NationStates Jolt Archive

40 years ago, the British parliament passed the Sexual Offences Act which decriminalised homosexuality, coming after intense debate over the past 10 years over the Wolfenden report which advocated the decriminalisation.

So, in celebration of this major step towards equal rights in Britain, I thought I would start something of a mega-thread regarding gay issues that still surround us. Feel free to start discussions on any related issue, if one gets too large it could always be split to another topic.

Perhaps some starter questions are in order:

Should homosexuality be regarded as an innate leaning, or a choice made? Or something of both? Does it really matter?

Has equal rights really been achieved yet? What can we do to promote them in countries where homosexuals are routinely ostracised or even killed?

Should gay couples be allowed to adopt or have IVF treatment using a sperm donor/surrogate mother?

Should gay marriage be considered equal to straight marriage?

40 years ago, the British parliament passed the Sexual Offences Act which decriminalised homosexuality, coming after intense debate over the past 10 years over the Wolfenden report which advocated the decriminalisation.

So, in celebration of this major step towards equal rights in Britain, I thought I would start something of a mega-thread regarding gay issues that still surround us. Feel free to start discussions on any related issue, if one gets too large it could always be split to another topic.

Perhaps some starter questions are in order:

Should homosexuality be regarded as an innate leaning, or a choice made? Or something of both? Does it really matter?

Has equal rights really been achieved yet? What can we do to promote them in countries where homosexuals are routinely ostracised or even killed?

Should gay couples be allowed to adopt or have IVF treatment using a sperm donor/surrogate mother?

Should gay marriage be considered equal to straight marriage?
Theres the answer to your questions right there, please find me any gay person in the whole world who says one day they decided to be gay.
Misconceptions that are fueled by conservative groups that put out lies that homosexuality is a 'choice' need to be stopped, it's hate speech.

I refuse to participate in these "megathreads" on extremely wide subjects because I find them presumptuously stupid (as if the OP somehow thinks he can corner the market on discussion of a topic - no, you cannot, so don't pretend you can), and in this one particularly because most of the questions in the OP are moot in several countries, including mine. So:

"Does it really matter?" Nope. "Should gay couples be allowed to adopt or have IVF treatment using a sperm donor/surrogate mother?" We are. "Should gay marriage be considered equal to straight marriage?" They are, and within a year's time or so there will be no "gay marriage or straight marriage" but just marriage.

So, a big "meh" to you.

I refuse to participate in these "megathreads"

Good job.

What if an otherwise bisexual guy had a traumatic experience with a girl that made him unable to form a heterosexual relationship because of his mentality (he thinks all girls are psychotic, manipulative hellspawn).

What would that mean?

40 years ago, the British parliament passed the Sexual Offences Act which decriminalised homosexuality, coming after intense debate over the past 10 years over the Wolfenden report which advocated the decriminalisation.Weeee.... Should homosexuality be regarded as an innate leaning, or a choice made? Or something of both? Does it really matter?I can't see why it should matter. I've never been anything but bisexual myself, but I can't see what difference it'd make if a choice had been involved. Has equal rights really been achieved yet?Far from it. Non-heteros are not equal before the law in almost every country on Earth, Britain included. What can we do to promote them in countries where homosexuals are routinely ostracised or even killed?Standard NSG response: nuke the ragheads.
Seriously though, there's not a hell of a lot we can do, except boycott nations where non-heterosexuals aren't equals before the law. Prevent the public sector from buying anything produced in or by such countries, and campaign for general consumer boycotts. Stuff like that. Should gay couples be allowed to adopt or have IVF treatment using a sperm donor/surrogate mother?Why shouldn't they? and what about me, for example. I'm in a hetero relationship (hell, I'm married), but can't have children. If we wanted any though, I'd not only be allowed, the cost would be covered through the normal public health care. If my wife was a husband, I wouldn't even be allowed to, if I payed myself. Should gay marriage be considered equal to straight marriage?Yes. It's no different from hetero marriage, so why should it be treated differently?

What if an otherwise bisexual guy had a traumatic experience with a girl that made him unable to form a heterosexual relationship because of his mentality (he thinks all girls are psychotic, manipulative hellspawn).

What would that mean?

he'd be a bisexual who chooses not to engage in intimate heterosexual relationships.

I refuse to participate in these "megathreads" on extremely wide subjects because I find them presumptuously stupid (as if the OP somehow thinks he can corner the market on discussion of a topic - no, you cannot, so don't pretend you can)

Thus my statement saying please split topics up into different threads if necessary. You seem to speak as if this forum is some kind of attention-grabbing game. It is not. I do not care if people start other threads on similar issues, in fact, I encourage it to keep threads concise and distinct.

and in this one particularly because most of the questions in the OP are moot in several countries, including mine.

Good for your country. They may be moot there, but in many countries they are still huge issues, and other gay men (and women, but men especially) are being continually discriminated against and even killed because of it. Please get off your high horse. The world is not as 'perfect' as your country.

So, a big "meh" to you.

Lovely. Please leave then.

and in this one particularly because most of the questions in the OP are moot in several countries, including mine.


Several, out of around 250... yep it's really irrelevant to be discussing it now isn't it. The issue is no longer important or relevant. It sure has gone the way of smallpox hasn't it.

What if an otherwise bisexual guy had a traumatic experience with a girl that made him unable to form a heterosexual relationship because of his mentality (he thinks all girls are psychotic, manipulative hellspawn).

What would that mean?

