General Question

johnny0313x's avatar

What do you think of same sex relations?

Asked by johnny0313x (1837 points ) January 21st, 2009

I am sure this question has been asked but I was looking for more of a specific response. I noticed in another question I asked, alot of guys where very strongly opinionated that having sex with someone of the same sex is something they would never do. I was curious, do you as a straight male or female view two humans of the same sex engagin in intercourse as a human having sex with an animal or a adult having sex with a child? I was just wondering how negative you feel about same sex intercourse. What do you initially think when you hear about it or it comes to mind? I realize this is a sensitive area and not every one would voice their true opinions on this topic but honesty and respect is encouraged.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

300 Answers

cage's avatar

So the question your asking is:
Are you a homophobe?

cage's avatar

My answer is no I’m not a homophobe.
I don’t see same-sex sex the same as I do bestiality or pedophilia. I don;t think anyone does, and if you do, you’re mental.

Having said that I wouldn’t engage in same sex sex myself because I’m straight.

lovelace's avatar

I’m hetero and have no desire to experiment but the idea doesn’t equate at all to me to something as grotesque as an animal and a human or an adult with a child. Heck no! That’s just sickening. I think some people are just “freaks”. They’ll do anything sexually. I think that sex is mostly about strong feelings or strong attractions, which with that, anything is possible…I guess.

johnny0313x's avatar

Well I wasnt really trying to call out a homophobe or suggest that anyone was. It was more so to see what people views were.

wundayatta's avatar

@cage: I think he should get a good deal more credit for his question than that. He is asking us to place ourselves on the spectrum of feelings about male homosexuality.

In any case, I would never compare adult consensual sex between members of the same sex to bestiality or pedophilia. I have heard that Rick Warren says that if we sanction homosexual marriage, we will next be sanctioning bestiality and pedophilia.

He seems to think we will let people marry animals or children. That dude is either crazy or a demagogue. I tend to think of rhetoric like that as incendiary rhetoric that doesn’t really reflect the reality the person lives in.

I do think he represents a significant minority of Americans, and there are probably a lot of people out there who think this. I believe you will find few, if any of those people on fluther, which seems to skew liberal.

There’s something else I want to say about this, but I can’t quite get it out of my mind. Maybe later.

Bri_L's avatar

I am a straight male. I am not curious at all about sex with a male. But when asked to contemplate gay sex I just figure it is the same for them as it is for a guy and a girl or a girl and a girl. (barring the obvious physical differences)

I think when you step outside the idea that it is anything but that you get into trouble.

PupnTaco's avatar

It’s not for me personally, but I don’t have a problem with it.

forestGeek's avatar

I am perfectly fine with it! Why the hell wouldn’t anyone be perfectly fine with it?...oh, wait, because some religions say it’s wrong.

I think that whether you agree with it or not, or like it or not, since it doesn’t affect you’re life if others do engage in it, why would you care? No one is forcing it upon anyone. Do it if you like, don’t if you don’t like, just don’t judge others for being alright with it or doing it. This world would be a much better place if people stopped judging others lives and actions, and focus on their own.

chelseababyy's avatar

I’m bi. I think it’s sexy.

Allie's avatar

I don’t have anything against same sex relationships. Some of my best friends are gay/lesbian. I assume that those who have boyfriends or girlfriends have sex with them. It doesn’t make me think of them any different and I certainly don’t think any less of them. They are still my friends and I love them for the people they are not the people they choose to be with.

poofandmook's avatar

Anybody who equates same-sex intercourse with beastiality or pedophilia really should go find that cave that Bin Laden is hiding in and keep him company. Two animals that shouldn’t be mixed in with the rest of the human race.

IMHO.

bodyhead's avatar

I like to see two hot chicks make out so I think that makes me for same sex relations.

Do I think that gay sex is the same as having sex with children or animals? Interacial sexual relations are just as likely to lead to sex with children and animals. (By this of course I mean that 40 years ago interacial marriage was puplicly put down as an abomination just as gay marriage is now).

Lets face it, people who want to screw kids and animals are fucked up. If it was my kid or my animal, we’d have a fist fight on our hands (immediately and if I caught you in the act… dear lord). Now, if that same person was in a concenting (of age) gay relationship with my son or daughter then that’s really no big deal.

madcapper's avatar

@ bodyhead and poof I was gonna say exactly the same thing as both of you. Thank you

futurelaker88's avatar

i look at it simply like this:

look at the male/female body. it’s obvious how we were made.

other things like STDs (which just happen to only be POSSIBLE in gay relationships or when there are multiple partners which also happen to both be unbiblical) and the fact that reproduction is impossible are just other supporters that stand to indicate that this is abuse of the body in a way it was not meant to be used.

this doesn’t NOT mean that i hate or dislike gay people at all. which most of u will assume i am saying. it simply means that i pray for them and believe (according to the bible) that it is a sin. and i also would like to say that this does not have to turn into another religious debate, to me it’s too simple to not be understood

madcapper's avatar

@ future are you say that STD’s are only the outcome of gay relationships? or during orgies?

tinyfaery's avatar

Sex is sex is sex. As long as everyone is an adult and has consented (which an animal cannot do) then it’s none of my
business.

And I find same-sex sex way more satisfying, emotionally and physically, than heterosexual sex. Good thing, huh?

futurelaker88's avatar

no, sorry if that was unclear. i meant that it is only possible to acquire an STD during either gay sex, or sex with a partner who had had sex with someone else previously; both of which are unbiblical. so i was using it as support for truth in the bible. in other words…what are the chances that the bible says both of these things are sinful, and if it’s not true, they just HAPPEN to be the cause of disease specific to those occurences?

futurelaker88's avatar

occurances*

poofandmook's avatar

@futurelaker88: “it is only possible to acquire an STD during either gay sex…” Um, I know that was your clarification, but I think you really need to clarify that more if you mean anything stating that STDs have any more chance in a gay couple than a straight couple.

If you are inferring there’s a correlation between STDs and gay sex specifically, you’re an idiot.

introv's avatar

@futurelaker88 There are airborne diseases that are just as painful and deadly as anything sexually transmitted. Is that because breathing is unbiblical too? You can bend any truth to fit if you are so inclined.

johnny0313x's avatar

@future, im trying really hard to understand what you mean, but what I keep reading that certain STDs are only obtained by same sex intercourse. This is not true, all STDs can be passed from male to female, or male to male or female to female. Your risks of obtaining an STD is not higher or lower depending on the sex of the person. I can see mutiple partners raising the chances, but even then, all it takes is one person to give an STD and in that case someone who has had sex with 50 people could be clean and another person that has had sex with 1 could have and STD

futurelaker88's avatar

ok how about of i put it like this. a straight couple consisting of two virgins (the right way) cannot acquire an STD

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@futurelaker88 People wrote the Bible. There have been same sex relationships far out-dating the Bible. People would naturally notice how and when these things occur, so trying to say we only figured out where STDs come from because of the Bible doesn’t even make sense. The fact that the Bible talks about STDs isn’t proof of anything. And besides, anyone can get any kind of STD, regardless of same-sex, or male-female sex.

@johnny: I think of same-sex relationships exactly how I look at male-female relationships. There are no differences and people aren’t the only other animals on the planet that have same-sex partners. Anyone who equates same-sex relationships to bestiality or pedophilia are stupid, period.

futurelaker88's avatar

but any other way u do it, u are open to STDs. and @introv that was a childish and immature response. my point was obvious and still makes just as much sense after ur rebuttle. what u asked rather sarcastically was “if other diseases exist does that mean that anything u do to obtain them is unbiblical too” the answer is obviously no. but does this make my point any less truthful? i think not again

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@futurelaker88: First of all, virgins can get STDs. You can obtain STDs in more ways tha actual intercourse. Even if that was true, by your own argument you’re also stating that two same-sex virgins could not get STDs, either.

futurelaker88's avatar

here did i say we only figured it out after the bible was wrtten? there are gay men IN the bible. and my point still stands just as strong. people wrote the bible yes. people wrote Jesus’ (Gods) words, and words inspired by God

johnny0313x's avatar

You can get some STDs from a public toilet(i believe) so should a virgin sit on this seat and get crabs or herpes, then have sex with the choir boy….well enough said. No disrespect either.

futurelaker88's avatar

right. that’s where the body design comes in. and reproduction

futurelaker88's avatar

what if Adam was gay? then no one would exist right now lol. but good or him!

futurelaker88's avatar

u guys are bringing up OTHER ways to get diseases!!! do u not see the irrelevance in this. of course other ways are possible! im saying it’s IMPOSSIBLE to get them through SEX if you have a biblical relationship

poofandmook's avatar

I hate to tell you that two gay men who are virgins wouldn’t get an STD either… by your theory. Bigot.

futurelaker88's avatar

whatever way humaity started, it HAD to be with a straight couple. any other way and our existence would be impossible. does that say nothing to anyone?

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@poofandmook I said the exact same thing about the same-sex virgins, but he didn’t reply to it.

futurelaker88's avatar

@poofandmook. wrong. i did reply by the way. i said. THATS where the body design comes in. AND reproduction. those other two were secondary points to support it

tinyfaery's avatar

If Adam was gay? Hahaha…as if we all come from Adam. Hahaha…lol4rl

Adam wasn’t gay, but all of his descendents are a product of incest. That’s a sin too, right?

futurelaker88's avatar

it want sin then, only after people became distant enough and went back to their own family. either way whethernu believe the bible or not, incest was inevitable

DrasticDreamer's avatar

This discussion isn’t about how people may or may not have gotten here. It’s simply about how you feel about same-sex relationships. Adam and Eve have nothing to do with this discussion.

futurelaker88's avatar

lol i agree. i three it in as a joke and people got mad

cwilbur's avatar

@futurelaker88: You can’t use the Bible as support for your belief and then subsequently claim that you don’t want a religious argument.

How do you explain David and Jonathan? Reread 1 Samuel 18: “And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father’s house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.”

Or the Roman centurion’s slave, in Matthew 8, where it’s clear in Greek that the “honored slave” is a lover? Jesus Himself, who was not afraid to condemn sin wherever He saw it, healed the slave at the request of the centurion, and did not say one word about the relationship. On the contrary, he praised the faith of the centurion: “When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.”

tinyfaery's avatar

So sins change? Maybe we can just willy nilly change the gay sin. I love religion. ~

Bluefreedom's avatar

My personal take on having sex with another male is that I find it unnatural and I would never do it. But I’m not going to tell 2 males or 2 females that they cannot have a relationship because it isn’t my place to judge them and it doesn’t really bother me at all what they do. And I’m not going to go around having bad thoughts about them and hating them. I have 2 first cousins who are gay (1 homosexual and 1 lesbian) and they are the nicest, down to earth people in the world and I love them.

