Homosexuality in Public - Discussion

BuffyBot

No gay person can honestly find hetrosexuality repulsive and I do feel they should accept that hetrosexuality is the way nature intended it.

Actually, I find exessive displays of emotion (be it gay or straight) a bit much in public. Some people, no matter what their persuasion, just don't know where to draw the line. I've sat on buses where the entire bus has had to watch (straight btw) couples examine each others tonsils for long periods of time. Not pleasant to witness.

I find your analogy with blacks to be slightly flawed. I am not suggesting that gays should have a different legal status at all.

No, you aren't suggesting a change in legal status, but you are saying that it should be one rule for heterosexuals and another for homosexual couples.

However if young impressionable children a walking down a street they should have their innocence preserved and shoud not have homosexuality shoved in their face.

How exactly will they have their innocence corrupted exactly? Most young kids wouldn't bat an eyelid because they don't understand the concepts involved. It's just two people holding hands.

padser wrote:

things may change but i think that people like me will ensure that its a slow process.

Indeed.

someone needs to make a stand and say enough is enough. Legalising it was one thing but we shouldnt have to put up with it on an everyday basis.

Everyday basis. My good, you must go out of your way to encounter it on a daily basis.

Its simply not fair on us

Who is "us" exactly?

we deserve to be able to live our lives and go about our everyday lives without seeing things we simply dont want to see

And people deserve to live their lives without interference from people like you. You are entitled to your views, but you aren't entitled to impose them on others. If you don't want to see, don't look.

Stark

padser wrote:

As for people telling you that you are a danger to children I do see your point that its a bit unfair to tar all homosexuals with the same brush however you must concede that the majority of paedophile's are in fact gay.

Actually reports have shown 90% of paedophiles to be heterosexual.

moridin

Banterville wrote:

I didn't know that you had to have some 600 odd posts before you can have an opinion on this site,

but hey, there is a first time for everything as you must have found out in the past!!! :mad:

Well, originally I was somewhat less restrained in what I said, but didn't want to assume too much. Surely you can see how it could look just a *little* suspicious is a newly registered account makes that their first posting?

padser

Stark wrote:

Actually reports have shown 90% of paedophiles to be heterosexual.

even if this figure were true, and i dispute that it is , less then 10% of population is gay. Therefore if 10% of paedophiles are gay this would imply a connection between homosexuallity and paedophilia.

However I would not accept that in the slightest. At least 70 or 80% of cases you read about are men abusing boys, or girls and boys. There is no chance that 90% of paedophiles are straight.

newgrange

Oh your world is so black and white, it's marvellous.

Do you think people are 'either' gay or straight?

Do you think if a paedophile abuses a boy, he is gay? Paedophilia has nothing to do

with orientation, IT IS ABUSE.

If I hit you on the head with a hammer, am I a carpenter?

ixoy

padser wrote:

However I would not accept that in the slightest. At least 70 or 80% of cases you read about are men abusing boys, or girls and boys. There is no chance that 90% of paedophiles are straight.

Gah! Paedophiles are generally abusive power controllers, acting out either fantasies or abuses visited upon them when they were children. They shouldn't be seen in such simplistic terms as "gay" or "straight" either - they're in a different class.

And while we're here, we could probably get some statistics about how straight people are more likely to murder each other - better stop them holding hands in case kids grow up into little butchers!

Hmm_Messiah

even if this figure were true, and i dispute that it is , less then 10% of population is gay. Therefore if 10% of paedophiles are gay this would imply a connection between homosexuallity and paedophilia.

Does that make any sense!!!

And the majority of cases published are male. Just male abusers.

And the idea of harming children: seeing two me hold hands, if it had any affect, would encourage tolerance and an understanding of diversity, children not yet overwhelmed with cultural or societal bias.

