Would you be with someone who says being gay is unnatural?

[joliejoleen]

This man that I've been seeing thinks that being gay is unnatural. He wouldn't go out in the street and protest against gay people or ever attack them. He just thinks that being gay is unnatural and doesn't want his children to grow up thinking being gay is okay because it isn't. Would you ltb?

Hilarious that posters here are talking about what's 'natural' while using electricity, wearing polyester, owning plastic items and using a mobile phone to browse the Internet. None of these things are natural, but they exist! The world is a complex place and being human means many various kinds of normal. Grow up

Unless you share these views why would you put up with it?
I came on this post to see what the general consensus was and genuinely feel happy that the majority of people say they would leave.

I am gay and many occasions in work been told “my husband says gay people make him sick” or “we don’t want our children thinking it’s normal for two girls or two boys to marry” and “my husband really liked you and your girlfriend, which I’m happy about as he doesn’t usually like gay people”

No prizes for guessing where I’m from, the only place in the UK that doesn’t have marriage equality.

The likelihood of having a gay child is pretty slim though isn’t it? Baring in mind how much of the population is gay

Yes, just keep all those fingers crossed that your child/ren miss the 'gay gene' and you're one of the lucky ones...

It's not a game of chances, your children have just as much 'chance' of being gay as anyone else's.

My dd is gay and I wouldn't be surprised if my ds is (he's 11) but thank God I love them irrespective of their sexuality and although their dad wasn't a great husband in the end, I chose to have children with someone who feels the same way I do and I know they will be loved by both of us.

No

@AsleepAllDay - when you say "grow up", you're addressing the OP's future ex-bf? The people on this thread talking about what's "natural" are almost all having an intelligent discussion about what that implies in this context.

My son said that he thinks he might be bi, though he's only ever brought a girl home so far. My daughter has a bf, but she's had gay friends coming to visit the house for years. Would be awful if your children's mates didn't want to visit because of a parent's views - or if your child was feeling unsure about their sexuality and couldn't confide in you. What kind of an atmosphere would that create at home? Even if you never talked about it openly like Arusedmoose.

There is a difference in thinking something isn't natural and being homophobic
@SandyY2K I disagree

Yeah, I would with the thread title on its own because that's just how some people innately feel, I believe, but not with the bit about not letting his know it's fine to be gay.
He probably means it's not the norm in nature, rather than natural meaning occurring in nature, but needs to consider how the 6% feel and also consider their safety.

I don't feel like him, I should add. I think it IS natural and perfectly fine. I just don't expect everyone to see everything in life the same way.

I would be fine with him thinking it’s unnatural as long as he keeps his opinions to himself.

My boyfriend can’t understand it either and thinks it’s sick but in no way would you know this if you were gay.

This man was not discussing statistics.

Yes, I would be with someone who says being gay is unnatural. If, for example, due to their religious beliefs, they felt that God had designed only man and woman to be together. Or, if they felt that it was unnatural because the human body is designed to reproduce and only two people of the same sex are unable to reproduce, i.e. biologically speaking it is impossible for two people of the same sex to create another human being without outside help from someone of the opposite sex (an egg/sperm donor/surrogate) since the female body is designed one way and the male body designed another and only together can they create a baby.

No, I wouldn’t be with someone who felt that homosexuality should be illegal or punished. Or someone that felt that gay people should be treated as inferior or without the respect for their dignity that all human beings deserve.

I don’t think the scientific community have unequivocally answered the question of why some people are gay and others aren’t - so I think it’s fine for people to have varying views.

I think it’s more about what you personally believe and if your beliefs are compatible, or if the two of you can handle differences in beliefs and values respectfully.

EmpressLesbianInChair, yes, recent incidents concerning Stonewall and Pride have been very concerning. It’s ironic that just as the majority of heterosexual people have come to recognise that same-sex attraction is a natural sexual orientation, formerly LGB lobby groups such as Stonewall now seem to be doing their best to deny it, now that they are LGB T.

The Stonewall definition of “homosexual” is now: “a more medical term used to describe someone who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards someone of the same gender.” [my bold]

This may seem innocuous but the effect is to completely erase exclusively same-sex attraction, seeing as “gender” no longer has anything to do with sex, but refers to “identity” alone (in Stonewall parlance). Thus a male person who identifies as a woman is a woman in Stonewall terms and can also be a lesbian, regardless of that person’s male anatomy/genitalia. In Stonewall terms, “lesbians” are (people of either sex who identify as) women who are attracted to (people of either sex who identify as) women. A “lesbian” couple could be two female people, a female person and a male person, or even two male people.

