Why is homosexuality "wrong"

[monkspider]

Well put Boris my good man, I agree that people who are repulsed by the thought of guys kissing in public are subtly perpetuating an unfair double standard. There really are countless double standards held against gay couples that hopefully will disappear over time.

[Ned]

My two cents:

Homosexuality is inately offensive to heterosexuals of the same sex. It's simply built in to human nature.

I accept that homosexuality is genetic. Perhap pedophilia is also genetic. Homosexual acts are acceptable because they involve consent. Pedophilia is not because it is rape.

I assume if homosexuality is genetic, it can be "cured" using gene therapy. Parents in the future may be able to change homosexual fetuses into heterosexual fetuses. We may face a very different future society.

[moomin]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
More cities than New Orleans hold Mardi Gras parades,

Like three more in Louisiana? Any hamlet above the ten thousand inhabitants in the westen world has it's own gay parade these days.

I can't really believe you're serious arguing over this point.

and regardless I guarantee you I can find tenfold photographic and other evidence of lewd public heterosexual behavior, whether in the context of a parade or not.

We can hardly keep anybody responsible for what private indviduals do, be they hetero or homo. You are only accountable for your own actions as an individual. This, of course, has nothing to do with what the groups you choose to belong to practice officially.

That homo paraders just can't seem to throw out the disgraceful elements after decades of parading is the reason people naturally assume homos to be more likely to be inflicting what should be their own private business on all and sundry.

No, I wouldn't which is my point. But the group would be, um, heterosexuals? At least, they and you all claim to be.

Pro primo, I can't recall ever taking the stand and declaring whatever my personal inclinations may be here on Poly. My, we are assumptive today, aren't we?

Pro secundo, even if I was a flaming hetero crusader, you still couldn't stick me with Jerry unless I was actually part of his congregation or at least chose to participate in some public event with him.

And for the record, I've chosen to drop out of demonstrations for things I belived in - against the former dictature in Chile, in fact - because I didn't want to legitimize the commies who where flying their murderous symbols in that train and whom the organizers wouldn't throw out.

Unless you want to be associated with those who've you've chosen to officially associate with - even in the name of tolerance - you should consider doing the same.

Or at least stop posting incredolous remarks to the effect you just can't understand why people imagine gays are generally less discreet than heteros.

[Faeelin]

Wait. So we can only be accountable for ourselves, yet groups must be accountable for all members?

And, of course, your entire argument is based on parades. Based on this logic, I hate and abhor the civil rights movement, because the black panthers marched.

[Flubber]

A few points

1. There is nothing "wrong" with homosexuality and the "natural" and "unnatural" comments amount to a bunch of hogwash

2. Public displays of affection are a separate issue and I think everyone has a different tolerance point of what they are comfortable with-- I don't see this as an "orientation" issue but merely one of good taste

3. I have found that my homosexual acquaintances are more likely to refer to their sexuality . I don't know if this is some sort of " bigot test" to gauge people's reaction, or just that the fact that being homosexual is more part of their identity ( being in a hetero dominated society), or just an attempt to let people know.

With some acquaintances it just seems that every discussion has to turn to sexuality. I avoid this group after a while just like I tend to avoid the guy that can only talk about his car or the one that only talks about his kids.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by moominparatrooper
Like three more in Louisiana? Any hamlet above the ten thousand inhabitants in the westen world has it's own gay parade these days.

I can't really believe you're serious arguing over this point.

I can't believe you are seriously arguing it. I never contended there weren't more gay parades than Mardis Gras (but there are more than just Louisiana, too. Other major cities have them, especially in the South). But can you seriously say that inappropriate gay PDAs outnumber straight ones? Not even close.

We can hardly keep anybody responsible for what private indviduals do, be they hetero or homo. You are only accountable for your own actions as an individual. This, of course, has nothing to do with what the groups you choose to belong to practice officially.

The first point is valid and is where you should have stopped. The second sentence is confusing. What do you mean "officially?" I don't recall there being an official doctrine of homosexuality that I had to ascribe to...

That homo paraders just can't seem to throw out the disgraceful elements after decades of parading is the reason people naturally assume homos to be more likely to be inflicting what should be their own private business on all and sundry.

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. For the record, parade organizers follow the law, and as most municipalities have laws against acts of public lewdness and displaying of genitals, those are also the rules of the parades. Anyone who violates those rules is not sanctioned to do so. But is it possible to prevent those things from happening? No. People will do them, always, if just for shock value.

But to organize a parade whose origins comes from promoting tolerance and acceptance of something seen by society as abnormal and then say to a group within the parade "you either act normal or get lost" is ludicrous, anyway.

Pro primo, I can't recall ever taking the stand and declaring whatever my personal inclinations may be here on Poly. My, we are assumptive today, aren't we?

There is a certain point where we can make logical assumptions based on continuing behavior. Given your attitudes on this subject, any other assumption would be illogical. Don't play semantic games.