Pertaining to your questions details, do I see 2 people of the same sex, having sex, the same as sleeping with animals or children? Absolutely not. One is specifically Beastiality and the other would be Pedophilia. There’s no way I would attribute those definitions to humans in an intimate relationship (in the context you were referring to).

futurelaker88's avatar

i am aware that there are homosexual relationships in the bible. but that does not mean they are not sinful. “a man shall not lay with another man”

futurelaker88's avatar

it diane change. it didn’t exist until families and distant families came to be. it was not family when there were only 4 people in the world.

tinyfaery's avatar

This is a useless as any other religious discussion. Because a book/god said so is a 5 year old’s argument.

futurelaker88's avatar

@tinyfaery if thats the case, then so is.. “because i said so”

johnny0313x's avatar

future lake i think you are entitled to your opinion, though I don’t agree and from the looks of things, many don’t but we should remember respect for other peoples opinions as I can see this topic is getting a little heated.

futurelaker88's avatar

@johnny0313x thank you, and i do respect it, in my first post, i begged for people not to take it as an attack. this happens anywhere when someone mentions God. but everyone here is getting heated except me. its funny how people refer to christians as “haters” and intolerant, when in reality, its them that are hating and intolerant.

futurelaker88's avatar

@tinyfaery we have to realize this… one of these arguments is right, and one is wrong. either it is a sin, or its not. so what makes anyone elses “opinion” better than the other persons? there is no need to attack personal beliefs right? you THINK that is what i am doing, but LOOK, its you thats doing it!

wundayatta's avatar

I’m just wondering why body design implies a use, and in addition to that, only one use?

I don’t understand why only people who can reproduce can have sex, nor why the only purpose of sex is to reproduce. Why would human design make sex so much fun, if that design wasn’t to facilitate lot’s of good sex?

I also don’t understand the relationship between who gets a disease, and any immorality with those people. Africans get most of those little worms that inhabit the Nile; people in the third world get most of the malaria cases; I just don’t get it.

I also don’t understand why one would throw out all scientific knowledge in order to interpret a document written almost two thousan years ago to be wise advice for the current era. I don’t believe Jesus has access to contemporary science. Which is to say that God didn’t have access to contemporary science. So of course they didn’t get everything they should have, if they were totally omniscient. (Wow, now there’s a premise—what if God decided to give the folks back then access to contemporary technology?)

So, @futurelaker88: is there any way you can enlighten me using what passes for contemporary logic, or does one only have this view of homosexuality if one is a fervant believer of a specific (evangelical) interpretation of the Bible?

futurelaker88's avatar

im not saying theyre the only ones that CAN, im just saying its clear how we were designed…i can force a basketball into a baseball mit too…does that mean it was designed to work like that?

bodyhead's avatar

Give it up. You get no where arguing with a latent homosexual.

Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

If Adam was gay humanity would still exist or do you not think God has that power?

futurelaker88's avatar

lol God didnt have access to contemporary science…ooooooh ok, i dont know what i was thinking then. sorry everyone, i forgot God didnt discover all the stuff WE know now. my appoligies

cwilbur's avatar

@tinyfaery: Under the old covenant of the Old Testament, the Jews were required to live by the laws in the first five books of the Bible (including Leviticus, which Bible-thumpers are so fond of when it refers to same-sex relations and which they conveniently ignore when it refers to haircuts, mixed fibers, and eating ham); because they were complicated and detailed, this was impossible, and when a Jew transgressed against the Law, he was expected to make a sacrifice of atonement at the temple.

(The non-Jews had a much simpler set of laws to live under, that God gave Noah and his family after the flood.)

But this wasn’t good enough, and so God sent Jesus to be a perfect sacrifice, to atone for all sins, past, present, and future. Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient for all sin; all you need now, instead of sacrificing at the temple, is to accept his sacrifice. This idea recurs all through the New Testament, most clearly when Paul says “to the pure, all things are pure” and “all things are permitted me, but not all things are beneficial.”

Now, you don’t need to believe this, but this is common Christian belief, and whenever anybody claiming to be a Christian argues Leviticus at you, you are welcome to bring this up in rebuttal.

@futurelaker88: If you’re going to use “God says” as an argument, you need to make sure you’re clear on what He meant. David is one of the great historical figures, so it’s rather difficult to argue that his relationship with Jonathan is something that God disapproved of. Jesus Himself praised the faith of a centurion who had a male lover, without commenting on the relationship. Paul is crystal clear on the sacrifice of Jesus doing away with all purity codes. If you’re going to answer these points, you need something a lot more solid than the intentional fallacy and lame analogies about basketballs.

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@futurelaker88 It’s only a sin if you believe in the Bible. A lot of people don’t. You can’t use the Bible to argue points in a discussion like this, because it will get you nowhere. I am not being rude right now, it’s simply the honest truth. If you yourself can come up with reasons you think same-sex relationships aren’t right or “normal”, then by all means, do it. People will take you far more seriously.

futurelaker88's avatar

@DrasticDreamer thats false my friend. if i believe the sky is green, does that mean that its only blue to believers? either i am right or i am wrong, and whether i BELIEVE i am wrong or not does not MAKE my belief right

wundayatta's avatar

@futurelaker88: I think you missed my point. Jesus is God, correct? Clearly Jesus didn’t know a thing about computers, ergo, God back then didn’t know about contemporary technology.

I mean, you do believe Jesus is God, don’t you?

futurelaker88's avatar

He knew about the future, how could he speak of them to people who didnt? of course there is no mention about 2000 years ahead in the bible as far as things like computers and fluther

poofandmook's avatar

@Daloon: “I’m just wondering why body design implies a use, and in addition to that, only one use?” I personally believe that the vagina was originally meant to hold our pencils, until one got lost, and someone got lead poisoning, and blew that whole idea to hell…

cwilbur's avatar

@DrasticDreamer: It’s even rather debatable whether it’s a sin if you do believe in the Bible. The two clear-cut condemnations of homosexuality in the Bible are the prohibition in Leviticus, which applies only to Jews, and in Romans, where Paul says that people who were engaged in temple prostitution and ritual sex in a religious context were given over to unnatural desires as God’s punishment, and there are several examples where it is either portrayed positively (as in David and Jonathan) or where it is mentioned without specific comment (as in the Roman centurion).

futurelaker88's avatar

@DrasticDreamer ok, then how about ME saying this and i wont mention the bible or God….

1. look at how we’re designed
2. look at the STD argument stated about
3. look at the fact that human existence would be impossible to sustain if it started with a gay couple or even just a gay man or woman
4. look at the fact that MOST straight men see two guys in any kind of relationship sexually….they fumble around for the remote or to cover their eyes because they cant bare to not only LOOK but even PICTURE what is happening.

those are MY arguments

johnny0313x's avatar

@futurelaker88 the design part I just don’t get things fit fine in the back and the front….so i would assume if nothing should go in the back it would be shaped different. Not to get to graphic here, just the design issue is throwing me off. I think it is wasn’t suppose to happen it wouldn’t be able to happen…and it definitely happens

poofandmook's avatar

@futurelaker:

1. That just happens to fit into this, so that must be how it goes? You’re bad at puzzles, aren’t you?

2. Your STD argument was already proven wrong.

3. It’s not impossible to sustain. People are smart enough to do things they don’t necessarily like to live. Like, working. Or, straight sex.

4. That’s being a bigot and it’s insane to me that a bigoted view would be one of your arguments. Please stay away from the science field while choosing a career.

wundayatta's avatar

Human existence would be impossible if every straight couple were infertile.

It is the most fallacious logic to use comparisons that simply don’t exist. Are you saying that everyone should conform to the average, and there should be no variation? Christ! With your view of the world, we’d be back in the days when you could have any color for your car, so long as it was black.

PupnTaco's avatar

@futurelaker88: Do you also believe eating lobster is an abomination?

“They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination.” (Leviticus 11:11)

Hate the sin, love it on the grill with a citrus-butter infusion.

futurelaker88's avatar

@johnny0313x “if it wasnt supposed to happen, it wouldnt be able to happen”

i dont get this…how does this apply to

1.murder
2. rape
3. beatiality
4. theft
5. lying

as far as i know, those are all possible too. does that make them right then?

cwilbur's avatar

@futurelaker:

1. “Designed” implies a designer, which means you’re falling for the intentional fallacy unless you have some way of documenting the intent.

2. Already shown to be nonsense.

3. Human existence would be impossible if everyone used condoms all the time, or refrained from sex completely. Are you saying, then, that we should never use condoms, or that we should have sex at every opportunity? You’re mistaking “some” for “all.”

4. Your own bigotry and narrowmindedness does not form any sort of rational argument.

cwilbur's avatar

@futurelaker: In your list of sins, you forgot bearing false witness.

futurelaker88's avatar

@PupnTaco ok good thank you!!! THAT is where technology is applied in the bible. they did not have the technology to CLEANLY eat shellfish then…we do now. that was easy…ok next?

PupnTaco's avatar

Bullshit. They couldn’t get a stick and devein a shrimp? Nice try.

OK, so next (since you asked)—tell me which of these you’d like to see enacted into law:

• Death penalty for all gays & lesbians (Romans 1:26–32)
• Death penalty for adultery (Leviticus 20:10)
• Death penalty for psychics (Leviticus 20:27)
• Death penalty for anyone who works on Sunday (Exodus 31:15)
• Death penalty for teenagers who sass back (Leviticus 20:9)
• Encourage military officers to rape young girls and kill older women (Numbers 31:14–18)
• Instant citizenship for all illegal aliens (Leviticus 19:33–34)
• Mandatory sideburns and beards for all men (Leviticus 19:27)
• Eliminate all female teachers (1 Timothy 2:11–12)
• Outlaw all tattoos (Leviticus 19:28)

futurelaker88's avatar

@cwilbur your arguments are weak…its obvious that gay relationships is NOT the way we are MEANT to have sex. yes we CAN, yes not EVERYONE gets an STD, yes not EVERYONE believes in the bible, YES some people where condoms, but still….what about the obvious disgust straight people face when they picture a gay relationship? where does that come from? is it inherited by instinct or is it just chance?

futurelaker88's avatar

none. “for ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” im well aware that i am not perfect and sin just as much as anyone. Christian do not hate sinners, they hate sin.

PupnTaco's avatar

The “obvious disgust” is taught, just like all bigotry.

futurelaker88's avatar

i wasnt taught to be disgusted by it…thats just me though.

