US set to abstain from UN vote

Here I was innocently reading this article at work, when a naked gay cowboy popped up on my screen.

Me + naked gay cowboy = not interested.
Me + naked gay cowboy + work = not happy.

About the article: meh. Don't really care either way. Some folks support explicit protection of "minorities", others feel the laws we have now are fine. It takes all types.

I do think its silly that gays are included in the Minnesota definition of holocaust survivors.
 
Uhm, considering the Nazis were indeed explicitly exterminating Jews, Gypsies, Gays, among other groups, I'd consider gays holocaust survivors. The Nazis were targetting gays along with jews and other groups, so why not include them?

The Nazis explicitly targetted and exterminated 12 Million people, 6 Million of which were Jews, not to mention the millions they killed during the fighting itself. The 6 million other people that died were most certainly holocaust victims.

But this is getting away from the topic of the article. Some people here have argued that "Marriage" is not a right to be had. But I would hope that at the very least those same people would say that getting and keeping a job, or living quarters, and not having to worry about being kicked out because of one's sexual orientation, is most certainly a right that should be enjoyed by all.
 
This is an article that touches on the subject that Stvn and CosmoKramer were discussing earlier, regarding one of the reasons heterosexual men don't like gay men is that there's a feeling that straight men don't want to be "objectified" like they objectify women, or something to that effect.

The following article is regarding Colorado Rockies reliever Todd Jones stating that he does not believe gays should be allowed to play major league baseball. Thankfully, the Rockies management and his teammates condemned his remarks.

http://uk.gay.com/headlines/4268

Some pertinent quotes from the article:

The one thing many people don't understand is just how delicate the clubhouse atmosphere is. If there were a gay guy on the team, you can't tell me that it wouldn't be a huge distraction from what the team was trying to accomplish. It would be harder if he were open and out about his lifestyle. Some guys would have no problem with him, other guys would be willing to overlook it as long as they didn't feel threatened. Some guys would hate it. It would be very uncomfortable.

But, when it comes down to the bottom line, Jones reveals his real fear is being seen naked by a gay man.

1) Why would it be a huge distraction to the team if the gay man/men was/were just as dedicated to winning as everyone else? Just because you're gay doesn't mean that you find every single man irresistable. I know that men in general have huge egos about who finds them attractive and what not, but damn. Get over yourself.

2) Why would anyone have a reason to feel threatened? Again this goes back to the typical male response (straight and gay) that *everything* that walks must be attracted to that person, and that they must want them so badly that they're getting off just thinking about that person.

And I think that's the underlying problem behind a lot of homophobia. Fear of being sexually objectified by another male as straight males do to females. I think it's shown by his revelation that he fears being seen by a gay man while naked.

First, I'd fear for the gay man more than him. Second, being seen by a gay man most certainly wouldn't make him gay. Third, even if a guy found him attractive, I don't see why it would be an issue to have someone tell him "Hey I think you're attractive."

I mean gosh, when I'm told by women that I'm really attractive, I don't take it badly at all because frankly I'm happy that there are people that find me attractive in general. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder imo, and to know that you are attractive to people of both sexes is a wonderful feeling. But that doesn't mean that just because someone finds you attractive you've got to jump in the sack with them.

Unfortunately too many close minded fools don't share that opinion.

Guys go in, do their thing, get clean and get out. They don't want to think about another guy

So if all you gotta do is go in, do your thing, get clean, and get out, wtf are you thinking about another guy? Why get worried about another guy? I mean sheesh! Gay men don't spend their time obsessing over every straight man that pass their way. Again, typical male ego, which causes lots of homophobia in the world unfortunately.

I think that's why you don't see as much resistance to lesbians in mainstream culture. It's because males just see it as an opportunity to get it on with two girls.

"Oh wow! Two girls going at it! Well I'm ALL man, so they'll definitely want me too!" even if the lesbians are really thinking "Uggh, get the hell away from us."

It's the definitive fantasy of practically every porno ever made. Two girls and one guy. And it's funny because the proliferation of pornography tends to be a wonderful study on the psychological sexual wants of the general public.
 
First of all, I personally wouldn't care about "gay men in my locker room."

However, you are dismissing that line of thought (causes disruptions, etc.) too readily, and being way too harsh on those who have that point of view.

To put it simply:

Why are there separate men's and women's bathrooms? Men's and women's locker rooms?

Should female cheerleaders shower with male athletes on the same team? Certainly, some women or men wouldn't care, but some would. For any woman who objects to such a thing, would you tell them to just "get over it?"

And I think that's the underlying problem behind a lot of homophobia. Fear of being sexually objectified by another male as straight males do to females.

And I personally think that's mostly a load of crap, though it might apply to a few select cases.

I think it's much more simpler reason behind "homophobia:" some people are just genuinely disgusted by homosexuality, and rather than just be honest and offer that up as an excuse (because of the P.C. times we live in), they try and find another way to explain why "they don't want gays."

This is what I suspect is happening in this case.

I also thing the term homophobia is way over-used and mis-used. Not LIKING homosexuality is not the same as FEARING it. All too often, homosexauls, like to protray their lifestyle as that of being "feared", rather than simply not being liked. I guess the "male ego" just doesn't apply to us heteros, eh, Natoma?
 
Joe DeFuria said:
First of all, I personally wouldn't care about "gay men in my locker room."

I'm glad you're secure in your sexuality Joe. That is a trait that a lot of straight men do not share.

Joe DeFuria said:
However, you are dismissing that line of thought (causes disruptions, etc.) too readily, and being way too harsh on those who have that point of view.