It would be voluntarily homosexuality then, or perhaps more of a phobia that he should try to overcome. I'm assuming he would still have the same attractions towards girls, just not be able to form relationships.

I can't see why it should matter. I've never been anything but bisexual myself, but I can't see what difference it'd make if a choice had been involved.

Indeed, lifestyles should be accepted regardless of choice or innateness, as long as they are not destructive.

Far from it. Non-heteros are not equal before the law in almost every country on Earth, Britain included.

Yes. Unfortunately, many don't seem to care. Blood donation is another related issue.

Standard NSG response: nuke the ragheads.
Seriously though, there's not a hell of a lot we can do, except boycott nations where non-heterosexuals aren't equals before the law. Prevent the public sector from buying anything produced in or by such countries, and campaign for general consumer boycotts. Stuff like that.

I don't think this government is going to forgo its alliance with Saudi Arabia any time soon, despite that country's horrendous human rights record.

Why shouldn't they? and what about me, for example. I'm in a hetero relationship (hell, I'm married), but can't have children. If we wanted any though, I'd not only be allowed, the cost would be covered through the normal public health care. If my wife was a husband, I wouldn't even be allowed to, if I payed myself

Clear discrimination again. This reminds me of the case in the UK where some Catholic adoption agencies refused to help gay couples, and in the legal case that followed, the judge ruled in favour of the gay couples.

Yes. It's no different from hetero marriage, so why should it be treated differently?

Agreed. Though I am happy that civil partnerships are now more widespread, they are still not equal. Hetero couples shouldn't have a monopoly on the word 'marriage'.

The term choice is pretty meaningless in terms of the person, but it is useful in terms of decision making. If the freedoms are created at the 'choice' level then whether it is an actual choice or not is redundant.
Equal freedoms should be available whatever the 'choice' is people are people whatever the chosen sexual preference.

Should homosexuality be regarded as an innate leaning, or a choice made? Or something of both? Does it really matter?
to me it doesn't matter really, whether they are "born" that way or if they choose it, or if they have some sort of childhood trauma that makes them more prone........it just doesn't matter. Consenting adults deserve the respect to be left alone. What they are doing doesn't affect me, so it's none of my business.
Has equal rights really been achieved yet?
sadly no. some countries are really close though.

What can we do to promote them in countries where homosexuals are routinely ostracised or even killed? I don't know :( there probably isn't a simple answer to that one.

Should gay couples be allowed to adopt or have IVF treatment using a sperm donor/surrogate mother?
yes.

Should gay marriage be considered equal to straight marriage?
yes.

Wow, what a mess this one is already. :p Congrats on the decriminalization, though.

Yes. Unfortunately, many don't seem to care. Blood donation is another related issue.Yes, sadly. Perhaps it's time to launch a human rights party in Britain?I don't think this government is going to forgo its alliance with Saudi Arabia any time soon, despite that country's horrendous human rights record.Actually, I made that "nuke the ragheads" comment specifically because most modern democracies are just as ass backwards in this respect, if less brutal about it. I don't really think we should be congratulating ourselves on "only" oppressing the fuck out of our citizens.Clear discrimination again. This reminds me of the case in the UK where some Catholic adoption agencies refused to help gay couples, and in the legal case that followed, the judge ruled in favour of the gay couples.And this is why I'm not a fan of the idea that special interest orgs, should be allowed to provide such services. It's a lot easier to keep the public sector in line.

Imagine if some orthodox Abrahamite group were administrating dole payments... It's just not a good idea to put moralists in a position of power. Agreed. Though I am happy that civil partnerships are now more widespread, they are still not equal. Hetero couples shouldn't have a monopoly on the word 'marriage'.At least in Britain that's likely to change soon. Not so much in other oh so great and modern EU countries.

But at least we've never called ourselves the land of the free.

to me it doesn't matter really, whether they are "born" that way or if they choose it, or if they have some sort of childhood trauma that makes them more prone........it just doesn't matter. Consenting adults deserve the respect to be left alone. What they are doing doesn't affect me, so it's none of my business.

Now this a good attitude, something I would hope others would follow. Even if someone holds the opinion that homosexuality is somehow 'wrong', they should still not try to force their opinion on others.

I don't know :( there probably isn't a simple answer to that one.

I suppose in America, the current issue is of gay marriage, so I would encourage people to vote based partly on this (if they feel inclined to do so). Clearly the current president is not going to give at all on this issue, but perhaps the next one will be more accepting, even if it means forgoing votes from the religious right (which seems to be quite a sizeable number of people).

Yes, sadly. Perhaps it's time to launch a human rights party in Britain?

I would certainly support it. The current bunch of parties aren't really up to it. The Greens have policies that I cannot support, the Lib Dems are far too centrist, and Labour seem to be moving more right wing every year.

Actually, I made that "nuke the ragheads" comment specifically because most modern democracies are just as ass backwards in this respect, if less brutal about it. I don't really think we should be congratulating ourselves on "only" oppressing the fuck out of our citizens.

This is true, we hide behind the veil of 'democracy' and 'freedom', but, especially in Britain, the government is slowly eroding our liberties and allowing discrimination to take place in religious areas as well as secular.

And this is why I'm not a fan of the idea that special interest orgs, should be allowed to provide such services. It's a lot easier to keep the public sector in line.

Agreed, I despise the idea of 'academies' that Blair set up to appease some religious groups. I'm glad that they now are forced to follow the national curriculum rather than set their own, but I still oppose their existence.

