A NOT politically correct view on Homosexuality.

[decocker 7,198]

You know i use to think like you . I was wrong. Very wrong. I realized one day that someones sexuality is such a small part of who they are as a person .

me too! i was taught/raised to 'love the sinner and hate the sin'. it wasn't until a close friend came out to me that i realized i was wrong. holding on to hate in any capacity isn't worth the effort.

[SaharaSunset 165]

ain't nothing slippery about it. age of consent. there's your traction.

Again you totally miss the point. "Age of consent" varies by period in history, culture, country, even state. There is no law written in the sky that mandates that 18 or any age for that matter is the official age of consent. "Age of consent" only exists because we made it so. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with having such standards in place. I just want to make the point that homosexuality is also a matter of social standard.

You want to embrace sexual behavior that was once illegal and broadly help by society to be as shocking and offensive as an adult and teenager together. So why the double standard? Who give you or anyone the power to say what sexual behavior is wrong. Alas, you obviously feel that certain sexual behaviors are wrong. So how can fault other people who also feel certain sexual behaviors are wrong, including homosexuality?

And using the "age of consent" argument is about as sound and saying homosexuality is a "sin." Both arguments are based on social norms....which again, vary greatly and bear no universal truth written int he sky. So technically if you support sexual freedom for all, then it really should be for ALL. That's the argument. But if you think there should be restrictions like "age of consent" based on selective social standards about appropriate sexual behavior, then again, how can you fault people who also feel as negatively about homosexuality? Why are your social standards more correct than theirs?

me too! i was taught/raised to 'love the sinner and hate the sin'. it wasn't until a close friend came out to me that i realized i was wrong. holding on to hate in any capacity isn't worth the effort.

And if you are so alltruistic and loving, do you honestly love people who don't love homosexuality? Do you love them enough to let them have their feelings ans standards on the matter? hmmmm.....

[decocker 7,198]

Again you totally miss the point. "Age of consent" varies by period in history, culture, country, even state. There is no law written in the sky that mandates that 18 or any age for that matter is the official age of consent. "Age of consent" only exists because we made it so. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with having such standards in place. I just want to make the point that homosexuality is also a matter of social standard.

You want to embrace sexual behavior that was once illegal and broadly help by society to be as shocking and offensive as an adult and teenager together. So why the double standard? Who give you or anyone the power to say what sexual behavior is wrong. Alas, you obviously feel that certain sexual behaviors are wrong. So how can fault other people who also feel certain sexual behaviors are wrong, including homosexuality?

And using the "age of consent" argument is about as sound and saying homosexuality is a "sin." Both arguments are based on social norms....which again, vary greatly and bear no universal truth written int he sky. So technically if you support sexual freedom for all, then it really should be for ALL. That's the argument. But if you think there should be restrictions like "age of consent" based on selective social standards about appropriate sexual behavior, then again, how can you fault people who also feel as negatively about homosexuality? Why are your social standards more correct than theirs?

And if you are so alltruistic and loving, do you honestly love people who don't love homosexuality? Do you love them enough to let them have their feelings ans standards on the matter? hmmmm.....

well then, i'll answer your questions:

1. you can't call something a double standard if the standard isn't the same. science teaches us that the human mind typically matures at a certain pace and by a certain age (science, crazy right?) as adults we have the responsibility to defend the defenseless. children aren't of the mental capacity to be involved in sexual relationships. any adult that attempts to enter into a sexual relationship with a child is taking advantage of their lack of mental capacity. you fail to understand that homosexuality has nothing to do with the exploitation of children.

2. no one gives me the power to say a sexual act is wrong. i don't want to have that power. i'm not trying to assert it either. i can fault people who want to impose their personal sexual preferences on other people because no one likes a busybody. it's annoying, mind your business.

3. again, you keep bringing up children. read this http://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/teen/pages/Whats-Going-On-in-the-Teenage-Brain.aspx. we have laws concerning consent because children/teenagers are not mentally capable of acting in their own self interest. it has more to do with science than social norms.

and lastly, of COURSE i love homophobes. practically my entire family are extremely religious and i love them all without end.

Edited November 21, 2012 by val erie

[Fandango 1,440]

If they passed a law against homsexual sodomy, for example, my thought would be "uh-oh... "

Why's that?