To put it simply:

Why are there separate men's and women's bathrooms? Men's and women's locker rooms?

Should female cheerleaders shower with male athletes on the same team? Certainly, some women or men wouldn't care, but some would. For any woman who objects to such a thing, would you tell them to just "get over it?"

Well there are key differences here.

Men and women in our society have never showered together in any circumstance, in the manner in which you espouse. Why? Because there was the strong fear that given that nakedness, the showers would turn into massive orgies, and that the men and women would not be able to control themselves.

This was also one of the beliefs behind restricting women from serving in the armed forces. If women were to be with men on the battlefield and in the barracks, there would be a breakdown of moral. Men would lose their fighting edge as they gave in to the wiley sexual ways of the women they shared their living quarters with.

But that wasn't the case.

Now looking at gay men (because I know you're wondering what any of that has to do with the gay male situation), we've been in the showers with straight men since there have been showers. In high school and college I always undressed in front of straight men, and they undressed in front of me. Hell, when I go to the gym there are guys undressing everywhere and showering together.

Do I see guys checking one another out? Yes. Does it seem to bother anyone? Not particularly. Generally I don't think it's a good idea to stare at *anyone* for too long, because it's the staring that gets uncomfortable, irrespective of the situation. But that's just me.

As I said before, I honestly think it comes down to straight men being scared of gay sexuality, or maybe sexuality in general. I mean, straight men are generally denigrated if they don't talk about how many women they screw, how much pussy they got, how long their dick is, etc etc etc. Like it's some notch on a bed post or something. There's a societal stigma against male sexual exploration, but females in our society are allowed that sexual exploration. Women are allowed to walk down the street holding hands. They're allowed to kiss in public.

I think it relates back to the idea that men are not threatened by women doing those types of things, and in fact encourage it, because it plays into the whole "role" situation of one man, many women, that biologically drives humanity as a whole.

But again this is getting into psychology and philosophy, which is a difficult topic to have any debate on that will result in a resolution.


Joe DeFuria said:
And I think that's the underlying problem behind a lot of homophobia. Fear of being sexually objectified by another male as straight males do to females.

And I personally think that's mostly a load of crap, though it might apply to a few select cases.

I think it's much more simpler reason behind "homophobia:" some people are just genuinely disgusted by homosexuality, and rather than just be honest and offer that up as an excuse (because of the P.C. times we live in), they try and find another way to explain why "they don't want gays."

This is what I suspect is happening in this case.

Actually the guy explicitly stated that he didn't want guys looking at him, and he didn't think that guys should feel threatened by having a gay guy in the locker room with them. I mean, where exactly are these feelings of "Don't look at me" and feeling threatened coming from? I mean, from my understanding, feeling threatened means that there's a certain modicum of fear involved.

Fear of homosexuality, of how it's perceived in society? Maybe. "Oh that guy is looking at me and says he's attracted to me. Wtf, do I give off a gay vibe? Do people think I'm gay now? Shit I better beat the shit out of him before anyone else gets any ideas. I need to prove my manhood."

Or some crap like that. I've heard it tons of times. You must have too.

Joe DeFuria said:
I also thing the term homophobia is way over-used and mis-used. Not LIKING homosexuality is not the same as FEARING it. All too often, homosexauls, like to protray their lifestyle as that of being "feared", rather than simply not being liked. I guess the "male ego" just doesn't apply to us heteros, eh, Natoma?

Again, where is the dislike coming from? Where is the gut reaction against gays coming from, that results in homophobic comments such as these? I mean, it doesn't exactly set my heart a flutter to see a guy and a girl kissing and making out and sexing and whatnot. But I don't get feelings of hatred and revulsion and disgust and "I don't want that around me."

I have nothing against heterosexuality. People that say that they have nothing against homosexuality, but "don't want that" around them obviously have something against homosexuality. I've gone into the reasons above.

Oh, and I said that the male ego does indeed apply to all males, straight and gay. Please, I've seen a few gay men say that they can "change" a straight man. I tell them the same thing. Get over yourself.

The male ego is definitely something that homos and heteros share alike.
 
Natoma said:
[Being secure with your sexuality] is a trait that a lot of straight men do not share.

I don't necessarily agree with that, nor do I know where you get that idea from. Sounds like what a lot of homosexuals SAY a "lot of striaght men do not have," just because a lot of stright men disagree with homosexuality.

I presume you are secure iwth your own sexuality, at least at this point in your life, and I would argue that a lot higher proportion of homo/bi/trans sexuals have issues with being secure in their sexuality than heteros.

Men and women in our society have never showered together in any circumstance, in the manner in which you espouse. Why? Because there was the strong fear that given that nakedness, the showers would turn into massive orgies, and that the men and women would not be able to control themselves.

Where did this factoid come from? I don't presume to know the "origins of sexual separation", but if I had to guess, it's less about fear of massive origies breaking out, and more about personal sexuality generally being (historically) viewed as "sacred."

Now looking at gay men (because I know you're wondering what any of that has to do with the gay male situation), we've been in the showers with straight men since there have been showers. In high school and college I always undressed in front of straight men, and they undressed in front of me. Hell, when I go to the gym there are guys undressing everywhere and showering together.

Right, and there would be no problem with men and women showering together, if the men didn't know the women were actually women and vice versa. ;)

As I said before, I honestly think it comes down to straight men being scared of gay sexuality, or maybe sexuality in general. I mean, straight men are generally denigrated if they don't talk about how many women they screw, how much pussy they got, how long their dick is, etc etc etc.

