun. We used to say that if we let him, he could argue himself out of existance!
He used to tell me that he'd have dreams of guys. Let me say now, I completly and utterly believe that homosexuality is wrong and unatural. I have even deeper feelings that its a personal divulgance of sexual freedoms. I would tell him, "lil brother, thats not the kind of dreams you're supposed to be havinig". He'd say that they basicly turned him on. So thats the path he took. His family says that they knew even earlier as a child that he would be gay. I may not feel that this is true, I think there may be more to it, or something unseen. But, as a family I love as my own, I accept that they believe that, and I dont step on it or push the topic around.
Some years later, he went through some trials in his life as many of us know in our own. In the end, the things he was doing to himself caught up with him and he died. I loved this person as my own blood. I could talk to him for hours and other than suttle hints, I could never tell he was gay. He just had an opinion about everything, same as I. But we chose to discuss them between one another. We could even discuss him being gay, but I repsected his personal feelings and I didnt question him personaly. He told me what he wanted to tell me about it and that was that.
So as you can see.. I am against homosexuality, just as I am about smoking (I smoke but I feel it's poison). Just because I think it's wrong doesnt mean that he wasnt/isnt my friend. What is a friend? Do you feel that every single thing about your best friend is the exact way you feel? If so, who's leading who? People have diffrences, and this just happens to be one of them. If we had to focus on one thing about someone, based on what we believed, every single one of us would be friendless and alone.
Im not saying your post doesnt have merit, I'm saying, if you bring this forward as truth, expect a counter to it, because I completely feel that you are wrong. Friend does not always = acceptance of some beliefs.
Originally posted by wayno
reply to post by Xen0m0rpH
I might discuss it to learn more about how homosexuals think and act, but it's not meant to offend you in the least.
Fantastic - one of the most sensible comments in all 50 odd pages. I like that.
OK, so, just wondering, why don't you "feel its right".
Do you mean not right for you, or anyone?
Do you accept that some people are gay and have no choice in the matter, or not?
Do you think a gay person can or should go straight?
What do you mean when you say its not "right"? Just saying its not natural won't do tho. I need reasons in order to understand your position and that of some the others on here.
Thanks in advance.
It doesn't feel right because of my morals really, which are fairly Christian based, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with gay people. It may be frowned upon, but to me it's something that if it feels right to them, then they shouldn't be held back. It's only natural to them what they feel just as me or any other heterosexual feel attracted to another person
I feel sorry for some that don't have a choice. By that I mean the one's that are confused, that try to act straight or claim to be straight (or vice versa) and truly feel an attraction but don't truly act on it because our society is so bass akwards. In America we try to proclaim freedom and being yourself, but then provide standards and rules that separate us.
I really have no physical attraction to the same sex, I can have close friends, but your sexual orientation provides the boundaries between the two. Meaning that, depending on your orientation and whether you really are straight or not, you will be able to discern friendships from extended relationships. I feel the government isn't very open in this aspect.
I'm not really sure if it's the older folk or not. Some of the older folk seem to not care whether or not other people are homosexual/bisexual just as long as they aren't close to them and don't have to hear about them. And others are actually open and accepting to those who are.
I honestly don't mean to offend, but I must ask. Do gays prefer to be called gay, or homosexual? Homosexual seems like such a ridiculous term and gay can be seen as offensive. And because our society doesn't really discuss it from a wide angle, I am unsure as to their preferences.
edit on
2-1-2011 by Xen0m0rpH because: Made a whoops
reply to post by theRhenn
Excellent post. I could not have said it nearly as well as you. And although the OP does have a very valid point regarding the trolling behaviors of some, basically pulling something out of their butt as an indicator that they have personal experience on the matter they are suggesting, etc., you proved that people cannot be put in a box so easily. Kind of ironic considering the nature of the original post. And I also hold the view that this thread is naturally inclined to foment argumentation and to blame another for ones ills. I am not putting the OP in this box, but many need somebody to blame, and acting as if there is a large segment of society that is against you is an easy outlet.
I love language, I really do, but it seems to me that many ride the coattails of ideology, not really looking at the nuances of human experience. I have definitely done this as well. And the really young do it almost exclusively. Eventually the disorienting experience of it all coming to a head does occur, however.
Regarding the previous paragraph, a middle-aged woman cackling like a witch put it best (and she was cackling quite a bit, it was hilarious). She said that politics was intended to change "things," with a very heavy emphasis on "things." You know, referring to the people who are still split in two on a subconscious level, dancing in the dark, moving up a sort of pyramid by harboring a war stance against another, clinging like a suckling baby to an ideology. I suspect she was very wise. Things are not in reality as the talking heads make them to be. They are creating a matrix that puts blinders on themselves (if they are not really careful) and that divides and conquers "things."
