My Hypocrisy Towards Homosexuality: A Personal Revelation

page: 11
16
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by smyleegrl

Originally posted by r2d246
POST REMOVED BY STAFF


I have to address this, as both a teacher and a parent.

Why in the world would you assume a teacher could teach "touchiing and kissing" without getting in serious trouble? Just replace your inane suggestions above with a heterosexual teacher. What would happen if ANY teacher tried to encourage kids to explore kissing and touching....they would be FIRED and quite possible brought up with sexual abuse charges...and that would be deserved.

And your description of my son's honeymoon is both uncalled for and tasteless.

I have to conclude that someone gave you a star before they finished reading your post. Otherwise...;
edit on Mon Aug 20 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)


You're answering your own mental delema here, can't you see that? That was the point of painting the rosey picture that they don't normally do when pushing gay rights.




posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by chr0naut
 



Again, I'll state that some choose to be celibate. They have the same motivators to sex that others do but choose not to express those motivations.

The motivation may be as it is, the action is the result of a choice.

Heterosexuality is a choice too (as is demonstrated by the celibate).


I don't think it's being argued the expression is out of our control when people say it's not a choice. I certainly would not tell you I had no control over whether I could be celibate or engage in sex. You are focusing on an aspect erroneous to orientation. One can choose not to have sex. One can choose to have sex. One doesn't choose their natural inclination towards romantic and sexual feelings towards particular sexes. You are arguing something entirely different.

Here is a quick wiki.


Sexual orientation describes an enduring pattern of attraction—emotional, romantic, sexual, or some combination of these—to the opposite sex, the same sex, or both sexes, and the genders that accompany them.It is these people who highlight the fallacy that we are "forced" to a particular sexual orientation by nature.


Attraction. It's the underlying attraction. That's orientation. That's not a choice.

Here is a tired exercise that usually doesn't get a sufficient response. I hope you'll give one. When did you choose to start having feelings of sexual and romantic attractions towards the opposite sex? Was it March 13th? October 7th? After you decided that did you reaffirm that decision every day? Every week?

If you want to just argue homosexuality is wrong and therefore should not be acted upon. Okay. That's a different stance.

www.webmd.com...


Can a Person's Sexual Orientation Be Changed?

Most experts agree that sexual orientation is not a choice and, therefore, cannot be changed. Some people who are homosexual or bisexual may hide their sexual orientation and/or live as heterosexuals to avoid prejudice against people who are homosexual and bisexual. They may live as heterosexuals in order to avoid their own moral dilemmas when their sexual orientation is incompatible with their personal beliefs.


www.apa.org...


What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
edit on 20-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)


I agree that orientation is not a choice.

Can you agree that expression is not orientation?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 



I agree that orientation is not a choice.

Can you agree that expression is not orientation?

I am certain I already answered that.

Okay I am glad we are in agreement.

I am honestly not sure then what the issue is? You're saying homosexuals shouldn't express their orientation with actions then?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
I hate to be so blunt - - - uh well - - - not really.

What the hell does celibacy have to do with what your birth sexual orientation is?


You have evidence of sexuality in newborns?

I think you mean sexual orientation in humans, unobstructed by experience (which I also doubt exists in such a simple and clear cut manner).

"Birth sexual orientation" is a nonsense.

edit on 20/8/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by chr0naut
 



I agree that orientation is not a choice.

Can you agree that expression is not orientation?

I am certain I already answered that.

Okay I am glad we are in agreement.

I am honestly not sure then what the issue is? You're saying homosexuals shouldn't express their orientation with actions then?


Not at all.

Sexual promiscuity of any type is ultimately a risky pursuit.

Sex, with a partner you love, is beautiful, holy and good. Sex, without love, is not.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut

I think you mean sexual orientation unobstructed by experience (which I also doubt exists in such a simple and clear cut manner).



No - - I don't mean that at all. I mean exactly what I said.

Sexual orientation is a birth right. BORN THAT WAY!

Proof? As in proof why some people are Left Handed?

There are lots of things about the human body that science does not have facts to explain - - never-the-less they are.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut

Sexual promiscuity of any type is ultimately a risky pursuit.

Sex, with a partner you love, is beautiful, holy and good. Sex, without love, is not.



Well sex happens at the beginning of dating before love forms. Usually. But I know what you're really getting at and I jive with those thoughts


I wasn't trying to force you into any particular argument I really was just trying to understand what you were getting at when you posted this to me.


I have stated my personal opinion and have provided hints as to why I have that opinion. I have read, and am reading, the posts on this topic thread but have yet to read one that makes me want to reconsider my views.

What opinion is not being persuaded?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by chr0naut

I think you mean sexual orientation unobstructed by experience (which I also doubt exists in such a simple and clear cut manner).



No - - I don't mean that at all. I mean exactly what I said.

Sexual orientation is a birth right. BORN THAT WAY!

Proof? As in proof why some people are Left Handed?

There are lots of things about the human body that science does not have facts to explain - - never-the-less they are.



OK, I'll bite.

Now, suddenly, you are talking about human rights.

In the United States they have deigned that the carrying of a weapon is a human right. In my country, such actions are seen as a possible intention to commit violence.

If sexual orientation is naturally instilled and cannot be changed, why would it be a human right? Surely you mean having the CHOICE to pursue the orientation without opposition is a human right (and there we go with that CHOICE word again).

"Gay, gay, born that way" may rhyme nicely as a slogan, but as previously demonstrated is logical (not just scientific) nonsense.

Based upon your previous comments on this topic thread, you hardly have the moral imperative, anyway.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by chr0naut

Sexual promiscuity of any type is ultimately a risky pursuit.

