Why is homosexuality "wrong"

[mindseye]

Way back, Dominikos wrote:

If one was to examine the natural (animal) world, one would find rare cases of homosexuality.

You could hardly be more wrong, Dominikos. Osweld was quite right in pointing out that the animal world (and especially the mamallian world) is rife with homosexual behavior, from manatees 69ing to male-male black swan couples raising offspring together. Almost all upper primates do the gay thing. Check the archives for my thread "The Queer Birds, the Gay Bees" for plenty of documented examples including killer whales, porpoises, elephants, bighorn sheep (trés gay), lezzy grizzlies, American bison (can't get enough anal sex), and many, many more.

On the other hand, "group insertion" does seem to be genuinely rare in the animal community.



JonMiller, your arguments about food and space being able to support a much larger world population ignore a more pressing issue: water. Here in China, entire towns have been engulfed by sand dunes as the pressures of overpopulation and industrialization drain the water tables.



Asher asked about China

More or less capitalist? What portion of all of the "companies" are state companies?

Now, less than half of the economy is state-owned ... and the process is accellerating.



Moomin trooper, amongst a boatload of other lame arguments, said

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

Uh, gays don't control the media.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by MrFun
Faded Glory -- there is no humor in that picture -- it's just plain stupid.

I ain't amused either...

[Asher]

I thought it was pretty funny since it was so pathetic. I mean, for some reason I find it pretty funny that the guy who made that thought to himself "This would be funny!" and actually spent time editing it crudely in Photoshop...

[faded glory]

actually. I rip things off. I just cover them up and edit new text generally. (In case you havent figured that out). The orignal picture was much different...There was no chat bubbles. And there was no text. The pink was added. It took about 20 seconds.

I didnt ask for you to laugh.


Ya whatever fez/gianni nobody cares what you think anyway.

[Dom Pedro II]

Well, I guess we found out who the mysterious artist was then...

I laughed at it, fadedglory. I dont know why I did, but I did.

[Dan Severn]

Originally posted by faded glory
actually. I rip things off. I just cover them up and edit new text generally. (In case you havent figured that out). The orignal picture was much different...There was no chat bubbles. And there was no text. The pink was added. It took about 20 seconds.

I didnt ask for you to laugh.


Ya whatever fez/gianni nobody cares what you think anyway.

So you went out, found a picture of a german nazi tank, made it pink, drew in a phone, added text, and the joke was still funny to you when you finished?

You, mein freunde, need help.

[Dom Pedro II]

How do you even come up with something like that anyway???

[Giancarlo]

Faded, it is not that I care... but it is a waste of time making....

Say when was the last time you had a good friend to talk to, faded?

[MOBIUS]

Is it me, or does this thread seem to be a place where Apolyton's homophobes can get away with condemning homosexuality?

A lot of the posts on this thread seem one step away from out and out hostility!!!

Personally I don't see what the fuss is, I don't even distinguish between sexuality anymore - I don't think of someone specifically as a homosexual, in the same way I don't think of myself specifically as a heterosexual. We are all human beings who have relationships with other human beings...

The sooner we stop all this 'us and them' nonsense, the sooner we'll all get along.

I know plenty of people who prefer same sex relations, big deal...

Take meeting Starchild at one of the UK Poly pubmeets for example. I did not see him as a 'homosexual', I saw him as a young man. He seemed like a nice guy I got along well with.

Personally I think there's a lot of posters here that are frightened that perhaps if they get on with gay people, then they might become gay themselves - or that their hetero friends think they've become gay. That to me is a classic sign of homophobia.

I think a lot of people on this thread really need to grow up and really kick their prejudices into touch!

[Lung]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Is it me, or does this thread seem to be a place where Apolyton's homophobes can get away with condemning homosexuality?

A lot of the posts on this thread seem one step away from out and out hostility!!!

Personally I don't see what the fuss is, I don't even distinguish between sexuality anymore - I don't think of someone specifically as a homosexual, in the same way I don't think of myself specifically as a heterosexual. We are all human beings who have relationships with other human beings...

The sooner we stop all this 'us and them' nonsense, the sooner we'll all get along.

