Racism wrong, Homophobia acceptable?

I'll respond to TreeCave's and Snowdog's comments later.

anakin_girl, I do not find anywhere in the Bible that we should forcibly convert others.

Frankly, it is more of a sin to forcibly convert someone than to not try to convert them at all.

I have a right to my religious beliefs, and I will practice the part that wants me to convert others peaceably and not against their will.

I do not want my religion forced upon someone. The middle and dark ages is what happened because of the government forcing my religion upon its people.

My beliefs are that homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. I have no problem with people practicing it; I merely choose not to do it myself.

Are we clear?

 

Given that there are such mean-spirited, intolerant people like myself in the world, the answer is clear:

We must expose children to the joys of gay sex in kindergarten, through the use of hand puppets, instructional videos, and participatory "drills".

Intolerance starts early, and nothing is more important than stamping it out.

 

You jerk, you just broke my sarcasam meter! Now I have to go get a new one.


But no, we don't have to teach kids in kindergarden. When I was ten, my mom just sat down and said, "son, don't hate gays, just beacuse they are different. That's just like racism."
There, that was it.
So if you want your kids to be accepting, then you just teach them to be tolerent of other races, and when they are old enough to understand what homosexuality is, then just tell your kid that intolerance of gays is just like intolerance of anything else.

 

AJA, there's no point trying to deflect our question with a wounded tirade about people calling you intolerant. I didn't say that - I asked a question designed to get at what it is exactly you believe. Your continued refusal makes me wonder if you aren't too sure yourself. But I'm not drawing that conclusion, as you may have other reasons for refusing to answer.

But your dramatic tantrums shall have no effect on me!

 

I saw this guy on Comedy Central, he was gay, and he was doing this whole bit on how his Dad reacted when he told him. And the Dad has some questions, and among them is "If gays can't breed...how come there are so many of them?"

 

In defense of TreeCave's and Saint's point: The mouth wasn't designed specifically for kissing, either. That there are many nerve endings on the mouth which make tactile contact pleasurable, and exponentially more so when pressed against another orifice rich with nerve endings, is simply an incidental side benefit which, like anal and oral sex, doesn't appear to favor heterosexual nerve contact over homosexual nerve contact.

There's no point in arguing what was not "meant" to be... because such an assertion is unprovable, especially in the light of what does, in fact, occur. It also is not useful to substitute one's personal wishes or beliefs for what "should" be for others. I believe that the desire to enter heaven and gain the benefits of the afterlife is in itself a selfish endeavor and not conducive to detachment from material desires... and I have an entire religious philosophy to back me up in that belief... Yet I try not to confuse or substitute philosophy (what I believe) with reality (what is).

 

There are some evolutionary biologists who believe intimate facial contact (kissing or nose rubbing etc) indicates letting go of personal defenses because of the fact that the face is home to the sensory organs. This lowering of the defenses is the first step towards pair bonding.

 

Actually, to be somewhat graphic, but pointed: The prostate gland, when stimulated from, shall we say, the inside of the body, is a very potent erogenous zone; so really, it seems that the argument that we aren't "built" for gay sex isn't entirely credible.

Still, I think this has less to do with actual SEX and a hell of a lot more to do with basic human dignity and human rights.

 

Also, to add fuel to the fire - homosexuality has been well-documented in animal populations and seems to be most evident in those segments in which the population has grown beyond the environment's capacity to provide for that organism. Sound like any bipedal apes you know?

Here's a fun quote from biologist Rex Wockner:

Eight percent of the male sheep at the United States Department of Agriculture's Sheep Experimental Station in Dubois, Idaho, are gay, officials confirmed in late November.

"These animals are homosexual. They are responding physically to how they are," explained Anne Perkins, a doctoral student at the station who is completing her dissertation on "Reproductive Behavior In Rams." Station officials deferred to Perkins when asked for details on the matter.

