Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

[Gergovia]

I always thought that the retort used by gays that divorce ruins the sanctity of marriage more than gay nuptials a poor one. Divorce doesn't affect the sanctity of marriage at all. What does divorce even have to do with the sanctity of marriage as an institution at all? It may ruin the sanctity of your invidual marriage, but hardly says anything about the institution itself.

However, from a Christian's point of view, it would violate the sanctity of marrage because in their view, your redefining what marriage is in the first place.

I'm gay, but come up with a better argument. For realz.

[marioguy]

However, from a Christian's point of view, it would violate the sanctity of marrage because in their view, your redefining what marriage is in the first place.

It's a good thing that marriage isn't exclusively owned by Christianity.

[Pinsirius]

I always thought that the retort used by gays that divorce ruins the sanctity of marriage more than gay nuptials a poor one. Divorce doesn't affect the sanctity of marriage at all. What does divorce even have to do with the sanctity of marriage as an institution at all? It may ruin the sanctity of your individual marriage, but hardly says anything about the institution itself.

What I was going to say; something built on a high ideal (That isn't exactly unrealized- how many of us know multiple couples who made it past the first seven years? I sure do.) isn't inherently ruined because some instances don't work out, particularly when there are clear patterns as to why.

[CSolarstorm]

That Jesus quote has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. Jesus said it to stop people from stoning an adulteress, because it was hypocritical for them to kill her but not her lover as well. The quote has other interpretations. Perhaps Jesus was saying that we should never execute others ever. Perhaps Jesus wanted to cast the first stone himself, because he was without sin. I don't know how anyone can attribute the quote to homosexuality.

Go reread the passage and tell me if you think I made it better. I was of course talking about mattj's assertion in his thread, but I added a bit more of a critical tone. So far his is the best counter to the Leviticus argument, and everything needs to be balanced in the guide.

Thank you to everyone for giving me so many nice complements about the thread!

[J.T.]

I always thought that the retort used by gays that divorce ruins the sanctity of marriage more than gay nuptials a poor one. Divorce doesn't affect the sanctity of marriage at all. What does divorce even have to do with the sanctity of marriage as an institution at all? It may ruin the sanctity of your individual marriage, but hardly says anything about the institution itself.

I always interpreted the argument to mean that we allow people to marry and divorce at the drop of a hat, but ignore those who genuinely love their partner. Look at the whole Kim Kardashian thing as an example - we let her have a big lavish ceremony so she can get married only to divorce the guy like five minutes later in what was almost certainly just a publicity stunt, but when two people who happen to have the same genitalia genuinely love each other and want to be together, all of a sudden that's just going too far.
If we accept your premise that divorce ruins the sanctity of an individual's marriage (and I personally do, it's a lot more reasonable than saying all marriage is worthless because of the divorce rate), then we now have to ask why allowing gays to get married would destroy the sanctity of marriage as a whole, or even how it would destroy the sanctity of your individual marriage. I could also preemptively get into the fact that the Bible condemns divorce just as much if not moreso than homosexuality, but I'd really rather not talk about the Bible unless/until someone else brings it up.

[marioguy]

I always interpreted the argument to mean that we allow people to marry and divorce at the drop of a hat, but ignore those who genuinely love their partner. Look at the whole Kim Kardashian thing as an example - we let her have a big lavish ceremony so she can get married only to divorce the guy like five minutes later in what was almost certainly just a publicity stunt, but when two people who happen to have the same genitalia genuinely love each other and want to be together, all of a sudden that's just going too far.
If we accept your premise that divorce ruins the sanctity of an individual's marriage (and I personally do, it's a lot more reasonable than saying all marriage is worthless because of the divorce rate), then we now have to ask why allowing gays to get married would destroy the sanctity of marriage as a whole, or even how it would destroy the sanctity of your individual marriage. I could also preemptively get into the fact that the Bible condemns divorce just as much if not moreso than homosexuality, but I'd really rather not talk about the Bible unless/until someone else brings it up.

Did you guys know that divorce is a really big sin in the Bible? It's right there along with murder and homosexuality. If we're not going to let gay people get married, let's stone Kim Kardashian too.

[Grei]

For me, it's the same as most others. I don't care if they're gay, let them do what they want, why should I care? But... stop sticking it in my face and in the media! Like, if you don't want to be bullied for being gay, stop running around with "Gay Pride!" or "Gay 4 Life!" signs stapled on you. Like, do what you want but stop bugging me about it, I don't care what you do.

