This is how I feel, ethically/morally homosexuality is fine. For me its an "I don't care" kind of thing, I feel the same way about it as straight relationships (I don't believe in reverse discrimination either - hence "I don't care"). And as far as relgion is conserned (please no God debates) I don't think if there is a God he would condemn people that by nature are the way they are.

As far a science, its a mutation in the genetic code. A biological defect, nothing personal but if your partner and you can't reproduce to have children then your a biological defect. Once again, not a social or ethical one.

Any other thoughts?

"As far a science, its a mutation in the genetic code. A biological defect, nothing personal but if your partner and you can't reproduce to have children then your a biological defect. Once again, not a social or ethical one."

Gays can have babies. Look at Elton John.

Originally posted by Xev
Actually, homosexuality is a fairly adaptive mutation, allowing for population control and kin selection. Gay couples cannot reproduce, but most gays can. And even if they don't, there are neices and nephews to help raise - kin selection.

You have good points, never really thought about it like that. In this society such traits are helpfull.

Oh yeah, and by the way............ BBBBBBBBBennie and the Jets :D

Mutations? JOHN HOWARD!!!

OH GOD!!!!!!!!!

"A biological defect, nothing personal but if your partner and you can't reproduce to have children then your a biological defect. "

But what if you are homosexual & your partner is a member of the opposite sex? The evidence suggests that for most of the existence of the human species, most homos have married & had children just like everyone else.

It's only fairly recently, & only in the cultures of the "free West" (or cultures heavily influenced thereby) that most people have felt free enough to pursue their own lifestyle choices - whether that be living as a couple outside marriage (hetero or homo) or spending a lifetime "swinging", or remaining single & celibate.

But this brief flowering of human freedom has already created the illusion that "queers have always been free to be queer", whereas the historical reality is that the traditional social/familial obligation to marry & have kids was non- negotiable for most people, regardless of their individual orientation.

If the genes that contribute to homosexual orientation are to be regarded as "biological defects", then any genes that contribute to any lack of desire/intent to have children should be regarded as a defect - fortunately, geneticists don't make such value judgements in regard to what are clearly non-pathological genetic components.
:)

Gays marrying hasn't always been around. But homosexual sex sure has.

I'm against homosexualuality, but with todays PC, zero toloerance for anything that might hurt someones feelings, my general rule is that as long as they aint looking at my butt or making a issue out of their orientation then im ok with them

why SHOULDN'T they express there preference

Im sure you do

Ever wisled at a girl or made coments about her to a guy or something?

Why shouldn't they?

They probably think screwing a girl would be gross but have no choice but to watch it 10000 of times on TV

I would deal with a guy being atracted to me EXACTLY the same way i would a girl i WASN'T atracted to

Asguard, I am complertely with you!

Azrael, why not stop peeking at those bums and tits!?

Asguard & Merlijn,

I think I should elaborate, what I meant in a school or professional setting. I know where I work and attend college I do not go around making an issue out of the fact that I'm a straight male. I do the job and go to my class's. I also do not like the fact that here in the U.S the gays seem to want a double standard, they want special rights, but on the same hand tell everyone that they are the same as everyone else and want to be treated the same. It bothers me how some gays and lesbians will go on the different media outlets and say something like "I'm gay so I deserve special laws to protect me and special rights so I can promote my life style", imo its the same as a straight white male doing the same thing, its absurd. I hope this clarifys. I am an old fashioned guy who believes in morals and decency and in the principles that the United States was founded on and what made it a great nation.

Originally posted by Azrael
It bothers me how some gays and lesbians will go on the different media outlets and say something like "I'm gay so I deserve special laws to protect me and special rights so I can promote my life style", imo its the same as a straight white male doing the same thing, its absurd.

Reverse discrimination pisses me OFF!

Seriously the one affected by it the worst are African Americans. With all these policies to help them get out of on average the lower end of society, we are really just hurting those people. No one is better because of their skin or sexual orientation, if I hate a gay man because hes and asshole I can't speak up because I would be branded a discriminator.

Look at first post: That's what I meant by I don't care.

Cactus Jack,

Are you mad at me for posting that or just upset because of the way the media and other groups attack people who off handed will say that someone is a total jackass, then get branded a racist or a homophobe because the person the comment was directed at was gay or a minority?

No I agree with you, the last line was refering to my first post and it means I don't care if your gay or straight.

WARNING! The following is me rambling. Bust your crutch.

You won't be labled as a discriminator. Have some faith in yourself and others around you. Be honest. Be compassionate, and hate equally.