I never discuss my personal sexual details.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Don't post quotes, that's baiting!

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

You're right, this isn't politically incorrect. It's prejudiced tripe that's insulting to those of us on here that know and love gay people. SaharaSunset, your condescending, mealy-mouthed tripe masquerading in the guise of something that is reasonable is not reasonable in the slightest. (Frankly, your obsessive citing of Mary Kay LeTourneau is creepy at best and ignorant at worst.) Just because you're not resorting to the usual "ZOMG TEH GHEYS WAAAAAAHHHH BUTTSECKS IS BAD" shrieking doesn't mean that your sentiments are not as offensive.

You don't think homosexual sex is "normal." Fine. But you also fixate on its non-procreative essence, which of course, by extension, means that all manner of heterosexual non-procreative sex must also be similarly not "normal." I said it facetiously before, but that means that oral sex, ####### sex, manual stimulation and every form of sexual contact that does not involve ####### in ####### is not "normal." Really? Or is it just because when I do it, because I'm heterosexual, it's normal?

You think you have reasoned it out, but all you've shown is a gloss of understanding of the concept of the age of consent, and how that relates to the legality of sexual contact. You're throwing up a smoke screen to deflect from the underlying prejudice you have against homosexuals. Oh, love the sinner, hate the sin, love the sinner, hate the sin! No. It's dressing up the ####### of prejudice in a lovely little frock. The frock may be pretty and its ribbons distracting, but underneath it is still a #######.

It's not "chic" or "politically correct" to believe that we are equal under the law. We are citizens, or permanent residents, or visitors here and as such we are afforded equal protection under the law. The day is coming soon when we all – gay and straight – will have the ability to enjoy the legal and societal privileges afforded by marriage in this country. Marriage is not only about sex. It creates property rights, tax advantages and rights of survivorship. Until we get the church or the state out of marriage, we are stuck with one form of union that is superior and affords all of these privileges and that is marriage. Opposing marriage – of people who can consent to the contract of marriage – is illogical unless one cleaves slavishly to early-modern Judeo-Christian theology. Many of us don't.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

What bothers me about the original post is not that they have a differing opinion, really I'm all for differing opinions and discussing them. What upsets me is comparing homosexuality to a lifestyle choice compared to pedophilia or other illegal acts, because pedophilia could just be considered a different lifestyle choice for some. This person mentions a "relationship" between a 50 year old and a 12 year old. Please don't equate homosexuals with criminals and some made up scenarios, calling a 12 year old a "lover". Give me a break, a 12 year old in a sexual "relationship" with a 50 year old is being abused, pure and simple. I don't care in what era, it's abuse.

So, in your personal opinion, a 50 year-old man having sex with his 12 year-old wife, as Mohammad did, and as it perfectly legal and socially accepted in Iran, is a crime? Are you discriminating against older men, Iranians, Islam, or their social standards then?

[^_^ 5,021]

Marriage is not only about sex. It creates property rights, tax advantages and rights of survivorship.

If civil unions give gay couples all those rights, would that be acceptable in lieu of "marriage"?

If not, why not? Maybe there is more to it than just property rights and taxes and survivorship?

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

[quote name=' timestamp='1353536624' post='5836289]

If civil unions give gay couples all those rights, would that be acceptable in lieu of "marriage"?

If not, why not? Maybe there is more to it than just property rights and taxes and survivorship?

Let's be honest. If a civil union were equal to a marriage, it would be called a marriage. There is power in a name. Calling it something else is just stripping away the power of the name.

[^_^ 5,021]

Let's be honest. If a civil union were equal to a marriage, it would be called a marriage. There is power in a name. Calling it something else is just stripping away the power of the name.

I don't follow.

If a civil union were identical to a marriage with the only difference being same sex couples were only allowed to have a civil union while opposite sex couples could choose one or the other, would that be acceptable?

Or is this about more than taxes and legal stuff?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Adak Island, Alaska. It's a recently abandoned military base with year round harbor, new housing, air strip, theater, bowling alley, medical center, etc... it's about half way down the Aleutian chain and a great place for them to be relocated.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Bad_Daddy

[^_^ 5,021]

Adak Island, Alaska. It's a recently abandoned military base with year round harbor, new housing, air strip, theater, bowling alley, medical center, etc... it's about half way down the Aleutian chain and a great place for them to be relocated.