There is no word in the Stonewall glossary for female people who are exclusively attracted to other female people any more. Women who are unhappy with this and who wish to continue to define their sexual orientation as exclusively same-sex attracted are apparently not included by Stonewall, seem in fact to be vilified and excluded, to the point of having the police called on them when they protested recently outside a Stonewall conference, where delegates were actually told not to talk to them. Presumably in case they caught cooties or were otherwise contaminated by this heresy.

Just last week a lesbian was forcibly removed from by police from Swansea Pride for marching with a banner that said “lesbians don’t have penises”.

All those of you vigorously defending the naturalness and validity of being attracted only to others of the same sex might want to ponder how we got to this point.

Absolutely not. It tells you so much about him. Steer clear.

All those of you vigorously defending the naturalness and validity of being attracted only to others of the same sex might want to ponder how we got to this point.
I don't know the ins and outs of this discussion - what does this mean? I don't understand.

I think , @ravenmum in trying to be trans-inclusive, Stonewall are being accused of actually being homophobic in that they use the term 'gender' rather than 'sex' to define sexuality. So a lesbian woman can also be a trans woman who is attracted to other women but was not born a woman in terms of primary sex characteristics, which some gay cisgender women are not comfortable with (cisgender someone who was born a woman and identifies as a woman).

Correct me if I'm wrong though!

Speaking as a redhead, I am completely normal thank you!!

This guy is a twat. Go find those hills!

I don't get how that relates to this discussion, though. Why should anyone ponder - does that mean we shouldn't be saying that same sex attraction is natural, because ...? I can't follow the point.

No, couldn’t live with that.

@ravenmum I think some people might feel their sexual identity is being attacked or questioned and I guess this thread is relevant in that sense and brings with it a trigger.

I identify as cisgender and heterosexual but my work is in this area (as well as having a gay daughter and brother) so apologies if I have got this wrong.

ravenmum the point is that while most people now acknowledge that being same sex (and only same sex) attracted is a legitimate sexual orientation, LGBT lobby/support groups are now in the extraordinary position of apparently demonising women who are only attracted to other females.

Because it’s supposedly “transphobic” to say as a lesbian you’re not attracted to transwomen (the vast majority of whom have cock and balls intact) and exclude them from your dating pool on the basis of their being male.

So while society in general is making strides to reduce homophobia, the very groups that are supposed to be representing lesbian/gay people are ushering in a new kind of homophobia and framing it as being “progressive”.

Ask Stonewall if exclusively same sex (not gender) attraction is natural/normal/valid. Would be interesting to see what they say.

And I’m suggesting you ponder why LGBT groups are actively trying to silence lesbians who speak up about it!!

"Would you ltb?"
Well, assuming you know what ltb denotes then you are refering to him as a bastard so maybe the answer is a bit of a foregone conclusion.

I think I'd want to explore his opinions a little more deeply to find out exactly what he feels before I made a judgement:

1. Could it be that he just thinks that men and women's bodies are naturally able to procreate and as, say, two gay men or two gay women cannot create a child naturally with each other due to their physical organs, that is why he refers to gay people as not being natural?

2. Is it that he doesn't know anyone close who is gay and therefore hasn't had any conversations on the subject with gay people to gain an understanding?

I am sure that most parents who love their children would not stop loving them if they found out they were gay. It perhaps could come as a shock and may take time to adjust to though.

EVERYONE is entitled to their opinions. Although not religious myself, practicing homosexuality is forbidden by some religions and, I do feel religious people are still entitled to their opinions.

In your case if your fundamental beliefs on this subject differ significantly then I would probably not continue a relationship with him.

MNHQ recognise cisgender an offensive term, in that it reinforces the concept of woman as a 'gender identity' rather than a biological fact, and that it suggests women are opting into sex-role stereotypes. I recognise that you're using it to define yourself, Sunshineandflipflops, but it doesn't define me.

So a lesbian woman can also be a trans woman who is attracted to other women but was not born a woman in terms of primary sex characteristics could also be written as "Lesbians can have penises". Except that they can't, because lesbians have always been female homosexuals. Or at least until Stonewall decided to rewrite the rules.

My point was that homosexuality is all about same-sex attraction. That's what we fought Section 28 for. Stonewall now condemn same-sex attraction as a fetish, so if anything they're worse than the homophobic bloke being discussed in the thread because he, at least, is not a hypocrite.

Depends what he means by unnatural.

Sounds even more complicated than it did before tbh. I guess I am behind the times. I can see my future as an old lady trying to be polite and nice to people, and my children behind my back mouthing "Don't mind her".