Are there any other stereotypes you can throw out there about us "striaght men?" For somone who often claims how many (most?) heteros don't understand homos and just repeat the same old cliche's and stereotypes about them, you seem to do a good job of doing that yourself to the heteros.

I think it relates back to the idea that men are not threatened by women doing those types of things, and in fact encourage it, because it plays into the whole "role" situation of one man, many women, that biologically drives humanity as a whole.

Possibly, though I think that both men and women can actually appreciate the beauty that is the form of a feminine woman's body. In other words, ask a man (or woman) if he/she minds seeing two "butch" women together. I find that about as repulsive as seing two men together. Two supermodels? (Whether or not they are actually gay or striagt). Woohoo!

But again this is getting into psychology and philosophy, which is a difficult topic to have any debate on that will result in a resolution.

Agreed.


Actually the guy explicitly stated that he didn't want guys looking at him, and he didn't think that guys should feel threatened by having a gay guy in the locker room with them. I mean, where exactly are these feelings of "Don't look at me" and feeling threatened coming from? I mean, from my understanding, feeling threatened means that there's a certain modicum of fear involved.

As I said, it's possible that what he said is his actual reason, but I would be inclined to think his statement is his politically correct way of saying "homos repulse me. I just don't want them around."

He may not even know why he's repulsed by it...anymore than you know why you are attracted to men. But if just comes out and says that publically, he'd really get blasted.

Fear of homosexuality, of how it's perceived in society? Maybe. "Oh that guy is looking at me and says he's attracted to me. Wtf, do I give off a gay vibe? Do people think I'm gay now? Shit I better beat the shit out of him before anyone else gets any ideas. I need to prove my manhood."

Or some crap like that. I've heard it tons of times. You must have too.

I've heard that from homosexuals a lot, just like I'm hearing it from you now. I can't ever recall hearing that from a straight man. Ever. I hear homosexuals "explain" the actions of those piece-of-shit heteros that you describe.

Again, where is the dislike coming from? Where is the gut reaction against gays coming from, that results in homophobic comments such as these?

Like most bias (be it ethnic, religious, etc.), a lot of dislike probably comes from a lack of understanding and education. And to be clear, I don't hear such homophobic comments such as those much at all. That's how I hear homosexuals explain hedeous acts against them. I don't equate "dislike" comments or even "hateful" comments with "fearful" comments.

However, I think because many homos just don't want to admit that some people just genuinely replused by their lifestyle. And again, you can't really expect an answer to why any more than you can explain why I like women, or you like men.

"We just do."

(And just to be clear, I'm not saying that any amount of dislike is justification for any type of violent action.)

I mean, it doesn't exactly set my heart a flutter to see a guy and a girl kissing and making out and sexing and whatnot. But I don't get feelings of hatred and revulsion and disgust and "I don't want that around me."

But you have to understand that a "guy and a girl" doing those things is the natural order. Even though that's not your order, you innately know that it's natural. I'm not sure how you could have feelings of "hatred" for something that was responsible for producing you, for example.

Many heteros just don't see homosexuality as natural. It is in and of itself repulsive. I can't really blame them for that thought.

Would you be repulsed and disgusted by beastiality? (I'm assuming so.) Can you explain why? Whatever reason you come up with, it's basically the same reason why some heteros are repulsed by homosexuality, even if you don't agree with it. (No, I'm not equating the two.)

I have nothing against heterosexuality. People that say that they have nothing against homosexuality, but "don't want that" around them obviously have something against homosexuality.

That is true, but not really contradictory. Again, think about beastiality...I personally don't care if John Smith goes home every night and fucks a sheep. Doesn't bother me in the least. (Let's not get side tracked about whether it can be determined if the sheep is a "willing participant" or not. ;) ) I prefer not to be exposed to it though, because seeing it repulses me.

Again, I'm not "equating" homosexuality with beastiality. But the point is, they can be related on some level: it not being the "natural order".
And many people, while they don't care what "unnatural" thing you do in the privacy of your own home, do care about being exposed to it.

The male ego is definitely something that homos and heteros share alike.

OK, we agree on that! ;)
 
Joe DeFuria said:
Natoma said:
[Being secure with your sexuality] is a trait that a lot of straight men do not share.

I don't necessarily agree with that, nor do I know where you get that idea from. Sounds like what a lot of homosexuals SAY a "lot of striaght men do not have," just because a lot of stright men disagree with homosexuality.

I presume you are secure iwth your own sexuality, at least at this point in your life, and I would argue that a lot higher proportion of homo/bi/trans sexuals have issues with being secure in their sexuality than heteros.

You misunderstand where I'm coming from. I know many straight men who are not in any way shape or form attracted to other guys. In fact they tell me that thinking about having sex with other guys is not something they consider sexy, and in many cases it actually turns their stomach.

However, they do not go out of their way to through that in my face, and in fact are quite respectful when I'm around with my partner. It's the ones who are some vehemently against homosexuality that they feel the need to go out of their way to voice their "icky" "ewwwwww" "nasty" attitudes whenever they see a gay person walking down the street, generally being unnecessarily disrespectful, that I have issues with. It's those people that I believe are not secure with their sexuality.

In almost every case, I've found that many of those people are indeed fighting their own sexuality and desires. Every case of the people I've known personally that is, and seeing profiled stories on television, and reading about them on the internet.

You're right, I am secure in my sexuality. However, that took years and years and years. It wasn't because of my own inhibitions. Quite the contrary, it was because I was afraid of what my family and friends would do to me. I was, at 12, 13, 14, etc, afraid that I'd get kicked out of my parent's home. That I'd lose my friends, or get harassed. I also had years of religious upbringing to fight my way through. I grew up in church from 2yrs old until I was 19.

