What's so wrong with homosexuality?

[CrimsonRaine]

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?

Let's start this one out right: No. I don't think it's wrong.

As far as I'm concerned - this is what happens when you're a sap - I think there is one right person, if one really wants to find it, for each person. There's no saying what that person would be like: old, young, male or female.

With a primarily monotheistic society that seems to follow the same guidelines of beliefs, no matter what name you slap on it, I seem to think that most people are so used to the staticity of the way things are. When mixed relationships started, people had trouble with that - hell, still do. Homosexuality, which has been around, well, forever, really, is something difficult for certain minds to accept. Why? I honestly believe it's deals with gender roles, most of the time, and another thing.

Functionality.

It's true. Lesbians need long, slender phallic toys to please their partners, while men are simply missing an extra, warm, moist hole. And that, unfortunately, is unnatural. Not to say it's wrong but definately costly - I mean, dildo's ain't cheap, especially with all the little controls and happy little buttons they come with now. And lubricant. Vasaline feels kinda gross between your legs, no matter what the dilemma, so it's better to buy the watery stuff in your favorite, run-down, wall-stained and cum-stenched shops.

So really, it's not wrong. If you're happy, thumbs up, chubby. I just see a real problem with functionality. Whether you believe in creationism or evolution, whatever created us, certainly split the parts.

Crimson Raine

[Alyrium Denryle]

*reads over dildo portion*

You are going to fit in just fine. I dont know whether that is a good or a bad thing...

[AdmiralKanos]

With a primarily monotheistic society that seems to follow the same guidelines of beliefs, no matter what name you slap on it, I seem to think that most people are so used to the staticity of the way things are. When mixed relationships started, people had trouble with that - hell, still do. Homosexuality, which has been around, well, forever, really, is something difficult for certain minds to accept. Why? I honestly believe it's deals with gender roles, most of the time,

That sounds right. An effeminate guy makes other guys uncomfortable, even if he's straight. I've known guys who were arrow-straight but seriously lacking in machismo, and it irritates other guys. Call it cognitive dissonance.

and another thing.

Functionality.

It's true. Lesbians need long, slender phallic toys to please their partners, while men are simply missing an extra, warm, moist hole. And that, unfortunately, is unnatural. Not to say it's wrong but definately costly - I mean, dildo's ain't cheap, especially with all the little controls and happy little buttons they come with now.

Actually, dildos are cheap. A silicone jelly dildo costs maybe $10 US, which isn't going to break anyone's bank. A vibrator can be more expensive, but still nothing to worry about from a financial viewpoint. And straight couples might find a use for such implements too; they're not restricted to lesbians (for example, you can penetrate your girlfriend in one orifice with your penis and the other with a vibrator; when you turn it on, you can feel its vibrations right through her body and into your prick).

And lubricant. Vasaline feels kinda gross between your legs, no matter what the dilemma, so it's better to buy the watery stuff in your favorite, run-down, wall-stained and cum-stenched shops.

That doesn't cost much either.

So really, it's not wrong. If you're happy, thumbs up, chubby. I just see a real problem with functionality. Whether you believe in creationism or evolution, whatever created us, certainly split the parts.

Crimson Raine

Actually, women generally derive more pleasure from clitoral stimulation than vaginal penetration, so I don't see a big problem for lesbians even if they forego the dildo. And as for gay men, if we were created than someone wanted us to be gay, because we derive pleasure from prostate stimulation, and there's only one way to accomplish that.

No, I'd say that naturally speaking, there's no particular imperative to go one way or the other except for reproduction, and if you have sex every day, you won't produce a pregnancy MOST of the time, so sex is more likely to be pleasurable than reproductive even without modern intent. If we had to ascribe motive to nature, it would appear that we were meant to be bisexual.

[kojikun]

mike raises a good point:

our prostates are CLEARLY meant to make us moan and groan when theyre probed and proded, and theres only one way to get to them, so .. How did THAT one evolve?

[XaLEv]

mike raises a good point:

our prostates are CLEARLY meant to make us moan and groan when theyre probed and proded, and theres only one way to get to them, so .. How did THAT one evolve?

Well, the tissues which form the prostate in males form the g-spot in females. IIRC, orgasm causes the cervix to move into a position which makes it easier for sperm to enter it if the woman is laying on her back. This would obviously make female orgasm beneficial to the survival of the species, and if the g-spot's presence makes orgasm easier, then more pleasure-producing g-spots would be selected for, and the pleasure-producing prostate would go along with them.

