PDA

View Full Version : Homosexuality: i.e gays- Whats the problem?



Pages : [1] 2

Stylesjl
2004-Oct-23, 07:31 AM
I hear about the issue all the time, but i want to know why people make it such a big issue, i mean seriously why should we care whether people are gay or not?

No, i am not gay myself

I wanted to find out some opinions from intelligent people

And please don't hijack the thread or make constant remarks that it is begging to be locked, the BA has that authority, ultimately

2004-Oct-23, 08:05 AM
I agree with you Styles. What's the big deal? I'm not gay but some folks are...How can, what two adults do behind closed doors be such a big thing?

How can you judge a person by their sexual orientation? Beat me mate!! #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o

Yoshua
2004-Oct-23, 08:09 AM
I shouldn't have anything against gays, but that lifestyle just creeps me out for some reason. No, I don't bash anyone for choosing that lifestyle, or even think ill of them. It's just one of those things I don't understand and don't really want to either.

My only beef with homosexuals are the politically active ones who are always looking for ways to gain minority status. I do not agree with that at all. Folks who belong to minorities were born that way, they are discriminated against for something that they had no control over at all. People choose to be homosexual, not that I feel this means they should suffer for that choice, but I don't think making a choice entitles you to any special privilages.

Richard of Chelmsford
2004-Oct-23, 08:12 AM
I've no objection to homosexuals, but I don't like that word 'gay.'

It is a silly word that diminishes everyone who uses it.

Stylesjl
2004-Oct-23, 08:19 AM
I just use the word "gay" because everyone pretty much accioates it with homosexuals even though its real meaning is happy

Let gays marry and there won't be a fuss it can't be harmful can it?

The "in your face gays" are really annoying when they go around telling everybody who does listen (and not) and expect to be praised for it :evil:

I guess the main problem is religion, some mouldy old book *cough* The Bible *cough* goes telling everyone its evil

TrAI
2004-Oct-23, 10:10 AM
Perhaps people just fear what they can not understand fully. Feelings can be hard to understand if they are not shared.


I shouldn't have anything against gays, but that lifestyle just creeps me out for some reason. No, I don't bash anyone for choosing that lifestyle, or even think ill of them. It's just one of those things I don't understand and don't really want to either.

My only beef with homosexuals are the politically active ones who are always looking for ways to gain minority status. I do not agree with that at all. Folks who belong to minorities were born that way, they are discriminated against for something that they had no control over at all. People choose to be homosexual, not that I feel this means they should suffer for that choice, but I don't think making a choice entitles you to any special privilages.

Hmmm.. We do not really know what makes people the way they are, but there is pretty wide agreement that people do not have conscious choice of what attracts them. It is thought that these are results of a combination between genetics and environmental influences. Most people are attracted to the adult humans of the opposite sex, but they never chose to be either, they just found themselves to be like that.

Of course homosexuals have a choice to act on their feelings, but why should they need to live alone or in a relationship that does not make them happy? One does not choose who one falls for, after all...

Yoshua
2004-Oct-23, 11:38 AM
Perhaps people just fear what they can not understand fully. Feelings can be hard to understand if they are not shared.


I shouldn't have anything against gays, but that lifestyle just creeps me out for some reason. No, I don't bash anyone for choosing that lifestyle, or even think ill of them. It's just one of those things I don't understand and don't really want to either.

My only beef with homosexuals are the politically active ones who are always looking for ways to gain minority status. I do not agree with that at all. Folks who belong to minorities were born that way, they are discriminated against for something that they had no control over at all. People choose to be homosexual, not that I feel this means they should suffer for that choice, but I don't think making a choice entitles you to any special privilages.

Hmmm.. We do not really know what makes people the way they are, but there is pretty wide agreement that people do not have conscious choice of what attracts them. It is thought that these are results of a combination between genetics and environmental influences. Most people are attracted to the adult humans of the opposite sex, but they never chose to be either, they just found themselves to be like that.

Of course homosexuals have a choice to act on their feelings, but why should they need to live alone or in a relationship that does not make them happy? One does not choose who one falls for, after all...

I quite frankly do not believe any of this talk relating homosexuality to genetics. It doesn't relate to our attraction to members of the opposite sex at all. There is a biological imperative for us to reproduce, it is how our species continues to exist. Homosexuality is quite contrary to that aim, so even if it were genetic, it would be a genetic defect.