That is what causes many gay men and women to hide their sexuality.

Joe DeFuria said:
Men and women in our society have never showered together in any circumstance, in the manner in which you espouse. Why? Because there was the strong fear that given that nakedness, the showers would turn into massive orgies, and that the men and women would not be able to control themselves.

Where did this factoid come from? I don't presume to know the "origins of sexual separation", but if I had to guess, it's less about fear of massive origies breaking out, and more about personal sexuality generally being (historically) viewed as "sacred."

You'd be surprised, but it's a fairly recent occurrence. Today's puritanical views toward sex that is. Most of the societal ideas toward sex were formed during the Renaissance, nurtured during the Elizabethan age, and truly permeated all facets of society during the Victorian age. Google "victorian age separation sexes" and "elizabethan age separation sexes" for some quality articles.

Most of the ideas toward sex were not personal, but religious. Sex, gender, and sexuality were viewed as constructs of marriage only. At least, the good kind was. You know, the whole madonna/whore complex.

You may not know this, but the puritans for example, only engaged in sexual intercourse, even while married :oops:, only if there was a sheet between them, with a little hole for the actual physical intercourse to take place.

Chastity belts, showing no skin, sheet sex, madonna/whore complex, etc. They were all a result of the overly religious context with which sex was placed. So it's no surprise that women and men were never allowed to be in the showers with one another.

Fear that carnal thoughts would take over and raunch and debauchery would rule the day, because we're all evil flesh in the eyes of god, or some other religious doggerel.

Joe DeFuria said:
As I said before, I honestly think it comes down to straight men being scared of gay sexuality, or maybe sexuality in general. I mean, straight men are generally denigrated if they don't talk about how many women they screw, how much pussy they got, how long their dick is, etc etc etc.

Are there any other stereotypes you can throw out there about us "striaght men?" For somone who often claims how many (most?) heteros don't understand homos and just repeat the same old cliche's and stereotypes about them, you seem to do a good job of doing that yourself to the heteros.

After I wrote that and was on the way home, I realized that I should have clarified my statement. Many *immature* heterosexual men, and you find a lot of them in sports locker rooms, high schools, and other "I'm All Man" venues, engage in such puerile behavior.

How many girls did you screw? How long is your dick? C'mon, call that girl out on the street and hoot at her. Walking with quite a few of my girlfriends, and hanging out with quite a few of my heterosexual male friends, I've seen both sides of the coin.

Joe DeFuria said:
I think it relates back to the idea that men are not threatened by women doing those types of things, and in fact encourage it, because it plays into the whole "role" situation of one man, many women, that biologically drives humanity as a whole.

Possibly, though I think that both men and women can actually appreciate the beauty that is the form of a feminine woman's body. In other words, ask a man (or woman) if he/she minds seeing two "butch" women together. I find that about as repulsive as seing two men together. Two supermodels? (Whether or not they are actually gay or striagt). Woohoo!

I think straight men are easily capable of appreciating the attractiveness of other men, just as gay men are easily capable of appreciating the attractiveness of women. It doesn't mean that they want to bag that person though. hehe. But it is not something that is generally smiled upon by our society unfortunately.

You can hear a woman say "Oh wow she is so beautiful!" and mean it as nothing more than an innocuous compliment. But if you hear a man say "Oh wow he is so gorgeous" people automatically turn their head and sneer, even if it was an innocent appreciation of physical beauty. There is certainly a double standard there in terms of what men are allowed to express while maintaining their heterosexual masculinity, if there is such a thing.

Fyi people always tell me I'm the straightest male they know. My cousin and my brother, who I'm both close to, simply would not believe me when I told them I was gay, because of the stereotype they had in their head about what a gay man is supposed to act and look like. To many people, because of how I'm built, how I carry myself, etc, I come across as a stereotypical heterosexual male, whatever that's worth. hehe.

See what I'm getting at? Again, this goes back to how comfortable I am with my sexuality these days.

Joe DeFuria said:
But again this is getting into psychology and philosophy, which is a difficult topic to have any debate on that will result in a resolution.

Agreed.

Holy shit milk just shot out my nose all over the monitor! Joe agrees with me? :oops:

;)


Joe DeFuria said:
Actually the guy explicitly stated that he didn't want guys looking at him, and he didn't think that guys should feel threatened by having a gay guy in the locker room with them. I mean, where exactly are these feelings of "Don't look at me" and feeling threatened coming from? I mean, from my understanding, feeling threatened means that there's a certain modicum of fear involved.

As I said, it's possible that what he said is his actual reason, but I would be inclined to think his statement is his politically correct way of saying "homos repulse me. I just don't want them around."

He may not even know why he's repulsed by it...anymore than you know why you are attracted to men. But if just comes out and says that publically, he'd really get blasted.

I dunno. Saying that he feels threatened by gay men, and saying "Don't come around me" is a pretty strong statement of his dislike for gays. It sounds about even with "homos repulse me. I just don't want them around."

But he did say why he didn't want gays in the majors. He said that he didn't want to feel threatened, and that he didn't want to have to think about some guy looking at him. I mean, those are pretty blatant statements from him. That's why I spent the earlier part of my prior post discussing the possible motivations behind the feeling of being under threat, for example.

Joe DeFuria said:
Fear of homosexuality, of how it's perceived in society? Maybe. "Oh that guy is looking at me and says he's attracted to me. Wtf, do I give off a gay vibe? Do people think I'm gay now? Shit I better beat the shit out of him before anyone else gets any ideas. I need to prove my manhood."