You've offended me, honestly. Only because I'm not sure why homosexuals don't have the right to be present in the media. It's because of this cold shoulder the media gives homosexuals that homosexuality is so unaccepted. I've grown up with the media telling me that the only "correct" kind of relationship is the one between a man and a woman. To this day I'm having trouble imagining myself--or feeling comfortable--in a relationship with another man. While the media certainly isn't the only cause for it, it is also certainly a big cause for it.

So, shunning homosexuals from media attention is not the way to go. I agree that Gay Pride parades are often not the best way for homosexuals to gain attention, but the other side of the spectrum--making homosexuals completely absent in the media--is, in my opinion, the exact wrong way to go.

I believe that homosexuality should be as abundant in the media as heterosexuality. TV shows should depict homosexual relationships alongside heterosexual relationships. Commercial ads should cater to both homosexuals and heterosexuals (given the product they're trying to sell isn't inherently exclusive). Doing this would push for societal acceptance, because suddenly the media--the subconscious-or-not governor of what is "normal" in our culture--would be telling people that it's OK for two men or two women to love one another romantically. We already take so much from the media and apply it to our ideas of what is "supposed to be," so I don't see the problem in throwing homosexuality into the mix, since it is also something that's "supposed to be."

Conversely, I don't believe it's right to just say "leave me alone, gay people. Do what you want, but leave me out of it." Because that's teaching tolerance, not acceptance, and that's giving the message that it's OK to just ignore the things you don't like. Again, tolerating or ignoring stuff is not the way to go--accepting them is. I applaud you for at least not saying "gays suck," but in my eyes, ignoring them (us) is not much better.

I'm just going to watch this turn into pointlessness again.

Aw, have some more faith in Sunny. ^_^ Also, you should read the Debate Forum clean-up plan in the OP, and refrain from posting like this again.

[Valoo.]

I'm not talking about their parades, I'm talking about all the news about "coming out" and all that. If someone went on the news and said "I'm straight!" they'd probably get a lawsuit for "offense to gays" or something, but if someone went on the news and said "I'm gay! I've come out of the closet!" they'd be worshipped for "revealing something so precious...", I was never comfortable with the idea of gays, not because of my religion, but I just didn't think it looked right, but now I can accept it, I just don't want to hear about it every time I turn on the TV.

But it's not there every time you turn on the TV. If being gay wasn't turned into such a big thing by a lack of tolerance, nobody would have to come out. People can't go around and not tell people; there's no way to avoid coming out. Nobody is worshipped for coming out, people just respect them for it because of the tolerance level in a lot of places. It takes a lot of courage to come out.

Nobody would get a lawsuit for saying they're straight, don't be ridiculous. Nobody says they're straight on the news because everybody is assumed to be straight, unless stated otherwise. Gay people are a minority.

For me, it's the same as most others. I don't care if they're gay, let them do what they want, why should I care? But... stop sticking it in my face and in the media! Like, if you don't want to be bullied for being gay, stop running around with "Gay Pride!" or "Gay 4 Life!" signs stapled on you. Like, do what you want but stop bugging me about it, I don't care what you do.

What? You're saying people are bullied solely for wearing t-shirts like that. That's ridiculous. Gay people are bullied because of homophobia, and a low tolerance level, not because of a t-shirt.

Nobody is bugging you about it. If there was full acceptance and equality, there would be no need for the parades and media attention.

[marioguy]

Don't you just hate people who use "gay" as an insult, but don't know why that's wrong? Isn't it odd how the media implies that only homosexual people have anal sex?

[mattj]

What on earth are you talking about. There's plenty of straight butt sex on TV. Why do you even post here?

[marioguy]

What on earth are you talking about. There's plenty of straight butt sex on TV. Why do you even post here?

Not on shows on public networks, such as the Simpsons, the Big Bang Theory, and Heroes.

[mattj]

None of those shows have gay anal sex. I don't understand you.

[marioguy]

None of those shows have gay anal sex. I don't understand you.

I wasn't talking about gay anal sex. I was talking about straight anal sex, and it's lack on television.

[Profesco]

I don't mean to butt in (), but can't the general absence of anal sex on television - whether straight, gay, or otherwise - be explained by the fact that it's anal sex?

[Jb]

Don't you just hate people who use "gay" as an insult, but don't know why that's wrong?