[kojikun]

Quiet, XaLEv. Its quite obvious human males are bred to have anal sex with one another.

[Drewcifer]

And as for gay men, if we were created than someone wanted us to be gay, because we derive pleasure from prostate stimulation, and there's only one way to accomplish that.

I've found that thrusting while your legs are parallel to your shoulder blades can often stimulate the prostate. (like if she's on a table and you're not) I don't know why exactly, probably a muscle thing.

[LordShaithis]

Rvialing a... s-s-soda c-can??? Up your ass???

*projectile vomits all over everyone*

[kojikun]

Rvialing a... s-s-soda c-can??? Up your ass???

*projectile vomits all over everyone*

*edit* I remember now nevermind.

btw, soda cans aint that thick...... ok they are :p

[Sobbastchianno]

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.

While I can agree with the first sentence, I think we go a bit into making sweeping generalizations when we say that gay men have a duality. Don't make us out to be any more spiritual, or in touch with our "feminine" side than straight men are. I am one of those men described as "straight" earlier, even though I am gay. I pride myself on being able to defend myself, and anyone else I care about. I pride myself in never letting any bastard see me cry, not even come close to it. I pride myself in being able to build what I need, by myself, or to lead the team I put together to build it for me.

I also pay the price that "straight" men pay as far as not being able to understand the softer side of life sometimes. I don't like to use the term "straight acting" because to be "straight acting" is just that, an act. I am gay, homo, queer, faggot (Mr. Faggot to YOU), etc. However, I don't feel the need to be a flaming queen to get that point across. Even as "butch" as I am, even Helen Keller would know I am a homosexual, but I didn't cry at Beaches, or at Steele Magnolias. However, I also think that forced machoism is just as socially repulsive as the flaming queen.

[Sobbastchianno]

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.

First off, let me state emphatically here and now that there is NO SUCH THING AS A GAY LIFESTYLE. We gays live the same variety of lifestyles as heterosexuals.

That having been said, I would like to ask, as a heterosexual, do you plan to reproduce every time you have sex? Is you ONLY objective in sexual relations reproduction? Somehow I severely doubt that, though I imagine that there are some people who could honestly answer "Yes" to that question. I commend them for living their conscience, but I refuse to live their conscience any more than I would have them live according to my conscience. No, homosexuality doesn't "mimic" a sexual relationship. Homosexuals HAVE sexual and emotional relationships. No mimicing. Believe me, heterosexuals didn't "invent" sexual or emotional relationships.

The only purpose for marriage for heterosexuals is that it secured bloodlines and inheritance rights, it was political and love had not a damn thing to do with it until about the early 19th century. We are finding the same need in the gay community for marriage, it forms legal families where one did not exist previously.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Well...technically, love is a response of your parasympathetic nervous system...you know, that warm mushy feeling you have for someone...when you heart bea increases, our skin flushes with blood etc etc? Well your body will eventualy get used to that. Then pair bonds come into play. During that tie of the warm mushyness is when you develope a pair bond, much like in the rest of the animal kindom. ou are emotionally bonded to the object of you affections, and when your body gets used to the initial mushyness...you fnd yourself still feeling or that person...that is what love is...by my definition.

But Sobbastchianno is very muc correct. Before the 19th century(the romantic era) no one married for this bond. They married for socio-economc reasons, and often HATED the person ther father made them marry.

[Hobot]

While I can agree with the first sentence, I think we go a bit into making sweeping generalizations when we say that gay men have a duality. Don't make us out to be any more spiritual, or in touch with our "feminine" side than straight men are. I am one of those men described as "straight" earlier, even though I am gay. I pride myself on being able to defend myself, and anyone else I care about. I pride myself in never letting any bastard see me cry, not even come close to it. I pride myself in being able to build what I need, by myself, or to lead the team I put together to build it for me.

I also pay the price that "straight" men pay as far as not being able to understand the softer side of life sometimes. I don't like to use the term "straight acting" because to be "straight acting" is just that, an act. I am gay, homo, queer, faggot (Mr. Faggot to YOU), etc. However, I don't feel the need to be a flaming queen to get that point across. Even as "butch" as I am, even Helen Keller would know I am a homosexual, but I didn't cry at Beaches, or at Steele Magnolias. However, I also think that forced machoism is just as socially repulsive as the flaming queen.