Or some crap like that. I've heard it tons of times. You must have too.

I've heard that from homosexuals a lot, just like I'm hearing it from you now. I can't ever recall hearing that from a straight man. Ever. I hear homosexuals "explain" the actions of those piece-of-shit heteros that you describe.

Maybe you should talk to some people you are close to, if you know they're homophobic or whatever, and have a serious heart to heart. I've had them a lot, even before I came out, and generally that was the response I got. "I don't want people thinking I'm gay. I need to assert my manhood."

Joe DeFuria said:
Again, where is the dislike coming from? Where is the gut reaction against gays coming from, that results in homophobic comments such as these?

Like most bias (be it ethnic, religious, etc.), a lot of dislike probably comes from a lack of understanding and education. And to be clear, I don't hear such homophobic comments such as those much at all. That's how I hear homosexuals explain hedeous acts against them. I don't equate "dislike" comments or even "hateful" comments with "fearful" comments.

However, I think because many homos just don't want to admit that some people just genuinely replused by their lifestyle. And again, you can't really expect an answer to why any more than you can explain why I like women, or you like men.

"We just do."

(And just to be clear, I'm not saying that any amount of dislike is justification for any type of violent action.)

Joe, like religious and racial bias/hatred, a lot of times people don't understand why they hate gays. They just do. I consider that to be an easy out, rather than actually examining the true reasons behind the dislike and/or the revulsion.

Every "dislike" or feeling of revulsion has a cause somewhere. I remember watching an episode of The Real World. One of the most homophobic cast members turned out to have been abused when he was a child, and he hadn't even thought about it. It was the Las Vegas Real World cast.

Joe DeFuria said:
I mean, it doesn't exactly set my heart a flutter to see a guy and a girl kissing and making out and sexing and whatnot. But I don't get feelings of hatred and revulsion and disgust and "I don't want that around me."

But you have to understand that a "guy and a girl" doing those things is the natural order. Even though that's not your order, you innately know that it's natural. I'm not sure how you could have feelings of "hatred" for something that was responsible for producing you, for example.

Many heteros just don't see homosexuality as natural. It is in and of itself repulsive. I can't really blame them for that thought

Would you be repulsed and disgusted by beastiality? (I'm assuming so.) Can you explain why? Whatever reason you come up with, it's basically the same reason why some heteros are repulsed by homosexuality, even if you don't agree with it. (No, I'm not equating the two.)

You misunderstand. I *am* repulsed when I see a hetero couple going at it. It's not something that turns me on in any way shape or form. However, that feeling does not translate to hatred, outward revulsion, and feelings of "I don't want to be around that!"

I think those feelings are immature.

As for beastiality, there is no place in nature that shows sex happening between completely different types of animals. I'm not quite brushed up on the animal kingdom classifications, so I'll use a layman's explanation.

You don't see a goat and a tiger. Or a crocodile and a bird. Or a whale and a shark. A cat and a rat?

However, you do see homosexuality in nature. That is why I believe beastiality is not natural, and homosexuality is.

Joe DeFuria said:
OK, we agree on that! ;)

Stop it! :oops:

I can't take the strain! :p
 
Natoma said:
As for beastiality, there is no place in nature that shows sex happening between completely different types of animals. I'm not quite brushed up on the animal kingdom classifications, so I'll use a layman's explanation.

You don't see a goat and a tiger. Or a crocodile and a bird. Or a whale and a shark. A cat and a rat?

However, you do see homosexuality in nature. That is why I believe beastiality is not natural, and homosexuality is.


Not that I really want to get into this (eg. again), but your assumtion on inter-species mating is fallicious as it does occur in other lifeforms that "lack" the conscious grasp of the situation as you hold. Obviously, as in homosexuality, it's done for reasons outside of procreation. End of this as this is true and I'm attempting to make no further conclusion; take it as you will.

Also, I wish I knew who did the study, but as an undergrad I once had a friend who utilized a study that showed homosexuality in lower (read: not developed, self-reflecting consciousnesses-they used mice) lifeforms was at a minimum to nonexistsnt untill they artificially changed the enivorment they inhabited by overpopulating them. He used the study to prove that homosexuality was inherient in animal instinct; needless to say he was severly routed and left the round-table discussion with his tale between his legs. But, alas, I don't have the time right now to prolong this....
 
Natoma said:
....However, they do not go out of their way to through that in my face, and in fact are quite respectful when I'm around with my partner. It's the ones who are some vehemently against homosexuality that they feel the need to go out of their way to voice their "icky" "ewwwwww" "nasty" attitudes whenever they see a gay person walking down the street, generally being unnecessarily disrespectful, that I have issues with. It's those people that I believe are not secure with their sexuality.

I still don't see how you can blanket those people that have overtly nasty attitudes toward homosexuals / homosexuality, as not being secure with their own sexuality.

Once can be disrespectful and rude, while still being secure with their own sexuality. You don't have to be insecure to be an asshole.

In almost every case, I've found that many of those people are indeed fighting their own sexuality and desires. Every case of the people I've known personally that is, and seeing profiled stories on television, and reading about them on the internet.

I think you are looking at it the wrong way.

In other words, I highly doubt that most people who are overtly rude are insecure. What I do believe, is that a good deal individuals who are insecure about their sexuality, have such overt / hostile peronalities.

In short:
Take a person who is insecure about their sexuality...they have a good chance at some time in their life of being overtly hostile to one side or the other. (Toward gays or strights).

