A NOT politically correct view on Homosexuality.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I know what I said. It's a PDA that I don't particularly enjoy seeing, but I sure don't go up to the couple and tell them to knock it off or give them an ultimatum if they don't. Who has the right to do that in PUBLIC?

He acts like one guy bent the other over the counter while ordering McNuggets.

Well, this is a politics and religion forum. So people will post their opinions. If I find the opinion ignorant and offensive, I will say so. If that bothers you, you're free to report it or ignore it. Your choice!

If it were my brother in law there instead of me at the time, he would have just knocked them out right then and there. Lucky on their part he wasn't with us.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

I know what I said. It's a PDA that I don't particularly enjoy seeing, but I sure don't go up to the couple and tell them to knock it off or give them an ultimatum if they don't. Who has the right to do that in PUBLIC?

He acts like one guy bent the other over the counter while ordering McNuggets.

I don't agree with it either, but nor do I agree with kissing/making out in line. Just like I don't like people talking on their cell phone while standing in line (especially when being served), or having their phone on speaker phone, or playing music through their phone. Sometimes you need to stand up for what you believe in. Would I have done it? No. Mostly for fear of having my ####### kicked, but I would like to think he was only saying something out of concern for his young nephews. Which, however misguided, is noble.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

If it were my brother in law there instead of me at the time, he would have just knocked them out right then and there. Lucky on their part he wasn't with us.

And he would have been arrested. Real tough guy, I'm sure.

Physical violence is always the way to react when you see something you don't like!

Don't want to see two men holding hands, but let's physically assault two men in a restaurant. That's a good example for the lil ones.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Evylin

[VanessaTony 3,567]

It isn't about disagreeing, really. People are free to disagree all they'd like. It's unfortunate, however, that people think their opinions should be turned into laws so they don't have to tolerate things they don't like.

Re the underlined portion (underlining added by me). that's exactly the point though isn't it. You think pro-gay marriage should be a law, they think anti-gay marriage should be a law. Can't have it both ways. Most likely pro-gay marriage will win eventually.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Re the underlined portion (underlining added by me). that's exactly the point though isn't it. You think pro-gay marriage should be a law, they think anti-gay marriage should be a law. Can't have it both ways. Most likely pro-gay marriage will win eventually.

I actually think the government should be out of it completely.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

I actually think the government should be out of it completely.

Out of what? Legislating marriage in general? Or are you going to take that across to other life choices? Where do you draw the line? We have laws for a reason (there are some really funny ones though!). We can only change the world slowly. Eventually it will happen. There are still racists out there, but as others have stated you can marry outside your race now, it's totally different now from years ago. We will get there.

[SaharaSunset 165]

It isn't about disagreeing, really. People are free to disagree all they'd like. It's unfortunate, however, that people think their opinions should be turned into laws so they don't have to tolerate things they don't like.

I don't think disagreeing with something should give people the right to post offensive comments. How many times do people have to compare homosexuals to child molesters before something gets done about it?

Pretty sure I didn't mention any laws against homosexuals being created. Yep, I didn't. Although its pretty humorous that you would want laws (legalizing same sex marriage) forcing people to accept your personal views of the world. Kind of a contradiction don't ya think?

And what exactly was offensive? How I proved homosexuality goes against the natural function of the human body? I was simply offering a different means to validating the position on homosexuality of the majority of the human race. Never did I mention a single derogatory statement regarding homosexuality. Not one. I didn't compare homosexuals to child molesters. Maybe you should read posts more carefully before you leap up on your precariously positioned soap box. I simply want to be free to believe what I do without being called offensive.

Edited November 21, 2012 by SaharaSunset

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Out of what? Legislating marriage in general? Or are you going to take that across to other life choices? Where do you draw the line? We have laws for a reason (there are some really funny ones though!). We can only change the world slowly. Eventually it will happen. There are still racists out there, but as others have stated you can marry outside your race now, it's totally different now from years ago. We will get there.

Oh I know we will get there. The people who are against it are becoming the minority, and that's perfectly fine with me. I don't think that the government should be able to tell two consenting adults who they can and cannot marry. If a man wants to marry three women, and those three women are consenting and want that lifestyle for themselves, I can't support someone telling them no.

Pretty sure I didn't mention any laws against homosexuals being created. Yep, I didn't. Although its pretty humorous that you would want laws (legalizing same sex marriage) forcing people to accept your personal views of the world. Kind of a contradiction don't ya think?

And what exactly was offensive? How I proved homosexuality goes against the natural function of the human body? I was simply offering a different means to validating the position on homosexuality of the majority of the human race. Never did I mention a single derogatory statement regarding homosexuality. Not one. I didn't compare homosexuals to child molesters. Maybe you should read posts more carefully before you leap up on your precariously positioned soap box. I simply want to be free to believe what I do without being called offensive.

