Question of the Day: Homosexuality

[BVS]

I'm out.

That's too bad, I think you were asked some valid questions.

 

[MadelynIris]

Right BVS - I see your point in these:

I think you are having a hard time making yourself clear. Why would hetero males have to be comfortable receiving a blowjob from a man? I mean what does that have to do with anything?

I'm not understanding how that effects bias. I don't want to picture old people having sex, but it doesn't give me a bias towards old people

I think part of the misunderstanding does stem from internalizing it. It's called empathy right?

For example, when I think of bigotry towards those of a different race, those who look different, disabled, etc... the internalization is about putting yourself in their shoes, imagining those things that set you apart, and how those things effect your life.

Ok, so I do the same with homosexuality -- and I have 2 major points of view right now on homosexuality.

The sex part --
And the emotional part -- this part BTW I am having an easier time relating to, and do empathize with Irvine's plight. It really hits home.

I run in a different crowd I guess. Funny, I've heard gay people react the same way, when the imagine being put in a heterosexual situation. But I guess it's just a stupid point.

 

[Irvine511]

MI: please don't leave, this is real honesty we're getting at here. it's important not to simle and say "i'm okay/you're okay" and sing kumbya. let's talk about differences, and hope to learn from them.

you know what i find gross? the idea of performing oral sex on a woman. sorry, but i really do, and i've done it because i felt i had to for a variety of reasons. you know what i find more appealing than almost anything? performing oral sex on a man.

perhaps you feel precisely the opposite? most straight men do. and that's fine. i would never expect you to eat a food you didn't like, or see a movie you hated. on a sexual level, it's as simple as that. different strokes for different folks. as was said in Trainspotting: "it's all about aesthetics and fuck all to do with morality."

however, there is a strong emotional component to homosexuality that is different, but equally as powerful to heteroesexuality. when my first boyfriend moved to florida, i was depressed for months. i drank too much, made some bad decisions, woke up an hour before the alarm and laid there in the quiet remembering when i used to do that except that he used to be right there next to me. i spent hours on the phone with friends when he left, both men and women, going over what was going wrong, why it was so hard to let him go (because i, being a man, assumed that i could simply let him go because men aren't supposed to be emotional, right?) and why i was so mad at him for leaving when it hadn't bothered me until the day after he left.

this is something that i think heteros and homos have in common -- and i think it's also why we'd do well to talk to one another, because there's so much to be learned.

there are differences, and often gay relationships takes specific characteristics of the two genders and magnifies them, but the similarities outweigh the differences.

and, damn, if i had a dollar for every time a straight man has asked me for dating advice -- what should i wear? where should i take her to dinner? how long do i wait before i call? -- i'd be a rich man.

 

[Irvine511]

For example, I was in Chicago a couple years back and there was a "gay pride parade," which it seemed that 50% of the people were acting like they were part of a freak show. Do they really think this is helping gay rights causes? Not a bit. This sort of thing is what's holding a lot of people back, IMO.

funny.

every time i hear Jerry Fallwell, i think, "damn, all Christians have more in common with Satan than with Jesus."

every time i watch Jerry Springer, i think, "damn, all those heteros can't even add or subtract, let alone be parents, and i can't even guess who the baby's daddy is."

 

[Do Miss America]

funny.

every time i hear Jerry Fallwell, i think, "damn, all Christians have more in common with Satan than with Jesus."

every time i watch Jerry Springer, i think, "damn, all those heteros can't even add or subtract, let alone be parents, and i can't even guess who the baby's daddy is."

 

[indra]

PS I'm not comfortable with Pat Robertson having sex, but I don't think he should be barred from exercising his civil rights because of it.

Well.... maybe just this once....

 

[Axver]

this also begs the question, since marriage is still a heterosexual contract, there seems to be a "correct" time and place and situation for heterosexual activity. i understand that, and while i don't agree, i can respect it because it's logical. however, there seems to be no "correct" time and place for a homosexual to have sex if marriage is not an option for gay people. what's a gay person to do? a life of celibacy? no love? no lasting commitment?

you'd think actual social conservatives would be for gay marriage -- let's domesticate these people and reduce sexual activity outside of marriage.