Pro secundo, even if I was a flaming hetero crusader, you still couldn't stick me with Jerry unless I was actually part of his congregation or at least chose to participate in some public event with him.

Nope. You yourself it's not a problem to judge someone based on the acts of a minority of their groups. Since you have given a rationale justifying stereotypes (which astounds me), then obviously stereotypes of whatever nature are just fine. You seem to want gays to actively refute any connection to their "extreme" elements in order to avoid your stereotyping them. I'm saying nobody should have to do that. It's your fault for making the stereotype, as it is narrow ignorance.

And for the record, I've chosen to drop out of demonstrations for things I belived in - against the former dictature in Chile, in fact - because I didn't want to legitimize the commies who where flying their murderous symbols in that train and whom the organizers wouldn't throw out.

Well, good for you. But that is an obvious point wherein the point of view of those groups was, in your opinion, harmful to others. How can you possibly equate that to some guy walking down 5th avenue in buttless leather chaps?

Unless you want to be associated with those who've you've chosen to officially associate with - even in the name of tolerance - you should consider doing the same.

No, because it's your fault for making the association into a stereotype of my behavior. As was said here earlier, take each individual on their own merit. Anyhting else is ignorant bigotry.

Or at least stop posting incredolous remarks to the effect you just can't understand why people imagine gays are generally less discreet than heteros.

I am incredulous because it isn't true. But it seems more attention is paid to gays because it is less common and more "shocking" to those who aren't used to it. So you're a dupe of media hyperbole, fine. But now I'm also incredulous how someone like yourself can so blithely rationalize prejudice like you have here. It's so blatantly bigoted I can't believe it's been said.

[Heresson]

Christianity guides us to the Heaven and that's why anything that disturbs us in this way, no matter if it is hetero or homo sex or anything else, is wrong.That's also why anticonception isn't good (It is smaller evil to AIDS and abortion still it's bad), as it encourages us to free sex and by this guides us off the way to the God.

[Boris Godunov]

So Judaism is wrong, too? Ah. Well, if I'm on the same level of wrongness with some of the good rabbis I know, I can certainly live happily with that.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ned
I assume if homosexuality is genetic, it can be "cured" using gene therapy. Parents in the future may be able to change homosexual fetuses into heterosexual fetuses. We may face a very different future society.

Likewise, it's nice to have the technology such that we can "cure" people of being heterosexual now.

We can "cure" sex entirely, and whenever somebody wants a baby they can go to a special kind of clinic and get it grown in a testtube.

(BTW, Ned, do we have some kind of population problem so that you must make EVERYONE reproduce? I thought the world was overpopulated enough as it is, myself)

[Ned]

Originally posted by Heresson
Christianity guides us to the Heaven and that's why anything that disturbs us in this way, no matter if it is hetero or homo sex or anything else, is wrong.That's also why anticonception isn't good (It is smaller evil to AIDS and abortion still it's bad), as it encourages us to free sex and by this guides us off the way to the God.

This seems right but actually is wrong.

Originally in Christianity, the ONLY sexual sin was adultery. However, a man seeing a prostitute was not committing adultery.

Somehow, the Church extended the sin of adultery to all sex outside of marriage. Hah! Was this from Saint Augustine? I believe it was. But, remember, he was a Manichean.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Asher

Likewise, it's nice to have the technology such that we can "cure" people of being heterosexual now.

We can "cure" sex entirely, and whenever somebody wants a baby they can go to a special kind of clinic and get it grown in a testtube.

(BTW, Ned, do we have some kind of population problem so that you must make EVERYONE reproduce? I thought the world was overpopulated enough as it is, myself)

the world is really underpopulated right now

the only troubles relate to troubles with capitalism

Jon Miller

[Ned]

Originally posted by Asher

Likewise, it's nice to have the technology such that we can "cure" people of being heterosexual now.

We can "cure" sex entirely, and whenever somebody wants a baby they can go to a special kind of clinic and get it grown in a testtube.

(BTW, Ned, do we have some kind of population problem so that you must make EVERYONE reproduce? I thought the world was overpopulated enough as it is, myself)

Asher, I'm not Chinese, but I obey. I have only one kid. She just graduated, magna *** laude, from Carleton. I am a very proud father.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
the world is really underpopulated right now

the only troubles relate to troubles with capitalism

Jon Miller

Jon, look at pollution and countries like China.

How could anyone ever say the world is "underpopulated"? I can see how someone can say "not overpopulated", but "underpopulated"? Give me a break.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ned
Asher, I'm not Chinese, but I obey. I have only one kid. She just graduated, magna *** laude, from Carleton. I am a very proud father.

That's wonderful, Ned.

But the fact remains that we don't actually need all these new babies to the point where you'd feel compelled to "cure" homosexuality at the gene level.

If you truly fear homosexuals to the point of wanting them to be cured, one has to wonder what your motives truly are.

[Jon Miller]

for every china

there is a canada

or north dakota

pollution is also a problem of social systems (namely capitalism)

not population

Jon Miller