Just had to do it. I have women as friends, but I do not agree with their lifestyle or see eye-to-eye with them. I have tried before, ya know, to satisfy my love and lust and intrigue and curiosity, but it just seemed to blank me out. In fact, an old man once told me that if you really understand women, you become one. There is truth in that statement. If we can't agree to disagree, we become boring clones of each other, a sort of monstrosity out of a propane nightmare. What I think many fail to see or at least acknowledge is that if we genuinely agree with another, a part of them travels with us. We are our thoughts and feelings intertwined. We have to disagree to a certain extent, or it all comes to a head, wiping out both opposing ideas. Albeit, we should disagree civilly.
Excellent post. I could not have said it nearly as well as you. And although the OP does have a very valid point regarding the trolling behaviors of some, basically pulling something out of their butt as an indicator that they have personal experience on the matter they are suggesting, etc., you proved that people cannot be put in a box so easily. Kind of ironic considering the nature of the original post. And I also hold the view that this thread is naturally inclined to foment argumentation and to blame another for ones ills. I am not putting the OP in this box, but many need somebody to blame, and acting as if there is a large segment of society that is against you is an easy outlet.
I love language, I really do, but it seems to me that many ride the coattails of ideology, not really looking at the nuances of human experience. I have definitely done this as well. And the really young do it almost exclusively. Eventually the disorienting experience of it all coming to a head does occur, however.
Regarding the previous paragraph, a middle-aged woman cackling like a witch put it best (and she was cackling quite a bit, it was hilarious). She said that politics was intended to change "things," with a very heavy emphasis on "things." You know, referring to the people who are still split in two on a subconscious level, dancing in the dark, moving up a sort of pyramid by harboring a war stance against another, clinging like a suckling baby to an ideology. I suspect she was very wise. Things are not in reality as the talking heads make them to be. They are creating a matrix that puts blinders on themselves (if they are not really careful) and that divides and conquers "things."
Just had to do it. I have women as friends, but I do not agree with their lifestyle or see eye-to-eye with them. I have tried before, ya know, to satisfy my love and lust and intrigue and curiosity, but it just seemed to blank me out. In fact, an old man once told me that if you really understand women, you become one. There is truth in that statement. If we can't agree to disagree, we become boring clones of each other, a sort of monstrosity out of a propane nightmare. What I think many fail to see or at least acknowledge is that if we genuinely agree with another, a part of them travels with us. We are our thoughts and feelings intertwined. We have to disagree to a certain extent, or it all comes to a head, wiping out both opposing ideas. Albeit, we should disagree civilly.
edit on 2-1-2011 by orwellianunenlightenment because: (no reason given)
What I got from this thread is basically:
Gays are allowed to be gay because they have the right to moral, religious and sexual freedom. However, anyone that doesn't agree morally, even if they would never think to treat someone differently based on their sexual preference, is a bigot?
"I have many gay friends", I do... I don't think Gay relationships are wrong. If I did, would it make me love my gay friends any less? Of course not. My Dad is an alcoholic, I disagree with alcohol abuse with my entire soul, yet this has no bearing on my feelings for him (apart from sadness...)
OP, your logic is flawed and your intent noted. Even if it's not by you... yet.
Gays are allowed to be gay because they have the right to moral, religious and sexual freedom. However, anyone that doesn't agree morally, even if they would never think to treat someone differently based on their sexual preference, is a bigot?
"I have many gay friends", I do... I don't think Gay relationships are wrong. If I did, would it make me love my gay friends any less? Of course not. My Dad is an alcoholic, I disagree with alcohol abuse with my entire soul, yet this has no bearing on my feelings for him (apart from sadness...)
OP, your logic is flawed and your intent noted. Even if it's not by you... yet.
Originally posted by King_John
To OP, so you're saying you can't be friends with somebody unless you agree with every life choice they make?
If being gay were a life choice, gay men would not exist.
"I'll just willingly submit myself to a life of misery, frustration, and likely loneliness"
Yea, that ship isn't sailing through these shallow waters or argument you bring to the table.
There is nothing about you or me that is designed to be with our same sex.
Where is your prostate gland located again?
What is the displacement of that from the female "G" Spot?
Thank you for actually exploring your broad, assumed, ignorant standpoint.
Originally posted by Dookzor
What I got from this thread is basically:
Gays are allowed to be gay because they have the right to moral, religious and sexual freedom. However, anyone that doesn't agree morally, even if they would never think to treat someone differently based on their sexual preference, is a bigot?
"I have many gay friends", I do... I don't think Gay relationships are wrong. If I did, would it make me love my gay friends any less? Of course not. My Dad is an alcoholic, I disagree with alcohol abuse with my entire soul, yet this has no bearing on my feelings for him (apart from sadness...)
OP, your logic is flawed and your intent noted. Even if it's not by you... yet.
