What's so wrong with homosexuality?

Post by **Dalton** » 2003-06-15 04:25pm

Ahh, this thread has garnered more responses than I personally expected...but jumped off the track a bit. Still, I'm glad that several of you - especially Duchess, Wayne and Mike - have attempted to analyze the root causes of why homosexuality is considered so immoral. I agree with your assessments for the most part.

Equal respect to the rest of you for not turning this into a flame pit. Thank you.

But a slap on the wrist for the hijack

PS Wayne - you fat fuck

Hobot · Post by **Hobot** » 2003-06-15 04:51pm

I think a big reason why society considers homosexuality to be immoral is due to our overwhelming need to label and categorize everything. We seem to be obsessed over the duality of the world. There's good and evil, yin and yang, heaven and hell, life and death, animal and plant, man and woman, ad nauseam. When something can't be fit into a certain category then it's not right, it's unnatural. Homosexuals aren't quite one sex, they appear to be a mix of traits from both sexes (eg. a gay man is neither completely "manly" or even completely "womanly", they're somewhere in between). So they're abnormal, and we make a new duality; heterosexual and homosexual (ie. good and evil).

This idea probably developed most strongly in the middle ages when the Church was at the height of its power. Fortunately, as we move further and further away from that period in our history we become more apt at seeing the varying shades of grey. Our increased acceptance of women, different races, cultures, and relgions is proof of that, though we still have a long way to go.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-06-15 04:54pm

I'm not ashamed of my body, about the only thing I'd do is trim off a few pounds, about 5 or so is all I need to lose. I would never want to be one of those uber-muscle buff guys in gyms or something, with the bulging muscles and popping veins and stuff. I would not change very much at all if I had the opportunity...

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-06-15 05:12pm

You know, evrything I've read on the subject leads one to the conclusion that the more active anti-homosexual thought is more recent than you'd think.

Of course it was a crime for centuries in the western world, but one that was seldom, and I mean SELDOM, prosecuted.

The Royal Navy didn't begin to eject people for being gay until the late 70s, a recent series on History Channel International had interviews with a number of WWII British vets who were obviously, if not openly, gay during the war. And it seemed like everyone they served with knew it, from their officers down. Yet no action was ever taken against those interviewed.

It was returning American gay vets that brought a sense of equality and self esteem back from the war, due to their experiences, thereby giving birth to the Gay-rights movement that began in the 50s.

A lot of what we deal with today is a reaction to the Sexual Revolution of the 60s and 70s, wrapped in the "Good Old Days" fallacy that the religious right promotes.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-15 06:57pm

I like the good old days of Holland. Now THOSE were the good old days. Conquering the east indies, smoking pot, conquering new york, fucking boys, smoking pot, conquering the evil ocean..

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-06-15 07:06pm

kojikun wrote:im seeing alot of guys who who think the male body is disgusting. i think freud would love the self-hatred implications of that..

Freud: "Hmm...all zese gentlemen think zey are ugly, ja? Let me snort more of zee coke here" <SNORT!> "Ahh, yes, zat is zee good shit, ja? Ah, of course, zee gentlemen that think zey are ugly. Zat is obvious--you all vant to have sex vith zee mother. Zat vill be $600." <SNORT!> "Proof? Vat is this 'proof' you speak of?"

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-15 07:24pm

lol impy

btw, on the "wanting to fuck their mother" thing, what freud meant, i think, is that kids grow up with the mother as their primary view of what women should be like, and thus those qualities are the qualities they seek in a woman. effectively, they loko for a mate that has the similar qualities that they perceive as good.

but thats irrelevant

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-06-15 07:39pm

Lets be fair, He was right on a couple things(probably by coincidence)

Freudian slips for instance. How many times in conversation have you ever been thinking something, go to say something else, and then then say what you where thinking

*hot guy goes by with an asp in a carry case*
"Hey thats a nice ass...I mean asp...you go there"

And the Id, ego, and superego...While they are not actual forces do exist. Your id being what you want to do(base desires) your Superego being your sense of ethics and knowledge of what society wants Your ego being your attempt to reconcile the two.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-15 07:53pm

aly, freudian slips are actually minor processing errors in the brain. a neuron accidentally fires, or some such, because of a voltage spike, or the like. very grungy.

and the IdEgoSuperego thing is like this:

id: I want this
ego: How I get this
superego: Should I get this

Aeolus · Post by **Aeolus** » 2003-06-16 01:05am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
kojikun wrote:im seeing alot of guys who who think the male body is disgusting. i think freud would love the self-hatred implications of that..
*shrug*

I can say, "w00t" while looking at myself in the mirror and it is really me just thinking "I'm going to get sex later". Our personal forms are still disgusting, though. No one said anything about loathsome, Kojikun.

Is Michalangelo's statue of David ugly? Some men are ugly ,some so-so, some cute, and some beautiful. Just like women. Their is nothing inherently ugly in either sex. Sure you may not find someone of the same (or opposite) sex sexually attractive, but can't you tell in a non sexual way? I mean I have no sexual attraction towards flowers or cars but I can find a flower pretty, or a car fine.

Setzer · Post by **Setzer** » 2003-06-16 04:38pm

I don't approve of homosexuality because it mimics a sexual relationship without being capable of producing children by biological means. If I mean a homosexual, I will treat them like any other person (as long as they don't come on to me) but I don't approve of the lifestyle and wish it didn't exist.