At least in Britain that's likely to change soon. Not so much in other oh so great and modern EU countries.

But at least we've never called ourselves the land of the free.

Yes, I've always found that phrase the Americans like so....ironic, considering their history of equal rights problems. 'Free' if you are the right religion and demographic more like.

I would certainly support it. The current bunch of parties aren't really up to it. The Greens have policies that I cannot support, the Lib Dems are far too centrist, and Labour seem to be moving more right wing every year.It just leaves a sour taste in one's mouth that chances of achieving basic human rights and social equality, may get better by launching a completely a-political political party. It's pathetic, and not in that funny, non-horrendous way either.

But go for it. And do something about Schengen while you're at it.

he'd be a bisexual who chooses not to engage in intimate heterosexual relationships.

Roflpwnt.

Should homosexuality be regarded as an innate leaning, or a choice made?

Innate.

Does it really matter?

Yes, but not in terms in civil rights.

Has equal rights really been achieved yet?

No, at least not in most of the US. And the mere achievement of legal equality is not sufficient.

What can we do to promote them in countries where homosexuals are routinely ostracised or even killed?

International pressure might help somewhat to achieve the legal guarantees, but the crucial cultural changes are going to have to come from within.

Should gay couples be allowed to adopt or have IVF treatment using a sperm donor/surrogate mother?

Yes.

Should gay marriage be considered equal to straight marriage?

Yes, as should a variety of other relationships that do not fit neatly into heterosexual monogamy.

Should gay couples be allowed to adopt or have IVF treatment using a sperm donor/surrogate mother?



Definitely. The first 20 seconds of this (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gEE7wV1jLuI&mode=related&search=) is a great argument

I don't see why there’s even an argument over gay marriage. It's not affecting your personal happiness, so why should you try so hard to affect theirs? You find it offensive? I find religion offensive, but I'm not trying to ban it, am I? Get your head out of the bible and live in the 21st century, not the 14th.

(he thinks all girls are psychotic, manipulative hellspawn).

What would that mean?

But we're all like that normally :p

Definitely. The first 20 seconds of this (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gEE7wV1jLuI&mode=related&search=) is a great argument

Haha! Excellent argument :p

International pressure might help somewhat to achieve the legal guarantees, but the crucial cultural changes are going to have to come from within.

This is true. Although groups like Amnesty International continually pressure countries, but I don't see much of that being reflected in governments' policies, relationships with Saudi Arabia being an obvious example.

Yes, as should a variety of other relationships that do not fit neatly into heterosexual monogamy.

Examples? You mean transsexuals and polygamists? Definitely agree there.

I don't see why there’s even an argument over gay marriage. It's not affecting your personal happiness, so why should you try so hard to affect theirs? You find it offensive? I find religion offensive, but I'm not trying to ban it, am I? Get your head out of the bible and live in the 21st century, not the 14th.

Of course, religious freedom to oppress others is far more important than civil freedom.:rolleyes:

I refuse to participate in these "megathreads" on extremely wide subjects because I find them presumptuously stupid (as if the OP somehow thinks he can corner the market on discussion of a topic - no, you cannot, so don't pretend you can), and in this one particularly because most of the questions in the OP are moot in several countries, including mine. So:

"Does it really matter?" Nope. "Should gay couples be allowed to adopt or have IVF treatment using a sperm donor/surrogate mother?" We are. "Should gay marriage be considered equal to straight marriage?" They are, and within a year's time or so there will be no "gay marriage or straight marriage" but just marriage.

So, a big "meh" to you.

This is one of the few subjects that Fass and I are in 100% agreement over:

The day people stop labeling things based on something as trivial as sex(gay marriage vs. marriage) is the day humanity grows up just a little bit. *nod*

The day people stop labeling things based on something as trivial as sex(gay marriage vs. marriage) is the day humanity grows up just a little bit.That will be the day when people stop to base their 'values' on religion.

Examples? You mean transsexuals and polygamists? Definitely agree there.

Why do Christians even make a problem of all forms of polygamy ? Many Biblical figures had multiple wives and God did not seem overly displeased.

Why do Christians even make a problem of all forms of polygamy ? Many Biblical figures had multiple wives and God did not seem overly displeased.

generalize much?

generalize much?

I daresay most Christians do not favour the idea of sanctifying polygamous marriages. Mormons and such being noticeable exceptions.

What else seemed like a generalisation to you ?

I daresay most Christians do not favour the idea of sanctifying polygamous marriages. Mormons and such being noticeable exceptions.

What else seemed like a generalisation to you ?
Why do Christians even make a problem of all forms of polygamy?

that part.

lets try replacing a few words

Why do gays even make a problem of all forms of sports?

Why do Christians even make a problem of all forms of polygamy?

that part.

I do not see your point. One man with many wives is a form of polygamy. The Bibles mentions quite a few respected people who are married in that way.
So why do Christians oppose this form of polygamy ?

Hmm - maybe you read the "all" in a different way ?

Why do gays even make a problem of all forms of sports?
Do they ? No ? Well.. there goes the comparison.

Gotta love Canada, the real land of the free, where if I'm not married with my boyfriend it's because I chose not to, instead of not being allowed to because it would offend the tender sensibilities of a few overbearing religious nutjobs.

It's not everywhere two men can walk hand-in-hand like every other normal couple without having insults thrown at them.



Why do gays even make a problem of all forms of sports?