Take a person who is overtly hostile to gays or striaghts, and you don't really know if they are insecure or not. They may have any number of reasons for being hostile.

After I wrote that and was on the way home, I realized that I should have clarified my statement. Many *immature* heterosexual men, and you find a lot of them in sports locker rooms, high schools, and other "I'm All Man" venues, engage in such puerile behavior.

OK, well many "immature" men, be they homosexual or heterosexual, just do stupid and aggressive things in general. Has nothing to do with how comfortable they are with the sexuality. If an "immature white man" makes racial comments toward a black man, does that mean the white man is not comfortable with his race?

I think straight men are easily capable of appreciating the attractiveness of other men, just as gay men are easily capable of appreciating the attractiveness of women.

Being a straight man, I'll just disagree there. We are going to split hairs here though: I can probably "identify" a generally attractive man vs. a ugly man (based on physical characteristics.). But I honestly don't "appreciate" a man's body for it's "beauty". I could not look at a man's body as a "work of art" for example. I am not a woman, so I of course cannot speak for how they "appreciate" a woman's body, but in the conversations that I've had on this subject with them, they can "appreciate" a woman's body in that way. Again, that doesn't mean they want to bag them either ;).

You can hear a woman say "Oh wow she is so beautiful!" and mean it as nothing more than an innocuous compliment. But if you hear a man say "Oh wow he is so gorgeous" people automatically turn their head and sneer, even if it was an innocent appreciation of physical beauty.

Agree and disagree. It's all in the language.

A man CAN talk about other men's physical make-up: "Man...he's RIPPED!" and it's again one of those innocuous compliments. But as my theory goes, straight men just don't "appreciate" the "physical beauty" of a man's body. So yes, describing a man's body as "gorgeous" or "beautiful" will get people to turn their heads.

There is certainly a double standard there in terms of what men are allowed to express while maintaining their heterosexual masculinity, if there is such a thing.

I agree with that, but that's because I believe it is a true double standard. Men and women are different, and homosexual men are different than heterosexual men. And with respect to appeciating a man's "physical beauty," homosexual men and heterosexual men are different.


Joe, like religious and racial bias/hatred, a lot of times people don't understand why they hate gays. They just do.

I know. That's what I said. And what I'm also trying to say, is that you shouldn't be surprised at this, any more than you should be surprised to not know "why" you are sexually attracted to males. You just are.

I consider that to be an easy out, rather than actually examining the true reasons behind the dislike and/or the revulsion.

It's certainly a valid question to ask "why" and to try and get at the reason, but don't expect everyone to be able to articulate it rationally.

Every "dislike" or feeling of revulsion has a cause somewhere.

Possibly, which is why I offered up the beastiality example. (More in a moment...)

You misunderstand. I *am* repulsed when I see a hetero couple going at it. It's not something that turns me on in any way shape or form. However, that feeling does not translate to hatred, outward revulsion, and feelings of "I don't want to be around that!"

You definition of "revulsion" is not the same as mine. The very definition of being genuinely repulsed, to me, is not wanting to be around it. Otherwise, you are not actually repulsed by it. Turned off? Maybe. Not the same as repulsed.

I think those feelings [of hatred, not wanting to be around it, etc] are immature.

I would agree that in some cases, you are going to be right. There are cases where folks act / feel that way out of their ignorance or immaturity. But I still don't see how yor why you can apply that blanket to everyone.

As for beastiality, there is no place in nature that shows sex happening between completely different types of animals. I'm not quite brushed up on the animal kingdom classifications, so I'll use a layman's explanation.

You don't see a goat and a tiger. Or a crocodile and a bird. Or a whale and a shark. A cat and a rat?

However, you do see homosexuality in nature. That is why I believe beastiality is not natural, and homosexuality is.

You didn't directly address my question.

My question as it relates to beastiality is this:

Why does beastiality genuinely repulse you? (And by genuinely repulse, I mean "outward revulsion" and "not wanting to be around it." (I am assuming that beastiality is repulsive to you.)

Even if you are not genuinely repulsed by beastiality, I think you can at least understand how some other people would be, right?

Now, you are saying the "issue" with beastiality is that it is not "natural", meaning that different species don't have sex in nature. (I disagree with that, and see Vince's post....but for the sake of argument, let's just say you are in fact correct.)

So, if we had to find a reason (which you say exists for such negative feelings) for revulsion toward beastiality, you would say because it's not natural. Right? (Or tell us otherwise the reason why beastiality repulses you.)

So, not being "natural" is a valid reason to be genuinely repulsed?
Why else should people be repulsed by sec between two different species? They are just two different creatures.

Homosexuality is "unnatural" to many people, (myself included) because biologically speaking, homosexual relationships cannot by definition result in "natural" offspring. Technically, that is, offspring that results in the combination of DNA from two partners through natural intercourse. (And no, arguments about "infertile" couples do not apply, because such restrictions do not apply to the "definition" of heterosexuals.)

If not being "natural" is a valid reason to be repulsed by beastiality, the same reason can be applied to homosexuality.

All I'm saying is this:
Yes, some people act in overtly repulsive and disrespectful ways out of ignorance and/or immaturity.

Others act in an overtly repulsive and disrespectful way, because they are in fact genuinely replused by homosexuality. Many have their own "reason" for it. And whether or not you agree with that reason, you have to accept some of them as valid. You should accept the fact that no amount of "education" or "laws" will, for example, make homosexualty more "natural" to many people, including myself.
 
Vince said:
Natoma said:
As for beastiality, there is no place in nature that shows sex happening between completely different types of animals. I'm not quite brushed up on the animal kingdom classifications, so I'll use a layman's explanation.

