Social acceptance of homosexuality

But are they technically heterosexual? or bi? or just plain kinky wanting to experiment to find out if they like it?

Straight men have anal intercourse with women and are considered straight.

I think you may be confusing bigotry with fear.

I find that gay people are socially accepted these days. I really do not find anyone overtly discriminating against them anymore, not like it used to be, except for maybe in a very few pubs and bars.

This is not to say that they do not get discriminated against at all, just that it seems no longer socially acceptable to do so, at least in the places I have lived in the last decade or so. These days it seems everyone knows someone who is gay so that has done a lot to change perceptions. They are not totally alien anymore, they are people you went to school with or work alongside.

I tend to disagree, I think gays are very much discriminated against in ways that are at least tacitly accepted by society at large. Many people would prefer not to allow gays to kiss in public or where children might see them, for example, yet they would be happy with a straight couple kissing in the exact same circumstances. And very few movies or television shows deal with homosexuality in a mature or positive way. The same old tired stereotypes are trotted out time and again, contributing to the ill-informed and hurtful attitudes people have towards gays. And all across the world many parents still completely disown their children when they learn their son or daughter is gay.

Sex is a private matter so why the gay campaign?

Because people still treat homosexuality as something negative for no good reason. It's hurtful and there is no reason for it. And yes, sex is private, but love isn't, and homosexuality is as much about who people fall in love with as it is who they have sex with. Gays should not have to keep their social identities private. They should not have to refrain from kissing or from other displays of affection in situations where society accepts straight couples publically displaying similar affections. Either there are acceptable displays of public affection applicable to any couple or else people should all equally refrain from displaying affections in public; there should be no double standard. And, finally, the state should not define one thing as marriage and another as a civil union when they are the same thing but for the genders of those involved.

How does having same-sex parents, knowing that other children have opposite-sex parents, "automatically" introduce the idea of sex?

This one's pretty obvious. The question can only be answered by informing a kid of alternative lifestyles, unless the parents were to lie to them by saying 'children come from the stork,' or something else ridiculous. The question also begs a further question; "Why am I different from the other kids?"

It automatically introduces the, "where did I come from?" question? How does it do that? This is not obvious to me; please spell it out.

What if being homosexual is a choice for some, but not all? That can be possible, just as abstinence can be a choice after being sexually active. (I'm just throwing ideas out there. Who can label an individual exactly anyway?)

I've always likened every type of desire or urge to alcohol or drug addiction.

You're born with a propensity one way or another, but you do eventually "choose" you behavior and actions, whether or not they're in-line with what you actually want or not.

I don't mean practicing homosexuality. I just mean the desire itself. Can you choose to stop wanting to have sex? Sure, you can psychologically traumatize yourself into disregarding an instinctive desire--e.g. in the case of anorexia nervosa, the person really may not feel hunger, but only because they have a serious psychological problem.

Species survived by procreating and you can't do that with the same sex. In my eyes, this makes it unnatural and a choice.

I am totally lost. How does the inability of a desire to support pro-creation mean that you can choose not to have that desire? How does that make it unnatural? Does all natural activity support one's own pro-creation?

Sex is a private matter so why the gay campaign? If gays want privacy they don`t need societal endorsements, it appears the contrary is true

Obviously the point of heterosexual marriage is to have societal endorsement of (monogamous, emotionally meaningful) sex. Why do homosexuals need a different reason than heterosexuals?

Obviously the point of heterosexual marriage is to have societal endorsement of (monogamous, emotionally meaningful) sex. Why do homosexuals need a different reason than heterosexuals?

Others do not share your assumption about what the "point" of heterosexual marriage is.

Can you choose to stop wanting to have sex?

As a matter of fact, I can. People with free will can do all sorts of things when it comes to desires and inclinations.

Meleagar,

It seems to me that sexual desire (which is what I meant by want) is not something you directly will. Similar to the way you cannot just will your arms to be stronger or weaker. I could imagine training oneself to respond sexually to something other than what you initially respond to, but this would still strike me as a psychological distortion or ailment--and a highly implausible explanation of the relatively consistent presence of homosexuals.