But it would be tough to sell me on the idea of it being genetic in the first place.

Glom
2004-Oct-23, 12:34 PM
I bet the most homophobic people in private parade up and down in taffata ball gowns drinking mint julips whipping the house boy.

snowcelt
2004-Oct-23, 12:37 PM
Homosexuality gives me the creeps, but that does not mean that I do not think that a Homosexual does not have the right to carry out a relationship with another consenting adult of the same persuasion.

Pete Tattum asks what the big is what two adults do behind closed doors, and I could not agree more---Behind closed doors. Why is it that I have to see this outside closed doors. When I see two people of the same sex tickling each others tonsils in public it makes me ill. I am not exaggerating. Please, keep it behind closed doors!

I hate it when Homosexuals push their point down my throat. Let it be.

I believe that there is genetics involved for two reasons. I have seen evidence in scientific studies and I have seen young boys who act effeminate BEFORE puberty and go on to be Homosexual.

For the record. I have never abused homosexuals physically or mentally in my life. I have expressed my views in a forth right manner and many homosexuals have agreed with my views.

pghnative
2004-Oct-23, 12:44 PM
...People choose to be homosexual...


... but there is pretty wide agreement that people do not have conscious choice of what attracts them...

Apparently not! :D

The "nature vs. nurture" debate will be hard to settle on a lot of issues whether it is sexuality, intelligence, etc. On the one hand it is hard to see how a "homosexuality" gene (s) could survive natural selection. Certain, other than the bonobo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo), homosexuality is not generally observed in non-human animals. On the other had, numerous homosexuals (including a very good friend of mine who I've always known to be quite honest) attest that they've simply never been attracted to the opposite sex. Not that that resolves nature vs. nurture.

I agree the Yoshua that discrimination laws should be based on genetics only. And I do believe that for the most part the homosexuality debate is a debate about power (most political debates are) and that my obtaining minority status, any group can gain in power. But then again, questioning the intentions of the homosexual lobby doesn't prove that they're not right!

I don't have any solutions myself (other than supporting the concept of civil unions whether MM, FF or MF), but I disagree with a lot of the rhetoric that is out there. The lobby will often cry "why shouldn't I live with who I choose?" Well, no one is saying you can't. The issue is really whether you deserve certain tax breaks and other perks that society has afforded to male/female partners.

As a parting thought, I also feel that the criticism of religious leaders on this issue is unfounded. For a very, very long time, many religious leaders have preached that sex should not be had for "fun" but rather only for procreating. It's a logical conclusion that religious leaders would oppose masturbation, birth control, pre-marital sex, etc... To accept homosexuality pretty much puts a chink in their armor. So I think it is bit harsh to call people "bigots" for opposing homosexuality when it is not at all proven that homosexuality is genetically driven.

Disinfo Agent
2004-Oct-23, 01:00 PM
People choose to be homosexual [...]
They do? Where's the evidence for that?


[...] I don't think making a choice entitles you to any special privilages.
Special privileges like equal opportunity?


There is a biological imperative for us to reproduce, it is how our species continues to exist. Homosexuality is quite contrary to that aim [...]
How so?


Certain, other than the bonobo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo), homosexuality is not generally observed in non-human animals.
Homosexuality in animals (http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm)
Homosexuality in animals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals)
There's even a book about it:
Biological Exuberance: Homosexuality in Nature (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/031225377X/qid=1098536945/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/104-1562593-7202337)

Stylesjl
2004-Oct-23, 01:02 PM
Why not give them marriage benifits? They are a couple, marrige is not based on breeding, just the union, if they decide to breed (impossible for homosexuals) or adopt then the children benifits come in

Did what i just said make sense?

snowcelt
2004-Oct-23, 01:16 PM
Disinfo Agent said that
"Special privileges like equal opportunity?"

If the politicians were not so concerned with distracting the populous with straw man legislation like defining each individual group of people we are not allowed to discriminate against, we could simply say that no group can be discriminated against, prosecute to the fullest when such action occurs, and save ourselves much trouble.

Why be specific? If you discriminate against a group, nail 'em.

Ut
2004-Oct-23, 01:21 PM
I agree the Yoshua that discrimination laws should be based on genetics only. And I do believe that for the most part the homosexuality debate is a debate about power (most political debates are) and that my obtaining minority status, any group can gain in power. But then again, questioning the intentions of the homosexual lobby doesn't prove that they're not right!

