Senate Homosexuality: the Thread

Discussion in 'Community' started by zombie, Jan 24, 2006.

  1. zombie Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 4, 1999
    star 4
    Okay, i just got to thinking about this and i came to a conclusion. There has been a lot of debate about the "morality" of homosexuality, and for most people who deem it "sinful", "immoral", "unnatural", "disgusting" or whatever their reason is, a lot of it seems to be based on this central issue of "choice". Homophobics often claim that homosexuals should be hated because they choose to be that way, while defends counter that its biologically determined. This has been a central issue, perhaps THE issue, in determining its "wrongness", and the search for a "gay gene" is still a controversial subject matter.

    But my question is this: why does it even matter? How does this change anything?

    Now, this excludes christians who oppose it based on biblical condemnation of homosexuals. Whether or not you agree with that, at least they have some kind of justification, illogical or logical. But there are still a great many non-religious homophobics that i am still trying to understand their reasoning for--and in fact this even applies to some defends of homosexuality as well.

    If a person "choses" to do something that someone else deems disgusting, why is this a big deal? It as if granting homosexuals the right to "choose" to have relations with members of the same sex is somehow forcing heterosexuals to as well. I find swiss cheese disgusting, but im not offended by those who enjoy it, and its not like they are forcing it upon me. However, hate over homosexuality for reasons of 'filth' or 'disgust' seems to be an exception in the form of discrimination.

    And additionally, if someone deems it "immoral" or "unnatural", again why does this matter if it is not being forced upon you? I mean you could say the same thing about tattoos, and though they at one time were opposed as well for similar reasons, they have since been accepted (and even become trendy!). The only justification i can comprehend is those who base their judgement on religious grounds, because they really only oppose it because they have been instructed to by the fact that it is considered an affront to god (or whatever you want to interpret it as).

    Anyway, my point is this: why is there such a big issue over the concept of "choice", except perhaps in religious matters? How does choosing or not choosing make it okay or not okay? Whether they chose to do it or not, they are still doing it, and so it really is irrelevant.

    Also, although most people who seem to be embracing the "choice" aspect are homophobic on religious grounds, a great many people who are homophobic for personal and/or non-religious grounds also consider it "immoral" or "disgusting", etc. But what is their reasoning for this? Religious grounds i can understand, since their concepts of morality stem from the bible, but how can acts of love between consenting adults that affects no one but themselves be considered immoral, and again, if it simply disgust, why so much hate? After all, swiss cheese-eaters dont endure hate from those that find that disgusting (like me).

    But again, to go back to the issue of choice: i see many defenders of homosexuality saying 'dont hate them, its not their choice', but to me this smacks of homophobia as well, this kind of 'victimisation' of homosexuals to absolve them of responsibility for their actions. A great number of other people have expressed 'disapproval' of the lifestyle but 'acceptance' because they believe homosexuals to be born as they are. But I think true acceptance doesnt even account for choice. It is as if describing mental patients, who stab to death their family members but cannot be hated because they have a mental disfunction and did not choose to be born that way.
    So i ask you, if two women choose to make love, why is that an issue? If you oppose it on non-religious grounds and consider it 'immoral' or 'unnatural', what is your basis for determining such? And if you oppose it because it is 'disgusting', why the need for such hatred when other acts that may equally disgust you escape similar bigotry?

    And while i think the majority will agree
  2. darthOB1 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 22, 2000
    star 5
    Do we really need another thread like this?

    A better question would be why not bring this up in the other thread?
  3. DARTH-SHREDDER Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 6, 2005
    star 5
  4. zombie Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 4, 1999
    star 4
    I think this particular aspect deserves its own topic.
  5. VoijaRisa Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 2002
    star 5
    I'd agree. I think it covers much more than just homosexuality.