I don't care if people accept my views of the world. There are plenty of things in this life that I do not agree with, but I can't imagine feeling like I have the need or right to tell those people to stop doing what I don't like. It isn't my place. Live and let live!

[SaharaSunset 165]

Are you against a man and woman "uniting" in the "not proper channels". Should they be able to get married if they do?

No. And Yes.

[SaharaSunset 165]

I don't care if people accept my views of the world. There are plenty of things in this life that I do not agree with, but I can't imagine feeling like I have the need or right to tell those people to stop doing what I don't like. It isn't my place. Live and let live!

Pretty sure I didn't tell anyone to stop doing what I don't like. Yep, I didn't. And yet you apparently DO feel you have the need and right to call out other people who disagree with you, and essentially tell them to stop having their opinions by calling it "offensive #######"...among other colorful things. Just a wee bit hypocritical don't ya think?

Edited November 21, 2012 by SaharaSunset

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Pretty sure I didn't tell anyone to stop doing what I don't like. Yep, I didn't. And yet you D) feel you have the need or right to call out other people who disagree with you and tell them essentially to stop having their opinions by calling it "offensive #######"...among other colorful things. Just a wee bit hypocritical don't ya think?

I don't think you should stop having your opinion. Just don't post them if you don't want to hear what other people think of them. You actually stated your opinion more clearly than most, so I don't think this post deserves my immediate reaction to it, so I'll apologize. But I disagree with your opinion, always will, and will always say so.

[SaharaSunset 165]

I don't think you should stop having your opinion. Just don't post them if you don't want to hear what other people think of them. You actually stated your opinion more clearly than most, so I don't think this post deserves my immediate reaction to it, so I'll apologize. But I disagree with your opinion, always will, and will always say so.

I am fine to hear other people's opinions...I wouldn't post if I wasn't. But I do feel that writing it off as "offensive" is exactly the kind of behavior that propelled me to write in the first place. And its why I tried to base my views on more than just my personal beliefs based on what I deem socially acceptable. Never the less, I know people disagree with me, regardless of what I say - and as you said some people "always will." But - I think someday we all need to stop playing this "Politically Correct" game of which opinions are good and which are bad; which people are "offensive" and which are "open-minded." Its hogwash. I am as entitled to believe homosexuality goes against nature as you are to believe it doesn't...even though scientifically speaking it in fact does But there is more to life than scientific processes, which is why we will always disagree.

[^_^ 5,021]

... I do feel that writing it off as "offensive" is exactly the kind of behavior that propelled me to write in the first place.

If people feel offended by your opinion, then why can't they tell you that?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Some people argue against the comparison of homosexuality to other acts that are considered sexually deviant. For example the comparison of the sexual preference in homosexuality to that of a 50 year old man wanting to be with a 12 year old girl. They argue that "its different" - "homosexuality involves consenting adults." I too shudder at such a scenario. But, if you use the same logic about why we must accept homosexuality, you really must argue for the rights of that 50 year old man and his 12 year old lover. The trouble is, Homosexuality is going against a social norm that has existed since the dawn of civilization. So, one could argue that if homosexuals have a right to break out of their social stigma, why not the 50 year man? Who decides what is socially acceptable? Why isn't it relative to the humans involved, as it is with homosexuality? If its acceptable to them, then shouldn't all be required to accept it?

We all know that in the world today, societies exist where polygamy is the social norm. Yet in America we mock those "crazy Mormons" and their 6 wives (which p.s., officially ended in the Mormon church back in the 1890's). We shudder at men who have such a voracious sexual appetite as to want multiple wives. And we laugh at those backwoods, incestuous hillbillies and their disgusting sexual preferences of immediate family members. But we have no grounds to feel that way. Why do we believe our views to be superior to the social standards of others? Why? Because we have created social standards about acceptable sexual partnerships regarding age and relation...and we used to have them regarding homosexuality. But social norms are shifting. And the argument can be made that if we embrace what was formerly considered sexually deviant based on nothing but the current "wave" of social standards, then what stops us from eventually being asked to embrace everyone's sexual preferences?

Take for example the "50 yr old/ 12 yr old" relationship. Today, this relationship is forbidden, even illegal, based 100% on our socially constructed ideals about the appropriate age of independence and self governance, aka: adulthood. But you must know that "adulthood" standards vary time in history, by society, individuals, and a wide range of other social factors. Bear in mind, this age taboo is not based on ANYTHING else - pure social standards. Technically a 12 year girl who has started her period can give birth to a child and therefore, by all physical logic, is capable of adulthood. It is purely social standards by which we consider her still a "child." Society can argue that a 50 year old man and a 12 year old girl together is "sexually deviant" until they are blue in the face, but it will ALWAYS be subject to the current "social cultural norms and standards" of that society. It will never be an irrefutable fact. Homosexuality on the other hand, can be argued against based on irrefutable physical evidence. So lets take out the social element. The biggest social factor against homosexuality is found in religion. And while religious objection must be considered a viable objection, for arguments sake, let take out the social/religious standard, and base an argument against homosexuality on, factual, physical, human processes.