I know plenty of people who prefer same sex relations, big deal...

Take meeting Starchild at one of the UK Poly pubmeets for example. I did not see him as a 'homosexual', I saw him as a young man. He seemed like a nice guy I got along well with.

Personally I think there's a lot of posters here that are frightened that perhaps if they get on with gay people, then they might become gay themselves - or that their hetero friends think they've become gay. That to me is a classic sign of homophobia.

I think a lot of people on this thread really need to grow up and really kick their prejudices into touch!

Aw, crap, Mobius! You've been living in Woolloomooloo too long!!!

[Boris Godunov]

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

Certainly. I *do* live in the Village, after all. This area probably has one of the highest gay-to-straight ratios in the world. It's just a personal experience, but I it's what I see. Frankly, I don't judge straight people by it. I think that would be foolish.

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.

So your view is determined by an admitted ignorance. Well, I can't help you there. If you're not willing to get to know gay persons on an individual level and thus recognize them as such, that's your decision. I find it a pretty narrowminded one. I suppose it's perfectly fine for someone who has grown up without contact with blacks to hold negative stereotypes of them, out of pure ignorance? If you don't want your mind open, nobody can really force it.

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.

Well, when gays do PDAs in most places outside of the urban centers, they tend to be targets of bashings and other forms of harassment. Parades=better odds!

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.

Do I condone a guy walking down in a flamboyant outfit? Sure, he can do what he wants. He should be free to do so. It's his individual right to dress how he pleases. I will not condemn him, no. I won't deny that seeing lewd behavior makes me squeamish, as I'm just not accustomed to it. But in honesty, I've been to 4 pride parades here in NYC. I can't recall anything in the parade that involved graphic sexual contact between people. The only thing I remember was a lone woman who went down the street topless, and she would occasionally open her jeans and flash her privates at people. She wasn't officially in the parade.

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

Oohhhhh right...that's the only picture people see of us...

There's something not quite right here. Since pride parades have been increasing in number in the past few years, it's logical more and more people are being exposed to them. Now, given your logic, we should be seeing waves of revulsion. However, what we've seen is a dramatic increase in levels of tolerance and acceptance of gays, and a continuing trend of gays going "mainstream."

That leads me to a few conclusions:

1) If, as you imply from your experience, parades are the only face of gay people other people see, they must, in fact, raise acceptance and tolerance, not lower it.
2) If that is not the case, than clearly something else is out there being done by the gay community to foster awareness of gay issues and promote tolerance and understanding, and it is apparently strong enough to combat the negative "backlash" over parades you experience.
3) Since the overwhelming number of folks I know who have seen parades do not hold any negative feelings towards gays about them (and, in fact, really enjoy themselves at the parades), your own opinion is most likely that of a minority.

And this is relevant how? Everybody invariably forms opinions based on the extremes of the material presented. Always.

And that makes it right to do so, particularly when based on relatively innocuous activities?

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?

If it were a guy who hadn't been sanctioned to march, I don't think I would judge them. Of course, I already judge them rather harshly by their existing policies. At any rate, the comparison is a stretch. You're talking about someone presenting a symbol of hatred and bigotry towards others versus people engaging in questionably appropriate physical behavior. Apples and oranges, IMO.

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.

In that case, we have the luxury of the criminalization of the behavior being quite in line with our disgust of it. Can't deny that. It's an easy call.

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.

Exactly because it is infinitely less important. If you want, I can go around the St. Paddy's Day parade and document everyone who litters whilst walking down 5th avenue. I can then document how it continues, and accuse the organizers of condoning littering and not taking steps to stop it, and then generalize that all Irish people are litterers who don't care about the environment. We can take anything that far.

But the difference is I'm not looking for such behavior or even focusing on it during the parade, because it's about having a good time with my friends there and occasionally seeing a celebrity or friend in the parade, and just being out and having fun. If some guy walks by and flashes himself or whatever, I just tend to ignore it and move on to the next thing. Which is usually something oh-so-grotesque as the Marching Xenas, or PFLAG, or the gay police officers...

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?