I don't get where you're getting at. Since when do gays make a problem of sports? I like sports.

I do not see your point. One man with many wives is a form of polygamy. The Bibles mentions quite a few respected people who are married in that way.
So why do Christians oppose this form of polygamy ?

Hmm - maybe you read the "all" in a different way ?
uh........no.


Do they ? No ? Well.. there goes the comparison.
Do all Christians oppose polygamy? no, they don't, thats why you are generalizing.

I don't get where you're getting at. Since when do gays make a problem of sports? I like sports.
since when does every single Christian on the face of the Earth oppose polygamy?

since when does every single Christian on the face of the Earth oppose polygamy?

He never meant 'all Christians', he meant 'most Christians'.

since when does every single Christian on the face of the Earth oppose polygamy?

Since when do any gay person at all makes all sorts of problems about sports?

At least on the polygamy issue, what he says isn't false in the sense that there are, indeed, Christians who oppose it. Whereas I've never heard of a single gay person who opposed sports on principle O_o

I just think maybe your analogy was ill-chosen.

Do all Christians oppose polygamy? no, they don't, thats why you are generalizing.

Did I say "all Christians" ? No.

He never meant 'all Christians', he meant 'most Christians'.
Not even that. Though I do think that most is an accurate description of reality.

I know 3 homosexuals who hate sports and are very vehement about it.

do they want sports banned or something? :confused:

He never meant 'all Christians', he meant 'most Christians'.

what he said though was "Christians"

which is taken to mean all. If you don't modify it with things like "some" or "most" then it means all.

Dogs have 4 legs.
Most dogs have 4 legs.
Some dogs have 2 legs.

Two of these are true, one is not.

what he said though was "Christians"

which is taken to mean all. If you don't modify it with things like "some" or "most" then it means all.

Dogs have 4 legs.
Most dogs have 4 legs.
Some dogs have 2 legs.

Two of these are true, one is not.

You seem to be arguing on a weird point, I would always equate the meaning of the first statement with the second statement. Absolute statements very rarely exist, generalisations are much more common. Your definition has more precision than what others are using.

Since when do any gay person at all makes all sorts of problems about sports?

At least on the polygamy issue, what he says isn't false in the sense that there are, indeed, Christians who oppose it. Whereas I've never heard of a single gay person who opposed sports on principle O_o

I just think maybe your analogy was ill-chosen.

I know 3 homosexuals who hate sports and are very vehement about it.

what he said though was "Christians"

which is taken to mean all. If you don't modify it with things like "some" or "most" then it means all.

No, it means "more than one". However, in this specific case "the overwhelming majority" is a realistic interpretation as well.

Now please - stop twisting and just apologize.

I know 3 homosexuals who hate sports and are very vehement about it.

There's a difference between saying "I hate sports, don't enjoy it, and don't want anything to do with it" and saying "Sports should be banned and nobody should be playing them!". Somehow I doubt your friends are working towards a sports ban. Whereas those Christians vehemently against polygamy will not be saying "I don't want to be a polygamist, it's not for me" but rather "Polygamy should not exist! Ban it! Ban it now! Won't somebody please think of the children?!?!?One!1!Eleven!".

Smunk without a qualifier, it refers to a typical Christian (or dog or whatever).

I'm not so sure that attitude really is representative, though. I do know some Christians, and I've never heard any of them express opposition to non-hetero marriage types. Just got me wondering actually... I seriously doubt it'd be controversial to legalize polygamy here, yet it isn't for some reason... But perhaps we're all out of polygamists?

There's a difference between saying "I hate sports, don't enjoy it, and don't want anything to do with it" and saying "Sports should be banned and nobody should be playing them!". Somehow I doubt your friends are working towards a sports ban. Whereas those Christians vehemently against polygamy will not be saying "I don't want to be a polygamist, it's not for me" but rather "Polygamy should not exist! Ban it! Ban it now! Won't somebody please think of the children?!?!?One!1!Eleven!".

You seem to be missing the point about generalisation that smunkee was trying to make

You seem to be missing the point about generalisation that smunkee was trying to make

Oh, I got that. I'm just arguing that the chosen analogy is poor because I don't know a single gay person who advocates sports being banned. You can't generalise on something for which you don't even have empirical evidence.

But yeah, what she really wanted to say was along the lines of "Not every Christian is (vehemently or not) against polygamy". Which is true. But there are indeed Christians who oppose polygamy.

But yeah, what she really wanted to say was along the lines of "Not every Christian is (vehemently or not) against polygamy". Which is true. But there are indeed Christians who oppose polygamy.

Quite a few. Catholic churches do not perform such marriage ceremonies. Neither do protestants, calvinists, baptists and so on and so on. Even though such marriages are allowed by the Bible.

Quite a few. Catholic churches do not perform such marriage ceremonies. Neither do protestants, calvinists, baptists and so on and so on. Even though such marriages are allowed by the Bible.

Perhaps they feel it is again a slippery slope if they allow it, though to go against the Bible does seem odd, but not uncommon, they've never been very good at following it. If they allowed polygamous marriages, that would automatically include more than one of the same sex in one marriage, and thus same-sex marriage.

Monogamy is the primary form of marriage in this (Western) society. Perhaps if polygamy was a larger group, it would find more acceptance. I kind of view Mormons as outcasts from the other Christian branches.

Should homosexuality be regarded as an innate leaning, or a choice made?

I don't know.

Or something of both? Does it really matter?