What about religion? Political beliefs? Cultural heritage? So, what you're saying is that if I'm a communist Jew from France, it should be all perfectly well and good to deny me access to your store, or push me aside when the taxi pulls up, or even beat me senseless?

Bigotry is bigotry, be it based on race, sex, religion, culture, or sexuality.

Disinfo Agent
2004-Oct-23, 01:22 PM
If the politicians were not so concerned with distracting the populous with straw man legislation like defining each individual group of people we are not allowed to discriminate against, we could simply say that no group can be discriminated against, prosecute to the fullest when such action occurs, and save ourselves much trouble.

Why be specific? If you discriminate against a group, nail 'em.
Clearly, some groups of individuals are more subject to discrimination than others.

gethen
2004-Oct-23, 01:27 PM
Yow. This topic is perilously close to both religion and politics. Careful guys.

pghnative
2004-Oct-23, 01:31 PM
I agree the Yoshua that discrimination laws should be based on genetics only. And I do believe that for the most part the homosexuality debate is a debate about power (most political debates are) and that my obtaining minority status, any group can gain in power. But then again, questioning the intentions of the homosexual lobby doesn't prove that they're not right!

What about religion? Political beliefs? Cultural heritage? So, what you're saying is that if I'm a communist Jew from France, it should be all perfectly well and good to deny me access to your store, or push me aside when the taxi pulls up, or even beat me senseless?

Bigotry is bigotry, be it based on race, sex, religion, culture, or sexuality.I truly believe that it should be legal to descriminate based on lifestyle choices. That, after all, is the concept of shame.

There are already laws which protect French communists who practice the Jewish fairth from me pushing them aside or beating them senseless. (By the way, I would never do either, even if the law allowed. Both actions are against my morals). And if I didn't want to open my store to French communist Jews -- why not? It's my store after all. Ultimately I'm less competitive with the store down the street who does serve French communist Jews.

pghnative
2004-Oct-23, 01:35 PM
Just to ensure that there is no miscommunication, the reference to "French", "communists" and "Jews" in my post are as examples only. I don't espouse descrimination of any kind, and I hope that I don't descriminate in this way in my daily life. I just don't see why in a free society I cannot run my business the way I see fit.

(That too is an example only -- I don't own my own business either!)

pghnative
2004-Oct-23, 01:37 PM
Perhaps this example is less inflamatory.

Suppose I ran a science lab dedicated to logical understanding of evolution. Should I be allowed to descriminate against hiring of an ardent creationist? Would that be religious descrimination?

snowcelt
2004-Oct-23, 01:38 PM
If the politicians were not so concerned with distracting the populous with straw man legislation like defining each individual group of people we are not allowed to discriminate against, we could simply say that no group can be discriminated against, prosecute to the fullest when such action occurs, and save ourselves much trouble.

Why be specific? If you discriminate against a group, nail 'em.
Clearly, some groups of individuals are more subject to discrimination than others.

I agree totally. I think you miss my point though. For example. Two people, in different parts of a city, on the same night, beat the crap out of a homosexual and a 'mainstream' persons respectively. Why not nail them both severely? Why is it that a homosexual should be given preferential treatment? If all transgressors of the law were treated harshly there would be no need to individualize laws, tailoring to specific groups of people.

The laws are fine, it is the application of the law in which most problems are found.

Ut
2004-Oct-23, 01:40 PM
A) Being French is not a life choice.
B) To some, being Jewish is not a life choice.

Neither are based on genetics.

pghnative
2004-Oct-23, 01:43 PM
A) Being French is not a life choice.
B) To some, being Jewish is not a life choice.

Neither are based on genetics. #-o Good point. I tried to be careful by saying "people who practice the Jewish faith", but completely missed the French part.

TrAI
2004-Oct-23, 01:57 PM
I quite frankly do not believe any of this talk relating homosexuality to genetics. It doesn't relate to our attraction to members of the opposite sex at all. There is a biological imperative for us to reproduce, it is how our species continues to exist. Homosexuality is quite contrary to that aim, so even if it were genetic, it would be a genetic defect.

But it would be tough to sell me on the idea of it being genetic in the first place.

One would believe that if it was a genetic thing, it would have died out, but that is not always the case with genetics. It may not be dominant, so people can be carriers without knowing it. Society might have been preventing it from dieing out by forcing homosexuals into heterosexual relationships. It may be latent unless triggered by something in the environment (That could be anything the child is exposed to, even before birth). Or it may be that when humans evolved more intelligence, the drive to reproduce had to change so that it still could influence us to do so, but at the same time it may be more sensitive to errors.