I understand your point, but I think you might've slightly missed what I asked or I didn't make myself clear. Allow me to present a hypothetical.

There's a man called Bob. He personally believes that homosexuality is wrong, just like he believes pre-marital sex is wrong. However, he acknowledges that other people are free to determine their own beliefs and morality and he will not obstruct them from practicing activities that he personally does not agree with. So just in the same way as he (if he were in a position to make laws) would keep pre-marital sex legal even though it is against his personal morality, he would also legalise gay marriage and has utterly no problem with two people practicing homosexuality, even though it is against his personal morality.

Is Bob a bigot?

 

[BVS]

I understand your point, but I think you might've slightly missed what I asked or I didn't make myself clear. Allow me to present a hypothetical.

There's a man called Bob. He personally believes that homosexuality is wrong, just like he believes pre-marital sex is wrong. However, he acknowledges that other people are free to determine their own beliefs and morality and he will not obstruct them from practicing activities that he personally does not agree with. So just in the same way as he (if he were in a position to make laws) would keep pre-marital sex legal even though it is against his personal morality, he would also legalise gay marriage and has utterly no problem with two people practicing homosexuality, even though it is against his personal morality.

Is Bob a bigot?

Yes Bob is a bigot, because one would change with marriage and the other wouldn't. If two straight teenagers got married his approval of them would change, but with two men or two women it wouldn't. No matter what they did they would always be wrong in his eyes.

 

[Irvine511]

There's a man called Bob. He personally believes that homosexuality is wrong, just like he believes pre-marital sex is wrong. However, he acknowledges that other people are free to determine their own beliefs and morality and he will not obstruct them from practicing activities that he personally does not agree with. So just in the same way as he (if he were in a position to make laws) would keep pre-marital sex legal even though it is against his personal morality, he would also legalise gay marriage and has utterly no problem with two people practicing homosexuality, even though it is against his personal morality.

firstly, i don't think Bob exists. most people who believe homosexuality is "wrong" don't believe in gay marriage. however, if Bob did exist, his argument would be more consistent, and it would be about the time and place for sexual intercourse, not about the "morality" of homosexualitly -- that is to say that Bob believes sex should only happen within marital bonds, and he wants marriage to include everbody. so, Bob is consistent, because he doesn't demand celibacy and deny basic tax breaks and the potential for happiness from 5% or so of the population. i would respect Bob's argument, then.

however, i think it's totally bogus to even personally believe that homosexuality is "wrong." i don't understand how an involuntary, unchosen orientation that harms no one can be "wrong." why? we know why certain things are wrong -- they hurt other people, usually. simply because there is variation in the lived expression of human sexuality does not make something wrong. is it wrong to be left handed? is it wrong to have red hair? what we all have to get to, i believe, is this final assumption: there is no moral difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality. we can say that there is something objectively "good" about heterosexual intercourse, in that it can be procreative. however, i think we can all agree that people have sex for a variety of reasons, it increases the bond between to people, it's an artful form of expression, and sexually satisfied people are usually happy, productive people. i would also argue that the way probably 99% of heteroesexual sex is practiced is no different than the way that homosexual sex is practiced. 99% of the time, heterosexual sex has no procreative intent, and what we call "sex" involves much more than simple genital intercourse. how is the coupulation between a man and a woman "better" than between a man and a man?

since it isn't (unless someone can argue otherwise), the only argument against homosexual sex is that ALL sex should be between married people. so long as marriage rights are extended to homosexuals, i then don't think that Bob is a bigot. however, if Bob still believes that the heterosexual union is better than the homosexual union, or that the homosexual union is somehow "wrong," then yes, Bob has a bigoted belief.

not hateful, and i'm not saying that Bob is a bigot -- for him to be a bigot he'd have to act on this belief and treat people differently -- but that the belief itself is bigoted.

