so called "Gay Lifestyle" vs so called "Straight Lifestyle"

[kattenijin]

In other threads where the topic of homosexuality is brought up, there is always mention of "the gay lifestyle", yet that lifestyle is never explicitly defined. I would like to know specifically what elements of "gay life" are not to be found in the "straight lifestyle" other than the lack of official marriage, and that both members of a couple are of the same gender.

Being gay is NOT a lifestyle. It's simply your sexual orientation...who you fall in love with. That's all.I know gay men who are Police Officers and very into football.I know gays who like to paint. I know others who like interior design, and others than prefer to mountain climb.I know gays who will only live in gay meccas in places like NYC, SF or Miami....others who prefer North Carolina or Wyoming.Some like condos, others prefer houses. Some raise families, others don't.

[Zuke]

I think that the whole "gay lifestyle" thingy is based on the stereotype of a gay man, like the whole being queer, and act girly, having the hots for every male around them, and the Crazy sex life... ya know, the stereotype that you might or might not see on tv everyday...

i gotta say, I agree with you...

[HystericalParoxysm]

I think most people who would use the term "gay lifestyle" mean, as Zuke said, the stereotype of a gay man. Going out to clubs, doing drugs, engaging in risky sexual (and other) behavior, being into style and fashion and showtunes, etc... unfortunately there -are- some that do fit the stereotypes. Which I think is really sad - it makes me think they're a person who has no identity of their own and thereby chooses to define themselves based solely on their sexuality.

But there are straight people who do that too - the big burly jock types that drive a pickup truck with plastic testicles hanging from the back and Calvin pissing a Chevy logo or whatever stuck to the back window, who drink cheap beer and watch football and suchlike...

But as long as someone's happy with who they are and what they're doing and they're not hurting me or anyone else, what the fuck ever, live your life and I'll live mine.

[iCad]

As it happens, I'm currently IM'ing with one of my gay friends, making plans for home fellowship at his place tomorrow night. (Yes, he's Christian, and so am I.) So, I asked him what he thought. I shall c/p his answer:

"Well, mine involves bickering with Mike [his partner of 30 years]. Fighting with Mike about money. Both of us working so that we can pay the mortgage. Walking the dogs twice a day. Going grocery shopping at Walmart on Friday nights like everyone else in this town so it takes three hours because you have to stop and talk to everyone. Eating Mike's awesome cooking. Oh, and sleeping. There's a lot of sleeping involved. And not nearly enough sex."

Hm. Sounds pretty much like my unmarried and asexual lifestyle. Imagine that.

ETA, to let Jonathan (my friend) add: "Oh, and don't forget the part about undermining the American family and eating the babies of heterosexual couples. Because, you know, we do that ALL the time."

He's such a nut. :)

[kiwi_tea]

In which I post a ranting video blog where I rock an awful 'stache and chinstrap. Also, I say things about teh geyz ('http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n2TlSbNte8')

I rest my case.

(PS: I'm not sure how this can really turn into a coherent debate. Sites like the one that Cyberian linked to don't constitute 'gay culture', they represent a gay SUBculture).

[Black_Barook!]

Gay Lifestyle: A style of living that the majority of homosexuals prescribe to.

Straight Lifestyle: A style of living that the majority of heterosexuals prescribe to.

Islamic Lifestyle: A style of living that the majority of Muslims prescribe to.

Japanese Lifestyle: A style of living that the majority of Japanese citizens prescribe to.

That's how I see.

[kattenijin]

I have a question for you if you don't think it's a life style then why did you title your thread "Gay Lifestyle" vs "Straight Lifestyle"?

Thats why they are both in quotes. Because I don't believe there is any difference. I fixed the thread title just for you.


I think my male gay friend was more stereo typical because he was rather girly around me because his voice could be rather high pitched at times.

I can remember he asked me out for lunch and we had escargot for lunch and it was the first time for me to try something like that. Had he not ordered that I probably never would have tried something that different. So it was interesting to see his acquired tastes for cuisine. The best part about the meal was he was so entertaining and funny. Just about every person that walked by our table he commented on what they were wearing. I never laughed as much as I did that day because we would rate their sense their sense of fashion.

I met his mom too and the funny thing was that I noticed about his mom was if they were to be in room side by side they probably mite have looked like they had the same hair style almost. I could see where he got his looks too because he could have been twins with his own mom. I don't know how to describe their hair style but it looked some what similar. She was a nice lady too and she also shared with me that she too is a Christian and that was a long time ago.

Being efiminate is not a lifestyle. The most efeminate man I know happens to be straight. Eating foods that are foriegn to others isn't a lifestyle. Being a gourmande possibly is a lifestyle. Dishing on others isn't a lifestyle, everyone I know does that regardless of gender or sexual identity. How you are about your hair isn't a lifestyle either. There are many straight men who obsess about hair too.

I have yet to hear anything "gay" that is different from anything "straight". You are still blowing hot air and not providing proof that your homophobia has any validity just because of purposefully misquoted sections of the Bible. In the Christianity thread you asked why else would Soddom and Gamorah be destroyed, and I gave you specific quotes from the Bible about why it was destroyed and how the story has been twisted by "the Church".
(Please note the quotes!)



"Well, mine involves bickering with Mike [his partner of 30 years]. Fighting with Mike about money. Both of us working so that we can pay the mortgage. Walking the dogs twice a day. Going grocery shopping at Walmart on Friday nights like everyone else in this town so it takes three hours because you have to stop and talk to everyone. Eating Mike's awesome cooking. Oh, and sleeping. There's a lot of sleeping involved. And not nearly enough sex."


Basically, my point. Change Mike to Michelle (only 'cause I can't think of what a female version of Jonathan would be) and there is zero difference in so-called lifestyles.

Again, with the things HP mentioned, I know just as many straight people who indulge in those kinds of behavior, as gays. Yet, no one coments on it because it is considered "normal". Take the Girls/Guys Gone Wild commercials that are on TV late at night. If it was gays and lesbians acting out like that it is automatically a "lifestyle", but since they are supposedly straight its just acting crazy on spring break. Same thing with a Gay Pride parade vs Mardi Gras.


(PS: I'm not sure how this can really turn into a coherent debate. Sites like the one that Cyberian linked to don't constitute 'gay culture', they represent a gay SUBculture).


Actually, I got some good stuff for Easter dinner off the one link :)
Back on topic, actually, no, still on topic; the fact that I was able to gain from CT's first post shows that many aspects of a so-called "straight" culture are just as much a part of mine as a gay male. The second link is the equilavelent of looking up Black pride, or Asian pride, or even Christian pride; so, still not defining a significant "lifestyle" difference.

Black Barook: Yes, but HOW, exactly is my lifestyle different from a straight lifestyle?

[kiwi_tea]

@Black Barook: So it's all down to tyranny of the majority insofar as defining a group goes? That's a bit odd. How about, instead, acknowledge that these broad categories are not very good predictors of behaviour. Rather they are traits, and often tell us very little about individuals within those categories because the individuals' behaviours vary wildly.

[whiterider]

Black_Barook!, certainly, those would be the apparently correct definitions of those terms. A Muslim lifestyle certainly exists - but does a Terry Pratchett fan lifestyle exist? A redhead lifestyle? Similarly, does a gay lifestyle, generally subscribed to by the majority of gay people, exist? Or is it just a stereotype?

In my experience, gay people are as varied as straight people - among my gay friends number a secondary school teacher, who is a vegetarian, lives with her fiance and is distinctly indie; a man who is a microbiologist at work, and often travels abroad for scientific conferences, but loves to cook in his spare time (and is bloody good at it); a lady who works in a chocolate shop and leads, as far as I'm aware, a remarkably unremarkable life - where is the common ground, here, except that all these people are gay? If there is no shared habit, or behaviour, then surely there is hardly a shared lifestyle.

[DaveyDaVinci]

I prefer the Goopy Carbonara lifestyle.

[ashillion]

maybe we should not call it gay pride....

but rather gay-self-esteem or gay-respect.

Pride, is not always a sin. Just a certain kind of pride. As with many English words used to translate text from other cultures and times, It loses allot moving from the Hebrew and Latin where there may be 2 or 10 words for the aspects of a thing, that is all lumped into one English word... Like the word love.... We separate Anger and Wrath... It's not a sin to be angry.... but to be wrathful (Anger for no good reason, or for selfish and malicious ones.) now that's a sin.

It's a sin to be Slothful (To feel there is nothing in all of gods creation to inspire and drive you) but not to be lounging in the park under a tree lazily...

Language is a source of allot of the problem IMO.

I mean by "Gay Pride" what blacks, and Asians and Indians, sorry "Native Americans" and the like mean about their cultural "pride"....

I Respect myself and respect the way i live my life... I.e. My "lifestyle" Sure "gay" is a part of my "life" but my Race, Location, socio-economical situation and eating habits has more to do with my "lifestyle" then sex...

God does not feel it is wrong for me to love myself.... he does have a problem when that love over-shadows my love for him or for his creation....

I am not Boastfully "prideful" but a part of humility and humanity is to be "upright" and "just". To have Faith in my fellow man, and in turn myself... for I am after all a human too. So to respect my brothers and sisters I must first respect myself.

Pride and Narcissism, Pride and Egotism are the same in English but not in antiquity.

and as it has been said a million times... Gay Is not a set Format, It's not some Mystical Sin-filled Template God Shoves some of us into... or that we choose to conform to., each person. each human is unique. It's our ever present NEED to be the SAME, To drive away or to destroy DIFFERENCE. That's what drives most Hate, Most Confusion and most Gay bashing...

[Elyasis]

To Flying Spagetti Monster, loving others is a right not a privilege.

Maybe you have a wrathful, hate filled god but that doesn't make it true. It's just your own opinion.

[Elyasis]

Preachers shouldn't be trying to get votes. If what they really had to say was the truth it would be self evident, don't you think?

The God of the Old Testament which is the part of the Bible most quoted when referencing gay men shows a very wrathful god. You would be watering down god if you thought he never punished his "children". The countless stories that are frankly almost as gruesome as any scary movie speak for themselves. It began in the very first book, Genesis, and continued on until the end of Revelation. It's a blood filled book that has continued to cause blood to spill to this very day.

One such gem in the loving service of the almighty God:

9:4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
9:5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
9:6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

[mangaroo]

topic here -> so called "Gay Lifestyle" vs so called "Straight Lifestyle"
endless ranting about religion here -> http://www.modthesims.info/showthread.php?t=391955
and here -> http://www.modthesims.info/showthread.php?t=391956

Since religion has nothing to do with defining a so-called "gay lifestyle" or differentiating it from a so-called "straight lifestyle," please walk it elsewhere.

[Elyasis]

Sorry Mangaroo, I meant to comment on the actual topic but got sidetracked by CT's wall of text.


I think, to an extent, there is a difference in "gay lifestyle" vs. "straight lifestyle". Not in the way it is negatively portrayed but in a day to day way there are some things gays simply cannot do. Procreate being one of them and have a life where they don't have to constantly explain their right to love someone of the same sex and get married. One is easily solved (In that the world just has to give up the Haterade [tm] already) and the other has a simple work around (Adoption).

[pegasaus]

Reading through all of this, I have to tell something, but first I will write something:

When I was at my primary school, I was called 'gay' (even that I'm straight) because I wasn't quite good at basketball and football (but I was good at bodybuilding) and also because I believed in magic (and I still believe!!!). They were just making jokes about me and most of my class didn't liked me. One of the reasons that they hated me was also that 80% of class listened to fancy songs of folk, while very little number (like me) listened to rock and pop. And I wasn't different from others, (expect that I was gentle with girls and that they liked me more than them) but they threw me away. I just had a couple of very close friends, who helped me to realize that I should not listen to others. Even when I had a girlfriend and when some of the guys from the class saw me, they still continued to call me 'gay', but they knew that I'm not. Today I'm in my high school where almost everyone are listening to rock and pop, and everyone like me as much as I like them. And when I see my old classmates, I just roll my eyes :)

So I think that there is no difference from 'gay' or 'straight' lifestyles. Most people think that when a male person works as fashion designer, or isn't very masculine, or is a little more gentle with girls, he is immediately called 'gay'. The same is if female person plays sports, or doesn't wear make-up, or hangs out with guys, and immediately she is 'lesbian'.

