I think the main thrust of the argument is against those who support legislation which prevent homosexuals from living in the same way that heterosexuals can. I can't remember what you said your position was regarding homosexual sex or marriage in a legal sense.
I think that 'outlawing' homosexual unions would be horribly counter productive. I think that anyone should be allowed to make that choice for themselves from a legal point of view, however, I don't feel that we should erase thousands of years marriage by trying to redefine what marriage means. Marriage is a special union between a man and a woman. I think that should be protected by law, because if not, it will open the door to anything. If you redefine what a marriage is to accomodate homosexuality, then another group is going to lobby for the same rights. After awhile the whole institution of marriage will be turned into a mockery, as if it needed any help.
The sanctity of the institution of marriage is already being regarded flippantly by many people. Hollywood is certainly culpable in that. It does not need anything else to exacerbate the problem.
I am, however, in favor of homosexuals living together and perhaps even a civil union. It doesn't mean that I agree with homosexuality, however, it does mean that I will respect them to make their own decisions. I only ask that they not try to redefine marriage. Anything less than what it currently means would be sanctimonious.
It appears you are at the very least a moralist, but I'm not completely certain about the latter case. To me, so far you seem to be sitting on a line between false arguments and simply viewing something from a different perspective.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Can you expound?
Skip the test, you are correct. The homosexual movement's central issue is not marriage. That is simply one of the issues among many. They (I suppose I should say "we") just won the right to have sex (less than 5 years ago). They/we still have no RIGHT to serve in the armed forces like anyone who is 100% straight. They/we still face violence on a disproportionate scale to other minorities with the exception of pedophiles (ironically enough whom many gays would like to treat with the same unreasoned hatred as Xians do gays).
See, this is very difficult for me to understand. I hear of the disproportionate levels of violence against homsexuals, or that Christians single them out with fervor. While I certainly believe that violence has occured against them, and I know that certain "Xtian groups" do single them out with more ferocity than other groups, I don't know a single one. I have been taught that while not condoning the act of homosexuality from a moral viewpoint, we should always extend our support to them out of love. Anything less would just further stigmatize both homosexuals and moralists. But more than anything else, its just the right thing to do.
As far as the military is concerned, I think its reasonable. I think everyone seems to forget that we're dealing thousands of years of being weirded out by homosexuality. Everyone wants to all of a sudden accept it like they began to do in Greece or Rome. But its not that simple. Think of why there are separate public bathrooms for male and female. Why do they do that? We're all people right? So, why do they separate them? Isn't because of its sexual connotation? Okay, so if you wouldn't expect to subject a woman to taking showers in front of men, why would should we subject both men and women to take uncomfortable showers with members of the same sex?
What are you going to say in defense of that? Just get over it? If I just get over it, then we should allow men and women in boot camp to shower together by the same premise. Do you understand? Nobody cares about the feelings of straight people in the matter who feel violated because they're hyperfocused on how the homosexual feels.
Well, you know what? I've been approached by many, many aggressive homosexual men over the years who, even after knowing that I was straight, still push the issue. Do you think that would fly in the heterosexual world? No.
Now lets talk about your test. What do websites turning up using "gay" as a search term suggest about what gays consider a central issue?
The unambiguous and gratuitous use of sex. No one seems to make the connection. It seems odd to me to wrap an entire persona in a sexual manner, especially if its so 'natural.'
I would note that the gay.com site is actually pretty diverse in nature. It has different sections. The news section is not sexual, unless by that you mean focused on issues effecting homosexuals.
Alright, let me elucidate my objection. There is the factor in homosexuals that they not be treated differently and not segregated by society. But they are the ones who segregate themselves by making a big deal about their sexual preference. If one's sexual preference really is no big deal and you don't want to be treated differently, then why would you make it a big deal? Isn't that counter intuitive? Look at television sitcoms. I know you're from Holland, so I don't know what Dutch sitcoms consist of. But in America, the homosexual role is typecasted as the quintessential male homosexual who is extremely effeminate and flamboyant. They portray him as a sillyheart who is carefree and exuding love. But most important, they seem to focus on his sexuality as the central piece of the jokes. My question, then, is if homosexaulity is really not any different than heterosexuality, why such an extreme focus on that? Likewise, why a gay 'pride' parade? Why all this fanfare over something you allege is completely normal? When somebody throws a white 'pride' parade, its immediately met with hostility. If somebody throws a black 'pride' parade, its immediately met with resistance. I think homosexuals have a dominant role in their OWN segregation that bespeaks of the larger issue, which is, it is normal, its just about pride and nothing else.
??? You typed in "gay" not homosexual. Tell us what the returns are on that one. Also try heterosexual. I come up with about the same mishmash of stuff.