 

[the soul waits]

Ok, allow me to preface my post by stressing that I have quite a lot of gay friends and that my best friend - who is also my flatmate - is a gay.
I have posted on one of these topics before and I have regular discussions about these very subjects with my friends.

I find the matter extremely intriguing, because, even with being among gays a lot, I don't understand *what* it is, I cannot put my finger on it...and you know what? I think that's the heart of the matter right there : homosexuality cannot be described, anaylized, explained in a way that gets to the very core of the feeling - that's why these threads get so lengthy, I think.

As a matter of fact, I was at a housewarming party this past Saturday of a gay couple - friends of my flatmate - and got into an interesting conversation with a gay that is - as am I - tired of the "poor discriminated gay me"-attitude he sees a lot. I see it often too and I have 1 big loud question sounding through my head over and over when it comes to this attitude "WHY?"

* Why is it such a bad thing if people don't approve of what you do/are? Why do you take it so personal? I for one, don't lead a life you'd call "standard" and have been exposed to critizism for as long as I can remember. What's the big deal? Instead of getting apalled (sp), getting angry or crawling into the victim-role : be living proof that you're as "worthy" as the straight folk by being a positive role-model.

* Why do a lot of you find it insulting when people say it's yuck to have anal sex/man-on-man blowjobs? What's it to you? Must everyone like or approve of what goes on in the bedroom? As if straight people only do the missionary pose!
I do find it hypocritical when straight people say that 2 men having sex is gross because they most likely know all too damn well that's not only performed by gays. People have every right to find anal sex gross, but that goes for both gays as well as straights then.
But either way, why does it bother you that people say it's gross?

* I believe that a lot of people are bisexual on some level, beit conscious or subconscious and the many degrees in between those two. That said, I do think it's easier for women to express that because they don't feel threatened in their femininity while they express attraction to women, whereas men might be reluctant to fit the cliché of "the girly gay" if he were to do the same.

Ramble ramble, sorry to be so longwinded, I'm scatterbrained today

 

[Irvine511]

* Why is it such a bad thing if people don't approve of what you do/are? Why do you take it so personal? I for one, don't lead a life you'd call "standard" and have been exposed to critizism for as long as I can remember. What's the big deal? Instead of getting apalled (sp), getting angry or crawling into the victim-role : be living proof that you're as "worthy" as the straight folk by being a positive role-model.

* Why do a lot of you find it insulting when people say it's yuck to have anal sex/man-on-man blowjobs? What's it to you? Must everyone like or approve of what goes on in the bedroom? As if straight people only do the missionary pose!
I do find it hypocritical when straight people say that 2 men having sex is gross because they most likely know all too damn well that's not only performed by gays. People have every right to find anal sex gross, but that goes for both gays as well as straights then.
But either way, why does it bother you that people say it's gross?

* I believe that a lot of people are bisexual on some level, beit conscious or subconscious and the many degrees in between those two. That said, I do think it's easier for women to express that because they don't feel threatened in their femininity while they express attraction to women, whereas men might be reluctant to fit the cliché of "the girly gay" if he were to do the same.

first, you live in Belgium. gay marriage is legal there. and, to my knowledge, you don't have powerful politicians actively assaulting gay people like you do in the United States. there's a huge political component to homsexuality in the US that isn't there, to the same extent, in Europe. this is a big difference between how social issues get played out in two different continents, and this is where i get into the whole "woe is me, i'm gay" argument because there are people who are seeking my social death.