If I dislike someone, and they happened to be gay or a different skin color, and my dislike is not related to their "gayness" or their skin color, I think nearly everyone would accept and understand that. We're to quick to assume that if we treat someone different bad, they will jump on the discrimination bandwagon.

Fight for what you believe in, don't stand back and watch out of fear of your results.

I don't have a problem with anti-discrimination laws in certain contexts. Discrimination sucks. Discrimination in the work place or in housing can ruin your life. It makes you completely dependent on the (typically) uninformed whim of a random individual. Its not easy to get a job when you don't match someones religious/social preferences, or meet "comfortable" qualifications.



I also have problems with certain social programs that are intended to uplift a culture but only succeed in lowering standards. There are nearly 300 million people in this damn country, and the best thing we can think of to aid poverty-stricken households is forced workplace diversity.

How cute. Areas high in poverty rates can not support high-paying jobs... but now I'm rambling. We need a new thread for this. :)

•*It bothers me how some gays and lesbians will go on the different media outlets and say something like "I'm gay so I deserve special laws to protect me and special rights so I can promote my life style", imo its the same as a straight white male doing the same thing, its absurd. (Azrael)

• Reverse discrimination pisses me OFF! (Cactus Jack)

To start here ....

Azrael, I'm sure you have som example of those special laws to provide?

Cactus Jack, same note?

• If I dislike someone, and they happened to be gay or a different skin color, and my dislike is not related to their "gayness" or their skin color, I think nearly everyone would accept and understand that. (BustedCrutch)

See, this is really close to the central issue in American "gay-fights". Think of it this way, if you dislike someone, and they happen to be of a different gender, that's okay. But if you call that person a gender-specific name (e.g. bitch) or use gender as your primary complaint about them, you're being bigoted against the gender. You don't get to call people bitch, you don't get to call someone Nigger.

Really, I know the guy pisses you off, but just because he happens to be black, would you call him "Nigger"?

Do you show your disapproval of your friends by calling them Nigger, Spick, Chink, Dago, Kraut, Kike, or otherwise?

Why, then, is it that different to not use the word "Faggot" as a derogatory word?

And yes, heterosexuals do flaunt it around the office. Sure, the faggot may have a funny voice or walk strange, but the bitch in the corner is talking about going man-hunting and everyone in the office can see where her birthmark is ....

What it is, in the end, is that people don't want to go to the effort of making a very small change. Therefore, to equalize gays in society seems like a "special" measure to them.
There are nearly 300 million people in this damn country, and the best thing we can think of to aid poverty-stricken households is forced workplace diversity.Well, we're going to war. The poor people can always enlist. You're really going to hold workplace diversity as part of the poverty issue? What about fair wages, working conditions, public education, and the fact that workplace diversity is only "forced" because prior to that forcing, only white people were "decent" enough to earn a living?

In the United States' history, it was morally wrong to teach a dark-skinned person to read. That dark skin was excuse to render that person, at best, only 60% human. And that was for taxation and apportionment purposes, not as a basis for legal rights. After we got that whole mess settled, there was still the issue of boxcars, bus seats, restrooms, textbooks, &c.

In Oregon, for instance, Lon Mabon pointed out, prior to the 2000 election, that homosexuality needed to be stopped because it was dangerous; homosexual teenagers have a devastating suicide rate. Of course, the thing is that that suicide rate comes almost entirely from alienation--rejection by family, friends, and community leaves no person anywhere to turn. Yet Mabon wanted to increase that rejection, codify it at the state level, and then take away whatever tools the schools had to deal with an alarming suicide rate. In other words, alienate the gays more, and take away as many devices of reconciliation as possible. In Mabon's ideal world, then, all the gay kids would kill themselves, and then we could all be equal. Well, once we fired all the gay teachers, firemen, police officers, typists, copy assistants, pages, librarians, and doctors, to say the least. It's just the same as before, when in denying equality to the African-descended American, the supremacists took the result of their tampering and held it up as genuine evidence. Try a '95 statistic toward that end. 2,400 people prosecuted under the "crack standard". By this standard, five grams of crack cocaine equals five years in prison. Crack and powder are no different. Yet it takes five-hundred grams (half-pound) of powdered cocaine to earn a mandatory five-year sentence.

• 2,400 people prosecuted under this standard.
• 11 were not black.
• 3 were white.

Now then, this might seem reasonable. After all, the black community has a drug problem. Right? Right?

The same year's statistics told the story.

• 65% of crack users in the US are white.