It seems possible that feelings like humans know them evolved to be able to influence an intelligent creature, to prevent the conscious mind from completely overriding the drives. Most people know how hard it can be to try to repress feelings, though they often fail to apply this knowledge to people with other feelings about things, for example, it can not be easy to be attracted to something other people are not, if you follow you emotions and drives you can be condemned for that as if you consciously chose to feel like this, but if you resist, it can very well cause problems sooner or later, it is repressing something that evolved to be powerful enough to be able to force the conscious mind to do something(must be hard for people who must suppress their drives and feelings of attraction).

Perhaps the development of feelings is like the development of many other things with people, the genes are more a blueprint to the basic hardware and firmware, while the software to run on it is made in response to external stimulus, so that both things may have some influence...

R.A.F.
2004-Oct-23, 02:19 PM
People choose to be homosexual...

Oh how wrong you are...

Ut
2004-Oct-23, 02:20 PM
If the politicians were not so concerned with distracting the populous with straw man legislation like defining each individual group of people we are not allowed to discriminate against, we could simply say that no group can be discriminated against, prosecute to the fullest when such action occurs, and save ourselves much trouble.

Why be specific? If you discriminate against a group, nail 'em.
Clearly, some groups of individuals are more subject to discrimination than others.

I agree totally. I think you miss my point though. For example. Two people, in different parts of a city, on the same night, beat the crap out of a homosexual and a 'mainstream' persons respectively. Why not nail them both severely? Why is it that a homosexual should be given preferential treatment? If all transgressors of the law were treated harshly there would be no need to individualize laws, tailoring to specific groups of people.

The laws are fine, it is the application of the law in which most problems are found.

The laws don't extend to all realms of discrimination. The school yard, for example, where people can become scarred for life. And they don't prevent the awkward stares, and the general feeling that you're unwelcome because you're different.

And besides, which is more disturbing? A group of people attacking someone for their shoes and money? Or a group of people attacking someone because their name is Mohammad? Or because they love Hawaiian shirts? Motivation should be taken into consideration. For this same reason, I think "attempted murder" is a lark.

What if the police, judge, or jury are sympathetic to the reasoning behind the crime? Not to sound cliche, but Hitler was spared a life sentence for his police killings in Bavaria because his judge was a Marxist hating conservative.

I don't think Creationists should be passed over for a job becaues of their religious beliefs. So long as they're not tampering with the results, they don't have to believe them. I worked at a church for many years, and am a firm non-believer.

Of course, I believe in discrimination based on qualification. You hire the best person for the job, for instance. I don't believe in mind control, so telling everyone "Don't stare at the weirdo" is absurd. But what I see here is a bunch of people going "I don't like these people. I believe ___ is a life choice, and therefore they're open game. Not like people of differently coloured skin, or who have different sex organs. Don't call me a bigot."

Yoshua
2004-Oct-23, 02:24 PM
I quite frankly do not believe any of this talk relating homosexuality to genetics. It doesn't relate to our attraction to members of the opposite sex at all. There is a biological imperative for us to reproduce, it is how our species continues to exist. Homosexuality is quite contrary to that aim, so even if it were genetic, it would be a genetic defect.

But it would be tough to sell me on the idea of it being genetic in the first place.

One would believe that if it was a genetic thing, it would have died out, but that is not always the case with genetics. It may not be dominant, so people can be carriers without knowing it. Society might have been preventing it from dieing out by forcing homosexuals into heterosexual relationships. It may be latent unless triggered by something in the environment (That could be anything the child is exposed to, even before birth). Or it may be that when humans evolved more intelligence, the drive to reproduce had to change so that it still could influence us to do so, but at the same time it may be more sensitive to errors.

Or it could just be a choice some people make. Sorry, but little is going to sway my opinion on this matter. The "findings" I've seen supporting a genetic cause for homosexuality always reeked of political motivation rather than scientific.

Not that there's anything wrong with someone choosing to be homosexual, if that's your thing, knock yourself out.

