Why is homosexuality "wrong"

[Dimorier Maximus]

Originally posted by Fez
Do what, hypocrite?

YOU KNOW! Two can play dumb.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus
YOU KNOW! Two can play dumb.

Give me a break.

I think it is your time to excuse yourself throughout the door, you aren't welcomed here.

[Dominikos]

There is something irritating when gays start yapping about how lovely it is being gay. I haven't heard too many straight males expressing their opinions on how lovely it is to be straight.

I have a good friend who's homosexual and sometimes we go out for dinner (not the kind of dinner you're thinking of - it's purely social). He usually brings a friend along and so do I. That's two gays and two straights. Quite an interesting combo. He's a really cool guy but drives me nuts when he sees another guy whom he thinks is attractive and starts talking about "hotty boys". Hotty boy this, hotty boy that. He also has a fetish for guys with white socks and gloats about it all the time. You see, I don't talk in front of him about the women I love, so it just gets to me when gays start talking so much about being gay and the "hotty boy" passerby. I wish they could just keep it to themselves.

That's why I don't like the gay pride parade.

Does anyone else think this way?

By the way, it's incredibly interesting to see how every heated discussion degenerates into a flame war.

------------------
~Dominik - Lord of the Putumayo~

[Mr. President]

I haven't heard too many straight males expressing their opinions on how lovely it is to be straight.

Ah, how lovely it is to be straight. Particularly to be straight and studying astronomy (which has a surprising number of female students for a science subject) - when a lady asks you for help in a stargazing assignment, you've got a handy reason to stand close to her in the dark. Adjusting a telescope provides many, many opportunities for glancing, electric barely-touches.

[Lorizael]

Yah, that's what I hate about gay people. Their eyes pop every time they say a good looking man. Every one of them.

And I hate straight men, too. Whenever they see an attractive woman they start whistling. Every one of them.

Let's not make generalizations...

[Dominikos]

Well, of-course gay eyes pop! Straight eyes pop as well!!

All I'm saying is that one doesn't have to emphasize it by endlessly talking about it.

------------------
~Dominik - Lord of the Putumayo~

[Lorizael]

And I'm saying I know quite a few gay people and I've never really encountered this.

I've actually found this endless talking to be more true among my straight friends. But still not a common thing.

[Dom Pedro II]

I don't believe in heterosexuality or homosexuality.... I think that every person is, by nature, bisexual. The question is how much. I don't think anyone is really "straight" or "gay". I have never personally been attracted to a man, but that doesn't mean I never will be eventhough I doubt I ever will be. As I am sure that gay men can not guarantee that they will never be attracted to a woman.

I am a believer in Darwin, as such, to look into man's background, I only have to look as far as the ape. Chimpanzees are known to have many sex partners of both sexes, so I can say that there is some biological foundation for a naturally bisexual human. On the other hand, chimps aren't particularly monogomous while human beings are by nature for the most part.

Thus at birth, no human is 100% of either choice... environment shapes just how much of either they will be, but nevertheless they will never be truly fully one or the other. Of course, some people are much more in between than others and these are the people we label as "bisexuals". Personally, I think that people should be attracted to the individual. If this day it happens to be a man, then ok, and if tomorrow a woman, then ok. That's not to say people won't choose to stay with one gender. I choose to stay to women... food for thought anyway.

[Mr. President]

That sounds about right, Dom Pedro. Among the ancient Greeks, you didn't really identify as one or the other. People would go one way for a while, and if they got bored of it they would try the other.

P. S. I like your signature.

[Dominikos]

Well I say, well said Dom Pedro. Good show, old sport.

------------------
~Dominik - Lord of the Putumayo~

[Dimorier Maximus]

Originally posted by Fez
Give me a break.

I think it is your time to excuse yourself throughout the door, you aren't welcomed here.

Oh, and thanks for the welcome, gay Spanish republican.

[Zoid]

*sigh* The narrowmindness of certain Poly posters never ceases to amaze me...

[moomin]

Note: I've chopped up your post in two parts, for reasons that will become evident. I'd be happy to see a response to the first.

Part one:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I disagree, and here's why: All three of the above behaviors I have seen manifested in the heterosexual community far more than the gay community. Hell, I see hetero couples french kissing all the time, whether it be in the park, on the subway, at the movies, etc.

Have you accounted for the difference in sheer numbers of, eh, practitioners of hetero and homo relations?

You're caught up with the parades as the standard of gay behavior, and they simply aren't.

This is a far better arguement, but I suggest it's a matter of perspective, for you and me both. You see a lot of varying gay behaviour in your daily life, I don't. The only time I see gays - as gays! - is when I see a parade. So of course I'll form my opinion of gay behaviour on what I see there. This is also related to the fact that unless you're part of the scene, as it were, you seldom, if ever, see the non-offensive forms of public affection - hugs, holding hands a.s.o. - mentioned between homos that forms a baseline when judging heteros.

Perhaps you should give up on parading and pushing for more PDAs instead. Because the fact remains - what I see of gay couple behaviour is either pretty bad, in the parades, or nothing at all.

So your logic is that if, within the realm of those public events, that unsanctioned acts of which you disapprove take place (and in fact actions that are explicitly disapproved of by the organizers), then it's still rational to judge the entire group based upon that?

Yup. At least if it's a repeated offense. We had some pretty ugly street fighting over here the last year when hooligans came to loot, plunder and demolish under the pretext of being "anti-globalist activists". They did this protected by entirely legitimate protesters going in the same trains. All serious organizers have now made rules against allowing masked "protesters" go with them, and as a result I'm now willing to listen to what they have to say - even if I don't have to agree - instead of just being casually able to write them all of as scum or nutcases.