I don't have anything against homosexuals, if two love each other than they should be happy, no matter if it is guy-guy, girl-girl or guy-girl.

[Safyre420]

I think that's why some gay fellows were attracted to him because they kept trying to pick him up but if I was around I would have let them know nicely of course because he doesn't understand gay people and I have been around gay people before, he got really put off with them and said if you don't stop I'm gonna kill you.

And those are the gays that I typically despise, they go out of their way to hit on anyone really to satisfy themselves. I hate those gays with a passion. They don't know when they should just lay off, they think they can just get it on with anyone they want. Well they're wrong and they're the ones going to the proverbial hell.

Yeah that's the way he is and I guess when you have spent time in a referee camp upon trying to get out of your county because of political reasons then of course if some guy makes a move on you, a person who has no understanding of what it gay is, let them know when they jump into your bed with out permission.

BTW let me know when you spend a few nights in my shoes(living as a gay male or female) we are all not sex hounds.

There's no such thing as Christian Pride in Real Christianity.........God will knock the Pride out of a Christian and in it's place put humility from what I have seen.

Sadly, there is such thing as Christian Pride and it degrades all that is Christian. God will not and refuses to remove "Christian Pride" from our world(go figure). God chooses to deal with what it wants when it wants and in the way it wants, sadly we don't do what it wants yet it still doesn't do away with us.

I have seen God do it and yes it's happened to me personally and to other Christian's I know who even have a hint of Pride. God doesn't like pride all that much.

Your god is prideful, don't try to deny that.

Your God can't judge us until it judges itself, it breaks all the seven deadly sins at least once in the bible. When it reconciles with us, then(and only then) can it tell us what to do.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Please keep religion out of this thread, as mangaroo already asked. This thread has nothing to do with religion and as such, religious discussion is off-topic.

[grumpy_otter]

There have certainly been many excellent points made in this thread about the myth of a gay lifestyle, but one thing I have noticed, and that seems to be the experience of others--adult members of the gay community seem to have a larger network of close friends than adult members of the straight community.

All my gay friends and relatives have lots of close friends--the kind who come over for dinner a lot. Reading this thread got me thinking about why this might be, and I think it may be because they often do not find acceptance among their families so they seek large networks of supportive friends.

I am sure there are exceptions--my gay friends and relatives are pretty much well-adjusted, happy people.

(And just as an aside, and I know this is a total stereotype, but all my gay friends have marvelous houses--incredibly decorated! The two lesbian couples who are my friends got their gay guy friends to decorate for them, lol)

[Neerie]

You see this is exactly what is at the center of it all. "It's all about sexuality because it just is and it won't change as far as that's why it's labeled as gay life style and not for heterosexual because it's not a big deal and our sexuality doesn't define us so much because I don't talk about my sexuality all the time."

It's all about gay sexuality and you never hear a straight person or least I haven't heard a straight person make a big deal about it.

You say that heterosexuals' sexuality doesn't define who they are and it's not the topic of conversation all the time and that it's no big deal... Well homosexuals' sexuality surely doesn't define who they (and I) are either, just like the color of one's skin doesn't define who they are, or the fact that they are left-handed doesn't define who they are. People are defined by the SUM of all those bits that make up PARTS of who they are.


Have you ever heard of the term heteronormality?

Gays are not making any big deal about their sexual orientation, we are actually asking OTHERS to stop making a big deal about it! You just have to look at the recent events in Mississipi and the school cancelling prom because a girl wanted to take her girlfriend there and act normally just as any other teenage couple. Who made it a big deal? Definitely not her.

As to heterosexuals not mentionning their sexuality, well I'll contradict you by pointing out that everytime a man mentions his girlfriend/wife, or a woman mentions her boyfriend/husband, around a cup of coffee in the office, it is mentionning their sexuality. Heteronormality is not an excuse to give a safe pass to heterosexuals while claiming that a woman talking about her girlfriend is flaunting her sexuality.

Why are a few words, say "Last night, my boyfriend and I went to this concert and it was awesome!" considered totally differently by some people if they come from a man rather than a woman?

Like you said, it's no big deal.

To me, there is no such thing as a gay lifestyle, unless you consider the much increase feeling of loneliness a lot of us end up feeling for different reason, being rejected or having trouble finding a partner being the main two.

[Safyre420]

Gays are not making any big deal about their sexual orientation, we are actually asking OTHERS to stop making a big deal about it!

I disagree, I know way too may fellow homosexuals that blast their sexuality where ever they go. Now I don't mean that they just act a certain way but they tend to tell everyone and anyone that they are gay and if they don't like it they can screw themselves. Then there's the whole bit about them being worse than heterosexuals when it comes to PDA(IE: groping each other in public places like walmart and such like that). Most gays won't make a big deal about their sexual orientation but there's too many out there that do which just causes problems for the rest of us.

[supaclova]

No, I don't think there is a "gay lifestyle" or a "straight lifestyle." Anyone ever heard of being "metrosexual"? That would be a straight person who acts stereotypically gay. And there have been very manly football player dudes out there that are gay. I don't think personality has anything to do with sexuality.
And where would bisexuals fit in, anyways?

[kiwi_tea]

I disagree, I know way too may fellow homosexuals that blast their sexuality where ever they go. Now I don't mean that they just act a certain way but they tend to tell everyone and anyone that they are gay and if they don't like it they can screw themselves. Then there's the whole bit about them being worse than heterosexuals when it comes to PDA(IE: groping each other in public places like walmart and such like that). Most gays won't make a big deal about their sexual orientation but there's too many out there that do which just causes problems for the rest of us.

These people sound like fantastic fun. I don't know why you're concerned by them. :P But I don't really know any gay guys like this. I think this is more a reflection of the circles of people you've met, and not gay people in general.

[Safyre420]

These people sound like fantastic fun. I don't know why you're concerned by them. :P But I don't really know any gay guys like this. I think this is more a reflection of the circles of people you've met, and not gay people in general.

even with gay people I haven't met it's like this, take pride parades for example. What happens during them? Guys are dancing around in underwear, screaming queens are flirting with everyone and anyone, etc, they only feed the stereotype that brings the gay community down as a whole, no wonder people don't like us...hell I don't even like us because of the displays of sex that go on during pride parades, folsom street, parliament houses, etc.

[supaclova]

I think extreme PDA is disgusting no matter who the hell you are. I was with my friends at someone's house once, and this girl (who my other friend invited, I wasn't too happy about that) was going on and on about gay people being disgusting and how they always make out in front of people.
Psh. Her and her boyfriend can't keep their hands or mouths off of each other, no matter where the hell they are. I can't stand hypocrisy.

[kiwi_tea]

Don't you think you're being puritanical? I think it's fantastic that people can show affection to each other without worrying about the entirely needless fury at at. PDAs, even in their names 'public displays of affection, are good things. It's a damn shame so many cultures are so backwards that they find them mysteriously 'disgusting'.

Frankly, I think gay and straight people are perfectly entitled to make out in public, even though it's not something I would want to do myself personally. It hurts no-one, and it celebrates relationships.

even with gay people I haven't met it's like this, take pride parades for example

Yes, but the gay people who attend pride parades are in a tiny minority. Almost all the gay people I know don't attend them, not that we actually have pride parades in my country really. But even if we did, I can't imagine many of my friends would bother going.

I'm a gay person you haven't really met. You've seen me on Facebook. Do I fall into this generalisation? I suspect I don't. I suspect you're generalising wildly based on a highly visible, bright and celebratory gay SUBculture that in fact does not give any accurate picture of the majority of gay people.

[Safyre420]

Don't you think you're being puritanical? I think it's fantastic that people can show affection to each other without worrying about the entirely needless fury at at. PDAs, even in their names 'public displays of affection, are good things. It's a damn shame so many cultures are so backwards that they find them mysteriously 'disgusting'.

I don't mind PDA's, but when it's borderline porn(I'm talking when it becomes just shy of outright having sex in public) then it shouldn't be done in public.

[kiwi_tea]

Well, I agree. However, I've never in my life seen a PDA like what you're describing. Not between straight or gay people.

[Safyre420]

Well, I agree. However, I've never in my life seen a PDA like what you're describing. Not between straight or gay people.

I have, quite frequently, it may just be America but it's kind of hard to miss lol

[kiwi_tea]

I'm not sure I understand. Did this involve taking clothing off, or just passionate kissing? I mean, I hear some people in NZ complain about kissing, and I see a lot of American TV and film. And I still haven't seen evidence that people are effectively dry-humping each other in streets in broad daylight. If so, what's the basis for saying gay people do this more than straight people?

Just because there's a stereotype of the gay community doesn't mean that the people who represent that stereotype are bad. The truth is there is a camp gay subculture, and there's nothing wrong with those people. They're not reinforcing the stereotype: They're living their lives.

The problem isn't with 'screaming queens', which is a term I find a bit insulting to use against flamboyant people, the problem is with people who see four or five drags queens and not the hundreds of thousands of gays getting on with their lives and from that distorted picture conclude that the queens are emblematic of the entire gay population.

[iCad]

However, I've never in my life seen a PDA like what you're describing. Not between straight or gay people.

I'm with Safyre here. I've seen this, too. Although in my experience it happens as much with straight couples as with gay ones. I tend to think that, either way, it's perhaps an "America thing." I'm thinking maybe it's rebellion against our collective prudishness, which goes back to the country's Puritanical roots or even just back to some location's not-so-very-old-and-in-some-places-still-on-the-books "public decency" laws.

There just seems to be this perception that gay people are looser in many ways, sexually being one of them. This feeds the "gay lifestyle" myth. I'm also with Safyre in that I think this is often fueled by a subculture of gays who DO feel a need to flaunt themselves and behave lewdly at pride parades and such, likely also in rebellion. The subculture is applied to gays as a whole. Rather like (not to bring religion into this discussion because that's NOT my intent), but like the way that the behavior and attitudes of a what is NOT the majority of Christians is applied to Christians as a whole. People do that. They generalize. And of generalization is born stereotype. And of stereotypes are born strife.

[Black_Barook!]

@Black Barook: So it's all down to tyranny of the majority insofar as defining a group goes?

Tyranny is such an ugly word. I prefer standard.

Hey you forgot Christianity.

I didn't forget Christianity. (I mean how could I forget it?) I just decided not to included since you will mostly likely bring it up.

What's with all the thee's and thou's out here?

April Fools I'm guessing since I don't type in Old English.

Black_Barook!, certainly, those would be the apparently correct definitions of those terms. A Muslim lifestyle certainly exists - but does a Terry Pratchett fan lifestyle exist? A redhead lifestyle? Similarly, does a gay lifestyle, generally subscribed to by the majority of gay people, exist? Or is it just a stereotype?

Let me explain it more clearly:

Gay Lifestyle: A style of living in which the person living it centers his or her life around find that right someone...who happens to be of the same-sex.

Straight Lifestyle: A style of living in which the person living it centers his or her life around find that right someone...who happens to be of the opposite-sex.

Islamic Lifestyle: A style of living in which a Muslim centers his or her life around the five pillars of Islam.

Japanese Lifestyle: A style of living in which the person living it centers his or her life around the cultural and social aspect of Japan.

[kiwi_tea]

Thanks for clarifying what you meant Black Barook. I clearly misunderstood your point. It thought you were advocating for these groups to be identified by the majority's perception of them. But it is clear that's not that case. You're simply saying that being homosexual, in the strictest and plainest sense of being someone attracted to the same sex, is the only defining feature of the any 'gay lifestyle'.

I agree.