How did we reach this disparity in justice?

Well, frankly, we got there because people don't have a problem with "anti-discrimination" rules, except that they do.

The only way to get rid of anti-discrimination laws is to get rid of discrimination.

Unless anyone would like to admit that they truly believe that the best society is the one that raises them and theirs above all others. And I don't expect that out of anyone, much less at this forum.

But the hair-splitting I hear is exceptionally finely-cut.

As you noted, Crutch, It makes you completely dependent on the (typically) uninformed whim of a random individual. Its not easy to get a job when you don't match someones religious/social preferences, or meet "comfortable" qualifications.

But, apparently, as some people have it, to show you that a gay individual is equal, yadda-yadda-yadda, is being interpreted as preference or "special rights".

You've pointed to a fine distinction. But it is an important one. And of those who make "special rights" arguments, well? I think they need to consider a couple of your points.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

"Cactus Jack, same note?"

New movie coming out...

The New Guy, I think it's called....

Very rascist movie...

White guy is a loser, so cool black guy shows him the ropes. Many stereotypes involved to show how nerdy white guys are and how cool black guys are. How tough black guys are... It goes on.

Watch a black comic for a while, they eventually get to very rascist humour about whites. But it's okay. Right?

McCarthyism still exists in social situations. There's a girl in my school who calls herself a feminist. She will generalize ALL DAY about men and get away with it, but the second someone makes a generalization about women she will go on a 5 minute rant about how sexist they are, 'just like all men'.



"Do you show your disapproval of your friends by calling them Nigger, Spick, Chink, Dago, Kraut, Kike, or otherwise?"

With my good friends, we use racial slurs very loosely. One friend is Jewish, like myself. We use Kike. We also use Pinko and such. They don't offend, they're just light-heartidly. Same way many blacks use Nigger. Is there something wrong with this? Even at my workplace, in the basement, there's an Italian and another Jew (both adults). The Italian cracks jokes about Hitler and the Jew cracks jokes about Italian stereotypes. They're just able to realize that words are just words.




"Why, then, is it that different to not use the word "Faggot" as a derogatory word?"

The few open gays that I know couldn't care less about those kind of words. Know why? Because they're proud of who they are and don't take it as an insult.

Tiassa, thanks for the great reply. I need to digest it, I'll post mine later.

Agreed, awesome replies. First off, Tiassa. I don't have laws to show reverse descrimination, I meant general public consensus. And I refuse to use any derogatory slang words like "faggot" or "your so gay" and such (I don't know if you were hinting at me saying this or not).

And Tyler your absolutely right, perfect example of what I mean. A black comedian will always (to my knowledge not making generalization here) make race jokes about the difference between black culture and white culture. If a white man attempted to do this so liberally as the other comedians he would be crucified.

And I'll be on the look out for that movie, sounds interesting. Especially considering I'm obsessed with media analysis.

~Cactus

Tiassa, yeah. I was holding workplace diversity as part of the poverty issue. Now that I've really thought about it ... I think it falls in the realm of inalienable rights. I was being sloppy, thanks for keeping me sharp.

But on to racial/gender/sexual slurs... they are a mixed bag and a difficult topic. For reasons that I am unable to verbalize right now, I choose not to use them. Even with close friends. I think its sloppy, and continues a negative trend rather than re-enforce a positive mode of thought.

I think it's to use something a person can't help against them in a feud. Not only does it not convey any useful message, it's a logical fallacy. :)

Reverse discrimination is a silly term. It's misleading, and softens the issue. Anything that discriminates IS discrimination.

Scotland to approve same-sex marriages (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/020509/17/cykm3.html)
Scotland to approve same-sex weddings

GAY marriages could soon be sanctioned by registrars in larger cities, allowing the public registration of same-sex relationships, The Scotsman has learned.

Civil partnership and commitment registers have already been introduced in London, Manchester and Liverpool.

Although symbolic, the ceremonies do not have the same basis and rights in law as traditional marriages.

Any proposals to approve the partnership ceremonies were yesterday criticised by the Catholic Church in Scotland as potentially "damaging" to the institution of marriage.

However, councillor Archie Graham, Glasgow City Council's equality spokesman, said: "We tend to look sympathetically on any requests made by the gay community on the grounds that they are a group which is discriminated against.

"Therefore, we would be likely to look at least at the possibility of meeting their needs now that the issue is coming to the fore in England."

Robin Harper, the Green MSP, has won the backing of almost 20 MSPs in calling for the Scottish Executive to set up a national register of civic partnership which will allow gays, lesbians and unmarried couples protection under the law.