I never meant to make any generalizations or claim they had any basis in reality. However, it is a very common conception that homosexuals are somewhere in between men and women. Since we're talking about society's response to homosexuality we have to take into account stereotypes when discussing it's perception of homosexuality.

Don't worry, I don't take stereotypes very seriously.

[Sobbastchianno]

While you are right about the MIS-conception about homosexuals being somewhere in between straight men and straight women, I do feel that it is wrong to play into that. We are talking about the public's perception, but playing into misconceptions does not assist in educating the public at all, in fact, it perpetuates the stereotypes.

Here is something I totally don't understand. We respect religious difference, religious CHOICE (and religion IS a choice), but we can't respect something like sexual ORIENTATION, which is NOT a choice. In fact, they are close to proving that sexual orientation is more biological than environmental. Tell me where you can prove that religion is biological (at least before the bris)?

[Trytostaydead]

Well...technically, love is a response of your parasympathetic nervous system...you know, that warm mushy feeling you have for someone...when you heart bea increases, our skin flushes with blood etc etc?

Wouldn't that be sympathetic then? "Love" actually creates a dilation I believe which would be parasympathetic. But the sympathetic system does turn on during sex as well as the parasympathetic all working in cohesion.. funny thing this.. love.

But as for homosexuality being "wrong" or "disgusting.." I have several trains of thoughts on it. The most obvious being a heterosexual myself is that I would not want anything to do with it unless it involves two or more beautiful lesbians wanting to experiment.

In terms of pure BIOLOGY and genetics.. as of yet (I described this in great length in another post) there seems to be at best a disposition towards homosexuality in regards to genetics.

In behavioral, when people say it doesn't occur in the wild they are only partially true. Homosexuality DOES occur in the wild, though only under very odd or unlikely circumstances such as a few monkeys noted for their promiscuous behavior. Though the main examples of homosexuality in lower life forms we see are through experimental manipulation of hormones. However, what we do not see is homosexual committment. What we see are homosexual behaviors that come about from activational or improbable events but do not form lasting bonds or continue for the duration or "choice" that we see in humans.

If homosexuality was genetic, then homosexuality must have been ADAPTIVE or SELECTED FOR in terms of genetics and evolution. Meaning there must have been some plus to being a homosexual in the human community through the eons that made it a trait that would not be selected against. As of yet, there is only speculation that homosexuals may have been the "helpers" of the tribes, the non-breeders that helped look after the women and young.

So do I think homosexuality is "wrong?" Well.. so far from biology and genetics I'm beginning to say yes. Is it "disgusting?" As a heterosexual, if it doesn't involve lesbians I don't want to hear it. Should I "hate" it? I dislike it, but that's why people have freewill and choice. If it floats your boat, have fun.. I have my own peccadillos I guess.

[/i]

[BrYaN19kc]

In behavioral, when people say it doesn't occur in the wild they are only partially true. Homosexuality DOES occur in the wild, though only under very odd or unlikely circumstances such as a few monkeys noted for their promiscuous behavior. Though the main examples of homosexuality in lower life forms we see are through experimental manipulation of hormones. However, what we do not see is homosexual committment. What we see are homosexual behaviors that come about from activational or improbable events but do not form lasting bonds or continue for the duration or "choice" that we see in humans.

Homosexuality has been noted in all animal species and it is not rare, very odd, or even under unlikely circumstances.

"Among our closest living relatives, the bonobo chimpanzees, few if any are either exclusively heterosexual or homosexual. Indeed, all that have been observed are exclusively permanently bisexual."

"Homosexuality in the animal kingdom is an undeniable fact. It is as natural as can be. Since it is so common, it is therefore logical for the opponents of gay rights to try to explain it away."

[Trytostaydead]

Bryan,

Actually it is rather rare. In the primates we see it more as a promiscuous act, but homosexuality in general is quite rare. I did not deny that it does not exist in the wild. But the few times it DOES, it is usually through some aberrant circumstance. Also, homosexuality in the wild is manifested as almost a shift of hormones, aberrant genetics, human manipulation (I have yet to receive permission to start injecting testosterone into a few rats), or at best moments of passion. I hope that clarifies what I was saying.

What we NEVER see is homosexual committment (hmm.. I probably should say 'never' but what the hell).

[Spoonist]

Just a point to hijack the thread a bit.
I think that the term 'homosexuality' is flawed.

