Are people ignoring the facts about Homosexuality?

reply to post by rainbowbear

If there are negetive effects of being gay, are there also positive ones?

AIDS

Who is most effected by homosexuality---homos, hetros, culture, children? Does it truly NOT hurt anyone?

Homers are more effected by it by anyone, the spread of AIDS effects them the most.

Why would people remain nuetral to homosexuality, if it does have health and social risks...
Is being gay, really about sexual freedom?

I think being gay is nothing more than having sex with members of your own sex.

Is it possible to explore the facts, even if they come from a bigoted perspective?

Not on ATS

reply to post by spocksleftear

Dear spocksleftear,

I hope you see this as worthwhile, because I do. I'm grateful that you're taking the time to discuss this with me.

I think I see two themes in your last post, one is that the people should not be allowed to vote on things that are human rights issues. Of course, that presupposes that this is a human rights issue. Prop. 8 supporters would say it's not, and prop. 8 opponents would say it is. You're kind of begging the question when you assume it's a civil rights question. It may be, but it's not obvious that it is.

The second theme seems to be that if one group never had the right in the first place, there is still inequality. I agree completely.

The bit about religions being more tolerant came first from my knowledge that the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the Episcopal church are fully gay-friendly. The ELCA switched in 2009 and the Episcopals have been in the gay camp for at least a decade.

True, you're not going to pick up the Catholics or the evangelicals for many years yet, but I haven't heard of a church going from gay friendly to gay intolerant.

I think I'm going to stick with a "where I live" centric point of view. I don't understand the American gay situation. If I'm to be required to be familiar with the situation in Belgium and Zimbabwe, I'm throwing up my hands. I think it's fair to stick with North American laws, culture, and attitudes. It's hard for me to believe that a San Francisco gay is going to yell at me because a Muslim morals policeman is beating a gay in Iran.

Thankfully you switch back to America, so I can breathe a sigh of relief. I looked at the first of your examples, the law designed to end bullying and it's exemption. We have a little different definition of "bullying." As I dug around, I found that the exemption clause was:

“This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian.”

michiganmessenger.com... So if a kid is walking down the hall and says "I think homosexuality is immoral," he could be punished by the school if this protection didn't exist. Kids aren't allowed to beat on other kids, or steal their lunch money. It just says that the school can't silence people for expressing their sincerely held religious belief. As hard as it may be to take sometimes, I think that protection should be there.

DOMA? Yeah, no question it throws up a wall for gays. But if we object to Prop. 8 because the people voted for it instead of the legislature, why are we upset here where the legislature voted for it instead of the people?

And the Tennessee law? That's a tough one for me. The state had one state wide anti-discrimination law. Cities wanted to put in tougher ones. The state said we need uniformity. I'm really up in the air on this one. I suspect the best solution would be to have one tough, state wide law. But I can understand the reluctance to have part of the state with different laws than other parts.

I'm grateful to you for this discussion.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


I think it is absolutely obvious that it is a civil rights issue and i would reject any argument that considers it to not be. They fact that the people pushing prop 8 , or its actual charming name 'Ballot title- Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.' literally label it to eliminate rights is a pretty good indicator. Also the fact that up the judicial chain it has been found to be unconstitutional and found in violation of due process and equal protection clauses.

'United States District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution.'

'On February 7, 2012, in a 2-1 decision, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed Judge Walker's decision declaring the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional.'

If you wish to switch to america only for the sake of discussion that is fine with me, but it does not negate the reality of the extraordinarily oppressive rights climate many gay people still live under, nor that gay civil rights is an ongoing battle.

As for the bullying law.
“This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian.”

'Kids aren't allowed to beat on other kids, or steal their lunch money'.

Respectfully, kids are not killing themselves because someone took their lunch money. Kids are killing themselves because they cannot take the physical, and certainly emotional abuse being dished out continuously to them from their peers.

Equally respectfully you take an incredibly tame example of what you would define as an expression of religious belief. A kid walks into a hall and says 'I think homosexuality is immoral'. In fact you take an example which limits every possible problematic aspect of what the legislation does allow. You do not even include the party which is being bullied.

How does it sound like this?