It is a simple fact, whether you believe in God, or science, or any other version of how we came to be, that the physical act of sex is the means and the method for the pro-creation of life. Yes sex is about love(social standard), and its fun, and although enjoyable, we all know its real purpose. Kind of like food. Its fun, its enjoyable - but its real purpose is to fuel us and help us sustain life. So lets not get side tracked by emphasizing other uses and social standards about the purpose of sex. Our argument is taking out the social elements and focusing on physical fact. Sex is technically a physical process to create life.

Technically speaking, if a man and man have "sex" and the process does not create life, then their "sexual" behavior does not follow the natural functions intended by the human body. Without getting too graphic, when a man and a woman unite in the proper "channels" - they CAN create life, provided that all internal systems are functioning properly. And spare me the silly arguments of "What about infertile couples?" etc. Even if two men have all internal and external organs functioning properly, under no circumstances can they create life, without the help of 3rd party woman. We are not talking about a malfunction of ones natural body, as is the case in infertility. Nor are we discussing the natural aging process that prevents fertility in post-menopausal women etc. We are talking about a physical act, homosexuality, that was clearly never physically intended for the human body. I know its highly Un-PC to say it like this, but it is NOT natural. And I say that with zero "social standards" - I say it based purely on the physical process of pro-creation. Its just the facts.

Now, before I get lynched, allow me to offer this statement. I can love and appreciate individuals that are homosexual just like any other human being - and believe it or not, I do. I do not think they are evil, or terrible people in any way. However I do NOT think that means I MUST embrace homosexuality as natural and normal. It's not. Do I have a firm stance on same sex marriage? I frankly think the whole argument about same sex marriage is really just a bid for social approval of homosexuality and has very little to do with the title of marriage itself. I do however believe that nature, God, or whomever you want to give credit to, intended for men and women to be together as parents. I also think that the best case scenario for children is to have a mother and father, male and female. Science also proves that. Does that mean that two gay parents can't bring up a child in a loving home? Of course they can. But again, it is not natural, and it not the best case scenario. And yes I am fully aware of bad situations involving father/mother households, and single parents etc. But comparing apples to apples, if all other factors equal, in a side by side scenario comparison of 2 sets of loving parents, one homosexual, one heterosexual- physical evidence in the natural process of the human body, clearly considers a man and woman as the superior union.

Now, you can call me closed-minded if you want. But you must see the irony, because the very moment you label someone as "close-minded," you yourself are refusing to accept their views, however "offensive" you may deem them, and therefore you are being "close-minded" yourself. Ironic huh? You cannot be "Open-minded" unless you are "open" to ALL views....not just what it's currently trendy to be "open" about, and not just what you and other supposedly "open-minded" people have deemed good and right. If you are truly open-mind then you will be open to other views even if they they differ from yours, or don't follow the latest trend. You don't have to agree - but if you get angry and mad, and call someone backwards or ignorant or other silly Jr High things, just because of different views....then perhaps its a bit of pot calling the kettle black.

Now why take the time to write this? Because frankly it drives me crazy that some people condescendingly feel that any views opposing homosexuality are offensive, backward, ignorant, or worse yet- bigotry. My argument is simply an attempt to prove that even if you take away the social or religious objections(which are very valid), there is still a logical, physical reason why it is acceptable and totally okay for people NOT to accept homosexuality, no matter how much the "wave" of social pressure pushes them. As I stated before, I have no ill will towards homosexuals....but I also do not have to accept their lifestyle choices as normal and natural. I can love people, but I hope we are never forced to accept the sexual lifestyle choices of all people. I and millions of others should be entitled to stand for something that consequently can be argued both socially, and factually, without being accused of bigotry. I'm just a lover...not a hater

I am all for you having the right to not accept homosexuality. I am all for you finding it unnatural, wrong and rejecting to it morally. I would never judge you for that .

What I am not OK with is , you denying others equal protection under the law because you object to it.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I am all for you having the right to not accept homosexuality. I am all for you finding it unnatural, wrong and rejecting to it morally. I would never judge you for that .

What I am not OK with is , you denying others equal protection under the law because you object to it.

Equal protection? Protection from what? What do they need to protect themselves from and what laws aren't on the books to protect them? You mean they need special laws?