    Personally, I find tattoos, certain piercings, and several other things disgusing. However, this is no reason for me to tell other people that they can't practice it as they wish.
  6. darthOB1 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 22, 2000
    star 5
    We have discussed all of the things this thread is wanting to discuss, so why start another?
  7. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    I think it is because the "choices" that we make are perceived to be an indicator of our general character as opposed to any biological disposition, particuarly within the context of societal norms.

    IMO there are attempts to medicalise many conditions on this basis (for example) obesity - if we can somehow remove the element of choice in obesity then the obese person has a legitimate medical condition and are therefore not deemed to be deviating from societal "norms".

    Yelling obscenities in the shopping centre would seem to de 'deviant' behaviour but a person with Tourettes Syndrome would not be deemed deviant because it is a 'medical' condition or a genetic predisposition.

    The same can be said for homosexuality. Homosexuality has traditionally been seen as deviant behaviour and is/was actually a crime punishable by fines/imprisonment. But if it can be proven that homosexuality is biologically determined rather than a matter of choice, then following other examples of so called "deviance" then homosexuality would simply become a genetic trait like a predisposition towards balding and heart disease.
  8. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    This thread sucks. It labels anyone who is against SSM as homophobes. That's bad footing on which to start a thread.
  9. Quixotic-Sith Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 22, 2001
    star 6
    Well, we haven't even gotten into the reaction formation of the homophobes afraid to acknowledge their underlying homosexual attractions...
  10. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    I dunno, I always thought you were pretty hot. But I love you for your mind...so's that's different. ;)
  11. zombie Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 4, 1999
    star 4
    what else would you call it? I know some who oppose homosexuality,etc. may find it derogatory but there really isnt a more appropriate term.
  12. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    what else would you call it?

    I dunno. Anti-gay? Pro-straight?

    But to call each and every person who doesn't believe that every instance of homosexuality is derived from birth a "homophobe" is immediately judging their motives.

    It would be like calling each and every person for SSM "anti-American" or claiming that they all wish to destroy society.

  13. zombie Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 4, 1999
    star 4
    by that token then would you call a person who wanted to deny blacks the right to marriage racist? And if not, why? Pro-white and anti-black still makes you racist. If you are denying a person the right to marriage based on their sexual orientation, sorry, you are in fact homophobic. But this is really derailing the initial topic.
    darth fluffy likes this.
  14. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    I think it's amazing the importance that is placed on a person's sexual preference.

    I worked for many years in a law firm with a gay partner and predominatly gay clients. My boss dressed conservatively, was old fashioned - opened doors for ladies, watched old movies, thought the lesbian & gay mardi-gras antics (with floats and parades) was stupid and disliked loud music, parties and Abba. He was in a relationshiop with the same man for over 16 years.

    If this guy ever got "married" - it would have no consequence for the rest of society - he was just a quiet chap who looked like any other 50 year old business professional.

    Who cares? I don't understand all the fuss.
  15. DARTH-SHREDDER Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 6, 2005
    star 5
    That's a bad analogy. Nobody for SSM wants to destroy society or doesn't like America, while there are quite a few homophobes who are against SSM.
  16. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    by that token then would you call a person who wanted to deny blacks the right to marriage racist? And if not, why?

    Certainly I'd call them racist. But not Afrophobic.

    If you are denying a person the right to marriage based on their sexual orientation, sorry, you are in fact homophobic.

    1) This thread wasn't supposed to be about SSM. It was supposed to be about nature/nurture. Could it be possible that a person who supports SSM would also believe it was a lifestyle choice? If so would he still be "homophobic?"

    2) "Homophobia" is the liberal medias attempt to make you believe that people who dissagree with homosexuality are motivated by something other than logic. Looks like it's working.

    But this is really derailing the initial topic.

    That's kinda what happens when you start a thread by insulting the opposition.

    EDIT: That's a bad analogy. Nobody for SSM wants to destroy society or doesn't like America, while there are quite a few homophobes who are against SSM.