PupnTaco's avatar

So God’s word is imperfect then?

futurelaker88's avatar

@dave i dont get it? where did you get this?

PupnTaco's avatar

You denied all these God-given mandates with an “all have sinned” quip.

futurelaker88's avatar

i still dont understand what you meant though. where did you say something about the bible that i said was wrong?

PupnTaco's avatar

I’m saying if God’s word is gold, then certainly you must agree with everything in the Bible as the infallible word of God, right?

Then why not enact those mandates as law?

futurelaker88's avatar

because thats like reading about hitlers law in a book and saying, why not follow that now? they were right for the nazis then so why not keep them going now?

those laws were for a specific people at a specific time in a specific place. gay relationships is universal

futurelaker88's avatar

maybe hitler was a bad choice, but replace hitler with any law that we dont follow today…amish laws perhaps

cwilbur's avatar

@PupnTaco: God’s word is not imperfect, but it has been filtered through human understanding and so you need to continue to read it in the light of human understanding. If you try to read it as objective truth, it falls apart by the second chapter of Genesis.

@futurelaker88: it’s not that you disagreed with anyone else about the Bible; it’s that you made a “God says so” argument without citing any evidence and without taking the counterarguments into account, and then when faced with a similar list of “God says so” prohibitions, you dismissed them all with “we understand things better than that now” (for shellfish) or “everyone’s a sinner” (for the rest of the list).

If “we understand things better than that now” is sufficient justification to ignore the law against eating shellfish, why isn’t it sufficient justification to ignore the prohibition against same-sex relations? We know now that orientation is inherent and is not a choice—we understand things better, so that should be just as viable an argument as the one that allows you to eat shellfish.

If “everyone’s a sinner” is sufficient justification to ignore the law against trimming the corners of your beard or wearing mixed fibers, why isn’t it sufficient justification to ignore the law against same-sex relations?

And you claim that you can discern that some of the laws were meant for a specific time and place—would you care to enlighten us as to how you determine what God meant?

futurelaker88's avatar

because same sex marriage is the same now as it was 2000 years ago…food technology isnt

futurelaker88's avatar

and because everyone is a sinner does not mean we ignore sin! it means we cry out for forgiveness and try to live the right way, we slip up because we are imperfect as of human nature, but that does not give us the right to intentionally sin as we please!

futurelaker88's avatar

because the books that the laws are in are written as letters to a specific group of people. Jesus, (or whoever is speaking) always addresses His audience and we can (through common sense) determine if he was talking to humanity as a whole, or a specific people

PupnTaco's avatar

@futurelaker88: then you’re cherry-picking what works for you out of the Bible and what you feel like dismissing?

Pretty much invalidates the “because the Bible tells me so” argument.

Slow down and think about it for a minute.

futurelaker88's avatar

and about the same sex marriage being the same, im referring to the results and the act..in which food is now completely different when we apply todays technology. its not eating out of diseased waters, or infected wildlife, or unsanitary transportation.

cwilbur's avatar

Aha! So Leviticus was a law for a certain people in a certain time and place! Which means that you can’t pick and choose what laws God meant to be universal.

And I’ve already given you an example of a situation where Jesus praised the faith of a man in a same-sex relationship. I defy you to find a place where Jesus clearly condemns a same-sex relationship.

(Hint: your “common sense” is less common sense than it is specific bigotry.)

futurelaker88's avatar

thats not what im doing at all. im reading it to the point where i understand it. how is that taking things out? if we understand that Jesus was not talking to us, therefore the laws do not apply to us, how is that cherry picking. amish law says no electricity…if i by chance pick up an amish book and read it, does that mean i should throw out all my electronics?

futurelaker88's avatar

where does it say they are in a same-sex relationhip? thats debateable by even atheists yet you state it as fact. he says he loved him…that doesnt imply sex to me

PupnTaco's avatar

never mind, I’ll go beat my head against the wall on my own

futurelaker88's avatar

and the bible clearly says this!

Lev 20:13 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.

futurelaker88's avatar

so you have defied me and i have a answered.

futurelaker88's avatar

thats pretty plain to me

cwilbur's avatar

@futurelaker88: precisely! Leviticus is talking to the Jews. Not to us. Romans is talking to a bunch of Romans who were concerned about temple prostitution. Not to us.

The Greek term used by the centurion for his slave when he mentions him to Jesus is ‘pais’—which can mean son, or it can mean younger sexual partner. Since in his account of the meeting Luke refers to the slave as an honored slave, it’s pretty clear that he’s not a son.

And I said that I defied you to find a place where Jesus condemned same-sex relations. That means you’re pretty much limited to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts, unless you can find a place where Paul quotes him. Leviticus is a set of purity codes for ancient Jews, which was replaced by the Noahide laws for the Gentiles after the Flood and done away with entirely by Jesus’s sacrifice.

It’s becoming clearer and clearer that you’re arguing less out of any sort of Biblical conviction (or even more than a superficial awareness of what the Bible says) and more out of your own bigotry, cherrypicking the passages you want to claim are messages to a specific people (because you don’t want to adhere to them) and those you want to claim are universal (because you want to bash other people).

rooeytoo's avatar

Who cares what anyone does in their bedroom as long as it is consensual. I really think people should mind their own business. Sex is a pretty strange and funny act no matter who is engaging.

futurelaker88's avatar

lol so youre going to be picky whether it was Jesus or not!?!? its the bible…and its in it, isnt that what matters? and the LAW that does not apply to us is that they shall be put to death. THAT is what doesnt apply, the act is still a sin, but we do not put people do death for it! come on man these things are easy! you are stalling

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@futurelaker88

1. “look at how we’re designed”: We’re designed for a penis to fit into a vagina. That doesn’t mean that a penis can’t fit elsewhere. How do you know that we weren’t also designed for a penis to fit into an anus? Guys do, after all, receive immense pleasure when the prostate is stimulated, and guess what? Easiest access to the prostate is through the anus. Flawed argument. Does that mean you believe it’s wrong for a man to have anal sex with a woman? Because by your argument it would be wrong because it’s “not how we’re designed”.

2. “look at the STD argument stated about”: Talked about above.

3. “look at the fact that human existence would be impossible to sustain if it started with a gay couple or even just a gay man or woman”: True, it wouldn’t have been possible in the beginning, probably. Many species that have only one sex are capable of impregnating each other when they need to. What comes to mind, specifically, is a certain kind of lizard where only females exist. Besides, if god is supposedly all-knowing, he would have seen ahead of time that same-sex partnerships were going to take place and he would have planned for it. Which, maybe, is why there’s such a thing as adoption and in vitro fertilization, which enables sex-same partners to actually have children.

4. “look at the fact that MOST straight men see two guys in any kind of relationship sexually….they fumble around for the remote or to cover their eyes because they cant bare to not only LOOK but even PICTURE what is happening.”: That’s called social brainwashing and immaturity. Or, simply, it’s that a straight guy gets kind of grossed out when he imagines a man having sex with another man, and hey… That’s okay, because it’s not for him. But being a little grossed out does not also have to mean the straight guy thinks it’s wrong – BIG difference. All in all, it boils down to maturity. I’m a straight chick, but I don’t cringe away from two women kissing or having sex. It is what it is.

Your arguments don’t make sense.

cwilbur's avatar

@futurelaker88: yes, I’m going to be picky, because Christ came to do away with purity codes. The Old Testament is prophecy and history, not rules for living; the laws in Leviticus apply to Jews and not to Gentiles, because they are God’s covenant with the Jews, and he had no such covenant with the Gentiles. (This is, incidentally, the same justification you use for eating shellfish, trimming the corners of your beard, wearing mixed fibers, and not shunning menstruating women.)

And no, these things are not easy. They just appear easy to you because they line up with your particular bigotries.

Siren's avatar

Good heavens! pun intended

I think there are three ways to answer this question:

(1) Keep your mouth shut and don’t answer this question (keep your opinion to yourself)
(2) Open your mouth, give your opinion, and get shot (if majority rules against you)
(3) Open your mouth, give your opinion, and be applauded (if majority rules with you).

I’m afraid I am in the minority here. I also believe it is against nature and God’s WILL to be homosexual, and I am only using the Bible, Torah and Quran as defence for my position. That is my own personal belief and right to do so. I understand many people here are very upset with the answers on this thread since it hits so close to home. But I think having a broad range of opinions and beliefs on this site is what makes fluther a great forum.

cwilbur's avatar

@Siren: it’s fine that it’s your personal belief that it’s against God’s will, but I’d be interested to know how you justify that based on Scripture, especially in the light of the arguments I’ve presented above.

futurelaker88's avatar

they appear easy to me when the creator of the world put all the answers in ONE book that, if studied, can answer all of these questions. and if you dont believe the bible is the word of God, then none of your arguments above citing it mean anything, because after all (to you) its nonsense written by men. you cant choose to use it when you THINK it supports you, and when it doesnt claim that its just a book written by men.

Siren's avatar

@cwilbur: Prophet Lot. There’s a big section on him in all three books. Look it up in wikipedia.

That’s the origin of the word, and where sodomy came from, in case anyone hasn’t cracked open their Bible recently.

cwilbur's avatar

@futurelaker88: I don’t think it’s nonsense written by men.

And I find it incredibly ironic that you’re preaching at me about using the Bible when I think it supports me, when you’re incredibly inconsistent in what you think is written to specific people at specific times versus what you think is universal. As near as I can tell, that’s precisely what you’re doing.

@Siren: the sin of the men of Sodom was not sodomy but inhospitality to strangers. Cracking open the Bible isn’t what matters; reading it carefully and with a desire to understand it is.

DrasticDreamer's avatar

Removed by me.

poofandmook's avatar

@futurelaker: Honestly, you strike me as the type to believe anything put in front of you, as long as it’s convenient. I highly suggest reading all about Alex Jones. Also, have you actually studied the Bible past Sunday School? cwilbur seems to have a much better understanding, and yet you refuse to address the facts he’s laid in front of you about your own precious Book.

Siren's avatar

@cwilbur: Nice try. Look up sodomy please. It has biblical origins. The towns of Sodom and Gomorrhea were decimated because they practised, among other vices, homosexuality.