He said: "There are many thousands of people who live in mutually dependent relationships, who are unable to pass on things such as pension, property and inheritance rights."

Mr Harper said it would be "extremely helpful" for cities to set up their own registers.

The first couple to sign London's partnership register, both Scots, saw the public declaration as a celebration of the 39 years they had been together.

Since Alexander Cannell and Ian Burford signed the register in September, 400 couples have also affirmed their relationship - with a six-month waiting list for others to do likewise.

A spokesman for the City of Edinburgh, which has forged close links with the gay community, said: "We'll continue to monitor developments, such as the possibility of new legislation and as with all new legislation, we'd carefully consider our response."

Dundee, Inverness and Aberdeen said they had no plans to introduce a register.

Tim Hopkin, of the Equality Network in Edinburgh, said: "It is useful to have the local council register a public, symbolic commitment.

"One of the reasons why same-sex couples want the law changed is that they want to be able to make a state-recognised commitment to each other."

Barbara Roache, the cabinet office minister in Whitehall, is currently studying whether a partnership law should be introduced in England and Wales, with the Scottish Executive's Equality Unit following developments closely.

However, with the upcoming Scottish parliamentary elections next year, gay campaigners fear that the mauling the Executive received over the repeal of Clause 28 would delay any change in the law for at least two years.

The partnership ceremonies were last night criticised by the Catholic Church in Scotland.A spokesman said: "These ceremonies would appear to be an attempt to mimic marriage without legal responsibilities. We would regard them as pointless and damaging to the institution of marriage."

Relate, formerly the Marriage Guidance Council, last month predicted the demise of marriage, claiming that by 2030 only one in five long-term couples will be joined in wedlock.By: JAMES DOHERTY Date: 09-May-02The above article came from The Scotsman via Yahoo.

• First off, I don't understand what the hell the problem is with the Catholic Church or "Relate". Well, okay, the Catholics, but they're nearly over, anyway. But when I put the opposition into its own context, I see a conflict.

Namely, the Catholic Church and Relate both see the move as damaging to the "institution" of marriage. At the same time, though, the Catholic Church is lamenting that the union registry attempts to "mimic marriage without legal responsibilities."

Well, crap. You know, there's the problem. Give gay couples the right to marry and then they'll not have to "mimic" marriage. Give them the legal responsibilities of marriage and they won't have to "mimic marriage without legal responsibilities." And in terms of Relate's histrionics: what, if you're worried about the "demise of marriage" then [i]let people get married, damn it!

• And those legal responsibilities are part of what's at issue. To hop back to the US for a moment, it wasn't too long ago that a court in Pierce County, Washington, awarded the estate of a dead man to his family instead of his gay partner of 30 years. That the family had kicked the man out and essentially disowned him in response to his homosexuality mattered none, and the judge awarded the estate to the family because that was all the law allowed him to do. The right for two people to provide for each other is what the Catholic Church and this Relate organization are opposed to.

Of course, I live in a city with civil unions. I would like to see my gay neighbors allowed to provide for each other without the fetters of insidiously-devised pseudo-morality. I think the union registry is crap because it doesn't award the rights of that union.

Whether Glasgow or Seattle or Buttpimple, Nowhere, what is the problem with allowing people who are committed to each other's wellbeing to do their utmost to that end? How can people hampered by exclusivity be expected to contribute to that which excludes them? And yet, they do.

Two cents on an interesting development.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I don't mind gays as long as they don't have to tell me about it. "Look at all the rainbow stickers on my car! I'm gay, look at me! Notice me!"

Who cares. Do straight people have straight stickers on their cars? What would that look like anyways? :D If they want to marry, they should be able to. As long as they are treated exactly the same as a straight marriage.

Originally posted by Latexlover
I don't mind gays as long as they don't have to tell me about it. "Look at all the rainbow stickers on my car! I'm gay, look at me! Notice me!"

Who cares. Do straight people have straight stickers on their cars? What would that look like anyways? :D If they want to marry, they should be able to. As long as they are treated exactly the same as a straight marriage.


Have you ever seen any of these stickers:
I Love my wife!
Proud parent of an honor student.
Pimp-Style
No Fat Chicks
All of these are considered straight stickers.

So I'm gonna have to say, YES I have seen straight stickers, on their cars.

Let people do what they want. Who are we to control peoples actions. What kind of society would we be if didn't let people be who they wanted to be. It would be like Nazi Germany.