A boy walks out of a classroom, walks up to billy and says 'god says you're immoral.' Under the law that is protected. It is also protected if he says this every time he sees Billy, and if he does it every day. It is still the expression of his religiously held belief.

Of course it would not be bullying if this kid didn't have a few buddies, so it is actually 5-6 kids chanting and jeering billy about being immoral, every time they see him , every day. Still the protected expression of religiously held beliefs.

I apologise for my language but it is necessary to make a point in this case as kids would not say it like that they would say, 'You're a #ing fag billy, you are a freak, you need to #ing die' etc. Chanting that stuff day after day at the gay kid they know, or even suspect of being gay.It is still the protected expression of a religiously held belief. Afterall, to quote the 'good book'

'Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.'

'If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.'


If the bible says gays are an abomination that should be put to death then it can be classified as my religiously held belief, and I can express that sentiment in a variety of ways as an individual or a group towards a gay.

So no, religious beliefs should not be granted as an exemption to an anti bullying law, because bullying is not some kid walking into a hall and saying to thin air 'homosexuality is immoral!' it is 5 kids telling billy he is a faggot that should be killed every time they see him, every day, until he throws himself off a bridge. That's bullying Charles, and that is what that exemption allows.

Prop 8 was not bad because it was put to a public vote, it is bad because it was putting to a vote the rights of a minority to get married. With DOMA the point is that it does not matter who passed the law, it is that to quote- 'The law, specifically Section 3, codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriage for all federal purposes, which include family insurance benefits for employees of the government, survivors' benefits from Social Security, and joint tax filings.' I do not understand why you frame whether or not people would be upset by the law on how it passed rather than its content and effects on the lives of human beings.

With the Tennessee law I am not up in the air with it at all. The existing state law allows for discrimination and that needs to be stamped out.

Originally posted by Amadeo
reply to post by blueorder

 

What is "outrageous", as you put it, is your desire to jail people, who aren't breaking any laws, based on your dislike of what they wear. You then go on to claim that bikinis and other skimpy swimwear aren't sexualised clothing and that has been shown to be utter claptrap.

No it hasn't, S&M wear is INHERENTLY sexual wear, swimwear is obviously not, unless you are suggesting this cartoon was sexualising kiddies, behold, these "sexual" videos

www.youtube.com...


*does rolley eyes so much it effing hurts*

My proof comes from your own post, where you attempt to inform gays that we won't be enjoying tolerance much longer. If you are only targeting one section of the gay community then you should make yourself clear but bear in mind that the S&M fetish isn't restricted to gay men.

I have stated on several occasions, on this VERY thread, that my views apply to ANYONE in such outfits, be they male or female or homosexual or heterosexual- you have chosen to ignore this

That anti-semite nonsense doesn't even deserve a response.

no more so than giving succour to someone who equates opposing the public display in our towns and cities in S&M wear with being anti gay (which in itself, ironically, is quite a prejudiced view to take about all gays, as if they all want to parade like this)

reply to post by spocksleftear



or would it be bullying if a gang of kids kept changing to another kid

"shame on you for having issues with S&M"

reply to post by blueorder


I am glad you made that post, it is quite telling.

I don't believe exclusively in homosexuality as such; I'm more inclined to believe in a continuum, between (as an example) 0-100%.

So you've got people on the one hand who feel as much aversion physically towards the opposite sex on the one hand, as heterosexuals would feel towards the same sex. On the other hand, you've also got people whose quotients of homosexuality and heterosexuality are close to being equal, and in their case, they can essentially go either way, depending on environment and other factors.

This can also be where bisexuality comes from, and is why you'll sometimes hear pan or omnisexuals insisting that hard sexual orientation, as such, doesn't really exist at all. For some people, that is true; it really depends on the individual.

As for the "diseased and disgusting," angle, I personally think that anal sex (as a single, specific sexual act) is unhygienic and repugnant, but that doesn't mean that I'm interested in policing other people's bedrooms in order to make sure that they don't do it. It simply means that I'm not interested in doing it myself, or exposing myself to other people who do it. AIDS is a genuine issue, yes; but there are lots of ways around that.

Even if you don't like homosexuality, (and being honest, from a straight perspective, there are plenty of genuine reasons not to) having a fascist attitude towards it is pointless. The reality is that there are people out there who either can't help being gay, or who perhaps could help it but will still insist on it regardless, and said people aren't going away. As a result, the mature response is to realise that one way or the other, homosexuality is something that society has to deal with.