Disinfo Agent
2004-Oct-23, 02:25 PM
Yow. This topic is perilously close to both religion and politics. Careful guys.
I must admit that that was my first reaction to it. But I think I'll risk replying to snowcelt. :)


I agree totally. I think you miss my point though. For example. Two people, in different parts of a city, on the same night, beat the crap out of a homosexual and a 'mainstream' persons respectively. Why not nail them both severely?
Here's an argument:


49. All crimes are "hate crimes," why single any crimes out?

Hate crimes go beyond ordinary crimes by collectively victimizing an entire class of people. If a person is beaten up for their money, they are the victim of a simple assault. Someone who is beaten up because they are gay has had an essential part of their humanity attacked, and as such the emotional trauma is much deeper. The criminal has targeted not only the individual, but all of society as well, and this should be punished severely.

http://www.turnleft.com/out/knowthy_arguments.html#49


Why is it that a homosexual should be given preferential treatment?
I suppose you could see legislation against hate crimes as preferential treatment. But then, heterosexuals aren’t subject to being beaten up just because they’re heterosexual, so one could say that those laws just level the scales.
And not all pro-gay legislation has to do with hate crimes. For example:


AREN'T LGBT PEOPLE DEMANDING SPECIAL RIGHTS AND PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT?

As the Supreme Court explained in Romer v. Evans, there is nothing "special" about laws which prevent people from losing jobs and homes because of who they are. Most of us take the right to participate in daily life on an equal footing for granted, the Court said, either because we already have the right under the law, or because we are not subjected to that kind of discrimination. Laws which prohibit discrimination simply give LGBT people that basic right to be equal participants in the communities in which they live.

Most Americans do not realize that many LGBT people who face discrimination — in areas from housing and employment to parenting — have no legal recourse since federal law does not prohibit discrimination against LGBT people. Extending such protection from discrimination to LGBT people is one of the many important battles ahead for the ACLU and other advocacy organizations.

http://archive.aclu.org/library/pbp18.html


If all transgressors of the law were treated harshly there would be no need to individualize laws, tailoring to specific groups of people.
But in practice they are sometimes not treated equally harshly, because some law makers and law enforcers find the beating of a homosexual (or the member of another minority) to be of less importance than that of a heterosexual.


The laws are fine, it is the application of the law in which most problems are found.
Problems like the ones I mention in the reply above?

Ut
2004-Oct-23, 02:26 PM
Sorry, but little is going to sway my opinion on this matter.

Science board. This stated closed mindedness is not in keeping with the spirit of the fora.

Glom
2004-Oct-23, 02:27 PM
So who on this board is homosexual? (You obviously don't have to answer if you don't want to. We won't know.) We're talking about them a lot like they're the other people who aren't here. One of my friends is and he posted here once a while ago. We should have a User Gender: Sexuality thread. Hetero, homo, a mix or an amoeba.

Disinfo Agent
2004-Oct-23, 02:33 PM
Or it could just be a choice some people make. Sorry, but little is going to sway my opinion on this matter. The "findings" I've seen supporting a genetic cause for homosexuality always reeked of political motivation rather than scientific.
Sure, the cause(s) for homosexuality are unknown, and they will probably remain so for a long time, as pghnative remarked. The important thing, and what I think the people who replied to you wanted to make you understand, is that the idea that homosexuality is a choice is just an opinion. It is not a proven fact.

[Edited 'unkown' to 'unknown'.]

Yoshua
2004-Oct-23, 02:34 PM
Sorry, but little is going to sway my opinion on this matter.

Science board. This stated closed mindedness is not in keeping with the spirit of the fora.

We're discussing opinion, not fact (for the most part). I can be as open or close minded as I choose in regards to opinions.

Anyways, did you have some point to make here?

Ut
2004-Oct-23, 02:36 PM
Or it could just be a choice some people make. Sorry, but little is going to sway my opinion on this matter. The "findings" I've seen supporting a genetic cause for homosexuality always reeked of political motivation rather than scientific.
Sure, the cause(s) for homosexuality are unkown, and they will probably remain so for a long time, as pghnative remarked. The important thing, and what I think the people who replied to you wanted to make you understand, is that the idea that homosexuality is a choice is just an opinion. It is not a proven fact.

And even if it is a choice, it should not open people up to blind discrimination. I doubt too many people would like it if they were shunned because they were Yankees fans. And I don't mean the all-in-fun teasing sort of shunning, either. I mean people-won't-be-friends-with-you shunned.