There is nothing wrong with using gay as an insult. After all if gay people can change a meaning of a word to describe themselves, why can't I do it to insult people?

[marioguy]

I don't mean to butt in (), but can't the general absence of anal sex on television - whether straight, gay, or otherwise - be explained by the fact that it's anal sex?

That smiley... Anyway, gay characters talk about anal sex every so often, but straight people never do.

There is nothing wrong with using gay as an insult. After all if gay people can change a meaning of a word to describe themselves, why can't I do it to insult people?

Can I redefine the meaning of the word "brony" to mean child predator? (I chose borny based on your csutom title.)

[CSolarstorm]

There is nothing wrong with using gay as an insult. After all if gay people can change a meaning of a word to describe themselves, why can't I do it to insult people?

You're saying that if they can use a word that means happy to describe themselves, that you using that same word to insult someone is an equal action. It's not. It's one thing to take a word and use it to describe yourself, but it has an insulting effect when you take a word people use to describe themselves and use it to mean 'stupid'.

Although I hate to tell you guys, but the word 'gay' has meant someone who is sexually loose and indulges in too many pleasures, much longer than it was used as a label for homosexuals. Just calling yourself gay carries the historical assumption that people attracted to the same sex are sexually immoral in the same vein as prostitutes or adulterers. We're trying to remove a meaning that was already ascribed to the word, and it was used in a derogatory manner long before homosexuals (probably called gay because the assumption was if they enjoyed being with the same sex it was extra sexual, and thus 'gay') took the term and made it into something they could own.

[ChedWick]

I don't mean to butt in (), but can't the general absence of anal sex on television - whether straight, gay, or otherwise - be explained by the fact that it's anal sex?

I giggled.


I'm really trying hard to keep pointless commentaries out of this thread but I honestly am not seeing the lack of anal sex on television. One show in particular implies it quite regularly, or did before it went to crap; Two and a half men. I'm sure I'm exposed to other references on a daily basis too. I guess homosexual anal sex is pretty non-existent in my experiences but considering where we are in the movement for homosexual acceptance, thats not too surprising.

I think its pretty unfair to keep to the negative stigma surrounding anal sex. Homosexuals are not the only couples who partake in the act and it's been documented in heterosexual interactions for centuries. Want a source (since last time I brought up that point about 2 years ago ppl freaked out) just Google any combination of time period names, art, anal sex and I'm sure you'll find the source you desire. At least I can say that the only time I have the pleasure of hearing some rant about homosexuals, anal sex, and the devil its usually coming form some ill-informed extremest. I suppose that's not really saying much considering most those against either are usually the same type of people.

[Jb]

Can I redefine the meaning of the word "brony" to mean child predator? (I chose borny based on your csutom title.)

Depends, if you can get enough people on board. But there is already a popular term for that so i'm not too sure.

You're saying that if they can use a word that means happy to describe themselves, that you using that same word to insult someone is an equal action. It's not. It's one thing to take a word and use it to describe yourself, but it has an insulting effect when you take a word people use to describe themselves and use it to mean 'stupid'.

Valid points, but to be honest I still don't see the harm. When people use 'gay' as an insult, it's usually for an object, or event. If the majority of people used it to actually insult homosexuals, then that is when I think it's over the line. I'm not saying people don't use it like that, I'm pretty sure when people do, they don't mean any harm to gay people.

[CSolarstorm]

Valid points, but to be honest I still don't see the harm. When people use 'gay' as an insult, it's usually for an object, or event. If the majority of people used it to actually insult homosexuals, then that is when I think it's over the line. I'm not saying people don't use it like that, I'm pretty sure when people do, they don't mean any harm to gay people.

It's used to describe people as stupid more often than just sometimes. Remember that guy that came into one of the threads and didn't like gay people because some bully called him gay, and as he reminded us, he wasn't gay? Whether or not they mean any harm to gay people or not, that isn't related to whether or not it does cause harm. Meaning or intent doesn't change result. After all, it is reinforcing this association of gay people = laughable, lame. It's action that causes result.

Imagine you just walked in from the rain and your shoes were all muddy and you walked on a floor that was just cleaned and got it all muddy. You didn't mean to mess up the clean floor, but as long as you decided you didn't want to take your shoes off and walked in anyway, just cause you didn't mean to doesn't mean the floor didn't get messed up because you kept walking.