Also, I'm talking about sexual desire here, not recognition of beauty, which I generally associate with more of an intellectual capacity.

Others do not share your assumption about what the "point" of heterosexual marriage is.

I phrased that statement carelessly. The objective of getting married from the heterosexual couple's point of view necessarily involves societal recognition of their sexual relationship. I do not see room to evade this, but if you do, I'd love to hear it.

It seems to me that sexual desire (which is what I meant by want) is not something you directly will.

It may not be something ***you*** directly will. It is something ***I*** directly will.

Similar to the way you cannot just will your arms to be stronger or weaker.

I can, in fact, will my arms to be stonger.

I could imagine training oneself to respond sexually to something other than what you initially respond to, but this would still strike me as a psychological distortion or ailment--and a highly implausible explanation of the relatively consistent presence of homosexuals.

People with free will train (will) themselves to do all kinds of things. There are some that have an amazing amount of conscious control over their supposedly autonomic bodily functions.

Also, I'm talking about sexual desire here, not recognition of beauty, which I generally associate with more of an intellectual capacity.

You might be subject to whatever your carnal desires dictate, but I am not.

I phrased that statement carelessly. The objective of getting married from the heterosexual couple's point of view necessarily involves societal recognition of their sexual relationship. I do not see room to evade this, but if you do, I'd love to hear it.

Or, first you can support your assertion. Who says that is the objective - other than you?

I've always likened every type of desire or urge to alcohol or drug addiction.

You're born with a propensity one way or another, but you do eventually "choose" you behavior and actions, whether or not they're in-line with what you actually want or not.

Ultimately, if I could choose, I'd never be sober a day in my life. But, unfortunately, I don't get to choose to live life like that; its too socially "faux pas" and physically and mentally unhealthy.

Either way, I imagine this is the same with gays, straights, bi's, and whatever other kind of freakshows there are in our species. One distinction that I will make, however, is that the genes that lead us addicts towards behavior that is not conducive to self-preservation may be a result of natural selection ending our wretched genetic lines.

For me, it's the urge to drink. This kills my sperm count, leads towards risky behavior, etc., all of the above being detrimental to my genetic fitness.

But all this says is that we are capable of choosing whether or not to act on our desires, which few people would deny. It's practically irrelevant. The point here is that those who are opposed to homosexuality insist that homosexuals ignore their desires for no good reason. Why should anyone care what consenting adults do in private? If an activity that makes people happy harms nobody, why shouldn't it be as readily accepted as, say, choosing to own a widescreen TV?

I never said that I was opposed to homos being homos all they want; just that it might be representative of a meme that was disruptive to our genetic fitness, is all.

The arguments for why we should care about what people do behind close doors are that "Their health is adversely impacted, which the public then must pay for", and other crap. I personally think we can remedy this by just not paying for anybody's health insurance, or social welfare!

If acted upon, minus very recent technology, it's known to cause STDs at a rate that is statistically much greater than heteros. It also has the obviously detrimental effect of non-reproduction altogether.

Not taking the proper precautions against STDs should be frowned upon regardless of sexual orientation. I don't see how it matters that some STDs are more easily spread by anal sex (which, by the way, heterosexuals engage in also). A person is not a statistic; we should not discriminate against people of a particular race or gender simply because statistics indicate likely tendencies about people of that race or gender. If you think otherwise, you are prejudiced.

It's not pejorative to pay attention to statistics. I expect that mostly Jews and Cajuns will get Tay-Sachs disease, beacuse that's who's most at risk. Same with Osteoporosis and Asian/Caucasian women. Their evolution just provided them with less thick bones, resulting in more likely fractures and breakage with age.

I don't understand why being "prejudiced" is a negative thing. If I weren't "prejudging" dangerous situations, I'd be dead sooner rather than later.