1. there's no need for "approval," per say, but there is a need to combat homophobia and bigoted statements predicated upon the assumption of "deviance" or "unnaturalness" of homosexuality. being gay is abnormal, but it is 100% natural. the reason i object to such statements is because i view the #1 problem in the gay community to be internalized homophobia and self-loathing. quite frankly, many gay people hate themselves and spend their lives overcompensating. this is why the stereotype of an urban gay man swims in money, cars, great decorating, and a near-unhealthy obsession with going to the gym. it's like trying to improve from the outside in. and things are getting better -- gay people under 30 have grown up in a much, much more welcoming, hospitable environment, and you're seeing fewer neurosis in this age group and i think much of this has to do with the fact that there is now a "way" to be gay, that it can lead to happiness, that it can be a source of love and joy, and that a lasting relationship is entirely possible because now we are just starting to get positive role models.

2. i agree with you. i think "yuck" is a perfectly acceptable response to a sexual act that you find unappealing. there's a difference between saying "yuck" and saying "that's sinful/it makes the baby Jesus cry." and if you go back and read a few of the posts, i think most of us agreed on this point.

3. i think the ease to which women seem to float into and out of bisexuality has to do with what women find to be sexual turn-ons. to be crude, i can offer two little sayings: "men are turned on by what they see; women are turned on by what they hear" or "women need a reason to have sex; men need a place." while these are generalizations, i think they get down to how male and female sexual response is different. i'm told that the number of exclusively gay men to exclusively gay women is more than 2:1; however, many, many women are bisexual. chauvanistic heterosexual men like to point to this as some sort of objective evidence that the female body is objectively an object of sexual desire, but this is to make the mistake that women might be attracted to another woman in the way that a man is attracted to a woman. rather, women find emotional connection and expressiveness with another woman in a way they cannot with a man, and often this then translates into a sexual relationship.

again, all generalities, but lots of truth in there.

 

[the soul waits]

Irvine, I agree with all that you wrote and true, I cannot relate in essence to the extent of discrimination against gays in the USA.
However, knowing that even emphasises the fact that gays in Western-Europe, with all the rights gained that they have faught hard for, are still having that underdog-attitude, even the younger generations. I think one could compare this attitude to the maroccan and turkish communities here, that are discriminated (less and less, but still, they are) on many levels and, in defense, react in a (passive)-agressive manner rather than engage in a debate and prove people wrong by their actions. Bitterness (allthough very understandable and even justified, imo) is not the way to make people see where they've got it wrong. It's harder and, I can imagine, very very tiring to engage in a debate (like you and others here do, for example) and I can understand the "oh sod it" mentality, but long-term, that won't help the gay community.

I know it's easy for me to say all this and I can also understand that, at some point, one could think "how is it *my* task to be on the barricades and fight for our rights, I'll just retract in my own world and do my thing". And one has every right to do so.

Lol, I don't even have a point, just stating that I empathise a great deal with your situation and that it's a fine line you could find yourself balancing on between chipping in for the gay community and having some peace of mind in the safety of your own environment.

 

[Irvine511]

it's not so bad being gay in the USA -- most american cities have very vibrant gay cultures, and where i live, i walk down the street and see gay people everywhere ... walking their dogs, washing their cars, drinking coffee and reading in a cafe, sometimes holding hands with their partners. however, there does feel like an external threat, that outside of these urban oasises you are under assault. some of this is necessary to gay culture -- no matter what culture you're from, the sense of it being under attack by outside forces is a great way to get people to do what you want (just ask Bush/Cheney).

i suppose it is worth asking, though, at what point does a discriminated-against minority finally say, "well, we've won. nothing more to fight for"?

not sure i know the answer to that ...

 

[melon]

i suppose it is worth asking, though, at what point does a discriminated-against minority finally say, "well, we've won. nothing more to fight for"?

not sure i know the answer to that ...

It's easy: equal rights, including marriage rights that heteros take for granted.

The thing is, we don't even have most of these yet. We can still get fired on a homophobic whim. We have a dozen states that have codified discrimination into their state constitutions. As for the states that have rights, they don't extend to the federal level, which means no immigration rights, which affects me.

We have a long, long way to go, as far as I'm concerned. Sure, we might not get our heads chopped off like in Saudi fucking Arabia, but we have a leadership and population that seemingly wants to legislate us into non-existence.