Right. Gay culture or queer culture is what we're dealing with here. The word "homosexual" is just the scientific/sociological name.
You would be correct in stating that homosexuality is about sexuality, but so is heterosexuality.
Ah, but here's the difference that I'm trying to bring into the light. For a heterosexual, their sexuality is the one of the least important aspects of their life as far as self descriptions go.
Do you readily here of a heterosexual man referring to his sexuality as being a determinant in who he is as a person? No. He will likely mention his job or his fatherhood, or his marital status, or his interests as defining who he is. Its different for homosexuals. You aren't a sportsman-- you're a 'gay' sportsman. You aren't a lawyer-- you're a 'gay' lawyer. You aren't a racecare driver-- you're a 'gay' racecar driver. Ever heard of heterosexual basketball player? I haven't. I've just heard of a basketball player. Because, really, his sexual preference is inconsequential. So, if homosexuals don't want their sexual prefernece as being the focus of their self-identity, maybe they should not make their sexuality the focus of the attention. Does that make sense?
So what? That does not mean that they have no other issues, or no other important issues in their lives. And your response doesn't address gasby's point which is that it is claimed that gays will not be happy, while laws are passed to guarantee they can't be.
No, they do have other facets of their life. But like I said earlier, their value and self-identity is wrapped up in their sexual preference. That is the pinnacle of who they are, which to me, is absolutely absurd, especially when you're out trying to prove just how normal the whole thing is.
As for homosexuals not being 'happier' than their heterosexual counterparts, I think that's obvious. Maybe you can name one set of parents or even prospective gay parents who actually 'want' their child to be gay. I think we all know that having a 'normal' life is optimal here. And by 'normal' I mean it exactly by the word the means. By normal, I am actually referring to the 'norm.' That isn't me saying the opposite of normal = freaks, because it doesn't.
Nowhere in your post do you show why gays are unlikely to be happy if they are given the freedom to live as heteros are.
Something like that is difficult to quantify, but one statistic that Berberry mentioned is that an exorbitant amount of suicide by homosexuals is prevalent. Per capita it is extremely disproportionate. I think that speaks highly about the issue.
As opposed to St.Patrick's day parades to celebrate the pride of being Irish? 4th of July parades to celebrate the pride of being an American? This seems like a pretty simple concept and one used by most groups.
Okay, St. Patrick's day is an excuse for the government to generate revenue, for its adherents its an excuse to drink copious amounts of alcohol. Heck, St. Patrick wasn't even Irish, he was Welch. As for the 4th of July, this seems worthy of a little praise. All nations that gained their independence have an independence day celebration, once a year. Gay pride parades seem to an excuse to meet other gay people while prancing around your underwear. Afterall, what purpose does it serve to pat yourself on the back for something that you had no control over? Makes about as much sense as a Straight pride parade.
The only reason why overtly sexual groups haven't used them in the past is due to cultural heritage against open displays/emphasis of sexuality.
Well, I've been to San Francisco and Key West. Nobody is shy with public displays of affection. That doesn't stop them from having a parade.
I do wish there would be general sexual pride parades where every stripe could be celebrated as basic to human nature. But my guess that isn't coming any time soon.
Why should it be 'celebrated' Holmes? I mean, think about it real hard here. If you are born with something, what sense does it make to exalt that? Let's have a 'blue-eyed' parade so that anyone not blue-eyed can feel excluded. You don't need to 'celebrate' sexuality. That's absurd. Lets celebrate breathing while we're at it. I can't wait for the 2007 Pulmonary parade.
I should note that in A'dam we have had yearly gay pride boat parades. They have gotten smaller in time, having both to do with already established rights as well as an increase in prudishness by the dutch. But the celebrations are large and it is interesting to see the number of families that attend them... I guess I should point out "straight" families.
I'll give you a for-instance of what I view gay pride parades to be akin to. There is something in Miami called the
"Columbus-day regatta." That's where the privaleged folks who own yachts and boats go out to a place called Elliot Key in Biscayne Bay and mass together. Now, one would think that they are celebrating Columbus' discovery of America. But, alas, his name is mentioned nowhere on the lips of the members. Instead, the participants moor their boats together and get naked. Its an excuse to get naked and have sex.
Yeah I agree, just like Xians, Jews, and Muslims who do the same thing.
Religion is a choice. Homosexuals claim that
Once self identity becomes about one issue, to the extent of stereotyping themselves to prove it, it gets a tad silly. At least the gay ones aren't going on rampages killing people.
Yeah,
Andrew Cunanan probably wasn't gay. Or
John Wayne Gacy, or
Jeffrey Dahmer.
Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers
™ Version 4.2