[Nekowolf]

@Safyre420

Reading what you said, a thought came to me. It could possibly be regional? Even here in the States, you have different cultures and cultural backgrounds, which do influence communities and the people in them.

Perhaps that is why kiwi, for example, or myself, have generally not seen such activity from homosexuals, because it simply isn't a cultural norm in our area.

[Oaktree]

You see this is exactly what is at the center of it all. "It's all about sexuality because it just is and it won't change as far as that's why it's labeled as gay life style and not for heterosexual because it's not a big deal and our sexuality doesn't define us so much because I don't talk about my sexuality all the time."

It's all about gay sexuality and you never hear a straight person or least I haven't heard a straight person make a big deal about it. Unless of course they are a non Christian and they are drunk then yeah I have seen people like that go off at wedding socials. When I speak about my self as an individual it's not about my sexuality ever because I don't have to focus on that aspect so much.

Heterosexuals make a big fuss about it too, but they talk about it in slightly different terms because it is considered the norm. I know a lot of girls who can't stop talking about "that cute guy" and there are plenty of guys who like to talk about their conquests. It's generally ignored because it is considered more normal, but it is just as loudly proclaimed as homosexuality.

I have gone out to the gay area in my city and I have talked to people and the majority of men that I spoke to said they were sexuality molested in their childhood and I do believe that has something to do with it but not with all gay people.

That is rather anecdotal evidence. I think that if a survey of gay men were taken, the vast majority would not have been molested as a child. I'm not aware of a survey on this matter, though, so I don't know what to tell you.

[grumpy_otter]

That is rather anecdotal evidence. I think that if a survey of gay men were taken, the vast majority would not have been molested as a child. I'm not aware of a survey on this matter, though, so I don't know what to tell you.

Wow. Your post (and the preceding) interested me, so I did a google--"were gay men sexually molested as children?"

Once you weed through the incredible bias, as far as I can tell, the only true correlation between childhood abuse and adult behavior--in both the gay and straight communities--is that people who have been abused as children may tend to engage in more risky behavior as adults. Gee, how surprising--abuse can lead to a confused adulthood?

EVERY site I looked at that claimed "sexual abuse leads to homosexuality" was a religious site and sources (if provided at all) led nowhere (ie--to non-existent books and articles that would supposedly support the claim)

[kattenijin]

I'm also with Safyre in that I think this is often fueled by a subculture of gays who DO feel a need to flaunt themselves and behave lewdly at pride parades and such, likely also in rebellion.

I'm sure that rebelion and shock value play a part, but I've also seen the same types of behavior by heterosexuals at Mardi Gras and Carnival. True, I haven't seen it at a St. Patricks Day or Puerto Rican Day parade, so I'm assuming that there must be additional indicators at the various types of parades to incite more sexual behavior at some and not others.


Reading what you said, a thought came to me. It could possibly be regional? Even here in the States, you have different cultures and cultural backgrounds, which do influence communities and the people in them.

Perhaps that is why kiwi, for example, or myself, have generally not seen such activity from homosexuals, because it simply isn't a cultural norm in our area.


I've seen out-right acts of sex both heterosexual, and homosexual "on the streets", but as I was in NYC, I'm not surprised. If it hasn't happened anywhere else, its happened in NYC. (A general "it", not necessairaly a sexual "it") There's also a different additude in NYC. In LA, for example, a man flashes an old woman, she gasps and faints. In NYC she gets out the embroidery hoop and plays ring-toss.

I do agree that there is a point in PDA where a line gets crossed. There are times I wish I had a hose with freezing cold water to spray.


In all honestly I wish it wasn't a sin but it is because then I wouldn't have to deal with the kind of crap I have had people give me a hard time about. I don't make any rules up that God has already made. People today already are trying to water down the christian faith as it is and they have done that quite well but I am not going to stick up for a water downed gospel because that would be contradicting what I believe.


I'd say right there is why I consider you homophobic. Especially because in other threads manythings that are in the Bible that aren't followed have been pointed out to you, and when you are asked why, you always brush past the question. For example, why has your religion made such a big deal about homosexuality and not adultery; which is mentioned more offten in the Bible? It's actually one of the 10 Commandments, which supposedly are the rules that should be followed the most strictly. Why is it ok to eat jello, plant a vegdtable garden, wear a cotton/pollyester shirt; when these things are in the exact same list that supposedly proscribes homosexuals.

To those of us outside the Christian faith, it all comes across as self-serving. You follow the things you wish to believe, and ignore the ones you don't; yet at the same time you expect everyone else to follow them.


Please keep religion out of this thread, as mangaroo already asked. This thread has nothing to do with religion and as such, religious discussion is off-topic.


I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. What is and isn't considered homosexual behavior and lifestyle is, at least in the US, so intertwined with faith-based ideas and teaching, that you can't really seperate the two. I'm not trying to create another religion thread, but I was specifically told that my questions would NOT be answered in the Christianity thread as it wasn't the right place.

[Black_Barook!]

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. What is and isn't considered homosexual behavior and lifestyle is, at least in the US, so intertwined with faith-based ideas and teaching, that you can't really seperate the two.

I also have to agree with Kattenijin that religion has a tremendous impact on what is perceived to be acceptable behavior. Granted culture also plays a part.

[kiwi_tea]

I understand the reasons for the rules on religion, and the entire case against homosexuals IS religious in origin. However, we can largely avoid the religious issues due to the fact that this is a debate about the stereotypes people apply to homosexuals in general. Safyre is not (to my knowledge) religious, and he is gay, and yet he believes very strongly that a other gay people are doing his community damage because - through fault of their own - they are loud and bright and subscribe to a gay subculture that happens to embody the stereotype. Now, I disagree with Safyre on this point, I thinking he's placing blame on a group of victims. But I don't mean to pick on him: His example is one where no religion is centrally involved, and yet it is totally on topic. These are the examples we should focus in on.

[Vanito]

VANITO presents you: The basics of men and women.

SIMPLE LOGIC: because women desire less sex than men its harder to get women in bed than men. If women would be as willing for easy sex as men, many straight men would be having WAY more sex. But women take a lot more work to get in bed. So straght men do not get as much sex as they wish. The majority of the straight men wished they had more sex.

So.. are gays really the sexual pervs as portrayed? Or is it simply a matter of more opportunity and would straight men be equal pervs.. because the women dont want more?

(Many women can get wild.. but they often just get wild with the "RIGHT" guy...)

To the moderators: in my opinion xtianity DOES belong in the topic. Because its THE most popular reason mentioned in ANY thread about gays to dislike/ote agaisnt/bully gays. Discussion without is quite impossible if so many repeat is as their only reason.

A big problem in Xtianity is consequence and memory issues. So often things are "fogotten". Please do not "forget" so much! Be consequent!

Adultery is mentioned often in the bible as a sin - do not "forget" about that. Divorce and remarrage = ADULTERY in the bible. A remarriage is a SINFULL marriage in the bible. Gay bullies/harrasers/whiners: please don't "forget" that. Apply the same standards to anyone. Be as nice to anyone gay as anyone who is remarried. (Or to anyone who had sex before marriage.. sinner..)

The average gay is really really nice to Xtians compared how the average Xtian is to gays. Imagine the other way around. Gays making laws so that christians are forbidden to marry and making laws Xtians can be fired when they are openly Xtian in the army. Are us gays so mean to you...? Please don't be so mean back.

As far as the sterotypes go: yeah some gay are loud and some gays are sluts. Still no reason to be overstereotype all gays like that.

[kiwi_tea]

because women desire less sex than men its harder to get women in bed than men.

lolwut? Since when do women desire less sex than men? Since never: That's when.

I think you mean "Women are discouraged from having sex more than men are."

[Vanito]

lolwut? Since when do women desire less sex than men? Since never: That's when.

I think you mean "Women are discouraged from having sex more than men are."

Women DO on average have lower sexdrives. The whole feminism "men and women are the same in their head" is kinda outdated.

Men are also not discouraged to buy less shoes. ;)

Plz notice: On average = on average =/= all.

[kiwi_tea]

That claim is total pop psychology Vanito. Men and woman are definitely different 'in their heads', but those differences are almost insignificant. I recommend a quick listen to this podcast: http://www.pointofinquiry.org/scott_lilienfeld_real_self-help/

A real psychologist talks about fake "pop" psychology. Including the claim you just made.

[supaclova]

Don't you think you're being puritanical? I think it's fantastic that people can show affection to each other without worrying about the entirely needless fury at at. PDAs, even in their names 'public displays of affection, are good things. It's a damn shame so many cultures are so backwards that they find them mysteriously 'disgusting'.

Frankly, I think gay and straight people are perfectly entitled to make out in public, even though it's not something I would want to do myself personally. It hurts no-one, and it celebrates relationships.


Sorry, I'm kinda late to respond...
Anyways, I do agree that people are entitled to PDA, but it's not appropriate to be groping and dry humping in public. Some PDA is fine, but sometimes people get a little bit overboard.

[Nekowolf]

I agree with supaclova. It's not about hurting anyone, it's about the decency to regard other people.

[Black_Barook!]

I understand the reasons for the rules on religion, and the entire case against homosexuals IS religious in origin.

I have to respectfully disagree. The case against homosexuality is not religious in origin.

Certain cultures frown on the willing submission of one man to another. Or the willing domination of one woman over the other. The 'perversion' of the gender roles aren't very much welcomed.

I've got a few examples: The Greeks, Romans and Arab cultures. Slaves, non-citizens, and boys are excluded from this 'rule', meaning it's okay for them to submit since they're either not men yet (Boys) or are uncivilized (Slaves and non-citizens).

There is also the problem of genetics. Homosexual parings are not able to have offspring in the 'normal' way. They either adopt a child or have a donor help. While this might not seem a problem to the couple, it is for the family or tribe since one of them will be left out.

To simplify: Female partner A gives birth using donor sperm. The child has the genes of Partner A and random Dude 342543. Partner B has contributed nothing to the offspring and thus has failed to pass on her genes something that her family or tribe might not be happy with.

A majority of cultures fall into the above group. In the Arab world, and Latin since I see a lot of similarities, the homosexual persons would be left alone or at least have their 'flings' tolerated if they married and provided the next generation.

Blaming it all on religion is so...for a lack of a better term stupid. I don't mean to be insulting, but the majority of debaters (Who are Westerners so it might be that whole West-East thing) blame religion. To me it shows a lack of understanding of the motives that drive humanity.

"History does not kill. Religion does not rape women, the purity of blood does not destroy buildings and institutions do not fail. Only individuals do those things," Mr. Giandomenico Picco

[Nekowolf]

I'd be willing to argue that it is religious in that religion is used to justify homophobia and homosexual discrimination. However, religion is often, if not usually, a reflection. It uses moralities and ethics already established within a certain peoples or region. They just incorporate it into their religion. So at its origin, it's more cultural, societal, than religious.

[kiwi_tea]

Certain cultures frown on the willing submission of one man to another. Or the willing domination of one woman over the other. The 'perversion' of the gender roles aren't very much welcomed.

And yet gender roles are typically defined, culturally, by the prevailing religion. In nature, sans religion, gender roles as we conceptualise them don't exist, only prevalences. eg, "men are more likely to hunt", or "women are more likely to be heterosexual". These prevalences are not prescriptive. It takes religion (in the broadest sense of the word) to make them so.

[Rectos Dominos]

I think I might be in the minority here and doesn't believe that religion is the only reason homophobia exists. I know religion is one of origins of homophobia and a common one I am not going argue with that but it's when people think it's the only reason for homophobia is when it bugs me. Here are other factors.

Macho culture: Some people think being gay makes you less of a man and a lot of homophobes are insecure with their masculinity and if he was called gay even jokingly he would definitely take offense weither he's gay or straight because he is insecure.

Ignorance: Most of those ignorant have never met any homosexuals and in their head all gays are the queen stereotype. Plus those people usually grew up around homophobia weither it would be home, friends, society, media, and religion.