I'm going to address your thoughts on morality, because you seem a little semantically confused. I am gay, and the thought of sleeping with a woman disgusts me... does that make heterosexuality "morally wrong"? I know that one is not "right" while another is "wrong", so the short and simple answer is: NO. You cannot choose your manner sexual attraction or change it if you wish to, so what could it possibly have to do with morals? Absolutely nothing, sorry.
The only time morality comes into the world of sex is when it is not consensual or there is a lack of personal attraction, who you are sexually attracted to has nothing to do with morals because being sexually attracted to something is not an action, nor is it controllable.
edit on
2-1-2011 by Brood because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Brood
Originally posted by Dookzor
What I got from this thread is basically:
Gays are allowed to be gay because they have the right to moral, religious and sexual freedom. However, anyone that doesn't agree morally, even if they would never think to treat someone differently based on their sexual preference, is a bigot?
"I have many gay friends", I do... I don't think Gay relationships are wrong. If I did, would it make me love my gay friends any less? Of course not. My Dad is an alcoholic, I disagree with alcohol abuse with my entire soul, yet this has no bearing on my feelings for him (apart from sadness...)
OP, your logic is flawed and your intent noted. Even if it's not by you... yet.
I'm going to address your thoughts on morality, because you seem a little semantically confused. I am gay, and the thought of sleeping with a woman disgusts me... does that make heterosexuality "morally wrong"? I know that one is not "right" while another is "wrong", so the short and simple answer is: NO. You cannot choose your manner sexual attraction or change it if you wish to, so what could it possibly have to do with morals? Absolutely nothing, sorry.
The only time morality comes into the world of sex is when it is not consensual or there is a lack of personal attraction, who you are sexually attracted to has nothing to do with morals because being sexually attracted to something is not an action, nor is it controllable.edit on 2-1-2011 by Brood because: (no reason given)
I was just stating some of the things that I have gotten from the responses of people in this thread.
Out of interest what point do you think I was making and what (if any) connection did your post have with mine?
I think you're the only one who is "confused" here, friend.
Edit - Also, where did I say sexual attraction was an issue of morality? IMO the only gauge of a persons morality is their actions.
edit on
2-1-2011 by Dookzor because: Skimread4tehwin
Originally posted by Dookzor
I was just stating some of the things that I have gotten from the responses of people in this thread.
And I was just replying to it... I don't neccesarily disagree with what you are saying... I'm just confused as to how you could think it has anything to do with morals... since you brought up "flawed logic".
Out of interest what point do you think I was making and what (if any) connection did your post have with mine?
I really hope that is not a serious question.
Come on, dude.
I think you're the only one who is "confused" here, friend.
Sorry, the dictionary doesn't confuse those of us who know that words actually do have finite definitions...
Originally posted by Brood
Originally posted by Dookzor
I was just stating some of the things that I have gotten from the responses of people in this thread.
And I was just replying to it... I don't neccesarily disagree with what you are saying... I'm just confused as to how you could think it has anything to do with morals... since you brought up "flawed logic".
Out of interest what point do you think I was making and what (if any) connection did your post have with mine?
I really hope that is not a serious question.
Come on, dude.
I think you're the only one who is "confused" here, friend.
Sorry, the dictionary doesn't confuse those of us who know that words actually do have finite definitions...
The condescension in your post speaks volumes. My post seeks to clarify and yours seek to belittle.
If you want to keep arguing points not made, and then sidestep the parts where you are called out on your transparent arguing techniques then please do so, it is your right.
I won't be drawn into a flamewar with someone who lacks the ability to argue outside of their own ego, "dude".
Originally posted by Dookzor
What I got from this thread is basically:
Gays are allowed to be gay because they have the right to moral, religious and sexual freedom. However, anyone that doesn't agree morally, even if they would never think to treat someone differently based on their sexual preference, is a bigot?
Maybe you missed the word "but" in the OP? Maybe not. Reading the OP, the word "but" comes just before the concepts are introduced where treatment is actually different. That is where the bigotry comes in. 'I have a gay friend but I do not think he has rights like normal people.'
It is not to indicate you are a bigot for having a gay friend you would treat like an equal even if you do not always agree. It is about being a bigot because you claim to have a gay friend but you still think there is something "less than" about them where they do not deserve to marry whomever they love or whatever.
That is what I got from reading the whole OP. Maybe you do not think suggesting your friends not be allowed to marry is not treating them differently based on their sexuality? I do.
edit on 2-1-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Dookzor
What I got from this thread is basically:
Gays are allowed to be gay because they have the right to moral, religious and sexual freedom. However, anyone that doesn't agree morally, even if they would never think to treat someone differently based on their sexual preference, is a bigot?