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

we have a leadership and population that seemingly wants to legislate us into non-existence.

that's really what's going on, isn't it?

go back to the closet. i don't want to know about it. i don't want to see you. i don't want to hear you. i don't want to be faced by that with which i am unfamiliar and uncomfortable. you are less than fully human in our eyes, and while i don't hate you, i don't want to deal with you, and i am offended that you equate your sexual orientation with mine.

or, to put it another way, I REALLY NEED SOMEONE TO FEEL BETTER THAN BECAUSE I'VE BEEN VOTING AGAINST MY OWN ECONOMIC SELF-INTERESTS AND NOW HAVE FAILING SCHOOLS, FEWER BENEFITS, WAGES THAT DO NOT KEEP UP WITH INFLATION, AND THE MIDDLE CLASS REMAINS AS OUT OF REACH AS EVER AS THE WEALTHY GET THEIR TAXES CUT. WELL, AT LEAST I'M NOT A FAGGOT!!!

 

[melon]

or, to put it another way, I REALLY NEED SOMEONE TO FEEL BETTER THAN BECAUSE I'VE BEEN VOTING AGAINST MY OWN ECONOMIC SELF-INTERESTS AND NOW HAVE FAILING SCHOOLS, FEWER BENEFITS, WAGES THAT DO NOT KEEP UP WITH INFLATION, AND THE MIDDLE CLASS REMAINS AS OUT OF REACH AS EVER AS THE WEALTHY GET THEIR TAXES CUT. WELL, AT LEAST I'M NOT A FAGGOT!!!

That's certainly part of the equation. And some not-so-liberal activists in the Appalachian region have gone as far as to say "morality" is merely an excuse to avoid the real problems going on. For a region that is literally a mess, it's obviously an easy way to divert from the real problems.

Here's an article in a similar vein that happened today:

Navajo President Vetoes Gay Marriage Ban

(Window Rock, Arizona) A ban on same-sex marriage approved by the Navajo Tribal Council last month banning same-sex marriage has been vetoed by Navajo President Joe Shirley Jr..

The national reservation extends into three states: New Mexico, Arizona and Utah.

The Tribal Council voted unanimously April 23 in favor of restricting a recognized union to that between a man and a woman, and prohibit plural marriages as well as marriages between close relatives.

Critics have said the measure was attempting to rewrite cultural history to parallel the clash across the United States between conservative Christians and gay rights activists.

"Same-sex marriage is a non-issue on Navajo land," Shirley said as he vetoed the legislation. "So why waste time and resources on it? We have more important issues to address."

Shirley suggested, however, he would support the Council if it wanted to put the issue before voters in the form of a referendum.

He said, in a prepared statement, that he strongly supports and encourages family stability but criticized the Council for not doing enough about domestic violence, sexual assault and gangs on the reserve.

Shirley went on to note that the marriage ban contradicts Navajo teachings of nondiscrimination.

Even Indian tribes are falling prey to the same old crap: religion being used as an excuse to avoid the real problems.

Melon

 

[joyfulgirl]

Instead of getting apalled (sp), getting angry or crawling into the victim-role : be living proof that you're as "worthy" as the straight folk by being a positive role-model.

Gays and lesbians have been positive role models for a long time now. That doesn't mean they can't fight for their rights, too, and if they do fight for their rights that doesn't mean they're "crawling into a victim rolel." Quite the contrary.

 

[melon]

Let's put it this way:

1) White people in the media are portrayed as either wealthy or upper middle class.

2) Black people in the media are portrayed as poor most of the time.

3) Hispanics are mostly portrayed as "servants" for wealthy people, although there are a handful of notable exceptions out there. There is some nuance.

4) Gays are portrayed as depressed and sex-obsessed, not to mention immature and irresponsible.