Yes, but like Soheran said not in terms of civil rights.

Has equal rights really been achieved yet?

Far from it.

Should gay couples be allowed to adopt or have IVF treatment using a sperm donor/surrogate mother?

Yes.

Should gay marriage be considered equal to straight marriage?

Yes.

I refuse to participate in these "megathreads" on extremely wide subjects because I find them presumptuously stupid (as if the OP somehow thinks he can corner the market on discussion of a topic - no, you cannot, so don't pretend you can), and in this one particularly because most of the questions in the OP are moot in several countries, including mine. So:

"Does it really matter?" Nope. "Should gay couples be allowed to adopt or have IVF treatment using a sperm donor/surrogate mother?" We are. "Should gay marriage be considered equal to straight marriage?" They are, and within a year's time or so there will be no "gay marriage or straight marriage" but just marriage.

So, a big "meh" to you.

I admire how your refusal to participate came in the form of participation.

(he thinks all girls are psychotic, manipulative hellspawn).

Well, aren't they?

For the people who ask if gay people chose to be gay...did you choose to be straight? I get a little weary of seeing it constantly asked if homosexuality is a choice when I don't see anyone call heterosexuality a choice, or a "lifestyle" for that matter.

And gay marriage should not be up to voters. If I want to marry my boyfriend, that is no one's business but ours.

I get a little weary of seeing it constantly asked if homosexuality is a choice when I don't see anyone call heterosexuality a choice, or a "lifestyle" for that matter.Oddly it's exactly those kinds of people who make me hope against hope we're not predisposed to a particular sexual orientation. It's all too easy to imagine screenings and eventual gene-therapy for nasty gay fetuses. Just look at what's happening in large parts of Asia right now. Screening for and aborting females.And gay marriage should not be up to voters. If I want to marry my boyfriend, that is no one's business but ours.Noooo! If I can't have you, nobody will! [insert sounds of gunshots]

I refuse to participate in threads like this because to me, there's no contention -- nothing to debate.

40 years ago, the British parliament passed the Sexual Offences Act which decriminalised homosexuality, coming after intense debate over the past 10 years over the Wolfenden report which advocated the decriminalisation.Weee! Now that's an anniversary worth celebrating! How should we? <Leers suggestively.>

Should homosexuality be regarded as an innate leaning, or a choice made? Or something of both? Does it really matter?It's innate, but it wouldn't matter if it wasn't.

Has equal rights really been achieved yet? What can we do to promote them in countries where homosexuals are routinely ostracised or even killed?Anything from diplomatic negotiation to boycotts to declaring war.

Should gay couples be allowed to adopt or have IVF treatment using a sperm donor/surrogate mother?Of course.

Should gay marriage be considered equal to straight marriage?Of course.

I refuse to participate in threads like this because to me, there's no contention -- nothing to debate.

In this case, though, that's more the topic than the format.

I'm a lesbian, or bi, or something. I usually just call myself queer as I consider it an umbrella term. I came out to my parents and friends about a year ago, and I've been much happier. Rights SHOULD be equal - All men are created equal, right? We need gender and sexual identity equal rights. I've heard some people say that asking for gay marriage is asking for extra rights, and this just doesn't make sense to me. Marriage is about love, isn't it? So what's the big deal? When I like someone, it's because I like them - if I'm physically attracted to them I'm much more likely to want a relationship with them, yes, but love is based on things other than appearance. I love my girlfriend. If she was male, I'd love her, but I wouldn't have the same type of relationship that I have with her.

All in all...

Gay marriage and straight marriage should just be plain old marriage.

LGBT couples deserve to be able to adopt/have kids in other ways, such as donors and surrogates

Rights are not currently equal, and it will be a LONG time before they are.

It doesn't matter why people are gay. I definitely didn't choose to be anything other than straight, I just realized that dicks are disgusting and boobs are nice (for me). I do think it's something of both, though - I believe I was this way before I realized it, but I made the choice to accept it and be happy with me being me.

Additional things.
On the topic of sports, I don't care for sports, but someone said they knew 3 gay people who were against them - wow, three. 6 billion people on the planet, right? Going with the 10% rule, somewhere around 600,000 people are LGBT. Obviously those 3 aren't the only people who oppose sports, in or out of the LGBT community, but not all 600,000 of those people are going to be against or for sports.
Another MAJOR thing that needs to happen is recognition of all gender identities. Female, male, genderfuck, genderqueer, gender neutral, etc.

Noooo! If I can't have you, nobody will! [insert sounds of gunshots]

:eek:

Control yourself, man!

(enough people hate us, let's not kill each other :fluffle:)

Good job.
Yup. First words out, first words in.

I refuse to participate in threads like this because to me, there's no contention -- nothing to debate.

Are you pulling a Fass here?

Perhaps they feel it is again a slippery slope if they allow it, though to go against the Bible does seem odd, but not uncommon, they've never been very good at following it. If they allowed polygamous marriages, that would automatically include more than one of the same sex in one marriage, and thus same-sex marriage.

Monogamy is the primary form of marriage in this (Western) society. Perhaps if polygamy was a larger group, it would find more acceptance. I kind of view Mormons as outcasts from the other Christian branches.

The Mormon church no longer recognizes multiple partner marriage. Personaly, there should be no legislation for OR against homosexuality, how a person decides to live his/her life is their business. It shouldn't be mandated. However, I don't believe in same sex marriages it is a personal opinion of mine and I mean no offense to anyone.