"It's a very interesting model and we can learn a great deal about homosexuality from it," Perkins said. "They are not morally or culturally or ethically behaving like humans. These sheep are just doing what their bodies are telling them to do."

 

sleazo: excellent point, but I was only trying to illustrate that while lips may facilitate kissing, and kissing serves many functions such as the one you described, the lips are now being used for many purposes for which they weren't necessarily "designed", but humans have found ample social or biological benefit in these peripheral uses... of course now we're getting into social and biological evolution... another reality that many religious fundamentalists don't want to face.

 

Sheep. We count them, wear them, clone them, eat them.... we are yet going to find out they were in charge all along, and we were their idiot dupes. (Sorry, too much Douglas Adams.)

 

"So long and thanks for all the grain!"

 

I don't eat sheep!

 

Snowdog, i completely understand that. I was just pointing out that almost everything does have a biological purpose(even if we use it that way or not)

 

"The prostate gland, when stimulated from, shall we say, the inside of the body, is a very potent erogenous zone"

I was gonna bring that up myself, but wasn't sure how to without riling the mods

Prostate = male g spot. I've heard the female g spot is actually the vestigal remains from when both genders had prostates. Or something. You straight guys don't know what you're missing

 

Saint, who says that straight guys have to miss out on it? I have some straight friends who are comfortable enough with their girlfriends stimulating them in such a way. ;c)

 

Me too. *thinks of Whimper*

 

Im straight and i enjoy my prostate.
Nothing wrong with that.

 

Rock on, Sleazo! It truly is a wonderful contraption that most men don't know exists.

 

No need to not enjoy your body, though i might be arrested in some states

 

Which brings me to another topic (one that was locked in the early days of the Senate), what right does the government have to restrict and make illegal the aforementioned activities that occur in private between two consenting adults? No government should have the authority to police what occurs in your bedroom between consenting adults. And I'm not talking about homosexuals exclusively, because the same laws have been applied to heterosexual couples.

 

No government should have the authority to police what occurs in your bedroom between consenting adults. And I'm not talking about homosexuals exclusively, because the same laws have been applied to heterosexual couples.

Indeed. In some states, I have read that it is illegal for the woman to be on top. What nonsense is this? Why does anyone care what others do in their bedrooms?

 

what right does the government have to restrict and make illegal the aforementioned activities that occur in private between two consenting adults?

Agreed. There are even laws on the books (or recently removed) about certain positions - no one seems to know now why the positions were considered bad as they're just... you know, positions.

I still say the only reason anyone thinks it should be a matter of concern what people you don't know do in a bedroom you're not in is our worship of maleness. These are the sort of weird ideas that come from a serious imbalance, such as valuing masculine traits so much more than feminine ones.

Again, this is not a men v. women thing. What I'm saying is that women are valued when they're functioning as men. To be the one who stays at home with the kids is a put-down to EITHER a male or female parent ("Oh, then you don't work"). To be the breadwinner is really cool, whether you're male or female. See what I mean? We only value what we consider "manly" - even in women.

 

Treecave, that's a very good point. The masculinization of women is seen as an "improvement" in many circles, as if all that is feminine is inferior. Many women now wear suits to work and this is considered good business sense, a sign of strength, and even sexy.

Yet, if a man were to wear a dress to work - look out!

Also, this may be off topic, but it's tangentially related - can someone explain to me why we still allow women to be paid less for doing the same job as a man?

Insanity!

 

To be the one who stays at home with the kids is a put-down to EITHER a male or female parent ("Oh, then you don't work"). To be the breadwinner is really cool, whether you're male or female. See what I mean? We only value what we consider "manly" - even in women.

I don't think this attitude is so much an extension of gender issues rather than one of capitalism. We value our monetary value, whether it's how much we make or how much we spend. Traditionally, women's work has been devalued because it doesn't bring money into the household whereas men's work (ie breadwinning) does.

Edited for italics