"I have many gay friends", I do... I don't think Gay relationships are wrong. If I did, would it make me love my gay friends any less? Of course not. My Dad is an alcoholic, I disagree with alcohol abuse with my entire soul, yet this has no bearing on my feelings for him (apart from sadness...)
OP, your logic is flawed and your intent noted. Even if it's not by you... yet.
"Gays are ALLOWED to be gay"
"They have the right to be moral"
"I don't think Gay relationships are wrong" (did you unconsciously avoid the word sex)
How some one phrases their statements and what words they choose - - - often says more about their real thoughts - - - then the PC - - - "I'm one of the good guys" - - explanation that they try to imply.
reply to post by Sinnthia
I do love how many differing opinions can come from one subject and before I go on I would like to add that I in no way meant for my comments to be argumentative in an aggressive manner.
I see how your interpretation could be taken from what was said but I based my initial comment on what I picked up from the entire thread.
Very rarely (if ever) have I noticed anyone saying they have gay friends but they don't think said Gay friends should have less rights. As far as I can tell from most of the comments on this thread, some people have a moral objection to homosexuality but are more than happy for Gays to continue about their business (keeping their full body of rights) as long as it isn't forced onto them.
This, IMO, is exactly the right attitude. One generally can't help how they feel (be it sexual preference or issues of morality etc) and the true measure of a person - again, IMO - is how they treat those whom lead lives they don't agree with.
I do love how many differing opinions can come from one subject and before I go on I would like to add that I in no way meant for my comments to be argumentative in an aggressive manner.
I see how your interpretation could be taken from what was said but I based my initial comment on what I picked up from the entire thread.
Very rarely (if ever) have I noticed anyone saying they have gay friends but they don't think said Gay friends should have less rights. As far as I can tell from most of the comments on this thread, some people have a moral objection to homosexuality but are more than happy for Gays to continue about their business (keeping their full body of rights) as long as it isn't forced onto them.
This, IMO, is exactly the right attitude. One generally can't help how they feel (be it sexual preference or issues of morality etc) and the true measure of a person - again, IMO - is how they treat those whom lead lives they don't agree with.
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by Dookzor
What I got from this thread is basically:
Gays are allowed to be gay because they have the right to moral, religious and sexual freedom. However, anyone that doesn't agree morally, even if they would never think to treat someone differently based on their sexual preference, is a bigot?
"Gays are ALLOWED to be gay"
"They have the right to be moral"
"I don't think Gay relationships are wrong" (did you unconsciously avoid the word sex)
How some one phrases their statements and what words they choose - - - often says more about their real thoughts - - - then the PC - - - "I'm one of the good guys" - - explanation that they try to imply.
Why would I avoid the word "sex"? I don't understand your implication. Are you implying that I consider gay sex wrong? Do you have any idea whether I have ever participated in acts of gay love? Would it make a difference?
You pick fault with a paragraph not indicative of how I feel, but one I used to show how I felt most people were acting in this thread.
How some one phrases their statements and what words they choose - - - often says more about their real thoughts
This comment I feel would be best put to use against yourself/some of the other knee jerk nay-sayers, though.
Yet another completely pointless thread.
I am sure threads like this are posted to entice heterosexuals into an argument, just so you pro homos can then sound off and claim the moral highground
Everyone is different, does any of this really matter?
I am sure threads like this are posted to entice heterosexuals into an argument, just so you pro homos can then sound off and claim the moral highground
Everyone is different, does any of this really matter?
Originally posted by Dookzor
As far as I can tell from most of the comments on this thread, some people have a moral objection to homosexuality but are more than happy for Gays to continue about their business (keeping their full body of rights) as long as it isn't forced onto them.
This, IMO, is exactly the right attitude. One generally can't help how they feel (be it sexual preference or issues of morality etc) and the true measure of a person - again, IMO - is how they treat those whom lead lives they don't agree with.
You continue with the PC wording. You are not saying it is OK to be gay. You are saying it is PC for people to accept and agree that all should be treated Equal.
Tolerance is definitely better then bigotry. But . . . .
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by Dookzor
As far as I can tell from most of the comments on this thread, some people have a moral objection to homosexuality but are more than happy for Gays to continue about their business (keeping their full body of rights) as long as it isn't forced onto them.
This, IMO, is exactly the right attitude. One generally can't help how they feel (be it sexual preference or issues of morality etc) and the true measure of a person - again, IMO - is how they treat those whom lead lives they don't agree with.
You continue with the PC wording. You are not saying it is OK to be gay. You are saying it is PC for people to accept and agree that all should be treated Equal.
Tolerance is definitely better then bigotry. But . . . .
And there you go again putting your own assumptions onto my words.
Whether I think it is okay to be gay is besides the point entirely IMO. Am I saying it's NOT okay to be gay?
I'm trying to discuss the issue, not my own personal moral compass. I would implore you to stop reading hidden meanings in things that simply do not exist.