I’m sorry folks. I am just quoting scripture here.

futurelaker88's avatar

@cwilbur so then are you saying that the bible supports gay relationships? and then in consequence, that ALL christian churches have misinterpreted this obvious fact for centuries? wow…you ARE a genius! if i may ask, how did you acquire this immense truth that no one else seems to be able to question?

futurelaker88's avatar

@poofandmook well i struck you wrong…sex with one partner and no sex before marriage is not convenient for me…but i believe in it and obey it

futurelaker88's avatar

and yes btw…my dad is a pastor

futurelaker88's avatar

i grew up with all of these questions daily

Siren's avatar

I“m running down the street, away from this hoard who are going to burn me!!!!!!! help me

Mob follows in pursuit.

cwilbur's avatar

@Siren: no, you’re sharing your interpretation of Scripture, which is an entirely different matter. The connection of Sodom and sodomy didn’t happen until many years after the story was written, and has to do with a misunderstanding of a Hebrew verb that can mean “to know” and that can also mean “to have heterosexual sex with.” There’s a different Hebrew term for homosexual sex. The “abomination” that Ezekiel refers to is a mistranslation of idolatry.

@futurelaker88: I am saying that the Bible portrays several gay and lesbian relationships positively, and that there are no prohibitions on same-sex relationships.

Siren's avatar

Siren is cornered. She looks to her left and right. No means of escape.

cwilbur's avatar

@Siren: I don’t want to burn you, I want to show you your misunderstanding of Scripture.

Burning you at the stake would probably bring you face to face with the Author, who could clarify your misunderstanding Himself face to face, but I think that might be a little bit premature.

futurelaker88's avatar

but there are! i quoted it before! why do you dismiss this? it refers to same sex marriage as an ABOMINATION even!

Siren's avatar

She runs off again, this time into a 7-eleven. She grabs a Starbucks frapuccino, drinks it for a quick energy booster…

cwilbur's avatar

@futurelaker88: I dismiss it as easily as you dismiss the prohibitions on eating shellfish and pork, on wearing mixed fibers, and on shunning menstruating women.

Leviticus was written as the Law for the Jews. It was relevant to the Jews, because adhering to the Law was their covenant with God. It is not relevant to the Gentiles, because the Gentiles did not have that covenant with God. Further, when Jesus came to be sacrificed, he did away with purity codes like the one in Leviticus. The path to salvation is not found in adherence to purity codes, but only in God’s grace, which is freely given to anyone who accepts it.

That’s how I dismiss the prohibition in Leviticus.

futurelaker88's avatar

but its clear that the OTHER laws are things that changed! and this one is not. this act is the same now as it always was

Siren's avatar

She runs off again, out the door. The mob can be seen in the distance. They spot her.

Siren runs into a local movie theater. She sits down for a few minutes. The movie is not going well. She takes her chances with the mob outside. stay tuned, or probably not

PupnTaco's avatar

I still eat my shellfish one bite at a time, just like the Jews.

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@futurelaker88 Humans changed the laws, God did not. If it says gay people should be killed in the Bible, by your own belief system, that means they should STILL be killed, unless God said otherwise. Even if he did say otherwise, all it points out is how hypocritical the Bible is.

@Siren: People can argue without wanting to kill people. Are you saying that non-believers don’t have as much of a right to argue their side as believers do?

futurelaker88's avatar

@cwilbur is this any clearer then? NEW TESTAMENT

Paul is very specific, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”

how about this one?
1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul wrote, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.” The Greek word from which the King James Bible gets the word “effeminate” is malakos, which literally means something soft to the touch, but is used as a negative metaphor to refer to a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man. The “abusers of themselves with mankind” are those men who engage in unnatural sexual relations with other men – homosexuals.

cwilbur's avatar

@futurelaker88: You have two reasons to dismiss the law in Leviticus.

1. It was written for a specific people at a specific time. You can’t effectively argue with this one unless you want to adhere to all of Leviticus; the minute you start picking and choosing which laws you want to adhere to, you need a much clearer rationale than “it’s obvious” or “it’s clear.”

2. Jesus came to do away with purity codes. This is reinforced multiple times in Paul’s epistles: “to the pure all things are pure,” “all things are permitted me, but not all things are beneficial.” By insisting on strict purity codes, you are saying, in effect, that God’s grace is not sufficient for salvation, which is a pretty odd thing for someone claiming to be a Christian to claim to believe.

futurelaker88's avatar

read my last post just in case you missed it

futurelaker88's avatar

Matthew 19:4–5 just another NT verse…

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh

bodyhead's avatar

So if Jesus wanted to give you a blowjob, would you let him? I probably would just to shut you up.

cwilbur's avatar

@futurelaker88: in both of those passages, the word is “malakoi,” which is variously translated as “effeminate,” “male prostitutes,” or “the self-indulgent.”

Your translators are projecting into the Word of God their own particular biases.

Further, the passage in Romans says that God was punishing people for knowing God but not glorifying and praising Him, instead practicing idolatry.

futurelaker88's avatar

and another Romans 1:32

and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things (homosexuality) are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

cwilbur's avatar

@futurelaker88: the ”(homosexuality)” inserted by your translator is not supported by the original text: it refers to the list of sins in 1:28–32.

futurelaker88's avatar

are you trying to tell me that out of ALL those verses you STILL cannot see how plain it is? youre going to try and fight through all these instances in the bible where it clearly says that its wrong? if so, then i dont see what the point of this debate is anymore….its plain!

Bri_L's avatar

Lurve to siren for Humor

Lurve to everyone else for the even headed discussion so far.

It seems to come down to how religious are you and how you interpret your religion.

@ Futurelaker88 – the thing is, I think you come from a place that tries to and wants to see truth and interpret the bible in the way you are. You can see it in your phrasing. “It is so plain.”

But your debating it with someone who may not hold the meaning behind the words to the same value and, thus, allow them a different interpretation.

futurelaker88's avatar

1:27 – and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

this is the verse that precedes it!!!

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@futurelaker88: I won’t try to fight through what the Bible states. It’s perfectly clear that all gay people are not worthy of life and that clearly, they should be killed. It’s perfectly clear that that the Bible is hypocritical and your god, in my opinion, is a jackass. Does that make it true? No… It’s just my opinion, after all.

Siren's avatar

Thanks Bri_L, and I agree with your comment. It’s such a touchy subject, and bound to get touchier. Everyone has a firm grasp of their own beliefs. That’s nice to see at least.

cwilbur's avatar

@futurelaker88: No, I’m telling you that out of ALL those verses, you are relying on translations that editorialize what is found in the Greek and Hebrew.

Paul does not condemn homosexuals; he condems ‘malakoi,’ which the translator of your Bible has chosen to render ‘homosexuals,’ probably because of his own bias and because he thinks the meaning is as clear as you do.

Read the whole chapter of Romans, not one verse at a time. The outline is, there were people who knew God but did not praise and glorify Him, but instead worshipped idols. So God punished them with all sorts of things, including abandoning their women and desiring each other, and committing a whole host of other sins. Lusting for other men in that context is how God chose to punish them; the actual sin was idolatry.

futurelaker88's avatar

lol, so when u run out of ways to deny what it says…...then you call God a jackass?...does He only exist when you like Him? hopefully dont like him when you die, cuz that would kinda suck

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@futurelaker88 I don’t like the IDEA of him. I don’t believe in him, so I think I’m okay.

I never denied anything the Bible says, either. All I pointed out is that WHAT it says is contradicting and hateful.

cwilbur's avatar

The only evidence we have that God might be a jackass is that He made His followers in His own image, and so many of them are jackasses.

PupnTaco's avatar

Bingo Long.

futurelaker88's avatar

ok then ill just end with this. belief does not CREATE truth. now this is true on my end to i know, but just want to make sure you understand it as well.

DrasticDreamer's avatar

I do understand that. I’m agnostic and I don’t believe it’s possible to know the truth, in regards to how life started. Through science or faith, no one will ever have the answer.

That’s where personal morals come into play. I happen to disagree with the Bible, because I know that even if god does exist, I wouldn’t like him.

Bri_L's avatar

You know what is true, that at their most basic core and essence every major religion teaches to be good and love one another. Across the board.

That and to worship nacho cheese, but I seem to be the only one who gets that.

futurelaker88's avatar

but that reason is good enough for you…“it cant be true, because if it were…i wouldnt like it”

how can someone as smart as you be satisfied with such elementary reasoning?

DrasticDreamer's avatar

Every major religion does not teach love and tolerance. It’s the exact opposite.

cwilbur's avatar

@futurelaker88: I have every confidence that when you and I meet God face to face, he will forgive at least one of us our sincere misunderstanding of what He meant.

futurelaker88's avatar

yes it does (christianity does)...thats where u make your mistake

poofandmook's avatar

@future: Knowing your own likes and dislikes isn’t elementary. If DD doesn’t like what’s in the Bible, then it stands to reason that DD wouldn’t like God either. My gosh but aren’t you close-minded?

Bri_L's avatar

@DrasticDreamer I said at its core and essence, not as it has been basterdized by man and time and interpretation

Siren's avatar

I prefer cheddar. No offence to non-purists.

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@futurelaker88 Oh, no. I didn’t say it can’t be true. It’s very possible that god exists, just as it’s entirely possible that he doesn’t.

That said, I do not like who he is or what he stands for, whether or not he exists.

cwilbur's avatar

@DrasticDreamer: Christianity does teach love and tolerance, but many Christians aren’t terribly good at following the instructions, and many Christians think other aspects are far more important.

futurelaker88's avatar

but hes claiming his likes to be his reason that God doesnt exist…thats the issue

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@Bri_L At it’s core, that’s where it’s the most hateful. Only New Testament preaches love and understanding. The bastardized version, technically, would be the NEW testament.

futurelaker88's avatar

oh ok, that makes more sense..you shouldve said that at the beginning. thats something i can respect

johnny0313x's avatar

@futurelaker88 Isn’t masturbation a sin, if that is the case, is it safe to assume that you have never masturbated? I am not religious so maybe im wrong, but if you have then what makes that sin less of a sin then gay sex?

futurelaker88's avatar

if you wouldve just said…“its possible youre right, but its possible youre wrong too, i just would hate it if you were right” then it wouldve saved two hours lol

Siren's avatar

LOL! If mastubation was a sin, there would be no need for heaven my dear

futurelaker88's avatar

masturbation is not mentioned in the bible at all

futurelaker88's avatar

and if it was and i have, i would admit that it was a sin. im not too proud to admit that i have done something wrong. if it is a sin, then i am guilty

johnny0313x's avatar

I thought something about self gratification was mentioned or something of that nature

DrasticDreamer's avatar

A penis isn’t meant for a hand, according to the Bible, so I don’t see how it wouldn’t be considered a sin.

futurelaker88's avatar

well self gratification can mean a lot of things. and like i said, if it ends up that masturbation is a sin, then i am guilty. i can only ask to be forgiven and say that this was not clear to me

Siren's avatar

There are too many people crafting a response! You are all clogging up the fluther pool!