I don't doubt that there are other factors but those seem to be the main ones.http://www.avert.org/homophobia.htm. I found this site to be informal about homophobia.

On to the orgins of the thread. I definitely agree that the "gay lifestyle" is the stereotypical lifestyle that some people think all gay people live or as kiwi put it a gay sub-culture. The only difference between the gay and straight lifestyle is what gender you like.

[mangaroo]

To the moderators: in my opinion xtianity DOES belong in the topic. Because its THE most popular reason mentioned in ANY thread about gays to dislike/ote agaisnt/bully gays. Discussion without is quite impossible if so many repeat is as their only reason.

This thread is quite specifically not about religion or using religion as an excuse for bias. If this were debate class, the prompt would be "Is there a gay lifestyle that can be distinguished from a straight lifestyle?" If you can demonstrate how religion (or the lack thereof) is a defining factor of either lifestyle (or use it to prove that there is/is not a distinction between the two), then it is relevant. Otherwise, it is not.

There are straight Christians and gay Christians. There are straight atheists and gay atheists. I am too ignorant of other religions to comment on them, but being Christian has nothing to do with defining a gay or straight lifestyle.

[kiwi_tea]

Actually, a great way to illustrate that point, Rectos Dominos, is to look at primarily straight people who are/were flamboyant and promiscuous. Saying that a drag queen is emblematic of homosexuality as a whole is like saying that David Bowie* is emblematic of heterosexuality as a whole.

(He came out as bi in the 70s, but later retracted that, making it pretty clear that he did that because it was fashionable, not because he's genuinely particularly into guys).

[Black_Barook!]

And yet gender roles are typically defined by the prevailing religion. It takes religion (in the broadest sense of the word) to make them so. (Please note that I've edited Kiwi Tea's quote for my own benefit.)

I have to, once again, respectfully disagree. Both Islam and Christianity frown on Homosexual intercourse and yet male-to-male/female-to-female intimacy (Holding hands, kissing checks, hugging etc.) is widely accepted in Middle Eastern and Indian cultures and frowned upon in the West, more so for Males than Females.

As for gender roles Islam defines that Males and Females are different creatures that complement each other. There are many cases of female warriors, scientists, officials, rulers, imams in Islamic history. Islam defined the roles of both genders simply "Do what you must do, while staying within the bounds of your faith."

The nation that religion has complete and total control of gender roles is laughable. In certain females are denied rights that are not in conflict with their faith, and males are frowned upon if they choice path that is in conflict with their culture even when the faith makes no bones about it.

[Rectos Dominos]

Actually, a great way to illustrate that point, Rectos Dominos, is to look at primarily straight people who are/were flamboyant and promiscuous. Saying that a drag queen is emblematic of homosexuality as a whole is like saying that David Bowie* is emblematic of heterosexuality as a whole.

(He came out as bi in the 70s, but later retracted that, making it pretty clear that he did that because it was fashionable, not because he's genuinely particularly into guys).

True. If David Bowie is not into men then he's straight he would probably be called meterosexual I don't think that term existed back then. But I can see that there are people who don't know the difference which is rather ignorant.

[Black_Barook!]

True. If David Bowie is not into men then he's straight he would probably be called Meterosexual I don't think that term existed back then. But I can see that there are people who don't know the difference which is rather ignorant.

Here's a silly question: Why the fudge does the word Meterosexual even exist? Is it so strange that certain men take pride in their appearance that a whole sexual definition had to be created? What the fudge do you call certain women who don't take care of their appearance?

[kiwi_tea]

I have to, once again, respectfully disagree. Both Islam and Christianity frown on Homosexual intercourse and yet male-to-male/female-to-female intimacy (Holding hands, kissing checks, hugging etc.) is widely accepted in Middle Eastern and Indian cultures and frowned upon in the West, more so for Males than Females.

But this merely shows a cultural variability in how homosexuality is defined. These groups attempt to redefine homosexuality as an act rather than a state of being, and so they do not see any sin in intimacy that is not that 'act'. Whereas in cultures where homosexuality is understood more clearly - not as an act, but as a broadly fixed psychological trait with widely varying kinds of physical expressions - the sin becomes attached to all sorts of innocuous behaviours. When of course, the fact of the matter is that neither homosexuality itself nor those associated behaviours are, generally, harmful or abject.

This is often how bigots define the homosexual lifestyle: That you can DO gay, but you can't BE gay.

EDIT: Metrosexual isn't a sexual term, it's an ironic term. A joke that helps illustrate that behaviours seen as 'gay' are, in fact, just human.

[kattenijin]

This is often how bigots define the homosexual lifestyle: That you can DO gay, but you can't BE gay.

I think you mean: That you can BE gay, but you can't DO gay. As in, it's ok to be gay, but you shouldn't act on it. Ie: remain in the closet, get married and have a "normal" life anyway, all the while ignoring your feelings. If you must, for some ungodly reason, act on your feelings, these should never,ever be noticed in any way by anybody.

Metrosexual:
A man who has a strong concern for his appearance or a lifestyle that displays attributes associated with homosexual men.

For some time now, old-fashioned (re)productive, repressed, unmoisturized heterosexuality has been given the pink slip by consumer capitalism. The stoic, self-denying, modest straight male didn't shop enough (his role was to earn money for his wife to spend), and so he had to be replaced by a new kind of man, one less certain of his identity and much more interested in his image – that's to say, one who was much more interested in being looked at (because that's the only way you can be certain you actually exist). A man, in other words, who is an advertiser's walking wet dream. Marc Simpson-Salon.Com

This thread is quite specifically not about religion or using religion as an excuse for bias.

As the originator of this thread, I'm stating that this is incorrect. I wanted to pose the question in the Christianity thread, but was told it wouldn't be discussed there, and to open a new thread, so I did.

Since it is quite often the religious left, and not-so-left espousing definitions of "gay lifestyle", any proof of its existence by a religious member would be greatly appreciated, as I'm still waiting for those from the other thread to either make a post, or to make a post with any substance.

If the mods do not wish to have religion in this thread, please make a post in the Christianity thread that my questions there are valid for that thread.

[kiwi_tea]

I was too ambiguous: I wasn't talking about the restrictions that some groups impose on behaviour (ie, "Little Johnny can *want* gay sex, just so long as he doesn't *do* gay sex"), I was talking about the way some religious cultures conceptualise homosexuality as an just act and not a broader identity trait, (ie, "Little Johnny isn't gay - nobody is naturally gay - he's just tempted to do dirty gay things").

[mangaroo]

Kattenijin, I've read back through the Religion: Christianity thread, and it appears you allowed a non-mod to chase you off. If you want to frame your question in religious terms (i.e., "How do Christians define a gay lifestyle?" or "Do all Christians think there is a gay lifestyle distinct from a straight lifestyle?"), then it belongs in the Christianity debate thread. No mod needs to go into that thread and say it belongs there. (We're moderators, not parents. We're not going to "make" anyone answer you if they choose to dodge your question.) However, as you framed the topic, this thread has nothing to do with religion. If it did, it would be locked, per debate forum rules.

[Elyasis]

Perhaps a sub board would be in order?
I know this forum isn't a debate forum. But as I do like to debate here because of the general intelligence level of the board users, it might do to make subsections instead of single threads for topics that have a wide range of debatable material. That way people can debate more specifically than generally. Er, it's only a suggestion... :lovestruc

[jhd1189]

Perhaps a sub board would be in order?
I know this forum isn't a debate forum. But as I do like to debate here because of the general intelligence level of the board users, it might do to make subsections instead of single threads for topics that have a wide range of debatable material. That way people can debate more specifically than generally. Er, it's only a suggestion... :lovestruc

The whole purpose behind narrowing religion and American politics down to three specific threads was to try and reduce how often those topics were used to derail other debates. We reached a point where nearly every topic was getting either derailed or repeated into infinity, and it was decided that for the time-being consolidating those topics into three general threads would be easier for everyone. I'm not sure how permanent it is, but we're sticking with it for now. :)

And kattenijin, you're more than welcome to bring up anything in the Christianity thread that is relevant to the topic of Christianity. To mangaroo's point, I think you were chased out of that thread by someone who wasn't actually a moderator.

[jooxis]

Women DO on average have lower sexdrives. The whole feminism "men and women are the same in their head" is kinda outdated.


This is total BS... it's silly if you think this.

[kiwi_tea]

This is total BS... it's silly if you think this.

Even if there is some truth to it, it's an average so it really doesn't back up the point he's trying to make.

[simbalena]

SIMPLE LOGIC: because women desire less sex than men its harder to get women in bed than men.

It's not logical to make a huge assumption like that!

There are many reason why it could be harder to get some women into bed, so I don't understand why you would automatically assume it was because they desire less sex.

[kattenijin]

While I seriously doubt that women have lower sex drives, I do believe they have a greater... hum... I'm not sure exactly what to call it. The lesbian couples I know, on average, tend to settle down more quickly and stay together longer, than the gay men. Although, the break-ups tend to be more "messy". Wether this is a cultural product, biological product, combination, or just the people I happen to know, I have no idea. The straight couples I know, have run the dating gammut before marriage. Again on average, though, they have gotten married later than the gays and lesbians have partnered up, and there has only been one divorce (still on-going and VERY acrimonious) so far. Again, yadda-yadda-yadda no idea.

I do feel that the lack of social expectations on homosexual relationships makes them easier to end. In my particular experience, when my partner and I decided to do the legal work to give each other the same benifits provided by marriage, it was a series of documents totaling OVER 300 pages; not something most couples consider doing in my experience. At the time I was amazed at how involved and complicated it was, just because our country won't provide one piece of paper to homosexual couples: a marriage license/certificate. I think if heterosexual couples had to go through the leagl mumbo-jumbo we did, you'd see a LOT less marriages there too.

[iCad]

RE: Religion as cause of homophobia:

I think it's kind of well known that religion -- any religion -- only tends to enforce and codify the prevailing and pre-existing local cultural customs and mores.

Sure, people can use their religion as an excuse for homophobia, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the religion is the CAUSE of the person's homophobia. Speaking, you know, logically. :) It's not like people become, say, Christian and then decide to be homophobic; it's more likely that they already feel kind of iffy about Teh Gay, and so Christianity becomes more attractive, especially if one also tends to agree with the other stuff that it espouses. It's kind of like how a given political party tends to be attractive to a person who already holds a given set of political beliefs. You go with the political party you already agree with; you go with the religion (or lack thereof) that you already agree with. Simple.

Further, I've known plenty of people who aren't/weren't particularly religious who just didn't like Teh Gay, often because, so they said, gay people made them feel uncomfortable. Particularly, this was so with straight men, as if they thought that a gay man would leap on them and seduce and rape them. I wouldn't call all of these people "homophobic," no (although some of them I most definitely would label that way), but it does put the lie to the popular notion that only religious people have a problem with gay people and so they create this mythological stereotype and brand it as some alternative and perverted "lifestyle."

Me, I tend to think the taboo is far older than religion and goes all the way back to the fact that homosexuality is not naturally conducive to the continuation of the species. The drive to continue the species is ingrained in our collective consciousness (though of course not necessarily in every individual). Or at least this is so if Darwin and evolutionary theory is true, yes? :) So, eventually, that gets codified into the various religions that develop. Not surprising.

RE: Women being less sexually-driven than men:

Speaking in a general sense, I think not. Although I DO tend to think (with no data to back me up, only experiential "evidence") that women in general will "settle down" with one partner more readily than men in general will. (There are always exceptions to every general rule, of course.) I think men in general have more of a drive to spread their seed far and wide, while women in general have more of a drive to focus on one individual. Of course, whether or not this is all culturally-driven or something biologically-ingrained, I don't really know. Not my areas of expertise at all. :) It's just what I've observed. Perhaps this in part fuels the "gay, swinging lifestyle" stereotype as well, since I tend to think it's applied more to gay men than to lesbians.