For the people who ask if gay people chose to be gay...did you choose to be straight? I get a little weary of seeing it constantly asked if homosexuality is a choice when I don't see anyone call heterosexuality a choice, or a "lifestyle" for that matter.That entirely depends on what one views as the "natural" state, so that any deviation from it may be based on choice.

And gay marriage should not be up to voters. If I want to marry my boyfriend, that is no one's business but ours.If you want to marry, you automatically make it someone else's business. For doesn't marrying mean to seek society's, or "god's", approval of your relationship?

...Just look at what's happening in large parts of Asia right now. Screening for and aborting females.They do? So they will indeed gain control over their population numbers?

1) Children. This is something a man and a woman get together, as nature intended. Its not a human right to get children.

2) Marriage. Marriage is a religious contract, that is governed by the religions it belongs to. Again, marriage is not a right.

3)Blood donations. Research has shown that homosexuals have a higher tendency to get assorted illnesses and are thus not suited for donations. Same with people who get tattoos etc in dubious countries.

4) Homosexuality in general. If homosexuality was something designed by nature, both sexes would also have been born with the other genders genitalia.
Sex is something nature designed to reproduce a species, not a source of amusement as we people tend to take it.


Personally i don't mind homosexuals, i got some friends who are.
I do however don't think its natural nor do i think they should be given rights that forces religions or others to conform to their own choice of sexual orientation.

And no, im not a religious man, i am an atheist.

I refuse to participate in threads like this because to me, there's no contention -- nothing to debate.

And yet in the majority of the world, these issues are still alive. It would appear this forum is quite narrow in its range of opinions, but considering I agree with you that there really is no contention about it, I can't really complain. Its a shame the rest of the world doesn't seem to be so agreeable.

Weee! Now that's an anniversary worth celebrating! How should we? <Leers suggestively.>

I can definitely think of some good suggestions :p

Anything from diplomatic negotiation to boycotts to declaring war.

You would support a war against a country based purely on the rights of homosexuals?

If you want to marry, you automatically make it someone else's business. For doesn't marrying mean to seek society's, or "god's", approval of your relationship?

Nowadays it is more about legal rights. I shouldn't think many could care less about what society thinks.

They do? So they will indeed gain control over their population numbers?

Not really, they just have a huge imbalance of sexes in the current generation.

Nowadays it is more about legal rights. I shouldn't think many could care less about what society thinks.Giving you legal rights is approval by society. So what you pursue is rather equal rights before the law instead of a proper marriage with all the fancy church and god stuff around it?

Not really, they just have a huge imbalance of sexes in the current generation.But without women there will be no next generation, you know...

Giving you legal rights is approval by society. So what you pursue is rather equal rights before the law instead of a proper marriage with all the fancy church and god stuff around it?

'Proper' is subjective, not everyone wants to get married in a church or even by a priest. Equal rights is the most important thing, but also 'marriage' as a word shouldn't be monopolised by hetero couples.

But without women there will be no next generation, you know...

Clearly, but the imbalance creates more problems than just population growth. They don't do it to help the population problem, they do it based on some belief of honour that I don't quite understand. Although, I read about couples having 2 children and being willing to pay the fines just to have the extra child, and this being quite common amongst middle and upper classes.

So what you pursue is rather equal rights before the law instead of a proper marriage with all the fancy church and god stuff around it?

Plenty of heterosexuals do not get married in church, and the Unitarian Church performs gay marriages anyway.

You would support a war against a country based purely on the rights of homosexuals?If they were executing homosexuals, yes. If not, then probably not.

If they were executing homosexuals, yes. If not, then probably not.

So right now you would like to invade many countries in the middle east right?

Fortunately for him that sentiment seems to be shared by the commanders of the largest military force on this planet.

Though for different reasons. And even though the reasons are stupid, they are more rational then JB's reason.

So right now you would like to invade many countries in the middle east right?

Fortunately for him that sentiment seems to be shared by the commanders of the strongest military force on this planet.

Though for different reasons. And even though the reasons are stupid, they are more rational then JB's reason.

The "rainbow coalition" does have a nice ring to it though...
Besides, why would fighting for what one believes to be human rights be stupid ?

So right now you would like to invade many countries in the middle east right?It probably wouldn't be necessary. A worldwide boycott of those countries would probably work better. If necessary, one country at a time could be boycotted. I don't support war as a first step, but as a last resort.

I admire how your refusal to participate came in the form of participation.

Oscar Wilde's protege`, alive and well, 'tis fair to be presumed.

Damn those fundies that make it an issue. I think I am going to start treating them differently, see how they like it.

I'd vote for ya!
:p
...seriously. Give them a taste of their own intolerance.

EDIT: Wow, even skipped a thread with the warp.

Should homosexuality be regarded as an innate leaning, or a choice made? Or something of both? Does it really matter?

Sexuality in general is a biological trait, whether it is heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, etc.

Does it really matter? Not in a discussion about rights, no. From a scientific perspective of wanting to understand human sexuality? Absolutely.

Has equal rights really been achieved yet?

Nope.

What can we do to promote them in countries where homosexuals are routinely ostracised or even killed?

Boycotts are certainly possible. Other than that, it's just a matter of chipping away at the idiotic viewpoints that allow such activities.

Should gay couples be allowed to adopt or have IVF treatment using a sperm donor/surrogate mother?

Of course.

Should gay marriage be considered equal to straight marriage?

There shouldn't even be a distinction made.