DrasticDreamer's avatar

All sexual acts, aside from intercourse, would be a sin. Oral, hands, you name it. All sinful.

johnny0313x's avatar

because wouldnt that go with your argument about human body design, the penis isnt designed for a hand nor is the hand designed for a penis…but it works…

asmonet's avatar

I’ve never done anything more than make out and feel up girls. Boys are my thing. Homosexual relationships of any kind don’t bother me in the slightest. It’s just not a big deal. That being said, I’m straight.

futurelaker88's avatar

but it is not intercourse. its an orgasm

cwilbur's avatar

Actually, masturbation is mentioned in the Bible. Genesis 38:8–9, Onan spills his seed on the ground instead of impregnating his brother’s wife, and God kills him for it.

This leads to the word “onanism” for masturbation, and is just as tenuous a Biblical argument against masturbation as Sodom does for “sodomy.”

Siren's avatar

@asmonet: I think I need the aid of Hannibal Lector to decipher your last comment.

Bri_L's avatar

@ drasticDreamer – that is not true, they all teach tolorance, love of one another, or did when they were formed. I wrote in present tense. The “time” was a poor choice of words. I was trying to reflect on recent legislative debate.

It is only when they are filtered through zelots or idealists or people who are out to make them evil at all costs that they become otherwise.

johnny0313x's avatar

oh my..look what i started….::runs and buys fluther another server:: lol

DrasticDreamer's avatar

cwilbur is right. A man spilling or wasting his seed on anything other than impregnating a woman is considered a sin.

futurelaker88's avatar

he couldve pulled out lol or had a wet dream. now see here is where i justify orgasm out of sex as not always sinful. a wet dream is the same thing (spilling seed on the ground) yet it is unavoidable

Bri_L's avatar

@DrasticDreamer – Hey, you’ve seen that monty python sketch to eh?

DrasticDreamer's avatar

A wet dream is not intentional. Masturbation is. Oral is. Handjobs are. All sinful, technically.

futurelaker88's avatar

so intentional waste of seed is a sin, but unintentionally is not?

Siren's avatar

Johnny, you may also need to pay reparations for imploding fluther he he

futurelaker88's avatar

does that apply for murder too?

futurelaker88's avatar

see childish responses are fun right? lol

DrasticDreamer's avatar

It’s not childish, it’s true. This is not something I’m pulling out of my ass. Unless you are actually having sex, according to the Bible, any other kind of sexual act, be it masturbation, oral or whatnot is a sin.

futurelaker88's avatar

and still, like i said before…if i am wrong and it is a sin…then i am admitting im guilty of it. i was not (and still am not convinced) that masturbation is a sin

futurelaker88's avatar

and i was referring to my response as childish not yours

Siren's avatar

@DrasticDreamer: did you just change your avator? If so, you look lovely my dear

DrasticDreamer's avatar

I did. futurelaker88 thought I was a guy. I was going to say something to correct him, but I thought it would be kind of funny to throw into this discussion, so I figured changing my picture would be clarification enough. Haha! :D

Siren's avatar

@DrasticDreamer: I can’t digress my friend, simply because…

I don’t understand what the noodle you wrote. I’m trying to think of the most lucid, ingenious and criminal mind (fictional or real) who could potentially assist me.

futurelaker88's avatar

lol. i did, how come u didnt say it earlier? sorry about that!

Siren's avatar

Ooops….that comment above was for Asmonet..not DrasticDreamer! Sorry for the confusion

Siren's avatar

@DrasticDreamer: Could it be also, that by your alluring photo, you are trying to disarm our righteous and God-fearing futurelaker88 friend??? Hmmm??? I won’t have it!

Take that, you charletan!!

futurelaker88's avatar

also i think its fair to say that my “lurve” was at 281 before this…so SOMEONE is giving my “great answer” clicks and not chiming in and helping me out lol thanks though, whoever you are

futurelaker88's avatar

@Siren hmmm..is that an insult?

Siren's avatar

@futurelaker: That’s me, bro! Good grief, who else is commenting besides you?

DrasticDreamer's avatar

No big deal. It doesn’t actually matter whether or not people think I’m male or female, so I tend to let people think whatever they want.

@Siren: No way. I can post a funny picture with my eyes crossed, if that will help my case at all. :P

asmonet's avatar

@Siren: Right…but what part did you not understand?

Siren's avatar

@asmonet: ALL OF IT even the period, I’m afraid

Siren's avatar

@futurelaker: I was not insulting you, nor your willpower. Merely the possibility that DrasticDreamer may be a drasticschemer.

@DrasticDreamer: I think you should have chosen a less-flattering photo of you, because you have that idealistic expression and sweet temperament look on your face, and now no one wants to argue with you, me included.

tinyfaery's avatar

I’m disgusted by heterosexuals. Must be innately something wrong with being a Herero.~

futurelaker88's avatar

@Siren lol ooooh, ok.

asmonet's avatar

Well, I’ve made out with girls, and felt them up. I’m heterosexual if you need a name for it, but I think all sexualities are always ambiguous to some degree. I’m not, and have never been attracted to women, I think they’re beautiful and can be appreciated. But I have no interest in a relationship or ongoing sexual relationship of that sort. I’m sexually attracted to men, but it’s fun to kiss, no big deal. So I kiss girls sometimes. :)

90s_kid's avatar

I don’t mind. I am heterosexual, and have a friend who is gay and well, people tease him. People who do have no life. They’re just homophobes. Accept people the way they are.

DrasticDreamer's avatar

Argue away. If you’re affected by how I look in that picture, that is not my fault, nor was it my intention. I do not use my looks to get by in life and I’m perfectly capable of arguing my points without trying to make people think I’m pretty. I’m confident and I know that I’m smart, I don’t have any hidden agendas. If I thought someone I was arguing with was stupid enough to be affected by how I look in the first place, I wouldn’t bother debating with them at all.

poofandmook's avatar

Kudos, DD. Ku-dos.

Siren's avatar

@asmonet: I got it. Thanks. Women are attractive. That’s why we compliment each other, even perfect strangers. Guys are attractive too, but I think it’s awkward for them to be so forthcoming with each other about looks. Some men may not even want a compliment from the opposite sex either, right?

asmonet's avatar

@Siren: Right. :)

Siren's avatar

@DrasticDreamer: Okay, okay, no need to ruin your hairdo in an angry fit! Just keep that beautiful mouth smiling, you here? just kidding, don’t take offence please! he he

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@Siren None taken. Maybe that’s why I always look angry, though. That way people will want to argue with me and take me seriously. :P

johnny0313x's avatar

so is this like one of the longest ongoing fluther topics? I know the story one is longer i believe

Siren's avatar

@DrasticDreamer: You don’t need to look angry to be taken seriously! If people judge you by how you look, just smile and make a witty comment that will have their head spinning.

Sometimes being under-estimated works to our great advantage.

90s_kid's avatar

@johnny0313x
not quite….
maybe this one. But I coulda sworn there was another one that is better that astrochuck asked about song names but I can’t find it…

johnny0313x's avatar

whoooa over 1000 responses..thats crazy haha i think fluther needs to make a hall of fame for things like that lol

dynamicduo's avatar

Wow, what a thread. Sure glad I wasn’t involved in it. Great comments DrasticDreamer :)

Here’s the bottom line. Every human has the right to pursue their own happiness and desires, so long as it doesn’t negatively affect any non consenting party. Two girls or two guys making love in their house sure as hell doesn’t negatively affect me in my house, just as much as two heterosexual people making love doesn’t negatively affect a homosexual couple. So what right do I have, or anyone else has, to tell them that what they’re doing is wrong, and that they have no right to do it? No one has that right. No one does. If you think you have the right to make such judgments, you are foolish and short sighted.

laureth's avatar

This is the biggest troll question ever.

That said, I’d have to say that I think homosexual sex is just fine. It doesn’t interest me as much as het-sex, but my gay friends tell me it feels really good, and I can’t really second guess them.

It’s interesting to me that the people who say we are possessed of souls (and therefore higher than animals) seem to think that sex is just for breeding purposes. It seems like such a contradiction. If we are different from animals, it would seem that our capacity for bonding and sexual enjoyment would be different, too.

Bri_L's avatar

@laureth – I don’t understand what a “troll question” is.

laureth's avatar

It’s a question that trolls for fighting and arguments like someone in a boat trolls for fish. In other words, throw in the bait and watch them all go for it.

Bri_L's avatar

AH, it seems obvious now that you point it out. I think I have been editing photos to long.
g’night all.

cookieman's avatar

Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate

onesecondregrets's avatar

I think love is love. Relationships are relationships. Chemistry is chemistry. If it happens, it happens. Whether the person you have any of this with posesses the same genitalia as you, so be it; you work WITH this. It’s all a matter of open-mindedness. I consider myself straight. Dudes are generally appealling to me BUT I have found myself attracted to lesbians just because their personalities are that intriguing, and if they were to hit on me I wouldn’t be all embracing but I wouldn’t write it off. If that makes any sense whatsoever. I probably sound like a nutjob, haha.

augustlan's avatar

Great work all, especially cwilbur! Glad I missed the messiest parts. As to the question: Anything two consenting adults want to do together is A-OK with me.

Jack79's avatar

well for starters it’s such an important subject that it got 222 responses so far!

Secondly I am of the opinion that you can do whatever you want as long as it’s at least an inch away from my arse. If two (or more) mature adults want to do something with their bodies, it’s nobody’s business. The only problem I’d have is when at least one of those involved is either unwilling (ie rape) or unable to express choice (eg a child or someone who is mentally ill).

I would of course prefer if all of the above actions are not performed in public, at least not in front of my eyes, but that’s just me being squeamish.

stevenb's avatar

Whatever floats your boat. You don’t have to tell me or the world though. If you are happy with it, cool. I have never seen a heterosexual pride parade and don’t think we need one. I don’t see why we need parades for people’s private lifestyles.

cwilbur's avatar

@stevenb: if you could be fired for admitting you’re straight, or you could get flak (up to and including a beating in the parking lot from your coworkers) for having a picture of your spouse at work, you might see a purpose behind heterosexual pride.

stevenb's avatar

I don’t think that the people who would beat you in a parking lot will change their views because of a parade. I also don’t think I would want to work for a place that cared about it. I have had some very close friends who were gay, and while I feel terrible for their suffering at the hands of the closeminded and ignorant, I still don’t think those types of people will ever be affected by a parade. What seems to bother a lot of people is not that people are homosexual, but that some small number of them have to tell everyone they meet, and show it off like it is a badge of office. I don’t care if someone is homosexual, just don’t shove it in my face all of the time. That would bother anybody.