What I hate, most of all, is how media stereotypes determine how people are portrayed. I shouldn't have to prove that I'm "as worthy" as straight folk, because "straight folk" don't have to prove anything to anyone. Heterosexuals can be as righteous or hedonistic as they want, and no one will label all heterosexuals based on their behavior. But homosexuals? Oh no...we're supposed to somehow act 10x better than straight society, and maybe then, straight society might throw us a legislative bone. Well, I've got two words for straight society...

Melon

 

[joyfulgirl]

Well put.

 

[Irvine511]

4) Gays are portrayed as depressed and sex-obsessed, not to mention immature and irresponsible.

i'd say that we're now replacing the slightly overweight, bitter, cynical female protaganist's best friend as the new, primary dispenser of relationship advice in 21st century romantic comedies. we're kind, dress well, real skinny, and have no love life at all, so it's interesting that a gorgeous, succesful-in-life-unlucky-in-love urban female would consult such a one-dimensional character for advice on that somewhat aloof yet seductively butch straight man who's afraid of commitment but just might be the answer to the successful-but-unlucky-in-love straight girl's prayers.

 

[melon]

i'd say that we're now replacing the slightly overweight, bitter, cynical female protaganist's best friend as the new, primary dispenser of relationship advice in 21st century romantic comedies. we're kind, dress well, real skinny, and have no love life at all, so it's interesting that a gorgeous, succesful-in-life-unlucky-in-love urban female would consult such a one-dimensional character for advice on that somewhat aloof yet seductively butch straight man who's afraid of commitment but just might be the answer to the successful-but-unlucky-in-love straight girl's prayers.

Don't forget: "No" means "playing hard to get" and the first date is always love at first sight. Not to mention that stalking laws and restraining orders don't exist.

Melon

 

[AcrobatMan]

"Let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel."

Melon

I prefer national geographic

I will have a chance then...

 

[joyfulgirl]

When gays and lesbians are already running hi-powered organizations and holding positions of authority and esteem from Washington to Hollywood, not to mention the fact that they're our trusted neighbors, teachers, doctors, lawyers, parents, and friends, it's quite insulting to keep asking them to prove themselves to white society.

It's a similar plight that women have faced. I actually remember telling a woman friend many years ago that she should stop whining about sexism in the workplace and just assume the position of equality, which is what I thought I'd been doing all those years. But here it is 12 years later and I work for an organization that is run by women. We have a male President and a staff of 12 women who basically the run the place and run it extremely well. Recently we received the Governor's Award for Excellence which sounds kind of cheesy but is actually something taken quite seriously locally. We're an organization that has a reputation for being very liberal and progressive. We take risks others don't take. But at the end of the day, I realize that the reason there are 12 women working for 1 man is because we're still good servants. It's not just a straight white world, it's a straight white male world and everyone else is still 'proving' themselves. How much is enough?

Sorry, I got all fired up about this in bed this morning, lol.

 

[melon]

Oh that reminds me:

5) Women are portrayed as "empowered" on the surface, but are still subject to crying fits, whereas they need a man to "give them strength."

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

Oh that reminds me:

5) Women are portrayed as "empowered" on the surface, but are still subject to crying fits, whereas they need a man to "give them strength."

Melon

or that women can be either successful in work, or in love, but not in both. that successful career-driven women are cold-hearted bitches who need their hearts warmed by loveable, offbeat characters who remind them how to live again.

 

[martha]

You all are really cheering me up today.

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

Doesn't that silly word "bigot" work both ways?

Aren't those who don't accept that some people have a problem with homosexuality bigots? It's just that I've seen that word thrown around so much that it's becoming worthless.

 

[melon]

Aren't those who don't accept that some people have a problem with homosexuality bigots?

With that logic, those who don't accept that the KKK hates black people and other minorities are bigots too. I guess that makes black people bigots then for speaking out against bigotry directed at them.

Of course, I won't think of anything that silly. But when I read such a nonsensical argument like that above, it makes me ask different questions.

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

^ ditto

 

[BVS]

^ Triple that.