What would harm children, would harm growing and impressionable minds, is contact with an adult who's mind is so closed.

padser

Hmmm Messighah: i dont see your problem with the logic behind the comment about the stats. But ill add in some more steps to clarify.
if 10% of Paedolphiles are gay, and less then 10% of the general population are gay then a higher proportion of paedophiles are gay then simply of the general population. This would seem to imply a link between homosexuality and paedophilia.

Newgrange: yes i do believe a paedophile who abuses a boy is gay and a girl is straight. The same as i would regard a cold blooded murderer as on some level unhuman but still ultimataly a man.

TerrorFirmer

And again could you address my point about how it used to socially unacceptable, and frowned upon, for black people to use services frequented by white people but now it's seen differently.

Homosexuality is different. I mean honestly. Black people are equal to white in everyway on a basic human level and we can accept that God made both races as equals, as does the church. However, Homosexuality is, as I said before, biologically wrong. The church does not condone it either, and I doubt they ever will.

Being Black is not biologically wrong. However, its quite obvious that being gay is undebateably wrong. Just examine the very essence of it. As I said

The very sexual act of homosexuality is totally wrong, although I see no reason why 2 gay men should not be happy together, I consider exactly the very nature of a gay relationship totally wrong. And so gay affection should not be shown in public.

It is not right to subject children, and indeed the largely general public to what displays something so unnatural.

If you're gay, fine. I respect thats how you are born and I wouldn't do anything to prevent happiness for any Gay couple.

But don't flaunt it. It's not right - argue it until the cows come home, but at a base level, its plain not right and should be kept in the private life to the fullest extent possible.

I'm not trying to flame gay people either. As said before regardless of my opinions I consider them equal and would treat them so.

Oh so showing signs of affection for someone you care about is perversion is it? // also it is common place in other cultures (eg saudi-arabia, for grown men, straight men, to walk down the street hand in hand)

Since thats culture, its not the same. If everyone knew they were Gay, I don't think they'd have the same Tolerance. You guys are raising some dumb points that aren't entirely valid, and you know it.

Inter-friend relationships with girls inevitable results in alot of hand holding and contact, so its not the same. I'd only have a problem with it if everyone knew they were gay, and so associated their hand holding with lesbianism.

Stark

Padser.

10% is the accepted figure for homosexuality in the population. This has been shown by the original Kinsley studies and by subsequent studies such as the USI survey.

Breaking down the statistics (in black and white terms)
90% of population straight, 90% of paedophiles straight
10% of population gay, 10% of paedophiles gay

This means that paedophilia and sexual orientation are not linked.

General observations tell us that paedophile+gay doesn't imply "likes boys" and paedophile+straight doesn't imply "likes girls". Children are pretty much androgynous anyway, so I don't see why sexual orientation should affect a paedophile's preference. Like an above poster said, it's purely about abuse, not about sexuality.

I don't see why we should put up with discussions on paedophilia in this forum, as if there was a connection. If anyone wants to continue this discussion, they should do so in a different forum. Meanwhile, I'd like this thread to get back on topic (great topic that it is). Anyone veering gets a week's ban.

TerrorFirmer

rightleftright wrote:

As long as they keep it indoors

Thats exactly my point.

Stark

MobileInfantry, let's keep disabled people inside while we're at it will we? After all, it's not biologically right.

You contradict yourself in your own post, you say you consider gay people "equals", but "not as equal as black people".

TerrorFirmer

Stark wrote:

MobileInfantry, let's keep disabled people inside while we're at it will we? After all, it's not biologically right.

You contradict yourself in your own post, you say you consider gay people "equals", but "not as equal as black people".

Never said that. Race is generic, I didn't limit it to a particular origin

I just said that I consider every human equal, but homosexuality is best kept to the private life to the fullest extent possible.

My opinions vary but I still consider every equal on the basic human level.

You obviously misinterpeted my post.

MobileInfantry, let's keep disabled people inside while we're at it will we? After all, it's not biologically right.