TitsMcGhee's avatar

Firstly: asmonet, uberbatman, buster, tennesseejac, Nimis, and I had a discussion longer than that here . And this is the song title game of AstroChuck’s.

Secondly: I know plenty of lesbians and gays who are repulsed by the idea of heterosexual sex, but that doesn’t make it inherently bad either.

Thirdly: In my opinion, sexuality is on a sliding scale. I don’t care who is having sex with whom, as long as it is a decision between two consenting adults (although if two sixteen or seventeen year olds want to have sex with one another, I don’t think the government should have the right to stop them either, but that’s a whole separate barrel of monkeys). People are turned on by different things – men, women, bondage, feet, french maids, voyeurism, what have you – for their own reasons, and I don’t think that society, religion, or any other entity who claims to have authority over this has any basis to tell people that they are right or wrong. Religious figures have their own skeletons in their closets. @futurelaker88: I remember a particular thread in which you talked about your own sexual preference that may be different from someone else’s, so who are you to criticize a particular preference?

To address the argument of physical parts dictating sexuality, as well as the arguments about advancing technologies changing the mandates as written (ie shellfish, etc): If certain things can change in acceptability because of new ‘technologies,’ why can’t other things? Society is obviously different from when the Bible was put down on paper. It should also be noted that the Bible, throughout the middle ages, was changing and being added to, not to mention the number of translations and interpretations the text has gone through. In that way, you aren’t necessarily putting your faith in the word of God, but in what the translators and interpreters say the word of God is. Societal standards have changed – look at the way the seven deadly sins used to be regarded and punished – and now, it’s an entirely different society. Maybe the church could use a little updating to societal standards.

On the subject of STDs: People are susceptible to STDs regardless of their sexual orientation, and yes, can be infected with or without genital-to-genital contact. Even the good Christians who haven’t engaged in intercourse could have oral herpes from non-sexual contact and pass it on to their virgin husband during their first contact, who could contract it with either mouth-to-mouth contact or oral-genital contact. Anyone, regardless of their orientation, should be tested regularly, and should take lengths to protect themselves, regardless of whether their partner claims to be a virgin or not. You may trust them, but you can never be too sure.

On the Adam and Eve topic: Incest is not “inevitable” if you don’t believe in creationism. Assuming that humans were not just two people set on Earth, but instead the product of thousands of years of adaptation to environments, evolution, and survival of the fittest, we all aren’t necessarily the product of a very strange set of relationships between an ‘original family.’

Regarding people considering Christians as intolerant: I don’t regard all Christians as intolerant ‘haters,’ and I don’t think most tolerant people call Christians haters either, seeing as that is inherently hypocritical. I think many Christians are given a bad rep mainly because of their counterparts, and because, even though they may not hate the people they are criticizing, they aren’t being accepting either, in the live and let live fashion. People who don’t have the same beliefs as them aren’t going to appreciate being told that they are wrong, within a belief system that they don’t even have, nor do people who are within that belief system appreciate being told that they, regardless of everything else they’ve done, are wrong because of who they want to love. Christians are seen as intolerant because they are telling someone they are wrong; the people who are tolerant of homosexuality itself and are fighting with the Christians are generally considered less hypocritical because they are defending themselves or just the gay community from attack, rather than doing the attacking.

Pertaining to the “if it wasn’t supposed to happen, it wouldn’t be able to”: I agree that the argument is flawed, but @futurelaker88, the fact that rape, murder, and lying are possible isn’t a counterargument either. There are multiple orifices on the human body, each of which has multiple uses. People figure these things out, possibility doesn’t make anything right or wrong.

I’d also like to point out, @futurelaker88, that the discussion was surrounding the act of sex between two people of the same gender, not marriage, which is a religiously founded institution. I would also like to point out that all Christian churches don’t condemn homosexuals or their relationships – there are gays ordained in churches, like the American Baptist Church, and there are Christians performing homosexual unions where they have been legalized.

@stevenb: The gay community comes together for pride events and parades because they have been oppressed. Just like the African-American community comes together, or the Asian-American community comes together, there is strength in numbers and comfort in being surrounded by people who are supportive and people who understand. I agree with @cwilbur. If you were in the minority, you would probably see things a little differently. I think it’s a good thing that you don’t care what people do behind closed doors, though. Homophobes won’t necessarily change their views because of a pride parade, but it gives the participants confidence and PRIDE in who they are, and who doesn’t need that? I think it’s playing into stereotypes to assume that all homosexuals are trying to shove it in everyone’s faces. I’m sure there are a multitude of gays and lesbians out there who are still absolutely TERRIFIED that you, or anyone else, will find out. And you may not to work for a place like that, and I’m sure they wouldn’t either, but sometimes, you have to do what work you can find, and people have careers and success to consider. It’s not always that simple.

One last thing, @futurelaker88: I respect that you have an opinion, I respect that you have beliefs and strong faith, but I think if you want to have your opinion valued and your arguments paid attention to, you should cut the sarcasm and the “lol“s and compose your answers in a dignified manner, with correct spelling and punctuation. I have trouble carefully considering the content of your posts when you’re addressing people as “u.”

dynamicduo's avatar

* applauds *

cwilbur's avatar

Pride parades aren’t just about convincing the homophobes.

They’re about celebrating something that many people are told is shameful and disgraceful—about being proud of who you are in a world where lots of people would tell you to hide it in your bedroom. When a gay person mentioning “my partner” is as unremarkable as a bridal shower or a wedding party, when a partner’s picture on a desk is as unremarkable as a wedding ring, then they won’t be necessary.

They’re about making sure that the non-homophobic but not especially supportive majority can see that there are a lot of gay people out there, and while some of us are wearing leather G-strings and studded collars, some of us are wearing buttondown shirts and chinos and raising children, and we’re all proud of our diversity, whether it lines up with what the non-homophobic but not especially supportive majority approves of or not.

They’re about making sure that the gay kids out there who are closeted and scared can see that it’s possible to be proud of and happy about who they are, especially in an environment where straight sexuality is flaunted and celebrated on every side.

I mean, for @#$%‘s sake, @stevenb, you’re flaunting your heterosexuality in your icon! Is it really necessary for you to shove your sexual orientation in everyone’s face all the time? Can’t you just keep it in your bedroom and shut up about it in public? Or is there a double standard at work here?

stevenb's avatar

Oh, please, cwilbur. How do you know that isn’t a gay friend of mine, or a sister? Don’t be rediculous. It says nothing at all about being heterosexual because a man hugs a woman. I heve several pictures of me hugging men, and her hugging women. If I put a picture of myself up with my neice I guess I would be a pedophile in your eyes. Good to see you are open minded though.

I don’t care if two women or two guys kiss, hug, hold hands, etc, in public any more than if heteros do. They have every right to do it, in my opinion. I am sure that I am ignorant of all of the oppression that a lot of folks go through. I have gone through being a minority for several years, but I am smart enough to know that that doesn’t equal a lifetime of it.

I have been chased, shunned, had bottles thrown at me, been threatened, and denied the same things others were freely given, all because I am a white, heterosexual male. The people who did these things didn’t know me for who I am, they just saw a young white male and directed their anger at me. Lucky for me, my friends were young, black, some gay, males that I still think of to this day as brothers. They had to fight alongside me, defend me, and help me and they did so because they knew me as a friend. Nothing more. I think people should be judged for the person they are, not how their sexual orientation is.

bodyhead's avatar

Way to miss the point, stevenb. With views like you’ve got, I’m going to guess that there’s no way that you use a picture of you hugging a gay person for your icon.

When did a parade ever hurt you? If you don’t want to go then don’t go. Seems pretty easy to me.

stevenb's avatar

I didn’t say they bug me, but I work in construction, so I hear a lot of really stupid people bitch about stupid things that bug them. Also, I live by the always open minded North Idaho. There are a lot of stupid people in the world.

I did get his point. He was trying to show me what it is like to have people jump on my back for what seems nautral and normal for them, but that offends others. He could use a little tact though. I did not answer this to cause grief. I stated quite plainly that I don’t care if people are gay, and that I have friends, and even a little sister, who are gay. I dont’t care!!!!!! It makes my sister happy, so I am happy for her, and I am happy for anyone, if they can be comfortable and happy with who they are!!!

stevenb's avatar

@ bodyhead, what views do I have that are so objectionable to you? Seems to me my view is, if you are happy, I’m happy for you. I don’t want to see some guy with his hand up a womans shirt in public any more that I want to see a gay guy with his hand down another guys pants. That is what I mean by shoving it in my face. If you want to kiss, then kiss. I don’t mind in the least.

cwilbur's avatar

No, my point is that it’s pretty fucking hypocritical to condemn other people for being open and public about their sexual orientation when it’s something that you do so casually.

stevenb's avatar

Who did I condemn and when exactly did I do that? If you read my answers instead of just over reacting, you might see something. I didn’t condemn anyone, and in fact stated that open homosexuality does not bother me. Way to maintain a friendly dialog though.

stevenb's avatar

I said I don’t see why we need parades. I also said whatever makes you happy is fine with me. Wow. I am an awefull person who should be locked away to protect the public.

cwilbur's avatar

@stevenb:

“I don’t see why we need parades for people’s private lifestyles.”

“What seems to bother a lot of people is not that people are homosexual, but that some small number of them have to tell everyone they meet, and show it off like it is a badge of office. I don’t care if someone is homosexual, just don’t shove it in my face all of the time. That would bother anybody.”

And you say that while you’re shoving your heterosexuality in our faces with your icon.

TitsMcGhee's avatar

@stevenb: I think that’s “awful,” and you, as a young, white, heterosexual male, have the least amount of prejudice directed at you, as opposed to any other group of people. White, heterosexual males have been oppressing other groups of non-white, homosexual males and females for quite a long time. I don’t know how much oppression you can be enduring now, nor from whom.

cookieman's avatar

@TitsMcGhee: Fantastic post. I honestly don’t think it can be summed up any better.

I am so with Tits

stevenb's avatar

@ tits, it was while i was in the navy. I would get yelled at all over the place. I thought that by joining the Navy I would be helping make the world a better place, but it started in San Diego, then Chicago, New Jersey, New York, Cuba, Jamaica, Israel, Spain, France, and then back in the states again. I was deffinately nieve, but it was still and eye opener. That was when I first realised how bad other people must really have it.

Also, it is true that white, hetero men have done a huge amount of oppression, but that still doesn’t excuse others for judging me as one of the oppressing ones when I am not. That is as bad as any other kind of poor judgement, or generalization.

stevenb's avatar

Also, tits, with so many minorities in the world looking at white heterosexual males as evil oppressors, and the ones responsible for all of the evil in the world, it makes one feel like a minority.

