InfiniteNow Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 Many of our laws were changed during the 20th century to eliminate discrimination by gender, ethnicity, and religion. How is being homosexual any different, and should laws be allowed to discriminate against this group, but not others? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 I would suggest homosexuality is either a cultural choice, a biological imperative or possibly some of each. My personal suspition is that it is mostly, maybe even completely a biological issue. I don't believe that any law should discriminate against people that are homosexual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted June 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 Thanks Z. I think I know where you stand and very much appreciate the contributions you've made to the thread which inspired this one. Anyone else? How is it different? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HydrogenBond Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 Homosexual behavior whether it is natural or unnatural is countered by what is called homophobic behavior. This counter behavior is just as old and is probably a socially created and/or biological preditor to maintain sustainable populations. As far as I know, homophobic behavior is also discriminated against. I don't think it is right even if it has a biological connection that can be proven. These people have to control themselves for the good of civilized culture. If we go back into history, humans have also had sex with animals and children. Culture discriminate sagainst both of these, even though they may have social and biological factors in par with homosexuality. The gays are not the only ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted June 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 These people have to control themselves for the good of civilized culture. These people? :eek: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 I guess that depends upon the nature of (_blank_). Socially, are we defined by our thoughts or our actions? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racoon Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 I would suggest homosexuality is either a cultural choice, a biological imperative or possibly some of each. My personal suspition is that it is mostly, maybe even completely a biological issue. I don't believe that any law should discriminate against people that are homosexual. Agreed on this point Zyth.People are "Born" gay. they can't really help it. Just as if someone is Born Hetero. How do I know? I've talked openly with several gays, and they all say the same. It wasn't really an option.. they tried to be "normal" and it just didn't work... There might be a few confused cases in-between, but for the most part, people are Born Gay, or Not. :eek: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janus Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 Homosexual behavior whether it is natural or unnatural is countered by what is called homophobic behavior. ...These people have to control themselves for the good of civilized culture. You're right, the homophobics should control themselves for the good of civilized culture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 ....should laws be allowed to discriminate against this group, but not others?There should be no laws that discriminate against anyone's personal liberty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFaithfulStone Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 We can talk about a lot of the parallels bigots try to draw. How is being gay different than being a (I don't know what the real word for this) [a practitioner of bestiality.] The object of your affection is a moral agent capable of giving consent. How is being gay different than being a pedophile? See answer #1. How is being gay different than being a bigamist? There is no social structure that enforces a set of behaviors from you. (People are not pressured into being gay by their religion, for instance. In this way, it's actually MORE like being a bigamist to be "repressed" and gay than it is to be a flamer.) How is being gay different than being straight. The people you love have the same sex chromosomes as you. Hmm... that seems like a pretty minor difference, doesn't it? TFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted June 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 How is being gay different than being a (I don't know what the real word for this) [a practitioner of bestiality.] A zoophiliac. :hihi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercedes Benzene Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 Regarding the original question of this thread:There ARE laws that make discrimination against homosexuals illegal... Whether people choose to follow those laws or not is up to them... but its just like any case of discrimination: If you have a problem, go to the Supreme Court. :shrug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panjandrum Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 Homosexuality is no diffrent than any other sexual deviation, such as kiddy love and s&m. So long as its consensual, I dont see how anyone can object. After all, its only sex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFaithfulStone Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 Homosexuality is no diffrent than any other sexual deviation, such as kiddy love and s&m. So long as its consensual, I dont see how anyone can object. After all, its only sex. You assume homosexuality is "deviant" and that it's equivalent to what is basically rape. And then you say "as long as it's consensual" making yourself seem reasonable - but at the same time intentionally creating an emotional response with your evocation of "kiddy love." A) Homosexuality may be "deviant" in the sense that it's not the norm, but it's not "deviant" in that it's inevitably harmful to the fabric of society. :shrug: Pedophilia cannot be consensual because children are incapable of giving informed consent to that kind of thing. C) S&M is not "deviant" in the same way that either of those things is because it's a 'fetish' and not an attraction pattern. That'll do for starters. TFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HydrogenBond Posted June 15, 2006 Report Share Posted June 15, 2006 When I said "they" need to control themselves I was referring to the homophobe preditors. Gays do need to be aware that their flashy or demonstrative behavior can insight a reactionary counter behavior from a homophobe preditor. If I walk around mad, people will react to me with a number of reactions from fear to anger. I would not blame them for reacting to me that way, since I incited the reaction by my huffy behavior. I brought up two fringe behaviors, i.e.,having sex with children and with animals. I am against both but they do offer an interesting parallel to current afairs like gay marriage. Let us look at beastiality. There is a lot of historic occurances of this. even on contemporary times, everyone has probably seen a dog hump a human leg. There are some people who just like sheep or other barnyard critters. Is there a beastiality gene? And if there is, does that mean these people also have the cultural right to bang animals, since the animals don't seem to really mind. Nobody is getting hurt. It is only sex and pleasure from two consenting life forms. Picture if the females of culture began to feel sorry for the poor animal packers as they are perscecuted for coming out of the closet. The want culture to be more sensitive to their needs. They nag and convince the males to think with their hearts instead of their brains. Overtime, the men stop being coldly rational and become more subjective until they feel compassion for the animal bangers to where this becomes more socially acceptable, and protected by hate crime laws. Consider the situation created in culture. Almost all people love animals, the majority of Americans have pets. They love their pets because their pets offer unconditional love and acceptance. Most people would never think of banging Fido, but now that banging Fido is socially acceptable ( as long as he consents), maybe that is a way to get even closer. Culture says this is OK, only religion resists and everyone knows religion is out of touch with the times. This would extend beastialty beyond those with the carte blanche genetic seal of approval into a cultural and psychological justification that was created by its cultural acceptance. People will begin to justify their new unnatural tendancies, as relative behavior, with the helpful support of the genetic and the psychological communities. This would also lead to try-sexual behavior, i.e, try anything at least once During this time, gay bashing would subside because there is a new moral problem in town. Many of the gays are divided over the issue and team up with the religious right. This aliance allows a compromise to be reached such that the gays have their civil unions. As time goes on, the beatials begin to want to marry their mates since this behavior is becoming more mainstream. Why shouldn't man's best friend also be his mate for life. The shorter lifespan of animals allows one to have many mates over one's lifetime without the need of divorce. The beastials decide they wish to use the same term as the gays "civil union". Civil union was original designed to mean a monogamous union between two loving and commited people of the same sex. Now the beastials wish to use this same term to descibe their unnatural marriage to animals. This new meaning would rob the original phrase of its spiritual meaning and turn it into something else. How does one think the gays would react? I am not comparing the homosexuals to the beastials but are just going through a logical progression to put the shoe on the other foot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFaithfulStone Posted June 15, 2006 Report Share Posted June 15, 2006 There is no logical progression because an animal is not capable of giving consent. Neither are children. "Adult" relationships that are not between consenting adults are deviant because they harm someone (or something) TFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkain101 Posted June 15, 2006 Report Share Posted June 15, 2006 I thought south park did a funny show on this. A gay man got a surgery to become a women. He had all the parts, yet still was attracted to the same sex. He called himself a women. He said I am not gay I am a strait women! The thing was, gay people no longer were attracted to him. It actually made some sense. This can show a perspective on the issue pretty clearly. Many homosexuals could become women, and if they do, would they still be gay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.