Serious answer: You realize we don't live in Nazi Germany, right?

Non-serious answer: But does it have enough bathhouses?

[decocker 7,198]

[quote name=' timestamp='1353537032' post='5836302]

I don't follow.

If a civil union were identical to a marriage with the only difference being same sex couples were only allowed to have a civil union while opposite sex couples could choose one or the other, would that be acceptable?

Or is this about more than taxes and legal stuff?

if they are exactly the same, how could you not call a civil union a marriage...what, would you get a ticket or jail time for using the wrong term? say i send a 'congratulations on your marraige' card instead of a 'congratulations on your civil union card'?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

[quote name=' timestamp='1353537421' post='5836318]

Serious answer: You realize we don't live in Nazi Germany, right?

Non-serious answer: But does it have enough bathhouses?

It's a new city that was built with billions of tax payer dollars only to be mothballed. It even has a mall,a new giant size gymnasium with indoor track, work out rooms, tanning beds, etc... It was built at the end of the Cold War and beyond. Lots of prime places in that mall to start up hair salons, Starbucks, Apple Shops, etc... They even have two new schools on that island that sit empty..not like their going to procreate or anything but you never know.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Bad_Daddy

[SaharaSunset 165]

well then, i'll answer your questions:

1. you can't call something a double standard if the standard isn't the same. science teaches us that the human mind typically matures at a certain pace and by a certain age (science, crazy right?) as adults we have the responsibility to defend the defenseless. children aren't of the mental capacity to be involved in sexual relationships. any adult that attempts to enter into a sexual relationship with a child is taking advantage of their lack of mental capacity. you fail to understand that homosexuality has nothing to do with the exploitation of children.

2. no one gives me the power to say a sexual act is wrong. i don't want to have that power. i'm not trying to assert it either. i can fault people who want to impose their personal sexual preferences on other people because no one likes a busybody. it's annoying, mind your business.

3. again, you keep bringing up children. read this http://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/teen/pages/Whats-Going-On-in-the-Teenage-Brain.aspx. we have laws concerning consent because children/teenagers are not mentally capable of acting in their own self interest. it has more to do with science than social norms.

and lastly, of COURSE i love homophobes. practically my entire family are extremely religious and i love them all without end.

Your condescending use of the deragatory term "homophobe" could suggest otherwise...at least for people not in your immediate family.

Believe me - I actually teach secondary educational theory, so I know all about the teenage brain...maybe even more than healthychildren.org. I also know a bit about the history of the world....and how our current social interpretations of age and what constitutes"adulthood," as well as our current beliefs about what teenagers are capable of is vastly different from the reality demonstrated throughout the entire history of the world. And as for the scientific evidence. Well you can throw down the "science says" gauntlet all you want, and link us to wonderful informative websites of new scientific findings about the human brain, and we all know what science says today is always right...oh wait... I prefer to base my ideas on the evidence found in 5000+ years of documented world history....which tells a different tale about when someone is capable of being deemed an adult. But the reality, I am in no way advocating an adult-child romantic relationship. I too subscribe to the social standard, so your attempts to inform me about the nature of children and the teenage brain are in vain....and it missed the point.

The point is - people should be free to believe homosexuality is wrong without being called a homophobe or a bigot, just like you are free to believe what you do on the matter. I could just as easily make the comparison of homosexual "rights" to that of polygamists, or incestuous relationships, instead of the teen/adult relationship. Perhaps you would consider those scenarios apples to apples. Would you support the rights of consenting adults to marry a sibling or a parent? Do you support the current population of "hidden" polygamists? I hope so....because without question there is a double standard if you do not.

But the reason people, such as myself, use the first example, is because believe it or not, the majority of the world views homosexuality as abhorrent in practice, as you view the adolescent/adult relationship. And your social standards about such a relationship are just that - YOUR social standards. Hence the references to history. But I'll spare you the history lesson. The point is, climb off the high horse of social superiority, and understand that just because some people feel homosexuality is right and good, doesn't mean everyone has too. And people should be allowed to have the same disdain for homosexuality that you do for adolescent/adult relationship...and they probably agree with you on that account anyway.