TitsMcGhee's avatar

@stevenb: Getting yelled at for being straight? I think not. Getting yelled at for being an American? Much more likely. It’s not you, it’s the tradition of people who were just like you, in similar standing as you. You can’t honestly believe that white males are the minority either.

stevenb's avatar

@ cwilbur, I appologize if I wasn’t clear about “shoving it in my face”. What I mean, and again, I am sorry if I don’t get this out right, is simple. I don’t mind parades. If you want one, have one. I just have a hard time with single individuals, who I have known in the past, but was still friends with, who are so flamboyantly over the top and throw their sexuality in my face. I don’t mind people showing their affections for others, or having wild personalities. This one person I knew was just crazy. He would try to make other people see “how gay” he was and would come on to any male within 100 yards. STRONGLY! He would also dress up in odd outfits, with body parts hanging out, and touch and caress said parts in public. That is what I mean by throw it in my face.

stevenb's avatar

@ tits. No, not for being straight, but for being born a white male. It is the same with any type of generalization and stereotyping. I am white, a male, and so have had a lot of people dislike me very strongly upon seeing me. It has nothing to do with who I actually am, but with who they percieve me to be. I did feel like the minority in many of the places I have been, just because I was a white male. Most of the places off of US soil I stand out like a sore thumb. So in those places, and situations, yes I felt like a minority. Even in New Jersey I did, but then, most of my friends were black, and we went to the places they knew, since I was new there and did not know of any other places. I was almost always the only white person in the club or bar we went to, and they would always tell me not to go outside wothout them. It was scary for me, but I was a 100 pound 18 year old white kid from Montana.

stevenb's avatar

@ cwilbur, I also only put my picture on my icon so people can see who they are talking to. Just like my username. I am an open book. Maybe even an over simple, one or two pager.

TitsMcGhee's avatar

@stevenb: Porn stars and strippers also shove their heterosexuality in people’s faces. There are women who parade around in mini skirts and tube tops and plastic heels. What about them? There are guys who hit on any girl they can find. What about them? People don’t take issue with that because it is the norm, but it’s the exact same thing as the guys who honk at me and say disgusting things to me on the street. It’s all in the perception. And furthermore, I’m a white female, and, in the many places I’ve been, some heavily populated by certain groups, I’ve never felt out of place or been attacked for being white, regardless of if my company was African-American, Asian-American, Indian-American, etc. That’s in the way you deal with your surroundings and the people there. I’ve been the only white person in certain places, and nothing’s ever been thrown at me.

stevenb's avatar

It all depends on the time you are there too. Places change quickly. In Jamaica it was 1989, and we were walking around the island enjoying the sights. It was myself and 7 or 8 of my black friends, two that were gay. Two cars drove by and yelled “Yankee go home!” One threw a bottle, and then stopped and four guys got out. The group I was with stood together and said, “He’s with us”, the other group kept coming, and it came close to being a pretty messy fight. Then we walked away down the street to a vender selling crab. She gave everyone samples, except me. I asked if I could buy some and she looked me in the eye and said “None for you”! I have a lot of other stories like that. How I possibly brought this on, other than being a white male, is beyond me. I am a kind person who makes friends easily, but some people will not change their views. There was one young black kid who came on our ship, and the next day saw mw in the lunch line. He hit me in the back of the head with his tray and started hitting me. I fought back, out of self defense, and had no clue who he was or what his problem was. My black friends simply said “He’s a racist, and your white.”

As for the rest, I don’t have any experience with them, other than to yell at the stupid guys for yelling at women and being idiots. I do take issue with anybody pressuring people sexually in any way, be it strippers, porn stars, construction workers, or any one else. Fluther is about asking questions and getting opinions. If you don’t like me or mine, there is really nothing I can apparently do to make you see my point. That’s too bad.

tiffyandthewall's avatar

for the record, i’m a straight female, incase that would matter, perspective-wise.
i’m not interested in women, but i don’t look down on any that do (or any men that are into men, for that matter). i’m not religious, so because there was one line within a billion other lines in a book does not have any effect whatsoever on my opinion.
also, i think that anyone outside the relationship is where they belong – meaning, if you aren’t one of the 2 people in it, stay out of it, so it doesn’t matter where that guy is putting his penis, because it’s got nothing to do with you.
and really, of all things to criticize, it’s a wonder that people devote so much passion to hating something that is primarily about love. how ironic – and disgusting – is that? i think it’s a lot more appalling that who loves who is an issue, especially today, when we’ve (for the most part) supposedly grown out of putting other people who are different beneath us. what a strange thing that we think of homosexuality as more of a major sin than many others. someone who lies constantly isn’t constantly told by tons of people that they’re going to hell and should die, etc. but someone who loves someone of the same sex is worthy of all of that shit talk and horrible treatment?
and it’s not even like homosexuals just choose to be attracted to the same sex. it’s natural, and it’s not harming anyone. when you were in grade school or whatever and had your first crush on someone, you didn’t stop and think “okay. it’s someone of the opposite sex. i’m doing it right. i can like them now.” you were just attracted to them.
sorry if i’m hardly making sense, but i really do get worked up about this. it just really really pisses me off. i consider myself incredibly tolerant of people with different views than me, but i will not tolerate a gayhater (i think homophobe is often the wrong word, as i think it refers to someone who fears them??) just as most people wouldn’t tolerate a racist or sexist.

Bri_L's avatar

@tiffyandthewall – you have raised a thought in my head.

How much time was spent, and money was raised in CA so that people would vote yes on prop 8.

Then, how much food, how many school supplies, how much clothing, how much medicine and other such necessities could that have bought?

Are private relationships really that important to others?

johnny0313x's avatar

I think it only makes sense that any two people who decide to commit to one another and want to make it official should be able to the same as anyone else, certain benefits and options should not be restricted from two members of the same sex. No money or thought should be wasted on this concept to me its very clear cut. If everyone lived their own lives and cared a little less about matters that really don’t effect them over all…things would be much better. I know it raises issues about “oh well I don’t want my kids seeing these two men kissing in public” honestly, and this is a topic in itself, I think it is safe to say if someone wants to be gay, chances are seeing it or not seeing it isn’t going to effect that. I really don’t feel it is a choice, more like something that just is, it is a choice however to act on the way you feel. Just as being straight, is how you are…but it is a choice to go after the opposite sex, rather then ignore your feelings.

stevenb's avatar

I dont get gayhaters, heterohaters, racehaters, religeoushaters, weighthaters, or any other haters. Let people Love who they want to Love, live how they want to live, believe what they want to believe. Try not to judge a person until you know that person, no matter what they look like, who they Love, how they think, or where they live.

Siren's avatar

@Laureth: I think you just contradicted yourself when you said

This is the biggest troll question ever.

That said, I’d have to say that I think…

Yeesh…you can’t have it both ways.

asmonet's avatar

I love Tits.

laureth's avatar

Yeah, it’s trollish, but I answered it anyway. It seemed more productive and less whining than just pointing and yelling.

Jack79's avatar

I agree with steve (even though somehow everyone else seems not to). The day that “gay pride” parades become obsolete will be the day of true sexual equality. Until then it is a vicious circle. If people feel the need to “celebrate” theis sexuality (just like the badges Jews and gays were forced to wear in Nazi Germany) then something is wrong. I find these parades pathetic and would boycott them if I was gay. But that has nothing to do with sexuality itself, only the social role of people who feel marginalised.

TitsMcGhee's avatar

@stevenb: I will say that it is interesting to get perspective on what some groups faced for centuries, isn’t it? Take those experiences and add in being attacked by police and not even being served lunch just because of the color of your skin. In no way do I think it was right for anyone to insult or discriminate against you for any reason, and I extend that same courtesy to all people, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing component of a person. I also find it commendable that you don’t encourage sexual pressuring. I’m not trying to say I dislike you or your opinions in any way, I’m just trying to facilitate discussion. Sorry if it came off that way.

@Jack79: I think the Nazis forcing the Jews to wear identification is a far cry from a gay pride parade – that’s a choice, not an a government required marker of hate. You may not agree with them totally, but you can’t deny people their sense of community.

laureth's avatar

Would the Civil Rights movement have happened with such speed (such as it was) without the marches, protests, and speeches by the likes of Dr. King?

If the gay people stop marching, will they suddenly be OK with everyone? It certainly wasn’t OK before Stonewall, and they didn’t have Gay Pride events back then.

stevenb's avatar

@tits, it served to open my eyes and give me perspective. I always remember those experiences, and I think they all helped make me who I am. They may have seemed small and unimportant to many other people, but to me they showed me people could be hateful toward others, and also how race doesn’t have to devide people. I had never had any experience with racism growing up, but this made me understand, even if only a little bit, and I have remembered.

tinyfaery's avatar

I’ll give up Pride when the south gives up the confederate flag, and when there is no longer a St. Patrick’s day parade.

TitsMcGhee's avatar

@tinyfaery: YES YES YES YES YES. You get iiiiiiit.

bodyhead's avatar

The only white heterosexual pride parade I know of is the one put on by the KKK.

stevenb's avatar

They all need to be sterilized. There is no place in this world for such hatred. And I don’t think of them as even in the same gene pool as the rest of the world.

90s_kid's avatar

This is on the verge of beating Marissa’s “Here I am, What do I need to Know?”
But 800 away

stevenb's avatar

I don’t think I ever saw that one. Does anybody have a link?

90s_kid's avatar

I posted it earlier, way earlier. It might take a few hours to load :) just kidding.

Jack79's avatar

I agree that of course one badge was forced and the other not. My point is that the end result is that, in both cases, gays (or Jews, or whatever other group) are seen as “special”. Which is another word for “abnormal”. Which implies (as gay pride parades do) that being homosexual is somehow a choice. Now I have personally never met a homosexual that chose to be one, nor have I heard of any. You are born gay. So there is nothing to be ashamed of, but at the same time nothing to be proud of.

“Gay pride” implies that homosexuality is an accomplishment, just like passing your exams. And of course the danger in the argument is that, if sexual orientation was really a matter of choice, then gay people could be taught to change, let’s say in a concentration camp somewhere (which is what has often happened in the past). So whether you are proud or ashamed to be gay, you’re still basically on the same camp. We have to start to understand (and gay people above all must persuade us) that people are just born a certain way, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it but accept it. Because, for whatever hormonal, evolutionary or other reason it happens, it’s just as natural and “normal” as anything else.

laureth's avatar

I realize that no one can make you feel ashamed without your consent (to paraphrase Eleanor Roosevelt), but sometimes it is hard to not feel ashamed when the forces of society are arranged against you. When people egg your house, beat you up, yell foul language at you, try to take away your children, when they tell you that you are going to burn in Hell, when they spit on you, when you get death threats, and lose your job, etc., for being gay, I can imagine that some people have a hard time not feeling ashamed.