So obviously, based on this logic, the increased societal acceptance of gays, combined with the increased exposure to gay pride parades, would prove that such negative stereotypes aren't indeed based on the parade, wouldn't it?

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.

Sure, by the external observers who are out with an agenda to find something to get indignant about. For those who come there for what the parade is really about--to have fun and enjoy the show. People who dwell on the few instances of bad behavior can just go elsewhere, I suppose. I, for one, won't expect straight men to apologize everytime I attend a Yankees v. Red Sox game and see how they act.

And I'm still waiting for that condemnation from you of Dim's sentiments, since we all have to apologize for the acts of individuals in our groups...

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.

Why stir a hornets nest up where none needn't be? I don't think it would be politically wise or advantageous to do so. Leave it as is, and the few attention-seekers who live for that one day when they can [try] to shock and appall people will find the shock and appalledness goes away, and then they'll probably start going away themselves (I for one think the parades are already much tamer than they used to be).

Now, you go and "crack down" on those types, you give them attention the crave, and worse, and issue to become indignant over. Then you get flocks of them coming to the parade to make a statement, since they now know their behavior can get a rise out of people, and then it becomes unfun for everyone. Your method is very unwise, and would lead to the opposite effect, I bet.

My advise is just for you to get over being shocked and indignant about it, because then most of those folks will be robbed of their thunder.

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.

And, as for reasons given above, I disagree. It's about perspective, as you say, and from mine, it would be much less constructive to get in a hissy-fit over those things than it would be to shrug my shoulders, say "what are ya gonna do?" and move on with having a good time.

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

That wasn't my point. My point is, they didn't make their point by conforming to the standard their opponents wanted them to, which you seem to be suggesting gays do. They deliberately defied it. I'm saying that preconditions on tolerance that are based solely on "acting normal" are simply further examples of bigotry. Never mind that most gays do, in fact, act normal.

I will also add that the more extreme ones committed acts of vandalism and violence, something I don't see in the gay community.

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

I respectfully reject that suggestion, based on widespread evidence to the contrary.

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.

Well,

No, it doesn't get perverted until you take on your whole club in one night...

Perhaps it's the in-your-face jockstap & leather parades, Boris.

Frankly, IMO, you threw the first punches in this regard. I am not perfect, and well respond in kind. I'm more than happy to keep insults out of it, but I find your own outbursts of self-righteous indignation as well as blanket stereotyping to be quite distracting in your arguments.

Cheers

[Dom Pedro II]

Boris, one of the arguments made here made me think of something... I think it's unfortunate that many homosexuals do feel the need to define themselves as homosexuals... in other words, rather than consider themselves as individuals, they choose to rally toward a "group" much in the same way that many blacks rally toward the "group". I think that the book Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison illustrates this group mantality in effect.

On the other hand, a large part of the defining of the gay population is done by the heterosexual majority. As I said before earlier on, I would prefer it people simply accept themselves as individuals and not let their sexual orientation define who they are.

[Boris Godunov]

DP:

Well, I think the "rallying to the group" is a necessary thing for any oppressed minority. There is safety in numbers, after all. And for a long time, it really was an issue of safety--physical. Merely being perceived as gay is often cause enough for some to be beaten to a pulp. We had the very sad Matthew Sheppard incident to remind us that all still isn't safe for gays out there.

Would I like it to be complete non-issue? Some day, yes. Hopefully the distinction between gays and straights will be like today's distinction of being left or right-handed.

But a part of the process is this banding together and forging of an identity. We've already seen in coalesce and become much less radical (compare gay activists of today to those of the 60s and 70s). This process will continue. But until there is true equality for gays and equal respect for gay relationships and rights, the only way to change the system is through a powerful, vocal group.

[Dom Pedro II]

Yes, having it be a none-issue is an ideal naturally... currently, there is very practical reasons for acting in numbers. Granted. It is good to know that the gay community would also like to not have to have a community one day simply because it won't be an issue anymore.

[Boris Godunov]

I can't speak for the gay community, only myself.

In any case, certain strands of gay "grouping" will always exist, such as gay bars, rec centers, clubs, etc. Otherwise, it is very difficult to meet other gays for potential dating or hot nubbin'.