[kiwi_tea]

iCad, religion provides what Benjamin Kidd called 'ultra-rational sanctions': Once you accept a faith claim, you have thrown away any objective basis for that belief. In short, you've accepted that you won't use reason and observation in certain cases. On any objective study, homosexuality is harmless and homosexuals don't necessarily have much in common, other than sexual behaviour. But as an issue of faith, one may believe whatever they want so long as they reinforce it with an ultra-rational sanction, ie: 'my god sez'. This isn't totally unique to religion, but it's *much* harder for people to sustain this sort of belief without religion. People without religion are confined, largely, to use reason (even if they use it poorly).

I tend to think the taboo is far older than religion and goes all the way back to the fact that homosexuality is not naturally conducive to the continuation of the species.

Kin selection accounts pretty well for homosexuality's role in the so-called 'continuation of the species'. Having adult members of the tribe who are not necessarily committed to the (time-consuming and dangerous) task of breeding is a major asset to the continued survival of any population of animals. It would explain to some degree why homosexuality seems deeply embedded into the animal kingdom. But also remember that species continue not because of some global awareness but instead because individuals continue and breed and help the 'tribe' continue more generally for their own sake. It sounds like you might only have a fleeting understanding of modern evolutionary biology.

Those who feel homosexuality is 'unnatural' are basing their beliefs in a deep ignorance of modern science. (They're also ignoring the sheer volume of bisexuality, homosexuality and hermaphroditism that can be observed in our animal cousins).

Now, I think we're getting off topic a *little*. Let's be outright: The common perception of homosexuals is that they are 'feminised'. Why do you think that is?

[iCad]

iCad, religion provides what Benjamin Kidd called 'ultra-rational sanctions': Once you accept a faith claim, you have thrown away any objective basis for that belief. In short, you've accepted that you won't use reason and observation in certain cases.

On that, I disagree, if only in the case of myself. Now, perhaps it's a matter of operating from a different definition of "faith" here, but for me, objectivity, reasoning, and rationality underpin and support my faith. Blind faith is not for me, as much as its lauded in Christian circles. But to me claiming that you won't do something or believe something or what-have-you simply because "My God sez" is a cop-out. It's one that, most definitely, my Christian brethren will often use, indeed. But not all of us.

But like you said, off-topic, so... :)

Kin selection accounts pretty well for homosexuality's role in the so-called 'continuation of the species'. Having adult members of the tribe who are not necessarily committed to the (time-consuming and dangerous) task of breeding is a major asset to the continued survival of any population of animals. It would explain to some degree why homosexuality seems deeply embedded into the animal kingdom.

Yes. From a biological point of view. There are all sorts things that play into what allows a species (ourselves included) to continue to survive and the traits and such that this engenders and the on-the-surface contradictory traits and such that will continue. But consider how many people in general know what "kin selection" is at all. Given that most people don't really know what natural selection is at all (They'll reduce it to the "survival of the fittest" catchphrase), I highly doubt that it's many. :)

Instead, I'm sure that the majority of the "homosexuality ain't natural" folks (and not all of those people are people of faith) are just convinced that homosexuality is "unnatural" in part because of an incomplete understanding of how nature works. They see that homosexual couples do not breed without intervention of some sort -- which is, of course, true; this is the "fact" of which I spoke -- and it stops there. Homosexuality becomes unnatural and un-fit, and they're not interested in learning otherwise because they want nothing to challenge their beliefs, for fear that they will have to change them.

And yes, people are ignorant of science. Or they'll pick and choose; they "know" just enough science to deflect, so they think, the arguments of those who oppose them. Witness the creationists. :) People who do know a bit more tend not to be quite so...dogmatic about this particular issue.

Now, I think we're getting off topic a *little*. Let's be outright: The common perception of homosexuals is that they are 'feminised'. Why do you think that is?

Why do I think that people perceive homosexual men as effeminate, you mean? I can't say that I know because I don't think that way. Two of my closest friends happen to be a gay couple; they resemble none of the stereotypes. To me, sexual preference is just that: With whom you prefer to have sex. That certain characteristics are pinned to certain preferences is IMO the result of stereotyping, media portrayals, the actions of certain people, ignorance, fear...all sorts of things. It all boils down to, I think, the fact that people don't want their cherished beliefs and opinions challenged because then they might have to admit to being an ass. :) It's easier to close their eyes and believe that the stereotype applies universally.

[Neerie]

I stumbled uppon this just now and figured it was more than appropriate to post. It starts as follow:

(CNN) -- On most mornings, my better half wakes up around 5:30, throws on some sweats and heads to the gym before work.

About a half hour later, I wake up my 13-year-old son, go downstairs to the kitchen to make his breakfast and pack his lunch. Once he's out the door, I brew some coffee and get to work.

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you the "gay lifestyle" -- run for your heterosexual lives.

Read the rest of the article (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/06/granderson.gay.lifestyle/index.html?hpt=C2)

[grumpy_otter]

I stumbled uppon this just now and figured it was more than appropriate to post. It starts as follow:

(CNN) -- On most mornings, my better half wakes up around 5:30, throws on some sweats and heads to the gym before work.

About a half hour later, I wake up my 13-year-old son, go downstairs to the kitchen to make his breakfast and pack his lunch. Once he's out the door, I brew some coffee and get to work.

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you the "gay lifestyle" -- run for your heterosexual lives.

Read the rest of the article (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/06/granderson.gay.lifestyle/index.html?hpt=C2)

That is shocking! Gay people MAKE BREAKFAST for their children!!!!????? What kind of values are they teaching? That child will never know how to make french toast, or scrambled eggs, or waffles--Oh, I can't go on!

(EDIT, just in case--I'm totally kidding and that is a great article--thanks for posting it)

[kiwi_tea]

So, basically, you think gays actually ARE like they're portrayed in the media? Gee. Do you also think that about Christians? I bet you don't.

[HystericalParoxysm]

I don't even know what to say to all that from Cyberian Trooper besides that it's so horribly off topic, offensive, and misguided that I don't think I have a facepalm/fail macro sufficient for it. So instead, I'll tell her to stay the hell out of this thread before I get -really- pissed off.

[grumpy_otter]

I don't even know what to say to all that from Cyberian Trooper besides that it's so horribly off topic, offensive, and misguided that I don't think I have a facepalm/fail macro sufficient for it. So instead, I'll tell her to stay the hell out of this thread before I get -really- pissed off.

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

[grumpy_otter]

Wow it's talk shows about just about every thing gay. Gays and bi-sexuals sure get a lot of media attention.


Next on Dr. Phil--"we talk to middle-class heterosexuals who have no problems in their lives!"

You can ALWAYS find examples of extremes in behavior from ANY group that you want to portray as behaving badly--it has little to do with the reality. I would suggest that reading some scholarly books might give you a better picture of real life.

[kattenijin]

Hate, hate, and more hate.

Well, here are a few facts on "the gay lifestyle" you probably don't know:


Tonight there are 1.3 million homeless children on America’s streets.

Forty percent are under 15.

Up to forty percent are LGBT children. It’s difficult to say how many because we live in a society that will make their lives even more miserable should they confess to being LGBT.

Tomorrow thirteen of those children will be dead, and the day after that, and the day after that, etc., etc., etc.


I hope it makes you happy to know that because of people like you, over 200,000 gay and lesbian youth under the age of 15 are homeless because their "true Christian" parents threw them away like trash. By law a parent is responsible for their child's health and well being untill the age of 18. I guess your "true Christian" values superceed the law.

[Nekowolf]

Katt, I hope the moderators don't mind me saying this.

That was something of a low blow. Look, can we please try to avoid the whole religion bashing part in this thread at least? I'm not trying to defend anyone, but that is not about gay lifestyle, that is about really bad overly-zealous parents.

No, it doesn't change the fact that it happens, but I think you are trying to cause more trouble than is needed for one topic. So could we please try to avoid involving Christianity as evil, at least?

[Oaktree]

Let's come out of the closet shall we? It's all about the sex and self promotion. Some of it boarders on pedophile too in some cases, but not all but it seems to be almost leaning in that direction and please don't say that some of these pedophiles aren't gay themselves because there are. But oh what a life to bring up your future children in. Surround them with all kinds, hey it's the life you want and gee will some one get hurt one day? Who knows?

I have to wonder if some of these gay people will have a child that gets raped by another person who may also claim to be gay too. Oh but guess what the gay life style will try to cover that up and you won't hear about it in the news media unless something like that just happens to be reported.

There are more cases of child molestation committed against girls than boys and 90% of child molesters are men. (Source: http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/VS75.pdf) This means that most cases of child molestation are committed by heterosexual men. Does that mean that no man should be allowed access to his child, even if he is in a heterosexual marriage? No. Child molesters are only a small percentage of the population, so judging everyone based on that minority is wrong.

More self promotion here about being gay and so what? How many heterosexuals get on you tube and say hey I'm heterosexual and this is me, just because they are heterosexuals and they are promoting it. No, they talk about other things and they leave their sexuality out of it. If they are mostly half decent.

1. Gays are a persecuted minority, so when people are loud about it, it is because they want a change. They want to draw attention to the absurdity in the fact that homosexuality is so reviled.

2. Not all gays are loud about their sexuality. The reason why you don't hear from these people is because they are quiet about it. Your perception of the gay community is skewed by the relatively small group that are loud about their sexuality.

3. Heterosexuals are also often loud about their sexuality. They don't focus on making a point to say that they are heterosexual, but when a man talks about some woman he wants to screw or a woman talks the same way about a man, that is a heterosexual being loud about their sexuality. PDA between heterosexual couples is the same thing, and I see a lot more heterosexual PDA than homosexual PDA.


I think it's a selfish thing for a man who sleeps with a man and then sleeps with his girlfriend or wife. (Same thing if it were a woman.) I think even in marriage too because how screwed up will that child end up being? I have seen enough talk shows on gay families and how they are raising kids and one of the children I saw looked very confused to me and yes it was the very thing I had noticed sadly. :(

I grew up being confused being raised both catholic and protestant so how much different would it be for a child to be raised with some one who lives two lives styles? I do know what confusion is and I grew up in it and it was a hard life. It wasn't my belief that screwed me up it was religion combined with my belief in God that had me confused so it will be rather hard I would imagine on a child if a parent confused a child that way.

I think it's wrong for someone to cheat on their spouse as well, but some of it is due to the fact that homosexuality is so reviled that some people will try to cover it up. If our society was more accepting of homosexuality, then people would be more likely to marry someone of the gender they are attracted to, rather than feeling shame about their preference.

Show me studies that find that children raised in a household with two parents of the same sex are "screwed up". The studies show that children raised in that kind of household are no more likely than the general population to be gay.

Were you an exact duplicate of your parents? Do you know anyone who is? Children will always have some differences from their parents, but they retain those differences even after living with their parents. There is no such thing as a "perfect" parent, because there will always be some things that the parent and child won't see eye to eye on. It is still possible to raise a healthy child even with those differences.

Wow it's talk shows about just about every thing gay. Gays and bi-sexuals sure get a lot of media attention.

Oh don't judge us verses don't judge us. Live and Let Live sure if you are on your way headed for such good things in the future by the look of things. I will be forward to the day when I won't have to deal with this crappy state of the world as it is right now. I look forward to it when it all ends!


Talk shows pay a lot of attention to gays and bisexuals because homo- and bi-sexuality are so controversial. If they were more accepted, there would be no shock value to talking about it, so there wouldn't be as much attention. By reviling homosexuality, you are contributing to the fact that it gets so much attention.

[Nekowolf]

"Show me studies that find that children raised in a household with two parents of the same sex are "screwed up". The studies show that children raised in that kind of household are no more likely than the general population to be gay."

And NOT by groups like The Heritage Foundation, Focus on the Family, Eagle Forum, and other similar organizations.

[kattenijin]

Katt, I hope the moderators don't mind me saying this.