While the stuff talking place in gay parades is several orders of magnitude less serious, the fact that the organizers and the majority of marchers allow it year after year gives me a pretty good indication that you - as a community - actually condone and approve of such behaviour.

What most people see are the most extreme images broadcast by sensationalist media or given by antigays with agendas.

Then, Boris, it's your duty as a community to provide another picture. Nobody else is gonna do it, you know.

Anyone who has attended a parade can't tell me honestly that even more than 2% of the participants engaged in the PDIs you described above.

And this is relevant how? Everybody invariably forms opinions based on the extremes of the material presented. Always. Suppose the scouts held a J4 parade and allowed a single guy with a Swasika banner to go with them - do you honestly believe any onlookers wouldn't judge the entire parade, the organizers and the participants on account of that one guy, not really giving a fig about the other fifteen hundered?

Sure, because such behavior is ILLEGAL and doesn't involve consenting adults. Or are you are comparing a guy kissing a guy in public to child molesting?

Nope. I'm telling you that the rationale you had dosn't wash. I'll remind you gays had marches even back when it was illegal most places to be, or at least show you were, gay. Legality has precious little to do with it. The real reason you wouldn't allow these gentlemen is that you consider their behaviour immoral and disgusting. A value call, if you please. I'm *****ing about that you seem to be unable to make the same value call over this - admittedly infinetly less important - issue and then have the gall to be indignant when people judge you over it.

Here's the big difference, sparky: Mine applies to only one individual, yours is stereotyping a group. See the difference yet?

I'm talking sterotypes - and reasons they exist - in a thread where the question is why homos as a group are precieved to be something or other? Gosh! How would you propose we approch the question otherwise? Handing in statistics over each and every homo to make bell-curve approximations?

And you still studiously ignored the fact that much of the lewd behavior you so decry is, itself, not condoned by the parade organizers.

If this is indeed so, then they'd do well to actaully act on their disapproval. I'm not questioning your own disapproval, btw. I'm just suggesting that it sure seems to an external observer as if it isn't shared by large numbers of your community.

What more do you want? Have people with batons beat such folks should they do those things during the parade?

I want the organizers to make it very clear to these heroes of extending the horizions of the petty bourgeois that if they keep that up they can darn well march in their own train next year.

It is not only not fair, it is not rational.

Life seldom is. You'd do well to adjust to that fact, just like everybody else has.

It is indeed akin to saying all Blacks are bad because I can show you some who are in prison for murder, rape, drug dealing, etc.

No, it would be akin to saying blacks were all bad for the reasons you mentioned if the blacks who didn't commit these things publicly supported and cheered their criminal "brethren". I see no indication this is even close to being true. Slippery slopes, and all that.

Too bad, that's a pretty pathetic way to live...constantly making apologies for people who aren't you.

You shouldn't have to apologize for anything done without your approval and consent. But publicly participating in the same event as these people is approval. And I think apologies are then in place. Not from you personally, since you don't participate, of course.

Would that be true if the message was "We shouldn't have to dress/act/be like you to be deserving of the same rights and priviledges?"

No, that would be something else. And you're free to convey that message, if you please. But then the restless fascination over whether you should be considered normal or not seems a wee bit misplaced, doesn't it?

Regardless, this actually isn't true. I will point you to the Civil Rights movement, Women's suffrage, etc. as examples.

Oh,yes, how could I possibly have forgotten all those suffragettes who used to march around half-naked, sporting bull-whips and leather thongs?

I don't think it will ever be in the best interests of gays to show such hypocrisy as to denounce the guy by saying "you're making us look bad!"

Au contraire. It'd certainly not only be in your best interest but is long overdue too. Seen any commercials promoting the defects of the products they promote recently?

That's exactly the kind of thinking the gay rights movement is opposed to, as it has been used to marginalize gays for decades.

At this point, I respectfully suggest that one buttflap does a lot more to marginalize you than all the lofty theory in the world.

Part two:

"Jerry Falwell"

I dunno, the more I read your writings, the more appropro I believe the association is.

Come on, don't be that dense.

Your rationale is KKK rationale.

If you're happy being a fool, that's your choice...

Boris, I really don't have the time or will to trade insults with you. If you feel a need to pursue this kind of "arguments" further, I'm sure you can find people like Luk or that Maximus thing to do so with. If I see any more of this I'll be happy to leave you to them. Which would be sad, because you can actually present interesting arguments when you manage to cointain your outbursts of self-righteous indignation.

[Stefu]

Boris,

Homo paraders don't "throw them out" because it would be utter hypocrisy to tell a group they can't participate based upon whatever their particular style was.

What about them NAMBLA folks?

[Stefu]

"Jos homous sallitaan Suomessa niin suomalaiset loppuu."
"...ja voihan niitä romaaneja ja muitakin ulkomaalaisia tuoda Suomeen, mutta kun ne eivät tee töitä"
"Homotkin on alkanut viemään meidän suomalaisten naisia. Minun veljenikin vaimo lähti homon matkaan"

Kenen lekentaarisia quootteja? Se joka vastaa ekana oikein saa virtuaaliturpaan!

First, Tuome's post translated:

"If homosexuality is allowed in Finland we'll run out of people"
"And you can bring Roma and other foreigners here, but they won't do work"
"Gays, too, have started taking Finnish women. My brother's wife went off with a homosexual."

Whose legendary quotes? Who answers correctly gets a virtual ass-kicking!

Now, the first one was from a Centre Party (what other?) MP during debate about legalizing gay civil unions in Finland, and I think the second one's from him, too. I'm not sure about the third one.