Thats debatable also. But not for this thread, and its not in the exact same context and you know it Stark.

Stark

Actually I don't know it? Explain it to me. What do you mean by "debatable?". I can split the thread if gets too much out of hand.

TerrorFirmer

I'm not even going to continue this on - this is a gay support thread for genuinely gay people, and I don't want to be filling it with anti-gay idealism nor do I want to have a gang of homosexual people thinking I'm on some sort of crusade against them...

At the end of the day, its debatable forever, the social implications, side arguments, comparisons, but at the end of the day, no ones going to really change their opinion or have a sudden change of heart.

Everyone is born the way they are, and everyone has a right to the opinion they believe in. I'm just going to leave it at that - and step down for now, in this thread anyway.

muckwarrior

The simple fact of the matter is that most normal* people find displays of homosexuality uncomfortable/disturbing/repulsive. Why should we be subjected to to this in puplic? Some asshole said "well if ya don't like it then don't look". What the fukk are we supposed to do, walk down the street with our eyes closed? Keep it behind closed doors. Simple as that!

*Yes I did say normal, and I stand by that!

Stark

Nice username mucksavage. Normal doesn't always mean better.

ixoy

muckwarrior wrote:

The simple fact of the matter is that most normal* people find displays of homosexuality uncomfortable/disturbing/repulsive.

You got anything to back up this claim?

Why should we be subjected to to this in puplic? Some asshole said "well if ya don't like it then don't look". What the fukk are we supposed to do, walk down the street with our eyes closed? Keep it behind closed doors. Simple as that!

First, don't start calling other posters names. It's the quickest way for you to vanish from the forum.

Secondly, I stand by my analogies from earlier on. Society is generally what's defining what's right/wrong - moral and ethical codes bred up by its citizens. Thus, at one point, an open display of affection between a white man and a black woman would be considered shocking/disgusting/repulsive. Nowadays we generally find people who'd object to this the repulsive ones and rightly so.

But what I want to really know is have you the arrogance to try and tell people how to behave when they're doing nothing to you other than fall in the range of your vision? What if I decide I don't like the D4 accent - should all D4 people not talk when I walk down the street? Hey fat people are an offense to me - they shouldn't be seen either. Trying to regulate what people do/are when they're breaking no laws, is a dark road to go down and I hope most of us can see that.

TerrorFirmer

The basic fact remains constant - An interrecial couple may have been socially wrong at one stage, but were never naturally incompatable on the biology side of things.

Same with D4 accents. Hardly biologically wrong.

Sorry - I just couldn't let this go. And no-one is putting up a civilised and structured response to the gay side of things in recent posts.

Stark

Why should anyone care if something is "biologically wrong"? We were discussing the social implications. Lots of things are "biologically wrong", that doesn't make them wrong in any other sense though. Let's completely do away with modern medicine and instead go down to the eugenics level if we're that worried about things that are "biologically wrong".

As for not letting things go, you never explained what you mean about the proposition that "disabled people being kept indoors" is "debatable".

Boston

muckwarrior wrote:

The simple fact of the matter is that most normal* people find displays of homosexuality uncomfortable/disturbing/repulsive. Why should we be subjected to to this in puplic? Some asshole said "well if ya don't like it then don't look". What the fukk are we supposed to do, walk down the street with our eyes closed? Keep it behind closed doors.

We live in a democracy, thats why. You don't get to decide what people can and can't do. If you don't like it, stay in doors yourself and pretend the world is how it was in your grand fathers time.

Also can the moderators delete/ ban some of these trolls.

TerrorFirmer

Well they tie in so far as, if its biologically wrong, then people are not going to accept it anytime soon as a majority.

Hard facts. lol.

Socially, its arguable forever. But I dont think that children, or the general public which are straight by a landslide, should be subjected to public affection between gays/lesbians, especially just because of that entire "its not natural" argument.