    You would be wrong. There are certainly a very few who support SSM 'cause they want to weaken marriage.
  17. zombie Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 4, 1999
    star 4
    i didnt bring up issues of SSM in any case. And in any case, what WOULD you call someone who opposes homosexuality? Anti-gay? Homosexualist? In my mind Aphrophobia and racism are the same.

    But in any case, this thread has already gotten off topic. lets stick to the issues initially brought up.
  18. DARTH-SHREDDER Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 6, 2005
    star 5
    There are certainly a very few who support SSM 'cause they want to weaken marriage.

    [face_laugh] I don't know if I can handle this. Did you actually just say what I think you just said? That's probably the best one I've heard so far...

    PPOR. [face_plain]
  19. somethingfamiliar Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 20, 2003
    star 5
  20. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    i didnt bring up issues of SSM in any case. And in any case, what WOULD you call someone who opposes homosexuality? Anti-gay? Homosexualist? In my mind Aphrophobia and racism are the same.

    Certainly they are different. One feels that black people are inferior, the other is afraid of them.

    But in any case, this thread has already gotten off topic. lets stick to the issues initially brought up.

    We are. Not everyone who thinks that homosexuality is a choice is a homophobe.

    EDIT: I don't know if I can handle this. Did you actually just say what I think you just said? That's probably the best one I've heard so far...

    PPOR.


    Not enough time. But there are satanic groups who support SSM because they reject the institution of marriage as a whole and want it abolished.

    Don't have time to find their names now, so if need be I'll tempoarily retract.
  21. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    Well I can only go by anectodal evidence and the prevailing view seems to be that homosexual men and women grew up having a sexual attraction to the same sex, they all initially dated the oposite sex because that was the 'normal' thing to do but realised that they were not sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

    A few of my gay friends say that it took a while for them to realise that the way they felt about some of the male friends was more than just friendship but was real love and desire.

  22. zombie Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 4, 1999
    star 4
    Well, this may indeed boil down to semantics. You dont have to feel black people are inferior to be racist. Opposing black marriage for the same reasons as SSM for example. So shall i call these people homosexualist, then? As well, although one may at first deem "phobia" as an 'illogical or irrational fear', i think many people would place their phobias as somewhat logical--for instance, my friend is an arachnophob. He despises spiders, but he can back it up with logical reasons--they can be poisonous, they physically disgust him, they get cobwebs everywhere and they disturb him when they crawl over his desk when he is working, and besides they just creep him out. So while there are many logical, well-thought out reasons behind his phobia, he would still be considered an arachnophob (despite the fact that a true arachnophob would simply flee from spiders without any comprehension of why he despised them, but i think it is justifiable to apply the term 'arachnophob' to those who are really 'spiderists').

    This is actually what i was trying to discuss, but now it is being derailed with semantics. I suppose i will now refer to them as homosexualists, since they are rationally discriminatory, if that will satisfy you.

    So if you do indeed believe homosexuality to be a choice, as i believe you are implying, how does this affect your view of homosexuals? What role does choice play in your discrimination and why does it matter?

    Will you site the 'satanist want SSM to bring down marriage' argument you put forth before? If you are then this is irrelevant firstly, because your problem is with satanist, not homosexuals. Secondly, and this is starting to drift back to SSM issue, same-sex-marriage cannot be said to "Destroy marriage" anymore than a racist would claim "black marriage" or "inter-racial marriage" would.
  23. DARTH-SHREDDER Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 6, 2005
    star 5
    Okay, I'll grant you this. But come on, the few satanic groups who support SSM make up a SMALL minority of the supporters of SSM.
  24. Ceethreepio Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2003
    star 5
    *looks at my profile* Yeah...I really don't want to argue about this other than with the official thread.
  25. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    Alright, I'll play

    So if you do indeed believe homosexuality to be a choice, as i believe you are implying, how does this affect your view of homosexuals?

    I believe some people are born to it. Some people choose the behavior. And some people come to it as a result of childhood trauma.

    What role does choice play in your discrimination and why does it matter?

    It doesn't. The other thread has my feelings on why I think SSM will have a negative affect of society.