You would support a war against a country based purely on the rights of homosexuals?

To be fair, war based on human rights violations would be much better than the reasons for most wars.

Though for different reasons. And even though the reasons are stupid, they are more rational then JB's reason.

"ZOMG, OIL!" is more rational than, "These people are constantly and consistently violating the human rights of others."???

Sounds like some pretty screwed up priorities.

Personally, I don't think war is the answer here, but human rights violations would be one of the best possible justifications for war.

Gosh, why does homosexuality even matter? Or heterosexuality, or bisexuality, or asexuality, or anything else. If you are a citizen of "x" nation, then you get the rights allotted to you regardless of any label people give you.

Damn those fundies that make it an issue. I think I am going to start treating them differently, see how they like it.

"ZOMG, OIL!" is more rational than, "These people are constantly and consistently violating the human rights of others."???


Actually, it is. But thats not a reason why any US commander is currently thinking of invading any middle eastern country. Iraq maybe however.

Actually, it is. But thats not a reason why any US commander is currently thinking of invading any middle eastern country. Iraq maybe however.

I can't talk to someone who thinks that human rights matter so little. That concept is so alien to me as to place you on another plane.

I can't talk to someone who thinks that human rights matter so little. That concept is so alien to me as to place you on another plane.

Since the majority of middle eastern countries "are constantly and consistently violating the human rights of others" already, it is far more rational to invade countries that not only do this but are also a world danger.

Oil can affect far more lives then what some crazy dictator does with his domestic policy.

Oil can affect far more lives then what some crazy dictator does with his domestic policy.

What if it's all in one happy little wet "trifecta", like that excrement Bush?

Should homosexuality be regarded as an innate leaning, or a choice made? Or something of both? Does it really matter?
No to the last bit.

Has equal rights really been achieved yet? What can we do to promote them in countries where homosexuals are routinely ostracised or even killed?
No it hasn't. There needs to be more education in schools (http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/library/record/1641.html) and a general nationwide policy of nondiscrimination against gays, including no restriction of rights. More non-stereotypical representation in the media will help too.

Should gay couples be allowed to adopt or have IVF treatment using a sperm donor/surrogate mother?
Of course.

Should gay marriage be considered equal to straight marriage?
Of course.

Since the majority of middle eastern countries "are constantly and consistently violating the human rights of others" already, it is far more rational to invade countries that not only do this but are also a world danger.

...which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, since we weren't discussing the rationality behind declaring a country a "world danger." Of course, most military leaders (and political leaders) wouldn't dare suggest that we invade countries that truly pose dangers all over the world, because they want to be on good trade terms with those countries.

Oil can affect far more lives then what some crazy dictator does with his domestic policy.

Can affect more lives, but not take nearly as many nor violate the human rights of others. If someone has oil and he won't sell it to me at the price I want, that doesn't violate my human rights.

...which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, since we weren't discussing the rationality behind declaring a country a "world danger."

We were discussing oil right? If the oil industry gets fucked up, thats a very serious world danger.


If someone has oil and he won't sell it to me at the price I want, that doesn't violate my human rights.

If economies get destroyed due to the oil industry fucking up, expect a whole lot more dictators, violating a whole lot more human rights. Expect a huge increase in poverty and suffering.

For those of you who were in favor of going to war if gays were being executed:

Iran hangs gay people on a regular basis.

Saudi Arabia beheads them.

The Gulf States vary considerably when it comes to homosexuality. They all have anti-gay laws but how they are enforced differs from country to country.

Many of the mysterious mass killings in Iraq are Shia death squads taking out gay people.

The punishment for homosexuality in Afghanistan is to collapse a brick wall on the offender.

Pakistan has strict laws against homosexuality but they are rarely enforced. In the tribal areas however, fundamentalism is more the rule and tribal justice is often swift and brutal.

Egypt routinely jails homosexuals and goes out of their way to catch them by setting up various sorts of internet stings.

It is rumored that in the occupied territories, if the PLO finds out that a person is gay they will put a bomb in his vehicle or belongings without his knowlege making them a suicide bomber by proxy.

Iran hangs gay people on a regular basis.

Saudi Arabia beheads them.

The Gulf States vary considerably when it comes to homosexuality. They all have anti-gay laws but how they are enforced differs from country to country.

Many of the mysterious mass killings in Iraq are Shia death squads taking out gay people.

The punishment for homosexuality in Afghanistan is to collapse a brick wall on the offender.

Pakistan has strict laws against homosexuality but they are rarely enforced. In the tribal areas however, fundamentalism is more the rule and tribal justice is often swift and brutal.

Egypt routinely jails homosexuals and goes out of their way to catch them by setting up various sorts of internet stings.

It is rumored that in the occupied territories, if the PLO finds out that a person is gay they will put a bomb in his vehicle or belongings without his knowlege making them a suicide bomber by proxy.

So, how do we combat these sorts of abuses? That's the question in the OP, right? In the end, I think the only real "weapon" we have that we can use is diplomatic pressure. But too many countries won't use such pressure either because they have declared a given country untouchable in a diplomatic sense or they are so worried that the country might not give them what they want that they won't bother.

So what's the answer? Sounds to me like the answer is to get rid of the idiots in power and replace them with people who care about something more than lining their own pockets. But good luck with that.

What if an otherwise bisexual guy had he thinks all girls are psychotic, manipulative hellspawn.



Now wait it hasnt stoped me from dating.:D


Now on to the being gay part I feel that gays should be able to be gay but not tie the knot.