Sex, with a partner you love, is beautiful, holy and good. Sex, without love, is not.



Well sex happens at the beginning of dating before love forms. Usually. But I know what you're really getting at and I jive with those thoughts


I wasn't trying to force you into any particular argument I really was just trying to understand what you were getting at when you posted this to me.


I have stated my personal opinion and have provided hints as to why I have that opinion. I have read, and am reading, the posts on this topic thread but have yet to read one that makes me want to reconsider my views.

What opinion is not being persuaded?


My opinion is that sexual practice (to be specific - not orientation) is largely a matter of choice. To live the homosexual (or heterosexual, or whatever) lifestyle is a matter of will and the fact that one can make choices otherwise, supports this concept.

I am aware, and will plainly restate, that this is my opinion (I have hardly done exhaustive studies in the matter), but there it is!



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by chr0naut

I think you mean sexual orientation unobstructed by experience (which I also doubt exists in such a simple and clear cut manner).



No - - I don't mean that at all. I mean exactly what I said.

Sexual orientation is a birth right. BORN THAT WAY!

Proof? As in proof why some people are Left Handed?

There are lots of things about the human body that science does not have facts to explain - - never-the-less they are.



OK, I'll bite.

Now, suddenly, you are talking about human rights.



NO.

I do not respond to interpretations of my posts.

I am a very straight forward poster. My posts mean exactly what they state.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


I see.

Sexual orientation is not a choice.

Being sexual is a choice.

I agree.


Saying your opinion on that is not being persuaded implies you think people here were holding a position to the contrary. I doubt people in this thread believe actions are not choices. I just don't get what you've been driving at. But I think we wrapped it up enough.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by chr0naut
 


I see.

Sexual orientation is not a choice.

Being sexual is a choice.

I agree.


Saying your opinion on that is not being persuaded implies you think people here were holding a position to the contrary. I doubt people in this thread believe actions are not choices. I just don't get what you've been driving at. But I think we wrapped it up enough.


Cheers! Thanks.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Taking into account your views on personal liberty and acceptance, I can think of two possibilities for your reaction.

First, the idea that a major children's film is injection homosexuality in a movie could easily be disturbing for a non-anti-homosexual person. Many who accept the idea or practice of homosexual relationships don't think that has any place in matters relating to children.

Second, when something like the event in the story you mentioned takes place, something that is irrelevant to the story and is controversial in society, something nobody is expecting, it comes off as being part of an agenda. From a personal liberties perspective, people think its ok for you do to your thing, I'll do mine, but don't inject your beliefs into me and my family.

One, both or neither of these ideas may be behind the shock associated with the film. It was the only theories I could come up with but am interested to see if they might apply.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 



Many who accept the idea or practice of homosexual relationships don't think that has any place in matters relating to children.

I think awareness of homosexual orientation has a place to the same extent awareness of heterosexual orientation has concerning children. Which I feel is what was displayed in the movie in the OP.

I don't think there is a place for anything actually sexual in nature in regards to children...

Hell I even think sex education starts too soon. At least where I am from. It began in 4th grade for me. I think it should start around the average time teens start to have sex. So maybe 8th or 9th grade (USA, CA here).... which would be 14 years old?
edit on 20-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
This may have more to do with the beefcake male not being interested in the female lead more so than a reaction to the homosexual content.

As supportive as you are of homosexual relations have you ever been bombarded with homosexuals hitting on you?

What I want to know is why is the pro-gay message almost ALWAYS a gay male?

How often do you see a gay female? I want more gay female leads who struggle through thick and thin for just one more kiss from their girlfriend.

Straight men are annoying enough, but gay men (mostly this younger generation) are beyond annoying.

Am I a hypocrite for supporting gay women but not gay men?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy


Hell I even think sex education starts too soon. At least where I am from. It began in 4th grade for me. I think it should start around the average time teens start to have sex. So maybe 8th or 9th grade (USA, CA here).... which would be 14 years old?


We are definitely going to disagree on that one.

Unless you live isolated and your children have no access to TV and other media - - - age 9 is about the right age to start basic sex education in public school.

14 is way way way too late to start sex education today.

IMO of course



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Fair enough on disagreeing


I gave a very small snippet of my reasoning when I said "around the time they start to have sex (not just intercourse, but all forms)". I am sure I can provide a better explanation though! What is your thinking as to why 9? There are aspects of the sex education I was taught in 4-6 grade that makes sense to be taught at a younger age. The anatomy and physiology. Being told about sex, pregnancy, STDs, and how to put on a condom I truly didn't need when I was that age. It just makes sense to me those aspects would be taught around the time right before teens engage in the activities.

Strange to me parents would give a thumps up to all that and then turn off the television when the 4th grader is watching a movie with sex and nudity in it
Speaking generally here, and just musing.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
What is your thinking as to why 9?


I am currently raising my now 12 year old granddaughter.

She is pretty restricted - - - but most of her friends? OMG - - its scary.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


What I want to know is why is the pro-gay message almost ALWAYS a gay male?


Wow. Is it? hmmmm

What's so interesting to me about that

is I say fairly often on ATS something similar. Something akin to..

What I want to know is why is the anti-LGBT message almost ALWAYS about gay men?


Am I a hypocrite for supporting gay women but not gay men?

Well for one not sure how you're using the word 'support' in this context. Certainly not like the LGBT supporters are.

This is clearly biased. Either by bad personal experiences with gay men, or good personal experiences watching gay women
edit on 21-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 03:45 AM
link   
At the end of it all everyone is guilty of being a hypocrite.





top topics
 
16
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join