That was something of a low blow. Look, can we please try to avoid the whole religion bashing part in this thread at least? I'm not trying to defend anyone, but that is not about gay lifestyle, that is about really bad overly-zealous parents.

No, it doesn't change the fact that it happens, but I think you are trying to cause more trouble than is needed for one topic. So could we please try to avoid involving Christianity as evil, at least?

No, because Christians (ok, and others) will bitch and moan about "the Gay Lifestyle" and never accept the part they play in it. They will never really "see" the street kids, and if they do, it will only be the sex/hustling they do to get some money to get food to try to stay alive, that these kids somehow "deserve" what they have gotten. If you think this type of behavior is ok, that's your perogative, but I'll "bash back" as long as it takes to make a difference. If you can't handle that, then I suggest you chose other threads to participate in.

Not everything in this world is "nice". Sometimes there are bitter hard truths to swallow. Sometimes peoples sensitivity gets stomped on. Well, this is something I live with every day. Welcome to my world.

[kiwi_tea]

How many heterosexuals get on you tube and say hey I'm heterosexual and this is me, just because they are heterosexuals and they are promoting it.

I don't see anyone questioning a heterosexual's right to a normal, healthy heterosexual life, though? Do you?

Forcing them to believe as I believe upon them is not an option. Loving them should be the unconditional Love that comes from God. If they choose God over being Gay then it would have to be their choice. No, sense in forcing that on them that wouldn't be right either.

So, basically, take a small child, fill them through the years with the understanding that you think homosexuality is wrong and to be fought, but that they can choose it if they want. And then wait for the guilt and self-loathing to kick in? How is that not child abuse?

[Nekowolf]

@Katt

Dude. This is not about "pushing back." This is about arguing over what is the gay lifestyle, and if there is one. Don't you preach to me; I hear plenty of shit. But this topic is not about going around and bashing Christians and Christianity, no matter how misguided you think her comment is. There's a topic for that, and I would prefer it if stayed in it.

I'm fine for discussing parents leaving their children, but let's face it, you were going for a more direct target, and by the looks of it, I didn't see much intention to spur on the debate, but only to attack someone.

There, I said my mind, I'm done say more about this.

As for Cyber, I'll have to get back to you. Got to read it first. Somewhat distracted at the moment however.

[kiwi_tea]

You needn't be bossy or physically abusive to be abusive. Teaching a child with red hair that you - the child's parent and role model - believe red hair is a sin and should be dyed, and then letting the guilt force a conversion can do a lot of damage. Just the same as teaching a child the same about being homosexual.

Oh that's right I have been abused by some people out here that bash my faith that they really do not have any clue about what it is to be a Christian or have any understanding of the context of scripture.

Take it to the Xtian thread, please. I was Christian. I do understand scripture in its historical and theological context, apparently more clearly than you. But please, take it to the thread it belongs in.

[sanyopk]

very good topic

[grumpy_otter]

I have never said that I don't have problems. Have you read some where out here where I said I didn't have any?

My Dr. Phil jest was meant to point out that talk shows are not interested in interviewing people with no problems (because then they'd get no ratings)--I did not mean to imply that you have no problems. I just meant that if you look at talk shows, they are trying to find the oddest people out there, not the norm.


Seriously, I don't think you could handle the problems I am dealing with right now

I will not make assumptions about your life (where you thought I did was a misunderstanding). Please do not make assumptions about what I can or cannot handle.

[supaclova]

I hope this doesn't seem out of place or off topic, but I'd like to bring up a book I recently read that talks about a lot of the things people have brought up in this thread. It's called 'Freaks and Revelations' by Davida Wills Hurwin. One of the boys in the story was 13 years old, and came out as gay to his family. His mother was a very devout Christian (and, before anyone gets offended, I'm not saying that's a bad thing) and she told him he was going to Hell and kicked him out of the house. Living out on the street, the only choice he had to stay alive was to get into prostitution.
It's important to know that this happens. The fact that gays are portrayed as perverts is unfair. Sure, some are. Some straight people are too. And of course MOST Christian mothers would never kick out their child regardless of their sexual orientation, but some do.
I know this is a little bit off topic, but it addresses some of what people were saying.

[supaclova]

Honestly, Cyberian Trooper, I was making a point. It was not a flippin personal attack at you. CALM DOWN. And I also said in my post that I was NOT bashing Christians. Everyone in my entire family is Christian except for me so I have absolutely nothing against Christians as a group.
And people ARE doing things about homeless kids. What makes you think people aren't? And why do you assume that it has to be gay people who help gay kids?
You are so unbelievably prejudice and judgmental that I find it next to impossible to read your posts.

[supaclova]

No, you were basically saying that gay people don't care about kids. Don't try to say that's not what you were saying, because it was.
So then does this mean that you don't even care about your own people?
Hmm...I don't see how this could have any other meaning.

[supaclova]

Yes, there are TONS of charities that help homeless people, but I don't see what that has to do with the topic.
Unless you meant specifically gay homeless people? If that's the case, then no.

[uberguy5]

I'm just trying to understand your question CT. Do you mean a straight person that is the opposite gender? I've had that happen a couple of times where a girl would show interest in me. She'd ask if I'm interested and would like to go out etc, etc. In this scenario the only thing a gay person can do is respectfully tell the person the truth. I told the girls that I'm not interested because I'm not sexually attracted to women. That my sexual preference is for males.

What i'm getting at is telling the truth is more beneficial then telling a lie. One gets more respect and understanding from the person that is being rejected. They didn't know that I or another person is gay. Who knows it could turn into a friendship because trust is established.

As to answer the second question. No that is not the way to do things. If someone is expressing no interest then back off. There is still potential to be friends but don't pursue the person. That often leads to a restraining order.

[Neerie]

Too many threads.
Too many threads with intertwined topics.
I have something to post, but now I have no clue where to post it lol.

Anyhow, I figured that of the 3 threads I might post it in, this was the most appropriate (I hope).. my second choice was the christianity thread. Anyway, I stumbled upon this documentary a few days ago entitled "The Bible told me so" which depicts the stories of very devoted christian families who end up having gay children despite being raised to believe how bad and sinful it is in their faith, and how this was dealth with (for lack of better wording), along with an analysis of those passages in the Bible where homosexuality is "mentionned".

So here's the reason why I post this in this thread, because the documentary is about lives (and I guess "lifestyle").

And here's the link to the first part of the documentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04AVRslVRbY) for those interested in watching (it would be awesome if CT would watch this one - I'm not trying to change your mind on the issue, but I thought you might enjoy watching a documentary that shows how people can be both christians and homosexual and not be torn about it).

[HystericalParoxysm]

This thread is NOT about Christianity - or religion in general. At all. Please leave religion out of this thread as it is off topic. We have threads on religion for just that purpose but it is really irritating to see every thread continually dragged off topic with religion when it has nothing to do with the thread topic.

Cyberian Trooper has chosen to ignore my instructions to stay off this thread, so she will no longer be participating in debates. Please do not direct your comments at Cyberian Trooper and her previous statements as she will not be seeing them to reply.

[Neerie]

Would it be better if I moved my previous post to the christianity thread? Honnestly I have no problem doing so, and like I said, it was my other choice of where to post it. Also I'm sorry if I should have posted it there, the crossing between these two topics in so many threads just made it more confusing for me.

[kattenijin]

Sorry I've been out of touch for a while, this thing called "real life" took over.

Anyhow, even though this is a response to a CT post, it's for anyone who may want an answer to her question.

She wanted to know what the gay community is doing about homless gay youth, and the answer is as a community not much. Mostly it has to do with the belief in the comunity that gay and lesbian adults trying to reach out to any youth under the age of 18, regardless of oreintation, would be percieved by mainstream society as "recruitment" and/or being motivated soley by sexual interest. Any outreach that I know of is being done by individuals, and small groups: such as adoption and foster parenting and charitable donations to youth centers and food pantrys.


I'm not saying nothig is being done by anyone, http://www.aliforneycenter.org/resources.html , but going over the list it is apparent that the amount of aid vs the amount of homless youth is out of balance. Also, none of the resources on the list are soley gay run/funded/organized/whathaveyou.

[Safyre420]

Sorry I've been out of touch for a while, this thing called "real life" took over.

Anyhow, even though this is a response to a CT post, it's for anyone who may want an answer to her question.

She wanted to know what the gay community is doing about homless gay youth, and the answer is as a community not much. Mostly it has to do with the belief in the comunity that gay and lesbian adults trying to reach out to any youth under the age of 18, regardless of oreintation, would be percieved by mainstream society as "recruitment" and/or being motivated soley by sexual interest. Any outreach that I know of is being done by individuals, and small groups: such as adoption and foster parenting and charitable donations to youth centers and food pantrys.


I'm not saying nothig is being done by anyone, http://www.aliforneycenter.org/resources.html , but going over the list it is apparent that the amount of aid vs the amount of homless youth is out of balance. Also, none of the resources on the list are soley gay run/funded/organized/whathaveyou.

Another point I'd like to point out is that the gay community CAN'T do much due to the "Christian"s involvement of preventing the gay community from helping those children that need to be adopted. The Christian Community of America are more concerned about what the gay community does in the bedroom that children that need homes, caring homes, that they're doing everything they can to prevent willing people to adopt these children that NEED loving and caring homes. They are preventing adoption while also encouraging people to stop aborting and put kids up for adoption yet doing absolutely NOTHING to help get these kids that are put up for adoption homes. They are preventing these kids from getting homes for their own selfish reasons. And people wonder why Christianity in America has such a bad name.

Edited to Add:
If you are a Christian and don't hold the sentiment that many of american christians hold, speak out about it, help the LGBT community adopt without having the third degree, help us help the children that need homes. If you are a true christian you know what the other christians are doing to prevent the kids of having homes that WANT them. The only way the gay community can combat the Christian Community is with members of the christian community helping them. While I may sound like an ass or something you know what I say is true, and while I'm sure those that are accepting of the gay community here share my sentiments, and probably doing more than I am to help, the christians need to help their fellow christians see it how the christ-like christians see it.

Sorry but I do feel that the christ-like christians don't speak out enough. They need to be as outspoken as the WBC, not through words but through action, they are the ones that need to convince their fellow christians that this is what christ would do. I may not be christian but I do know that Jesus would do all in his power to help those that want to provide loving and caring homes. Jesus Christ would make sure that the children that are put up for adoption find loving and caring homes, whether they are with gay parents, straight parents, bi parents, asexual parents, transexual parents and even single parents.

I may sound crude and pushy, but the unspoken christ-like christians NEED to be the most outspoken, they need to show their fellow christians that we(the gay community) aren't the perverts they make us out to be.

Passive aggressive ain't gonna cut it.

[ivan17]

What are the advantages of "Gay Lifestyle"?

[HystericalParoxysm]

Additional levels of fabulousness?

Srsly though, for most people, they just live their lives. Their sexual orientation affects what they do in the bedroom. The rest of their life is their lifestyle - their hobbies, interests, pursuits, etc... I guess the advantages to being gay include no need for contraception, no accidental pregnancies, and perhaps a bit of character-building due to being in a somewhat hated minority. Other than that it's pretty much like being straight until everyone's taken their pants off.

[Nekowolf]

Time for a pantless party!~ Sorry, just had to do it :P Alright, everyone carry on now.

[yadarya]

There is so much hate and many serious problems in the world. I therefore can not understand how people can spend so much time and energy worrying about who people do and do not love or are attracted to. Love and happiness are elements of life that nearly every human being seeks out. Who is anyone to deny others these things?

There are so many other things humanity should be spending its efforts on, and sexual diversity, or any diversity for that matter, is NOT a "problem" that needs to be "fixed". Let's get it together, people.

[kiwi_tea]

Additional levels of fabulousness?