So, how do we combat these sorts of abuses? That's the question in the OP, right?
For one, we could stop being the police force for the Saud family.
:(

Gosh, why does homosexuality even matter? Or heterosexuality, or bisexuality, or asexuality, or anything else. If you are a citizen of "x" nation, then you get the rights allotted to you regardless of any label people give you.

Damn those fundies that make it an issue. I think I am going to start treating them differently, see how they like it.
Word.

I'm way ahead of you on that second one, though. If a person asserts that I should not have particular rights because of my race, sex, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation, then I simply treat them as they treat me. For instance, I had an aunt and uncle inform me that gay marriage is an abomination, so I now simply decline to recognize their union. They're not married, as far as I'm concerned. You'd think they wouldn't care, seeing as how they still get all the legal rights and whatnot, yet they do...people like that are obsessed with what everybody else thinks, so the idea of somebody thinking they aren't lawfully wed will send them totally over the fucking falls. It's awesome.

he'd be a bisexual who chooses not to engage in intimate heterosexual relationships.But is it really a choice? Is that guy acting in that way because of an irrational phobia, or out of free will?

It's fairly safe to say then when I don't touch the burning gas on my cooker it is an act of free will and not an irrational phobia.

If I refuse to leave the house because of a fear of open spaces and how vulnerable it makes me feel then that is almost certainly an irrational phobia, and not really an act of free will.

So if someone decides not to engage in relationships with a social group or has no sexual desires towards members of that group because of a traumatic experience, then I would say that decision is not necessarily a freely made choice. And probably almost certainly isn't because that person is acting on an irrational prejudice

Now on to the being gay part I feel that gays should be able to be gay but not tie the knot.

Could you elaborate further on why you think this?

Word.

I'm way ahead of you on that second one, though. If a person asserts that I should not have particular rights because of my race, sex, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation, then I simply treat them as they treat me. For instance, I had an aunt and uncle inform me that gay marriage is an abomination, so I now simply decline to recognize their union. They're not married, as far as I'm concerned. You'd think they wouldn't care, seeing as how they still get all the legal rights and whatnot, yet they do...people like that are obsessed with what everybody else thinks, so the idea of somebody thinking they aren't lawfully wed will send them totally over the fucking falls. It's awesome.

That's such a good idea, Bottle. I will have to try this sometime. Pity my relatives are all quite accepting :p

Now on to the being gay part I feel that gays should be able to be gay but not tie the knot.

"Sure, we'll let you be gay, as long as you don't mind being second class citizens for it!"


I'm way ahead of you on that second one, though. If a person asserts that I should not have particular rights because of my race, sex, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation, then I simply treat them as they treat me. For instance, I had an aunt and uncle inform me that gay marriage is an abomination, so I now simply decline to recognize their union. They're not married, as far as I'm concerned. You'd think they wouldn't care, seeing as how they still get all the legal rights and whatnot, yet they do...people like that are obsessed with what everybody else thinks, so the idea of somebody thinking they aren't lawfully wed will send them totally over the fucking falls. It's awesome.

Awesome!

I believe the Taliban used to have to some pretty cruel ways of executing gays, one being covering the person in rocks and then driving a tank over the rock pile, and also putting a nose on the end of the barrel of a tank, and then slowly raising it so they suffocated, among other terrible things.

I guess that's what happens when you take those Abrahamic texts too literally.

Theres the answer to your questions right there, please find me any gay person in the whole world who says one day they decided to be gay.
Misconceptions that are fueled by conservative groups that put out lies that homosexuality is a 'choice' need to be stopped, it's hate speech.

Misconceptions that are also fueled by gays that hit on me, saying that if I try it, I'll know then if I'm gay or not.

If you think I'm the only one who experienced this, consider Katganistan's experience with lesbians.

See here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12892384&postcount=14

Misconceptions that are also fueled by gays that hit on me, saying that if I try it, I'll know then if I'm gay or not.

If you think I'm the only one who experienced this, consider Katganistan's experience with lesbians.

See here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12892384&postcount=14
*shock*

People are sometimes wrong. Gay people are people. Sometimes gay people are wrong.

I know, I'm as flabbergasted as you are.

Misconceptions that are also fueled by gays that hit on me, saying that if I try it, I'll know then if I'm gay or not.

If you think I'm the only one who experienced this, consider Katganistan's experience with lesbians.

See here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12892384&postcount=14

Interesting article (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/mark_simpson/2007/07/straights_go_gay.html) - I don't think it's a cut and dried issue of being gay or not - that's the problem, we try to section off people when we're all part of the same long curve - who's black, coloured, gay, straight, muslim, christian, male, female and how do you delineate the definitions exactly down to the wire?

We're all people as stated above and that should really be the end of it when it comes to any legislation.

Interesting article (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/mark_simpson/2007/07/straights_go_gay.html) - I don't think it's a cut and dried issue of being gay or not - that's the problem, we try to section off people when we're all part of the same long curve - who's black, coloured, gay, straight, muslim, christian, male, female and how do you delineate the definitions exactly down to the wire?

We're all people as stated above and that should really be the end of it when it comes to any legislation.

Agreed, and considering this is civil rights and what-not, the rights of people, religion shouldn't have a single say in it. Religion didn't cover the right to vote or whatnot, why the right for same-sex marriages.

Oh and this "sanctity" of marriage is total bullshit and the most transparent excuse I have ever seen.