Originally posted by petrus4
I don't believe exclusively in homosexuality as such; I'm more inclined to believe in a continuum, between (as an example) 0-100%.

Absolutely agree. For the sake of debate I have kept to straight and gay but gender in terms of sexual orientation is absolutely a spectrum, not just of attraction to males and females but also the strength of that attraction. Asexuality is rarely mentioned but just as valid as bisexuality.

Originally posted by spocksleftear
reply to post by blueorder

 

I am glad you made that post, it is quite telling.

Telling about me being opposed to s&m displays in our towns and cities, I'm glad I made it too

reply to post by spocksleftear


Whether yoy believe in it or not I am 100% heterosexual and have no sexual attraction to men

Originally posted by blueorder
reply to post by spocksleftear

 

Whether yoy believe in it or not I am 100% heterosexual and have no sexual attraction to men

For the record, with your last 3 posts any sliver of credibility i was giving you is gone. I will be ignoring your posts in this topic from here on out.

reply to post by spocksleftear


good, you appear incapable of rational debate

reply to post by blueorder


You've made your point- again and again and again- that you are opposed to any sort of public indecency. Good for you. However, you stubbornly insist on arguing this point alone. You have made no other contributions to this discussion, unlike Spocksleftear who has brought up numerous facts for debate. Therefore I must say it is YOU who is incapable of rational debate.

Have a nice day.

reply to post by Glass


The REASON this point persists is that these posters, bizarrely, are stating that my opposition to S&M displays in city centres means I am anti gay

Clearly this is either a lie or a mistake, not my fault I have highlighted their idiocy, go give them a star for their next post, but the point remains

reply to post by Glass


See the thing that bothers me about this guy is stuff like the fact that whenever he typed gay pride parade in the topic, he would put the pride in air quotes. His only commentary on the series of long posts i made in discussion with charles was to post about whether it would be bullying to have one kid tell another shame on you for having issues with s and m, followed by rolling his eyes. I literally cannot tell what he was trying to accomplish with that, whether he was making light of the bullying examples i brought up or just being a wise-ass. Then he brought this in out of left field-

'Whether you believe in it or not I am 100% heterosexual and have no sexual attraction to men.'

I mean where did that even come from. At this point I get the impression he is just trolling, as he states no actual positions on any of the issues brought up in the thread, it just seems like intentional hijacking and derailment of it, doubly disappointing considering the direction the topic ended up going in.

What can you do i guess.

I think this thread actually has more pages than the racism one did...that tells me more than I wanted to know.

Are we seriously making a bigger deal out of what happens behind closed doors, than we did out of skin color and cultural differences?

When did we become so hostile towards diversity?

it is amazing how long threads can go when someone makes a reasonable point about not liking S&M displays in city centres which then results in other posters making the jump that opposing S&M parades makes you anti gay, that sort of deceit will never go without a response

reply to post by Starchild23


Honestly, and not trying to be anti-religion here, but I believe it's when the Church began to try to take over the country.
2nd.

Originally posted by blueorder
it is amazing how long threads can go when someone makes a reasonable point about not liking S&M displays in city centres which then results in other posters making the jump that opposing S&M parades makes you anti gay, that sort of deceit will never go without a response

Don't like it? Don't go to the city center that day. It's as simple as that.
I don't like documentaries, does that mean I'm going to go out and scream 'everyone who makes a documentary should be arrested' because of my opinion? No, it means I'm not going to watch them.

I d like to add to the conversation, that I feel like every "group" is being used as a chess piece politicly, at least in my country. Indevidualy, yes, we all want our "rights" or what ever, be it womens sufferage, labor unions, or religious freedoms. All too often times I watch as our "rights" are hijacked by, well, Govt. FOR Govt. They use us as poster children to get legislation pushed, people elected, and regulations put apon all.

This is not freedom. this is oppression, with use of propaganda.

If I were a homosexual, Id focus my energy not at my rights, but my Government, who is constantly USING me. And since im a heterosexual, Im going to abandon this post to focus on keeping Govt out of EVERYONES business.

Thank you all for the mind food.

rainbowbear signing off.