You don't see a goat and a tiger. Or a crocodile and a bird. Or a whale and a shark. A cat and a rat?

However, you do see homosexuality in nature. That is why I believe beastiality is not natural, and homosexuality is.


Not that I really want to get into this (eg. again), but your assumtion on inter-species mating is fallicious as it does occur in other lifeforms that "lack" the conscious grasp of the situation as you hold. Obviously, as in homosexuality, it's done for reasons outside of procreation. End of this as this is true and I'm attempting to make no further conclusion; take it as you will.

Where does this occur in nature? This would be news to me.

Vince said:
Also, I wish I knew who did the study, but as an undergrad I once had a friend who utilized a study that showed homosexuality in lower (read: not developed, self-reflecting consciousnesses-they used mice) lifeforms was at a minimum to nonexistsnt untill they artificially changed the enivorment they inhabited by overpopulating them. He used the study to prove that homosexuality was inherient in animal instinct; needless to say he was severly routed and left the round-table discussion with his tale between his legs. But, alas, I don't have the time right now to prolong this....

If you have any links to this study, I'd be interested, for obvious reasons, in reading it.
 
Natoma said:
Where does this occur in nature? This would be news to me.

My weiner dog (female) had a particular predeliction for one of my friends (male).

Very strange.

(Of course, dog leg 'humping' is attributed to dominance struggles and not sexual expression)
 
Joe,

We're never going to be able to come to a resolution with this debate because frankly you have a different definition of what "natural" is. I deem natural as what occurs in nature. I know what you're getting at when you state that inter-species sex does occur, but that is not necessarily the correct way of looking at this.

The reason I state that is because you do see different species who are genetically compatible, mating in the wild. Take for instance a Mule. Different species, i.e. a Horse and a Donkey, but they are in the same "family." I know that's not the correct terminology, but they are genetically compatible. Where there is genetic incompatibility, you do not see mating between two different types of animals. God I wish I could remember my AP Bio courses now, but I hope that you see what I'm getting at.

That's why I used those completely disparate types of animals to make my case earlier, because I know that there are instances where there is a genetic ability to create offspring when they are in the same "family."

Personally, I tend to not think about beastiality. It doesn't turn me on, and frankly it does sicken my stomach. But as I've said before, so does heterosexuality. But I'm not going to equate my feelings about beastiality to my feelings of heterosexuality because I don't consider the two comparable by any stretch of the imagination. Just as I don't consider homosexuality comparable to beastiality by any stretch of the imagination.

But again, now we're getting to a matter of opinion, and this is quite frankly something that will probably not get resolved because we can both come up with scientific "proof" to support our positions. So be it.

Now, as to the feeling of people being repulsed and whatnot by homosexuality. In 1991, a survey done by the National Opinion Research Center found that 66% of white Americans opposed a close relative marrying a black man.

I recall a judgement in the 1940's or 1950's, later overturned during the Supreme Court case Loving vs. Virginia in 1967, in which Mildred Jeter, a white woman, was arrested in Virginia for marrying Richard Loving, a black man. The judge's statements in that case?

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

<snip>

We must protect the natural order of things.

So my statement to you is this. People have long been "repulsed" by such innocuous happenings as interracial marriages. It has been deemed unnatural by many. They could no more say why they felt repulsed by interracial relationships anymore than you can say why you feel that homosexual relationships repulse you.

And they used the same excuses as well. It's not natural for the races to mix. So my question to you is, what is the difference? There are still people today who feel "repulsed" by interracial marriages. There are still people today who feel that the removal of the anti-miscegenation laws was wrong. As you correctly stated, there are still people today who the laws have had no effect on, and will feel the way they feel no matter what the government states.

But I stand by the fact that it was the right thing to do, and it most certainly has helped attitudes in this country for the government to legislate that it is indeed natural for interracial relationships/marriages to occur.

I just look at the current scenario with the opposition to homosexual relationships and see a disturbing parallel to the occurrences of discrimination in the past. However disturbing that parallel is though, I see hope in the fact that those past injustices were eventually destroyed, as the current injustices will.
 
Natoma,

We're never going to be able to come to a resolution with this debate because frankly you have a different definition of what "natural" is.

Agreed. The purpose of my post, is to tell you that we have different definitions, (and that likewise, OTHER) people will have different definitions of "natural"...different from yours, and different from mine. And that just because other's definition of "natural" isn't the same as yours, doesn't make them any less valid.

I deem natural as what occurs in nature. I know what you're getting at when you state that inter-species sex does occur, but that is not necessarily the correct way of looking at this.
[

Who are you to tell me or anyone else what the "correct way" is to look at this? That's my point. I understand your defintion, I don't agree with it, but I'm not callining it "incrorrect" either.

Just as I don't consider homosexuality comparable to beastiality by any stretch of the imagination.

I know you don't. I DO see them as comparable on certain levels, based on what I see as "natural", and so do others.

But again, now we're getting to a matter of opinion, and this is quite frankly something that will probably not get resolved because we can both come up with scientific "proof" to support our positions. So be it.

Agreed.

The problem is, you don't seem comfortable with others having the Position of being repulsed by homosexuality. You seem to argue (correct me if I'm wrong), that anyone who is genuinely repulsed by homosexuality, isn't looking at it "the right way" (your way.)

People have long been "repulsed" by such innocuous happenings as interracial marriages. It has been deemed unnatural by many. They could no more say why they felt repulsed by interracial relationships anymore than you can say why you feel that homosexual relationships repulse you.

I told you whay they repulse me. To me, it's not natural.