ALL humans are bisexual.
That is; they can be sexually stimulated by either gender.
It doesn't matter who goes down on you/strokes you/etc, the physical reactions are the same. (This is especially evident in forced concentrations of single genders. Like prisons/ships/etc.) As is proven by the contraceptive industry sexuality is not just procreation.

The difference is the emotions of the individuals. We usually experience 'deeper' emotions for people we find attractive. But it is you who have set the criteria for whom you find attractive. This is a mix of genetics, hormones and culture. It is by those criteria that you try to find a partner.

This leads to confusion among the common people.
False conclusions like these are common:
If I had a sexual interaction with a person of the same gender I must be homosexual=FALSE
If I do not act like my gender I must be homosexual=FALSE
Homosexuality is unnatural=FALSE
If I have sex with the other gender to create offspring then I cannot be homosexual=FALSE
If I never had sex with my own gender I'm not homosexual=FALSE
etc

They are all based on the misconception that homosexuality is a sexual thing when it is really an emotional thing.

[DPDarkPrimus]

If I never had sex with my own gender I'm not homosexual=FALSE

I just have to say... DUH. If not having had sex with the opposite gender made one gay, then reproduction would be some task, since everyone would be attracted to the same gender.

[Sobbastchianno]

Bryan,

Actually it is rather rare. In the primates we see it more as a promiscuous act, but homosexuality in general is quite rare. I did not deny that it does not exist in the wild. But the few times it DOES, it is usually through some aberrant circumstance. Also, homosexuality in the wild is manifested as almost a shift of hormones, aberrant genetics, human manipulation (I have yet to receive permission to start injecting testosterone into a few rats), or at best moments of passion. I hope that clarifies what I was saying.

What we NEVER see is homosexual committment (hmm.. I probably should say 'never' but what the hell).

Trytostaydead, you have obviously not been around many homosexuals, have you? Many of my friends have been in 10 year, committed relationships or longer. Hell, my own twin brother died 18 years into a committed relationship. Maybe "we" have not seen homosexual commitment because it isn't considered as sensational or newsworthy as a bunch of drag queens on a float, or leather drag queens flogging each other.

Let's be real, if you were producing news, do you think that a middle aged gay couple who had been together for 20 years would be nearly as sensational, or cause nearly the "reaction" that a bunch of drag queens on a float would. Would there be nearly as many eyes glued to the set to watch Bob and Rick describe how love can last between two men for over 20 years, as there would be to watch Steve paddle Mike on live television? I think not.

Why then, aren't straight relationships sensationalized in the same way? Well, we are all raised to be straight, and Melrose Place and such show us all the stuff that can go wrong in a straight relationship, so there is no need to sensationalize it on the news.

I find it absolutely repulsive that any hetero couple can decide to get married at a 24 hour wedding chapel in Las Vegas, and it is recognized and legal and has all the rights and responsibilities of any other marriage, but a same sex couple who has been together for 10 years or better aren't even considered JOINT TENANTS without legal wragnling!! "Who Wants To Marry A Millionaire," remember that show. THAT made more of a mockery of marriage as an institution than any same sex marriage ever could.

[Mark S]

Bryan,

Actually it is rather rare. In the primates we see it more as a promiscuous act, but homosexuality in general is quite rare. I did not deny that it does not exist in the wild. But the few times it DOES, it is usually through some aberrant circumstance. Also, homosexuality in the wild is manifested as almost a shift of hormones, aberrant genetics, human manipulation (I have yet to receive permission to start injecting testosterone into a few rats), or at best moments of passion. I hope that clarifies what I was saying.

What we NEVER see is homosexual committment (hmm.. I probably should say 'never' but what the hell).

Trytostaydead, you have obviously not been around many homosexuals, have you? Many of my friends have been in 10 year, committed relationships or longer. Hell, my own twin brother died 18 years into a committed relationship. Maybe "we" have not seen homosexual commitment because it isn't considered as sensational or newsworthy as a bunch of drag queens on a float, or leather drag queens flogging each other.

Let's be real, if you were producing news, do you think that a middle aged gay couple who had been together for 20 years would be nearly as sensational, or cause nearly the "reaction" that a bunch of drag queens on a float would. Would there be nearly as many eyes glued to the set to watch Bob and Rick describe how love can last between two men for over 20 years, as there would be to watch Steve paddle Mike on live television? I think not.