And for whatever reason, Homosexuals have a much higher incidence of STDs than Heteros. Then again, I'm sure that monogomous people have lower rates than people who sleep around. Either way, I believe that it is Natural Selection when people's minds are wired to encourage them to participate in risky behaviors. That's just that.

And I don't think that choosing not to procreate should be frowned upon ever, no matter who we're talking about. It's nobody's business but yours. I am amazed that so many people on this forum seem to argue for some kind of duty to raise children.

I fully agree. All I'm saying is that our primary purpose for being on this planet genetically [upon observing Nature] is probably to reproduce, and that it's probably unnatural to not do so. I don't care to have children, so I consider myself among the group ...

__________________________________________________________

I don't mean practicing homosexuality. I just mean the desire itself. Can you choose to stop wanting to have sex? Sure, you can psychologically traumatize yourself into disregarding an instinctive desire--e.g. in the case of anorexia nervosa, the person really may not feel hunger, but only because they have a serious psychological problem.

Alun,

No, I don't believe that, short of conditioning yourself, you can really rid yourself of the desire.

I base my belief on my personal experience as an alcoholic. I WANT to drink everyday. The only way I can rid myself of the desires is to keep myself occupied.

But I still believe that the urge itself exists to ruin my body, and is probably a disease of some sort or another [a meme, that acts almost like a virus].

People with free will train (will) themselves to do all kinds of things. There are some that have an amazing amount of conscious control over their supposedly autonomic bodily functions.

Are you arguing that homosexuals do this with their sexuality, or just disputing my claims about choices?

Or, first you can support your assertion. Who says that is the objective - other than you?

So you can make unsupported assertions about the historical purpose of marriage as it relates to the purpose of the legal institution, but it's unreasonable for me to suppose that marriage is the social recognition of a sexual relationship?
_________________________

whitetrshsoldier, thanks for clarifying.

Are you arguing that homosexuals do this with their sexuality, or just disputing my claims about choices?

I'm not doing either. I'm stating what a person with free will can do. What you or anyone else "can do" is beyond my capacity to know.

So you can make unsupported assertions about the historical purpose of marriage as it relates to the purpose of the legal institution, but it's unreasonable for me to suppose that marriage is the social recognition of a sexual relationship?

Presumably, we can both do whatever we want, whether or not those actions are equivalent.

Unrealist42

I think you may be confusing bigotry with fear

If that comment was directed at my posting, you are confused. I already said the Gays who refused to come to my straight bar were not afraid and had abundant self confidence and self esteem that can only mean they are bigotted against socialising in straight bars. They always invited me to their gay bar knowing I am straight. What did this tell me? were they trying to convert me? After all I went a couple of times to their gay bar in a gesture of tolerance I saw no gestures of tolerating straight bars from them.

Are you arguing that homosexuals do this with their sexuality, or just disputing my claims about choices?

I'm not doing either. I'm stating what a person with free will can do. What you or anyone else "can do" is beyond my capacity to know.

Ok. Thanks for your input.

So you can make unsupported assertions about the historical purpose of marriage as it relates to the purpose of the legal institution, but it's unreasonable for me to suppose that marriage is the social recognition of a sexual relationship?

Presumably, we can both do whatever we want, whether or not those actions are equivalent.

That's helpful. Can you tell me what the purpose of marriage is, from the couple's perspective?

That's helpful. Can you tell me what the purpose of marriage is, from the couple's perspective?

Which couple?

Any couple, although preferably one whose purpose is probably statistically significant among couples who choose to marry.

Any couple, although preferably one whose purpose is probably statistically significant among couples who choose to marry.

Any particular couple could have any number of differing views about what the purpose of marriage is.

Yeah, you're right Meleagar.

Nothing means anything except for what each of us wants it to mean.

Outstanding revelation!

Yeah, you're right Meleagar.

Nothing means anything except for what each of us wants it to mean.

Outstanding revelation!

In other words, you agree that the state has a valid case for not including homosexual unions under the status of "marriage", and not giving their unions equal status.

At least .. that's how I choose to interpret what you're saying. Right?