Setzer · Post by **Setzer** » 2003-06-16 04:40pm

RedImperator wrote:
kojikun wrote:im seeing alot of guys who who think the male body is disgusting. i think freud would love the self-hatred implications of that..
Freud: "Hmm...all zese gentlemen think zey are ugly, ja? Let me snort more of zee coke here" <SNORT!> "Ahh, yes, zat is zee good shit, ja? Ah, of course, zee gentlemen that think zey are ugly. Zat is obvious--you all vant to have sex vith zee mother. Zat vill be $600." <SNORT!> "Proof? Vat is this 'proof' you speak of?"

FUQ!

Setzer · Post by **Setzer** » 2003-06-16 04:42pm

Being a man, I think the male body is utilitarian, not elegant like the female body. I especially hate this one patch on my body, right above my right asscheek. It's in a state of perpetual goosebump, and is several shades darker than the rest.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-06-16 05:08pm

Setzer wrote:Being a man, I think the male body is utilitarian, not elegant like the female body. I especially hate this one patch on my body, right above my right asscheek. It's in a state of perpetual goosebump, and is several shades darker than the rest.

we didnt need to know that.

and there are lots of straight relationships that dont produce children, either cuz they dont want to, or can't. a few more nonproducers isnt a problem.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-16 05:26pm

i think the male body is more beautiful and elegant then the female body.

who could deny THIS

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-06-16 05:29pm

god, he looks aneorexic. I mean, I dont show off my topless pics cuz I look like that. I ph34r the ribs.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-06-16 05:48pm

Is that a cock I see on the board?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-16 05:49pm

uhm.. no. no its not =x

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-06-16 05:50pm

Setzer wrote:I don't approve of homosexuality because it mimics a sexual relationship without being capable of producing children by biological means. If I mean a homosexual, I will treat them like any other person (as long as they don't come on to me) but I don't approve of the lifestyle and wish it didn't exist.

If you've ever had sex for any means other than procreation, you're a hypocrite.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-06-16 07:44pm

On the attractiveness of the male body: I can recognize, in kind of an intellectual way, if a guy is attractive. But there's no sexual reaction--I can look at that picture Kojikun posted, and then look at a beige filing cabinet, and have the exact same attraction to them. Most gay men, I imagine, could substitue any of the women from my extensive JPEG collection for the man and have the exact same reaction.

It's homosexual acts I find repulsive. Whether that's residual cultural programming or just a natural reaction, I don't know. At any rate, I get around it by not looking at it.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-06-16 08:12pm

I'm an atheist who is a deconverted Christian. And as my mother's whole family is largely fundamentalist, I had it pounded into my head all through my upbringing that homosexuality was sinful, that's why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. Of course, I broke free after reading a copy of Paine's "Age of Reason" in high school, and my thinking has been shifting ever since. Nowadays, I completely accept that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, as some would have it, but an inherent sexual orientation (though homosexual behavior can be learned, as cultures which have no taboo against it - like ancient Greece for example - demonstrate). Understanding that Homosexuals have no more choice in being homosexual than they have in being white or black, or male or female, or whatever, I cannot think of anything about homosexuality for which you can justly condemn someone, therefore, I do my very best to overcome the effects of my upbringing, and regard gays no differently than I do straights.

However, I have to admit, it can be a bit of a battle. It's not easy to shake ideas that you were indoctrinated with when you were still just an impressionable child. It doesn't help that I don't understand what makes gays attracted to the same sex. I mean, subconsciously, I can't quite shake the feeling that if you are a man, and you can look at something like this:

and feel nothing, then there is something really wrong with you.

But I am trying my best to be open minded, though like RedImperator, I can't help but feel turned off (putting it mildly) by homosexual acts. It also doesn't help that I have to deal with certain people who conform to the very worst, most perverted stereotypes of gays. As a police officer, I have to deal with some of the he/she prostitutes we have in Ocean View in Norfolk. They are men, who are gay, dress up like women, act as effeminate as they can possibly be, and try to pick up male johns. Some of them are real sickos too. I mean that literally. Some of them are masochists. They pick up guys, take them back to hotel, and they actually get turned on when the guy finds out they are men, gets pissed off, and starts beating them up. They're disgusting.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-06-16 08:23pm

....Yikes.....

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-06-16 08:36pm

Dalton wrote:OK, ditch all that you previously knew. Ignore the bits of the bible that say homosexuality is immoral. Ignore all you've ever heard about homosexuals being evil and wrong and go with gut instinct.

Is homosexuality wrong? If so, why?

And what does it say about this nation's (quite hypocritical) civil rights that homosexuals don't enjoy the same freedoms as heterosexuals, such as the right to matrimony?

And if you find it revolting, why?!

If one ignores the Bible and lays no claim to Christianity, then there can be nothing wrong with homosexuality that I can see. Nor can there be anything wrong with a man and woman living together outside of marriage. Nor can there be anything wrong with a host of things that the Bible identifies as sin.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-06-16 10:04pm

woo! im severly defective cause i looked at that chick and lost my hardon

Mark S · Post by **Mark S** » 2003-06-16 11:59pm

kojikun wrote:woo! im severly defective cause i looked at that chick and lost my hardon

Funny. I think I found it.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

What's so wrong with homosexuality?

Re: What's so wrong with homosexuality?