You're mixing up the causation. The Government (which as we all know is a hotbed of homosexual activism) actually hires us to be gay based of our pre-existing level of fabulousness (hence the lower average level of fab in so many other careers). We're then issued with a box of hot-pink phallic/vaginal candy with which to recruit the young. We're graded on the commission we earn in tips from the teenagers we seduce. This culminates each election cycle in a Battle Royale-style showdown of the highest earners (what we term the 'Highest Honorable Sluts of Sodom') with the sole survivor being named President or Prime Minister depending on the region's style of governance. The dead are cannibalised. As you can see, it's a fool proof system, it brought us all Bush and Obama, not to mention Putin and Chávez.

That, roughly, is the Gay Agenda.

[iCad]

You're mixing up the causation. The Government (which as we all know is a hotbed of homosexual activism) actually hires us to be gay based of our pre-existing level of fabulousness (hence the lower average level of fab in so many other careers). We're then issued with a box of hot-pink phallic/vaginal candy with which to recruit the young. We're graded on the commission we earn in tips from the teenagers we seduce. This culminates each election cycle in a Battle Royale-style showdown of the highest earners (what we term the 'Highest Honorable Sluts of Sodom') with the sole survivor being named President or Prime Minister depending on the region's style of governance. The dead are cannibalised. As you can see, it's a fool proof system, it brought us all Bush and Obama, not to mention Putin and Chávez.

That, roughly, is the Gay Agenda.

*dies*

My dear, you are fabulous. :)

On a more serious note, and something that I seem to have missed somewhere, no doubt due to illness:


I may sound crude and pushy, but the unspoken christ-like christians NEED to be the most outspoken, they need to show their fellow christians that we(the gay community) aren't the perverts they make us out to be.

Too true. And I'm doing my part, as best I can. The two gay couples in my home fellowship actively attempt to get the various churches in the area and the local LGBT community to, you know, talk to each other, in an attempt to de-demonize each side in the eyes of the other so that eyes and minds can be opened on both sides. It is...difficult. They meet resistance from BOTH sides because both tend to be...entrenched in their opinions, and sometimes understandably. But the only way the problem can really be addressed is if BOTH sides talk rationally and reasonably like the grown-ups they claim to be and thus put down the poo that they like to reflexively fling at each other.

And really, I don't think this is all that uncommon. It's just that the poo-flingers, on both sides, get a lot more attention.

[fakepeeps7]

We're then issued with a box of hot-pink phallic/vaginal candy with which to recruit the young.

Ohhh... So that's what that impeccably dressed guy was doing on the street corner near my high school! :lol:

[Nekowolf]

You're mixing up the causation. The Government (which as we all know is a hotbed of homosexual activism) actually hires us to be gay based of our pre-existing level of fabulousness (hence the lower average level of fab in so many other careers). We're then issued with a box of hot-pink phallic/vaginal candy with which to recruit the young. We're graded on the commission we earn in tips from the teenagers we seduce. This culminates each election cycle in a Battle Royale-style showdown of the highest earners (what we term the 'Highest Honorable Sluts of Sodom') with the sole survivor being named President or Prime Minister depending on the region's style of governance. The dead are cannibalised. As you can see, it's a fool proof system, it brought us all Bush and Obama, not to mention Putin and Chávez.

That, roughly, is the Gay Agenda.
DAMN IT! I thought that that was the Progressive Movement, I'm doing the wrong Agenda!

Okay, okay :P Back on topic, uh...

...gay rights, woo? *has nothing to add at this moment* Oh, how about that gay divorce case down in Texas?

[fakepeeps7]

Oh, how about that gay divorce case down in Texas?

I hadn't heard about that one. I just had a look.

Are marriages performed in one state not recognized in other states?

And why would any gay couple continue to live in a place that doesn't accept their marriage? What was the point of getting married, then? They wouldn't be able to reap the benefits of it, even if they stayed married!

[Nekowolf]

Honestly, it confuses me to. Cause, marriage benefits are federal, but marriage certification is state. And then there's gay marriage, where your marriage status is, as far as I know, not recognized outside of states where it is legalized?

Unless there's state benefits which you get from marriage (not married, so wouldn't know), but you still keep the federal benefits, therefore, you are recognized on the federal level but not the state level, but if that was the case, wouldn't federal override state?

@.@ I'm confused, too!

[ivan17]

I think that gay marriage is absurd.

[Nekowolf]

Yes, I'm sure you do.

[Elyasis]

I think that gay marriage is absurd.

I'd like to see you defend that position without bringing up religion of any sort. It's impossible to defend without calling on religion. :giggler:

[kattenijin]

Honestly, it confuses me to. Cause, marriage benefits are federal, but marriage certification is state. And then there's gay marriage, where your marriage status is, as far as I know, not recognized outside of states where it is legalized?

Unless there's state benefits which you get from marriage (not married, so wouldn't know), but you still keep the federal benefits, therefore, you are recognized on the federal level but not the state level, but if that was the case, wouldn't federal override state?

@.@ I'm confused, too!

In the case of gay marriage, the federal government dosen't recognize them (DOMA), you only have state benefits; ie if you are fileing taxes, you can file a joint state return but not a federal. As far as I'm able to understand, other than the 6 states that allow gay mariage; Maryland is the only state that recognises out of state gay marriage within the state.

Technically, even for straight marriage, if for some reason, I dunno...Montana, decided it didn't want to recognize marriages from any other state it could. You'd have to be married in Montana in addition to your marriage from whatever state you are from, although if you decided for whatever reason to not get married again in Montana, the federal government would still recognize your marriage from the state you married in.

To use the tax example again, you could file a joint federal, but not a joint state return.

The line between federal recognition of marriage and state recognition is very blurry.

[ivan17]

I'd like to see you defend that position without bringing up religion of any sort. It's impossible to defend without calling on religion. :giggler:

It is possible. I think that is absurd with and without religion.
Who's wearing wedding gown? :rofl:

[HystericalParoxysm]

That's not really much of an argument, ivan17. Nobody has to wear a wedding gown to have a wedding. I got married in a short black halter dress - is my marriage less valid because I didn't wear a long white gown for the ceremony?

Clothing does not make a wedding, or a marriage. Whether you're gay or straight, marriage is about a partnership - someone who's always there for you through thick and thin. And about who does the dishes and cleans the toilet. Doesn't matter whether you fuck girls or boys at that point, as long as you're with someone who you can trust and care about for life.

If two people are willing to go through the legal and social process of committing to each other for life, then it shouldn't matter what gender they are. They still have to deal with each others' quirks and dirty socks - nobody else does, so whether you think it's ridiculous or not, it's their business. If they've made a commitment to each other, good for them - whether it works out for them or not.

Perhaps it's just easier for some people to demonize homosexuality when you can look at them like uncaring, promiscuous sex addicts who will fuck anyone with the right set of genitals. When they decide to settle down and make a commitment to each other like straight people do, making a home and a family together (ignoring divorce and adultery rates in m/f marriage - as it seems a lot of the "sanctity of marriage" wailers do), it's a lot harder to claim they're doing something wrong when they just want to live their lives together like anyone else.

[ivan17]

Wedding dress was just joke. I just wanted to participate in this thread to prove how is easy to attack and hard to defend.
I am fan of world before World War I. ...modern world...is marriage still necessary? Many think that religion isn't, why then marriage is?

[HystericalParoxysm]

Marriage is a social and legal commitment between two people to cohabit, share responsibility for children and financials, act as the person making decisions if one is incapacitated with medical issues (and allowing visitation), funeral arrangements, immigration, taxes, insurance, and a whole lot of other things. Saying "I have committed myself to this person and they've committed themselves to me" gives them a social and legal right to certain privlidges that you cannot otherwise have. You can make a commitment to each other in your hearts and have it be just as valid or more than the commitment made with marriage, but for the other things... you must marry to get those benefits.

[Nekowolf]

And if you really want, I can bust out the U.S. Constitution, since I'm from the U.S. (even if it does not apply to you). Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment.

Hell, I think the Mormon churches involved in Proposition 8 should be stripped of their exception of religious institutions. They clearly stepped over the line by getting involved in politics via donations. But that's for another topic.

Oh. And it's not hard to defend if you can actually have good grounding, saying it's hard to defend, frankly, makes anything you say even more questionable.

[Neerie]

Who's wearing wedding gown? :rofl:
How about neither or both if they so desire?

You have a very narrow view of a marriage if it is defined by the attire during the ceremony.

[Oaktree]

In the case of gay marriage, the federal government dosen't recognize them (DOMA), you only have state benefits; ie if you are fileing taxes, you can file a joint state return but not a federal. As far as I'm able to understand, other than the 6 states that allow gay mariage; Maryland is the only state that recognises out of state gay marriage within the state.


Unfortunately, Maryland is considering pushing through legislation that would revoke this recognition of out-of-state gay marriages. I think it's idiotic and I'm shocked that it's being considered in such a liberal state. I'm from Maryland, so I have lived with people who vote party lines (Democrat) all the way and some who espouse socialism. I don't see where the opposition is coming from.

Further, straight marriages from other states are recognized from state to state, so I think that the pattern should be upheld with gay marriages.

/end rant

[ivan17]

@Nekowolf

It's hard to defend when English isn't your maternal language. :)

@Neerie

LOL. It was just joke. :D

[Nekowolf]

I'll concede to that much, at least.

[ivan17]

If you are now 5-7 years old, where would you like to live - in gay family or straight family?
Share with us your thoughts.

[HystericalParoxysm]

There are no 5-7 year olds on this site. You must be 13+ to be here.

As long as you are well taken care of and loved, what does it matter if you have two mommies or two daddies? Gay parents can be just as good of parents as straight ones - but children who are actually planned and come into a family that's ready for them tend to do better than unplanned "whoops!" ones. And you don't tend to have accidental children with your same sex partner. :P

[Nekowolf]

Either one. Aside from sex, there's no real sociological difference between them; like media v. violence, pretty much as a whole, it's inconclusive.

[iCad]

If you are now 5-7 years old, where would you like to live - in gay family or straight family?
Share with us your thoughts.

So long as I was loved and cared-for, I wouldn't care.

As a point of interest, one of the gay couples in my home fellowship has a daughter. She was a foster child at first, and she came to live with them when she was five. She had been physically abused by her (heterosexual, obviously) parents, both of them crystal meth addicts. Eventually, they were eventually able to adopt her, after a long court battle that eventually went to the state Supreme Court. She is now a happy, well-adjusted 17-year old who gets straight As in school and is going to the Air Force Academy next year. She suffers no social side effects of being raised by gay people (who, among her friends, are considered the "cool parents."). She is quite happy to have two dads who adore her (and, really, spoil her rotten), as opposed to a mother and father who once beat her nearly to death.

[mangaroo]

If you are now 5-7 years old, where would you like to live - in gay family or straight family?
Share with us your thoughts.

Seriously, that's your only variable? What if the straight parents are getting a divorce and the gay parents are happily married? Which family do you want to be in now? What if the straight parents are struggling with debt and the gay family is fabulously wealthy? What if the straight dad is a mean drunk and his abused wife is an abusive mother in turn?

I can think of a lot more serious issues that have a direct impact on the happiness and well-being of a child than the sexual orientation of their parents.

[fakepeeps7]

If you are now 5-7 years old, where would you like to live - in gay family or straight family?
Share with us your thoughts.

I want to live in a loving family. What my parents do in the bedroom with each other doesn't affect me.

Do you think most kids that age know the details of what their straight parents are doing in their bedroom? I hope not.

If I had two moms who loved me or two dads who loved me, that would be just fine. Are those scenarios any worse than being raised by a single mother who brings home a new boyfriend every week? Or being raised by grandparents? Or being raised by a string of potentially abusive foster parents?

[jooxis]

The only drawback of being raised by gay parents is potentially being teased/bullied in school over it. But jerks will be jerks...

[fakepeeps7]

The only drawback of being raised by gay parents is potentially being teased/bullied in school over it. But jerks will be jerks...

Kids have been bullied long before anyone had gay parents.