What they do with themselves, is entirely at their own discretion, and no one can persecute them or make them feel alienated for it, but as long as its in their private life.

Of course, thats my opinion, one of many, thats not going to change the way gay people are percepted universally

As for not letting things go, you never explained what you mean about the proposition that "disabled people being kept indoors" is "debatable".

I wish not to discuss that issue right now, its not necessary and will only result in flaming and poor relations. To be honest. Lets not go there.

TerrorFirmer

Also can the moderators delete/ ban some of these trolls.

Also, I hope you are not referring to me as a troll. I am not harassing anyone, nor flaming anyone for the hell of it.

I am genuinely interested.

Stark

Well they tie in so far as, if its biologically wrong, then people are not going to accept it anytime soon as a majority.

http://www.specialolympics.org/ begs to differ.

Boston

Despite what you say, most people don't care about two guys holding hands or kissing in front of them. They have real problems and real things to worry about. When I talked about the truth earlier, it went right over your head. If someone actually sat down with you and had a conversation with you about the reality of being gay, I honestly think your few point would change. If you actually saw me around my nephew and niece, I think your attitude towards gay people and children would change also.

I'm not one of those people that defends homosexuality at all costs. There are many aspects of it I don't like, it just the aspects you picked are not them. They are harmless.

Ps I don't think your a troll, the trolls are obvious.

Stark

I should remind MobileInfantry of the following post from the start of the thread:

damien.m wrote:

Word of Warning: Please remember the original premise of this thread which was for people to ask various questions and get answers etc. I would not like to see a thread I started way back when, turn into another futile debate on whether homosexuality is natural/legit/genetic etc. Some people are ok with homosexuality and some are not.

ApeXaviour

muckwarrior wrote:

The simple fact of the matter is that most normal* people find displays of homosexuality uncomfortable/disturbing/repulsive.

Ixoy gave an excellent rebuttle to this. I'd like to reiterate that view. The only reason you feel this way is because you have not been subjected to it much and you force this opinion on yourself. It is not something inherantly disgusting like the smell of pooh. I do not find homosexual public displays of affection (that are acceptable for straight people) in any way disgusting.

MobileInfantry wrote:

Same with D4 accents. Hardly biologically wrong.

This is a flawed argument. It is biologically wrong with respect to being a means of procreation. So are condoms, the pill, masturbation, oral sex etc. In as far as homosexual public displays of affection there is nothing biologically wrong. There is nothing sinister here.

MobileInfantry wrote:

Socially, its arguable forever. But I dont think that children, or the general public which are straight by a landslide, should be subjected to public affection between gays/lesbians, especially just because of that entire "its not natural" argument.

"Subjected"! Why not?
The "its not natural" argument is also utterly flawed. Reasoning: first I think we can agree that being gay is not a choice one makes, you either are or you aren't. Homosexuality has been observed in animals so it is not solely a human trait. Therefore it is natural in all senses of the word. Same as being ginger, tall, clever, big-nosed, hairy, musically talented etc.

EDIT:

Stark wrote:

I should remind MobileInfantry of the following post from the start of the thread:

My apologies Stark for propagating this argument.

BuffyBot

The simple fact of the matter is that most normal* people find displays of homosexuality uncomfortable/disturbing/repulsive.

Do feel free to clarify the term "most people" in this context - preferably with some recent statistics which might go some way towards backing your point of view up.

As for the term "normal" - that's a whole other debate...

padser

Just one point....im after 2bottles of wine so i apologise if im a little incoherent...or cant spell. I cant spell anyway.

10% of people are not homosexual. Thats a myth propagated by the gay communiry. Its a gross overstatement. Also far more paedophiles are gay then are straight. Thats prettty undisputable i feel. Its pretty evident from current affairs sections in the news.

padser

BuffyBot wrote:

As for the term "normal" - that's a whole other debate...

and no billy bot...normal is not a whole other debate....normal is very easy to define. Its what the majority believe or are.