Gay Pride parades and celebrations began as a way to mark the anniversary of the police raid on the Stonewall Bar. I posted a link up there, but in case people didn’t read it, I’ll review. For years and years, police would raid gay bars and arrest the people. They’d be beat up, sometimes raped, jailed. Life was bad. Then one day, in one bar, the gay people decided they’d had enough, and they weren’t going to just take another beating and rape and walk away with their tail between their legs. They fought back. They finally defended themselves.

I see that moment in history as something to be proud of. It’s not necessarily about being proud to be gay, although some are. It’s about being proud of being able to be gay without people hitting you with baseball bats and billy clubs all the time. It’s about being able to dance with your sweetie without worrying that she’ll be arrested for wearing men’s clothes, taken to the police station, and raped. It’s about being who you are, being able to live without (as much) fear. It’s a way of saying “Yep, we’re here, we’re not going to hide any more, and you can’t make us feel inferior because we DON’T consent!”.

Without knowing the history behind Gay Pride, it might be hard to see why people need this. If you don’t know that there was a time where you had to hide and live in fear of violence, then the celebration of not-having-to might not be seen as inappropriate. It’s not that they’re (necessarily) proud that they happen to be gay. It’s that they’re able to stand up and not be ashamed any more.

Jack79's avatar

I watched “Milk” just a couple of days ago. For me it was not a gay movie, or even a movie about gays. It was a movie about human rights. So, when all the things you describe above were happening (and most of us more or less know the story), it should be everyone’s concern, because the victims are in fact human beings (regardless of whether they happen to be gay or not). I can understand why gays would be the first to rally, as I understand the need for the first parades at a time when nobody else cared (and of course homosexuals were marginalised to start with).

But the issue of violence towards any social group, and especially one that is born that way and has no choice, is something that should concern the entire social spectrum.

tinyfaery's avatar

You want to keep us hidden. Yes we are people, but we are people who in the past and in the present experience both subtle, almost unconscious discrimination, as well as overt, violent attacks. The only way for gay people to gain acceptance is to let everyone know who we are and how we live our lives. Maybe in 100 years, when every single person knows someone who is gay, and loves someone who is gay, and the laws treat us like everyone else, PRIDE wont be necessary. But who gives a fuck if it’s necessary. Everyone loves a parade!

Siren's avatar

@tinyfaery: Well, according to scripture, when that does happen…it will be the end of the world aka Judgement Day.

TitsMcGhee's avatar

@Siren: The Bible really says that when people aren’t being attacked without provocation and when all citizens are being afforded the same rights and protections, the apocalypse will come about? Well I say bring it on!

tinyfaery's avatar

All Judgment Day is to me is a bad Arnold Schwarzenegger movie.

laureth's avatar

@Jack79 – If the day comes when all humanity steps forth to end discrimination against gay people and thinks of violence against gay folks as anathema and a violation of human rights, well, then, maybe there won’t need to be a protest against that sort of thing any more. The fact that gay people don’t have all of humanity coming forth in their defense (and, in fact, a lot of humanity coming out against them) shows that we’re not quite there yet as a people.

Jack79's avatar

true, but my point is that things can only change through education

And I still have not understood what exactly is there to be proud of. I have never attended a parade of “people with 10 fingers” nor do I feel proud to have 10 fingers, even though I’m glad I do. I would not feel ashamed of myself if I had 9 or 11, nor would I go on parades telling people how proud I was to have managed to be born different. Being born a certain way is not an accomplishment, and it leads to a dangerous way of thinking.

laureth's avatar

Perhaps if people with ten fingers had been killed and beat up and raped for their ten-fingerness, and then fought back after taking it for so long (and within living memory, too), there would be a reason to feel pride at the standing-up-for-themselves that the gay folks feel. You still miss my point.

It’s not “the gay” – it’s the “standing up for themselves” that is worth celebrating.

Jack79's avatar

I wrote a bunch of things, then deleted them, then a new bunch of things, and deleted those too.

I guess whatever I say doesn’t really matter. I am not gay, and have always lived in fairly tolerant societies where none of my gay friends even experienced discrimination.

I still think that “gay pride” parades do more harm than good to the gay movement. But who am I to tell people where to walk?

tinyfaery's avatar

Bullshit. All gay people experience discrimination. Can they marry? If they can, do all states recognize it?

Siren's avatar

@TitsMcGhee: No, when there is not one single righteous individual living on this earth, because society will decay to such a point that only people with no morals, values, ethics, values or standards are around, that will be the time of Judgment Day.

In other words, there will be lots of injustice in the world, people will be morally corrupt and corrupting others…think Calligula on a world-wide scale.

tinyfaery's avatar

So basically you are telling me I have no morals, values and ethics because I am in a same-sex relationship? Nice.~

TitsMcGhee's avatar

@Siren: I believe there is a good amount of injustice now when there are people being denied their human rights, and the apocalypse isn’t here yet, or so it seems. December 12th, 2012, everybody – get ready!

Jack79's avatar

Gay people can marry in most EU countries. In some countries (including Australia) they are even allowed to pensions and inheritance even if they were not married, but lived together. Which is not of course 100% the same as straight couples, who have had similar rights (or even more) for ages. And yes, my gay friend still hasn’t told his mother, but other than that I don’t think he’s ever been teased, and certainly not attacked. I’m not saying it’s all roses, but I have never heard of a hate crime happen to someone I know (which is not to say they don’t happen in America or other countries or to people I don’t know). But you know what? My dad gave my sister quite a hard time for her choice of husband, and I really don’t think he could have been any harsher if she’d married a woman. So I am not saying that everything’s fine tinyfaery, but where I’ve lived it’s certainly not as bad as you describe it. My friend’s biggest problem is whether he can pay the rent, and his biggest fear that he may get hit by a car. He does not define himself in terms of his sexuality, and believe it or not, we never discuss it, because there is nothing to discuss. We have much more interesting topics to talk about, and the only thing that reminds me he’s gay is that he’ll sometimes call off a meeting with me to go out on a date, or he might casually introduce me to his boyfriend or something. I don’t think of him as “my gay friend”. I think of him as my “intelligent, witty and interesting friend”. The only problem is I can’t talk to him about women or football, but luckily I have other male friends for that :)

tinyfaery's avatar

Invisible

Bri_L's avatar

You line up the self-righteous execs that put the United States in the economic situation they are in now, the heads of investment firms and banks.

You take the overzealous heads of religion who use it as an excuse for war and violence. Those who’s religion allows them to claim the bible as their own personal appendage only to use it as a means to dupe millions out of their money or to steer public opinion and lobby for their own personal self interests and try and tell me that if they are not gay or lesbian, they are better than someone who isn’t.

That just can’t be so in my mind. I understand if you go by and interpret the book the way you need to in order to follow your religion.

Back when I was 15 my mom asked if it bothered me that a friend of our family was gay. She said that some people in our religion say it’s wrong because of the bible or that they were just plain uncomfortable with it and used that as an excuse. I said no because I didn’t believe God thought that way. It made so little sense with the strongest messages I was taught that I couldn’t go along with that.

As I said before, I can’t see how, in good conscience, anyone can spend the amount of time and money that was spent to pass prop 8 when there are so many other travesties that could have used the money. Life and death situations. It almost comes down to pure arrogance.

I neither gay, nor a bible expert, so that is all I have to say.

bodyhead's avatar

I wish judgement day would come already so me and the other people who are ‘left behind’ can have a wonderful life. What better world could there be then one in which people who are far too religious disappear?

Bri_L's avatar

@Jack79 – What does ”...” mean?

kevinhardy's avatar

i dont mind it, im not homophobic

mamabeverley's avatar

@futurelaker88 A virgin that contracts Hepititus or HIV through a blood transfusion and passes it to his or her also virgin spouse, how does that fit into your beliefs? I am not attacking your beliefs, I was just wondering. STD’s are transmitable w/o sex.

mamabeverley's avatar

I think Jay Leno said it best. Why discriminate against gay marriage. Gay people should be able to get married and be miserable like the rest of us.! Really though, It is not like beastialiy, or pedophelia. I don’t want anyone in my bedroom, what right do we have to be in anyone else’s?

mamabeverley's avatar

@cprevite Just a question for you, I am not being a bitch. You say every sperm is sacred and if it is wasted God gets irate. So my Question is… I had Uterine cancer and had a total hysterectomy, my hubby and I have sex. Since I cant have a baby, is God mad because I wasted his sperm? I am really just wondering your interpetation on this. (and anyone elses for that matter) I know it is off subject, but since I had never thought about this before I thought I would ask. Thanks

cwilbur's avatar

@mamabeverley: it’s a reference to a Monty Python sketch that’s mocking the Roman Catholic teaching on masturbation and sex only for procreation.

mamabeverley's avatar

@cwilbur Sorry, not a huge MP fan. Didn’t know that. I had heard that “spilling of the seed” where it cannot take root was a sin. Just wondering. Thanks

cwilbur's avatar

@mamabeverly: that’s frequently used as an argument against birth control, but not against sex within marriage when one of the partners is known to be sterile. I think the rationale is that Sarai was 90 years old when Isaac was conceived, and Mary’s cousin Elizabeth was barren until just before the angel visited Mary, so if God wants to make a barren woman conceive, He certainly can.

(Of course, if He wanted a woman to conceive despite being on birth control pills and a condom being in use, I am sure He could do that as well, so the rationale breaks down if you look at it too carefully.)

laureth's avatar

If God, being willing, is able to cause a woman to conceive (even if there’s birth control and condoms and whatever else in the mix), one wonders why religious authorities of some denominations forbid the use of contraceptives because they might thwart God’s Will? Do they believe their God is not stronger than a condom?

cwilbur's avatar

@laureth: the religious authorities of certain denominations believe that the apostolic succession gives them the authority to put words in God’s mouth.

And I don’t think they forbid contraceptives because they really think it’s God’s will, but because they see the connection between devout members of their religion having sex without birth control and having a lot of children raised by devout members of their religion.

laureth's avatar

@cwilbur – pretty much what I thought. Neat to see someone admit it, though.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

So glad I wasn’t around when this q was going on. Srssly.

laureth's avatar

I hear ya.

Eggie's avatar

For me personally, I think that it is wrong and that sex was meant for reproduction. That cannot be achieved with same sex marriage. Thats just me, and I would like to be respected for my opinion.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@Eggie So, how many kids you got?

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther