OI! Homophobes! Over here!

[ooojimaflip]

I'm genuinly interested in why you object to homosexuality, and everytime I ask on the other thread it gets lost in the general hubbub.

So - name change if you want, but please tell me what your objections are?

If it's because it's not natural or against biology, please expand your answer to include why you care about that.

Show your working for extra credit.

n.b. Don't bother if it's a religous justification, you'll need to find someone who believes in that kind of stuff to debate with as I'll just dismiss that out of hand. If you are a homopohbic religous person with a secular objection then please go ahead.

In your imaginings, Riven, does it involve a hula type swaying of the hips? Because it does in mine.

Reality

oooji;

you have disappointed me....

i was just about to reply to you (as promised)...but see you're siding with the piss takers.....i thought you were genuinely interested...

Carmen;

i found your post very interesting....

Thank you, kat2907 for the reply

I agree with much of what you said. What is interesting to me in this discussion is that there's an uncomfortable line dividing homosexuality the lifestyle and homosexuality the sexuality.

One of the arguments that has been raised against homophobes is to stop worrying about what people get up to in bed because it's irrelevant. Yet perhaps what people get up to in bed is somewhat ingrained into our everyday identity - sub/dom, butch/femme, vanilla/kinky etc. whether or not we show them overtly.

To what extent does our sexuality shape us as a person or shape our behaviour?

I've struggled with people I've found to be very seedy and promiscuous. I can think of a mostly heterosexual man here who would shag anything that moved and frequently used prostitutes. I found him a very soulless, dirty, untrustworthy person and not someone I'd want as a role model for my kids. His sexuality seemed to define him as a person.

Now, I've seen that promiscuity and seediness encouraged in the local gay community (pretty obvious from the free magazines floating around that male prostitution for example is rife and almost certainly drug ridden and exploitative). I don't think that's a healthy way of life for anyone.

I understand that not all gay men live like this, obviously. Some do live an Oscar Wilde/Colin and Justin existence of aran knit cardigans and mint juleps. But I think many heterosexual defenders are guilty of sterilising the sexuality out of the lifestyle.

daftpunk - Do I have to be serious ALL the time

I AM genuinly interested - please post your response - we are in danger of drifting off topic otherwise.

oooji - do you have a special lesbian opt out of seroius just for a bit card? If not, I'm afraid you'll have to be disciplined.

CarmenSanDiego - I think that is an argument about certain ways of behaving rather than homosexuality per se though. The question then is does the damage we perceive these behaviours to be doing to the individuals/society at large outweigh their right to live as they wish.

If you come down on the side that yes these behaviours should be discouraged over an above the infringment of individual liberty and THEN can also show that Homosexuality a priori generated these behaviours then you maybe have an argument for discouraging homosexuality.

But I don't think either of these points are proven - particularly the second.

TisTheSeasonToBeHully - I am afraid I am not eligable

Carmen - We should add this as a seventh argument actually

7. The argument from externialities. That the right of people to in general do what they like with in the law is outweighed by the costs on inividuals and society at large that Homosexual behaviour imposes. Cost is not meant in purely monetary terms obviously.

pooexplosion - but we are not out on the streets with placards here. This seems to be to be an ideal forum in which to encourage debate by not shouting people down.

'You don't see lions/tigers/swans/sheep pairing off with members of the same sex' actually our boy guinea pigs are always at it . I don't object in human form but guinea pigs make a real mess!

Our girl ratties try and hump each, or more technically, one does the humping, the other squeaks.. is that rodent rape?

Sorry, really OT

but you can't debate with someone like daftpunk.... thats my point. Its like beating your head against a brink wall.

I'll bow out now though, I'm far too riled. I don't see a sensible debate, I see people with lame excuses for obvious intolerance, and I'm afraid I take it rather personally.

pooexplosion - well I'm still hoping I can. One of the few advantages of internet over RL is that is should make things less personal.

yummyyummyyummy Fri 11-Dec-09 15:44:48
"Every organism has got one evolutionary goal and that is to procreate as well as possible.That is true whether it be a human , an octopus, a daffodill or a bacterium.Everything about an organism is evolved to further this end.
Homosexual sex does not aid procreation and so really cannot be described from an evolutionary POV as desirable."

You must know very little about biology to imagine that in every other species every individual will get to reproduce. The evolutionary goal is for the species to procreate and survive, not for every individual to pass on its genes. "Evolutionary desirable" means what makes the species able to survive- which is the complete opposite of everyone having a chance to have babies. Evolution works on the principle that not every individual gets to pass its genes on.

In flocks, such as wolves, the alpha male and the alpha female reproduce, not the rest; unless they are able to move off and form their own flock. The evolutionary point here is that strength and ability to dominate are desirable traits for the survival of the species.

In herd animals (such as deer, but also many species of fish) only the dominant male gets to mate with all the females; a male who does not manage to acquire a herd of his own, will not be able to be sexually active. The evolutionary point is that a strong male will be best placed to protect the growing generation.

In bee societies, the female worker bees do not reproduce- but are undeniably useful members of society. They facilitate the survival of the species by providing food for the queen bee who does reproduce.

There are also species that practise parthenogenesis- so the male's genetic input is not needed at all.

All sorts of interesting things going on in the animal world

I think I'd like to be a clownfish.

Oh gosh - another thread about a thread about a thread .

Have been busy so not on here for a while (am the OP in the thread about a thread).

Let me clarify that most 'homophobes' don't give a toss about what homosexuals do with their bits and are not repressed themselves (I can get my rocks perfectly enjoyably with my DH) and the thought of this does not cross my mind very often (apart from seeing the two in Eastenders snogging at 7.30pm) BUT I will care if my DCs are educated into thinking it is normal and I'm sorry but it's NOT. TBH why the fuck do 9 year olds have to know about this stuff anyway (also object to any sex education at primary level) when they should be KIDS at that age.

I also do not believe homosexuals are 'born like it'. If that were so there would be a lot more than there are.

BTW how many heterosexuals do you find cottaging in public toilets. I would never let my DSs go into one for that reason alone and that may be stereotypical but TRUE. A public loo near my DCs school (and a playground) had to be closed down for this very reason.

I like to hang out down the loos, but then I have special lesbian rights.

The teacher in question was talking about her marriage, not her sex life. Can you not tell the difference?

"BTW how many heterosexuals do you find cottaging in public toilets"

Kind of irrelevant when you consider they are single sex toilets, I imagine if they were shared toilets it'd be a little different. Instead they do the equivalent on street corners and in clubs/pubs.

A marriage indeterminably means they have a sex life and I am sure most kids can work that out . There was no need for her to add that 'girls can marry other girls'. Smacks of gay miltantcy to me.

Also wtf is with this 'Gay Pride' march. Should we not have a 'Straight Pride' march as well where we dress in twinsets and tweeds just so we are equal?

Disclaimer - I know gays/lesbians and like THEM but not what they do and I could never empathise with it.