Why then, aren't straight relationships sensationalized in the same way? Well, we are all raised to be straight, and Melrose Place and such show us all the stuff that can go wrong in a straight relationship, so there is no need to sensationalize it on the news.

I find it absolutely repulsive that any hetero couple can decide to get married at a 24 hour wedding chapel in Las Vegas, and it is recognized and legal and has all the rights and responsibilities of any other marriage, but a same sex couple who has been together for 10 years or better aren't even considered JOINT TENANTS without legal wragnling!! "Who Wants To Marry A Millionaire," remember that show. THAT made more of a mockery of marriage as an institution than any same sex marriage ever could.

I think he was talking about animals showing homosexual commitment. Wasn't he?

[Sobbastchianno]

Humans are animals. As far as I know, very few animals actually mate heterosexually for life anyway. Swans are one and there is one other that I know of, but which breed escapes me at the moment. This is another case of having to be twice as good to prove we are only half as worthy (a common complaint of women when competing for men's jobs). I am truly sick and tired of being judged by standards that heterosexuals can't even live up to, and standards they make no apologies for falling short of.

BTW, there are several studies that show that homosexuality DOES exist in nature. The two species on Earth that are thought to have sex purely for pleasure, humans and dolphins, both exhibit homosexual behavior. Hell, homosexual behaviour has been exhibited in most all primate species where there are only two biological genders. So, no, it isn't as rare as you thought. Take a look through Amazon.com sometime on the subject of homosexuality in nature.

[Kurgan]

The "argument from nature" can cut both ways. In the animal kingdom we have species that eat their own young, wage war on each other, kill their mates right after sex, etc.

Just because something occurs in nature, doesn't necessarily mean we should morally or ethically imitate it.

In addition, some people think that things like alcoholism or even being prone to violence (or sexual violence) may also have genetic roots. That alone doesn't prove that those behaviors should be encouraged or tolerated. Thus one could still argue against homosexuality even if it was proven to be 100% genetic (I would be more inclined to believe it's a combination of factors, but that's my working theory).

Also, Christianity isn't the only religion that tends to have a problem with homosexuality, so whomever said that if only there weren't any Christians or the Bible, everyone would accept the idea, etc. I disagree.

I swore we had a thread (or discussion) about why straight men (or at least that's the stereotype) get turned on by "lesbians" already, but maybe I am thinking of another forum?

And finally, about the person talking about homosexuality in nature, I thought his point was that committed homosexual relationships seem to be unique to the human species. That would be an interesting research project to find out if that was really true...

Many good points made by many people, interesting thread....

[Sobbastchianno]

Kurgan,

I agree, we should not imitate everything in nature. The examples you brought up all have one thing in common, they harm another. Things such as eating your young, or killing your mate after mating (which, I must admit, at times has its appeal, LOL), all do harm to another.

I don't see any harm in allowing two consenting, non-biologically related adults perform whatever consensual sex acts they wish. It does no harm to anyone else, nor does it harm the parties involved (there are exceptions but the ones I am thinking of are proclivity related, not orientational).

Since we are on the subject or ethics, do I have the right to restrict reproduction to being simply a laboratory procedure, since the idea of heterosexual sex and heterosexual marriage offends me (it doesn't really, but just suppose), and do I have the right to deny others the pleasure that falling in love brings, simply because I do not approve of the person with whom they are in love (remember that until 1969, some states outlawed interracial marriage, because some found the concept to be offensive, and they could find Bible verse to back that up also).

Personally, I don't think ETHICALLY I have the right to deny anyone the chance to fall in love with someone and choose to mate with them, provided they are not already biologically related. Yes, for genetic reasons, I do have a problem with incest.

Marriage has always been somewhat political (marry well, use marriage to get a step up the ladder). I am not sure love even really entered into marriage until th 19th century from everything I have read. Before that, your parents pretty much decided who you were going to marry, unless you got yourself knocked up first. So the idea that marriage is holy and has any sanctity is garbage to me. It is used as a legal system of forming a familial relationship where none previously existed. That is the only reason gays want marriage as well, to form legal familial status. There is no difference between a gay couple and a heterosexual couple. Gays can, and do, reproduce, straights don't have to reproduce to have a valid legal marriage (procreation is NOT a requirement). So, Lucy, splain to me the difference.

[kojikun]

Yes, for genetic reasons, I do have a problem with incest.

Hey, us queers are exempt from that stuff! I'll feck my brother all I want! shame i dont have a brother :\