And they used the same excuses as well. It's not natural for the races to mix. So my question to you is, what is the difference?

I already gave you my answer. In sum: to me, "natural" in terms of sexuality is that which can result in offspring. Different races can have a sexual relationship resulting in offspring. Clearly different than the homosexual difference.

But I stand by the fact that it was the right thing to do, and it most certainly has helped attitudes in this country for the government to legislate that it is indeed natural for interracial relationships/marriages to occur.

I agree it was the right thing to do as well, because interractial relationships are "natural", so I see no reason to artificially separate them from other hetero relationships.
 
Take for instance a Mule. Different species, i.e. a Horse and a Donkey, but they are in the same "family." I know that's not the correct terminology, but they are genetically compatible. Where there is genetic incompatibility, you do not see mating between two different types of animals.

Ah...Mules are sterile, a genetic dead end. So are tigons (sp?) a cross between tigers and lions.
 
Joe, you state that interracial marriages are, in your opinion, natural, and thus see no need to artificially separate them from other hetero relationships.

However, the lawmakers at the time of Jim Crow disagreed vehemently with you.

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

<snip>

We must protect the natural order of things.

Just as you believe that the "unnatural"-ness of interracial relationships was a misplaced opinion, I believe your stance for the "unnatural"-ness of homosexuality is misplaced.

But at this point we're going to be going around in circles, so I'm going to step down from this one.
 
Natoma said:
Joe, you state that interracial marriages are, in your opinion, natural, and thus see no need to artificially separate them from other hetero relationships.

However, the lawmakers at the time of Jim Crow disagreed vehemently with you.

Right they disagree with me, and I think they are wrong. What's your point, exactly?

Just as you believe that the "unnatural"-ness of interracial relationships was a misplaced opinion, I believe your stance for the "unnatural"-ness of homosexuality is misplaced.

We both believe that the "unnatural"-ness of interracial relationships is a misplaced opinion. Because by both of our "definitions" of "natural" are satisfied whether it's same or different races of humans.

But at this point we're going to be going around in circles, so I'm going to step down from this one.

The point I'm making that you're stepping around, is that you seem to believe that ANYONE who thinks homosexual relationships are unnatural, thinks so for a "wrong reason."

I already said that I certainly agree that there ARE people who are like that. That their definition of "natural" is something they can't explain, is inconsistent, and end up doing so like that "Judge" who more or less just made up an interpretation of God's Will to justifiy his belief.

That doesn't mean everyone's interpretation of "natural" is wrong.
 
Joe DeFuria said:
Right they disagree with me, and I think they are wrong. What's your point, exactly?

Joe DeFuria said:
The point I'm making that you're stepping around, is that you seem to believe that ANYONE who thinks homosexual relationships are unnatural, thinks so for a "wrong reason."

I haven't been stepping around it. I'm saying that just as you believe that those who oppose interracial coupling are wrong, I believe that those who oppose homosexual coupling are wrong.

And one of the very similar arguments used in both cases is that people feel that they are "unnatural."
 
Natoma said:
I haven't been stepping around it. I'm saying that just as you believe that those who oppose interracial coupling are wrong, I believe that those who oppose homosexual coupling are wrong.

Let me clarify.

1) I do think that those who oppose interracial coupling are wrong.
2) I do not believe interracial coupling is unnatural, nor have I seen any reasonable argument to back that basis.
3) I can imagine that some people think interracial coupling is wrong, based on some premise that I can see as valid, though I disagree with it.
4) Therefore, I would not make a blanket statement about all people who disagree with interracial couplings, as those who are ignorant, immature, or inconsistent.

It appears to me that you (correct me if I'm wrong:)

1) You do think those who oppose homosexuality are wrong.
2) You do not believe that homosexual coupling is unnatural. Nor have you seen a reasonable argument, in your opinion, to back that.
3) You can't imagine that some people think that homosexuality is wrong, and at the same time have a valid premise for that belief.
4) You feel comfortable making a blanket statement that all people who disagree with homosexual couplings, are ignorant, immature, or inconsistent with their view.
 
1) Correct.

2) Correct.

3) No I can imagine it. I live through that kind of bias every day. Heh. They can even have what they deem is a valid premise. But I don't consider it to be valid, which goes back to point #2 you stated.

I consider those opinions to be as squalid as the anti-interracial coupling opinions.

4) Correct. However, it should be stated that I don't think people who disagree with homosexual couplings are ignorant *and* immature *and* inconsistent in their opinions, all at the same time. But at least one of those is most certainly applicable to those who have those opinions.

I would make that same statement about people who disagree with interracial couplings as well.
 
Natoma said:
4) Correct. However, it should be stated that I don't think people who disagree with homosexual couplings are ignorant *and* immature *and* inconsistent in their opinions, all at the same time.

Noted, and to be clear, I wasn't implying that. ;)

But at least one of those is most certainly applicable to those who have those opinions.

This is what I'm getting at.

So, which one of those (ignorant, inconsistent, or immature, etc.), applies to my opinion on homosexuality? (Which is, "homosexuality is wrong because it's not natural.")

I don't think it's ignorance...because I am aware of your point of view and understand it...just don't agree with it.

I don't think it's inconsistent...no one has pointed out a case where my definition of natural would incorrectly label a relationship as unnatural that I claim to be natural.

So am I just immature?

For the record, I don't think you are any of those. (Immature, ignorant, or inconsistent.) I just don't agree with your opinion / basis of how you define natural. (So ultimately, I just think yout opinion on homosexuality is wrong.)
 
Back
Top