You're right: jerks will be jerks. They'll go after anyone who's different, whether that means they're straight, gay, redheaded, short, tall, skinny, fat, freckled, bespectacled, smart, stupid, malodorous, creative... Well, you get the idea.

[Neerie]

The only drawback of being raised by gay parents is potentially being teased/bullied in school over it. But jerks will be jerks...

Isn't it an intesting fact that in many places, but in this case I will refer to the USA in the most part, the main argument against same-sex couple adoption (beside the silly "the kids will turn gay too" one) is "but those kids could be bullied by their peers", while at the same time being against any form of teaching respect and acceptance to the kids in general?

Of course if you make sure kids are not tought to be respectful there will be bullying down the line!

[fakepeeps7]

Isn't it an intesting fact that in many places, but in this case I will refer to the USA in the most part, the main argument against same-sex couple adoption (beside the silly "the kids will turn gay too" one) is "but those kids could be bullied by their peers", while at the same time being against any form of teaching respect and acceptance to the kids in general?

No kidding. A local school board spent over a million taxpayer dollars fighting against tolerance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamberlain_v._Surrey_School_District_No._36). I love the judge's ruling where she said:

"Tolerance is always age-appropriate, children cannot learn unless they are exposed to views that differ from those they are taught at home."

Amen.

[ivan17]

Everything depends about domiciliary upbringing of children.

[Nekowolf]

Of which there is no discernible difference between straight couples and gay couples.

[fakepeeps7]

I guess we should also ban single people from raising children, too... You know, because they might want to grow up and become a single parent, and that would just be so horrible!

[HystericalParoxysm]

And we'd -definitely- want to ban straight people from raising children. After all, most gay people are the children of straight parents.

[Safyre420]

And we'd -definitely- want to ban straight people from raising children. After all, most gay people are the children of straight parents.

So true! Better yet let's just ban anyone from having children since a good majority are too busy with their careers to even bother with raising their children properly and let them run around doing whatever the hell they please. Lack of discipline FTL!

[ivan17]

After all, most gay people are the children of straight parents.

This sounds funny. Gay parents together can't have biological childrens. But I understand. Everything depends, like I said, about domiciliary upbringing of children and about genetics.
And, yeah, we all depends about chromosomes XX and XY. Y chromosom is consequential for our whole life.

[Neerie]

And, yeah, we all depends about chromosomes XX and XY. Y chromosom is consequential for our whole life.

Gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation, are 3 different things, just saying. And you could also add gender roles, which varries from culture to culture. Not to mention that genetics and gender can sometime fall out of the "normal" line, like in cases where someone is born with extra "sexual" chromosomes (XXY or XYY).

Isn't diversity just beautiful? :P

[CmarNYC]

This sounds funny. Gay parents together can't have biological childrens. But I understand. Everything depends, like I said, about domiciliary upbringing of children and about genetics.
And, yeah, we all depends about chromosomes XX and XY. Y chromosom is consequential for our whole life.

Are you talking about happiness or sexual orientation? Upbringing is important to happiness, certainly, but seems to have no effect on orientation with the possible exception of causing gay people to hide their natural sexual inclinations. With genetics - while there's lots of evidence that mood and outlook on life have a strong genetic component, the situation is not so clear for orientation. The latest research indicates that the causes may involve conditions in the womb, differences in biochemistry, brain structure, even birth order. It's a complicated situation.

And it's NOT a choice. The very idea is absolutely idiotic and I was disgusted to see it dredged up earlier in this thread. "Gee, should I spend my life being straight and having my sexual and romantic relationships encouraged and supported by my friends, family, and society - or be gay/bi and be the target of discrimination, cruel jokes, offensive language, possible violence, be told I'm sinful, risk rejection by my family, and not be able to marry and have children? Wow, that's a tough choice."

[fakepeeps7]

Y chromosom is consequential for our whole life.

By that reasoning, you've just dismissed half of the earth's population as inconsequential.

I'm not quite sure what X and Y chromosomes have to do with anything. We're talking about homosexuality... and gay people have X and/or Y chromosomes just like the rest of us.

[ivan17]

If we are talking about female gay, then that one Y was decisive for her. She is XXX (XX), but her soul and psyche is XXY (XY). That's making her ,maybe, a gay person.

[Nekowolf]

...wait.

...WHAT!? *reads that again* Okay, I repeat, WHAT?

Dude, that makes no damn sense. What science are you basing this off of? It sounds more like none than anything else. So I guess bisexuals are hermaphrodites?

[Oaktree]

If we are talking about female gay, then that one Y was decisive for her. She is XXX (XX), but her soul and psyche is XXY (XY). That's making her ,maybe, a gay person.

The vast majority of the population is XX or XY. Neerie was pointing out a rare condition in which one receives an extra chromosome. It is often the case that a gay individual receives too little of the correct sex hormone/too much of the opposite sex's sex hormone or excessive amounts of the correct sex hormone. This is not generally caused by having the wrong chromosomes, but rather a variation in the gene pool. When an individual is XY, for example, but looks female, that individual is technically male, but a has genetic flaw that somehow turned off the Y chromosome and prevented the proper fetal development and later androgens from making the individual physically male.

Finally, gay people don't necessarily consider themselves to be of the opposite gender in the wrong body. I think that this is actually pretty rare. They consider themselves to be of whatever gender they are, but simply attracted to their own gender.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Nekowolf - Hey, -I'm- a bisexual! That means I'm a hermaphrodite? Sweet! All this time I thought people telling me to go fuck myself were being rude - they were actually being educational!

[Nekowolf]

And education is power! Now you know! G.I JOE! *lame*

[ivan17]

Is heterosexuality becoming rare in modern world?

[Safyre420]

Is heterosexuality becoming rare in modern world?

Nope, heterosexuality is quite common.

[kattenijin]

Homosexuals are supposed to be about 10% of the population. That leaves 90% as either bi or heterosexual. Plenty of opportunity to breed more humans. I wouldn't be too worried about the species dissappearing any time soon.

[Nekowolf]

I think it's a little bit more than that, to be honest. But, still nowhere near the number of heterosexuals.

[ivan17]

What's with Asexuals, Bisexuals, Pansexuals, Polysexuals?
I never knew that there are so much orientations! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[HystericalParoxysm]

Considering the rampant overcrowding in many areas and our inability, as a species, to feed and house everyone efficiently, I'd say making more humans is probably the least of our worries. 'Sides, gay people -can- have children - surrogate mothers for gay male couples, and one or both partners bearing children in lesbian couples, using a sperm donor (I saw a thing on tv with a lesbian who had two beautiful boys, using donor sperm from her partner's brother, so they were related to both of them). I'd say any children born from such unconventional circumstances would have a better chance at a good childhood and in life - simply because their parents truly want them and are having to go way out of their way to have them. They're planned and expected and wanted - certainly a lot better chances that way than in a poverty stricken straight family with a single mother who got knocked up on accident from a man who has no desire to be a part of the child's life.

Certainly I think children should have positive role models of both genders - but they don't necessarily have to be their parents. Aunts, uncles, grandparents, family friends, teachers, etc., can all fill the role. As long as you're willing to create a healthy and loving home for a child, it shouldn't matter whether you fuck men or women.

[jhd1189]

Really, I think HP sums it up very well. There are plenty of "conventional" families that can't seem to do it right, so what business does anyone else have passing judgment on an "unconventional" family? And that can include two moms, two dads, stepparents, single parents... whatever. As long as you're willing to put in the time, care, and effort to raise your children well and provide them with a loving, nurturing environment--then who cares?

[fakepeeps7]

If parents are happy, the child is probably more likely to be happy.

If parents are miserable, the child is probably more likely to be miserable.

[ivan17]

Considering the rampant overcrowding in many areas and our inability, as a species, to feed and house everyone efficiently, I'd say making more humans is probably the least of our worries. 'Sides, gay people -can- have children - surrogate mothers for gay male couples, and one or both partners bearing children in lesbian couples, using a sperm donor (I saw a thing on tv with a lesbian who had two beautiful boys, using donor sperm from her partner's brother, so they were related to both of them). I'd say any children born from such unconventional circumstances would have a better chance at a good childhood and in life - simply because their parents truly want them and are having to go way out of their way to have them. They're planned and expected and wanted - certainly a lot better chances that way than in a poverty stricken straight family with a single mother who got knocked up on accident from a man who has no desire to be a part of the child's life.

Certainly I think children should have positive role models of both genders - but they don't necessarily have to be their parents. Aunts, uncles, grandparents, family friends, teachers, etc., can all fill the role. As long as you're willing to create a healthy and loving home for a child, it shouldn't matter whether you fuck men or women.

It seems, to me, that in these cases main thing is "parents happiness", not childrens. But we can't choose - to be born or not.

[simbalena]

It seems, to me, that in these cases main thing is "parents happiness", not childrens.

Why would you assume that the sexual orientation of the parents has any effect on how important their children's happiness is to them? The two things are totally unrelated.

[jooxis]

It seems, to me, that in these cases main thing is "parents happiness", not childrens. But we can't choose - to be born or not.

It's funny that I see it to be quite the contrary. People who are against gay adoption don't seem to have the child's best interest at heart, yet they pretend they do, but it's actually more about the fact that they don't like/understand gay people and find them disgusting.
Not letting one of those millions of orphans have a family who will love them, take care of them and provide everything for them because you care about the child's interest and don't want him to "turn gay" or be "confused in life"... oh, come on.

[Nekowolf]

When you have families that put the parent's happiness before the child, it's much more likely for neglect and abuse. Such a concept is a selfish one.

[Vanito]

It's funny that I see it to be quite the contrary. People who are against gay adoption don't seem to have the child's best interest at heart, yet they pretend they do, but it's actually more about the fact that they don't like/understand gay people and find them disgusting.
Not letting one of those millions of orphans have a family who will love them, take care of them and provide everything for them because you care about the child's interest and don't want him to "turn gay" or be "confused in life"... oh, come on.

Very true. In Holland the government follows logic - not idiotic religious based prejudice. They tested children raised by gay couples, as many already happen (lesbian, sperm donor, ex married gay man raising the kids). The result was kids were equally good off with both, so gay adoption was made legal. The only place where kids of gay coupled are bad off is in small narrowminded shitty towns, which are made hard for gays to raise kids by those same shitty narrowminded people that whine about gay adoption in the first place.

Actually shitty narrowminded people should be forbidden to raise kids as with the 10% chance on gay kids they will make horrible parents. But gay emancipation is not far, because noone ever gives a shit about gay kids from those horror parents.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Nekowolf - True, but it's also a very bad idea for parents to put their child's happiness before their own all the time, to the neglect of their own needs. Children need happy parents (gay parents... y'know, like... happy... hurrrrrr) and sometimes that means needing to rearrange things in your life for your own sake even though your kids may not like it, or it may temporarily be hard on them. Like staying in a bad relationship "for the sake of the children" - I've heard many adults say they wish their parents had gotten divorced because they were just so unhappy together. Yes, the child's needs need to come first, but the parents have needs too that must be met. Unhappy parents raise unhappy children - (pretty much what fakepeeps7 said) - I never really understood this fully until I had a child of my own.

If being made fun of because they've got two mommies or daddies is the worst thing a child has to deal with, well, that's pretty minor. And, IMO, character-building. Learning to deal with bigoted assholes is all part of learning to be a full-grown human being.

[Nekowolf]

Well naturally, of course. The problem is there needs to be an expression on the important of balance, which he did not do. Therefore it leads to possible conclusions perhaps unintended.

[el_flel]

The bit about unhappy parents raise unhappy children is so true. My parents split a few years ago and they are so much happier now, that in turn makes me happier because that's what matters most. Also, here in the UK there were a series of documentaries by Dr Robert Winston who did longitudinal studies of children who were born in 2000. There was one little girl - who was only about 6 at the time - who had really picked up on the fact that her parents weren't getting along. So much so that when she was asked to infer emotion from a foreign voice, when the voice sounded happy she said that the person was sad because 'when you're unhappy you hide it'.