Yoshua
2004-Oct-23, 02:37 PM
Or it could just be a choice some people make. Sorry, but little is going to sway my opinion on this matter. The "findings" I've seen supporting a genetic cause for homosexuality always reeked of political motivation rather than scientific.
Sure, the cause(s) for homosexuality are unkown, and they will probably remain so for a long time, as pghnative remarked. The important thing, and what I think the people who replied to you wanted to make you understand, is that the idea that homosexuality is a choice is just an opinion. It is not a proven fact.

I never said otherwise. I stated a belief of mine and even said it was a belief. It's also not a proven fact that it's genetic, that too is just a belief or theory (depending who is saying it).

Yoshua
2004-Oct-23, 02:40 PM
Or it could just be a choice some people make. Sorry, but little is going to sway my opinion on this matter. The "findings" I've seen supporting a genetic cause for homosexuality always reeked of political motivation rather than scientific.
Sure, the cause(s) for homosexuality are unkown, and they will probably remain so for a long time, as pghnative remarked. The important thing, and what I think the people who replied to you wanted to make you understand, is that the idea that homosexuality is a choice is just an opinion. It is not a proven fact.

And even if it is a choice, it should not open people up to blind discrimination. I doubt too many people would like it if they were shunned because they were Yankees fans. And I don't mean the all-in-fun teasing sort of shunning, either. I mean people-won't-be-friends-with-you shunned.

Where did I say or even suggest that homosexuals deserve to be discriminated against? I never said or implied any such thing. I just don't feel they are entitled to any more rights or priviledges than the rest of us. I don't think anyone deserves to be discriminated against.

Stop putting words into my mouth.

Ut
2004-Oct-23, 02:44 PM
I didn't say you did. But it has been said.


I truly believe that it should be legal to descriminate based on lifestyle choices. That, after all, is the concept of shame.

Now, I think I'll take my leave here before I start the spitting of the venom.

Yoshua
2004-Oct-23, 02:48 PM
I didn't say you did. But it has been said.


I truly believe that it should be legal to descriminate based on lifestyle choices. That, after all, is the concept of shame.

Now, I think I'll take my leave here before I start the spitting of the venom.

Well you were quoting me, which makes it appear as if you are replying to something I said. You can understand why I might be a little defensive about that I hope.

snowcelt
2004-Oct-23, 02:53 PM
Disinfo Agent asked what problem within the court system.

One would be that small minded judges would give a lesser sentence to a thug who beats a homosexual. The law is not at fault, the judge and the process which choose that judge is.

I think that there seems to be a concept that a member of a discriminated against group somehow has a deeper capacity for suffering. Why? What is the difference between the suffering and trauma meted out to a mainstream person and a special groups person? God gave them a deeper soul? I think not.

R.A.F.
2004-Oct-23, 03:03 PM
Where did I say or even suggest that homosexuals deserve to be discriminated against?

When you said that it was a choice. That, in my opinion, is discriminatory.

This is obviously one of those topics that cannot be discussed without causing heated arguments...something that the BA "frowns" upon. For that reason, I'll be joining Ut...

Yoshua
2004-Oct-23, 03:14 PM
Where did I say or even suggest that homosexuals deserve to be discriminated against?

When you said that it was a choice. That, in my opinion, is discriminatory.

Ok, I don't really see what your basing your opinion on. But whatever works for you.


This is obviously one of those topics that cannot be discussed without causing heated arguments...something that the BA "frowns" upon. For that reason, I'll be joining Ut...

Who is getting upset? It's ok to disagree you know. But I am not trying to talk you into continuing, that would be silly. I just find it a tiresome practice of some people to start being dismissive just because a conversation doesn't go their way.

Sammy
2004-Oct-23, 04:04 PM
I don't want to get on a soapbox or insult anyone who has posted on this topic, but....

I am personally revolted by some of the comments posted here; I really expected better from this board. There is a lack of acceptance of other people's behavior/lifestyles/choices/genetic predisposition (take your choice--no one really knows which is correct or appropriate in this issue) which I just can not understand. As long as only consenting adults are involved, and no one is hurt, why would you care?

If your own sensibilities are hurt, look the other way. I personally could not stand to patronize a resturant which served dog meat. Many people, particulary of Asian background, find dogmeat a fine treat. Repulsive as I find this, I would not try to get dogmeat banned, keep dogmeat eaters from doing so in public, forbid them to marry, teach in public school, or serve in the armed forces. Why do this to those who, for whatever reason, choose, or are impelled, to be homosexual/lesbian?

TrAI
2004-Oct-23, 04:52 PM
Or it could just be a choice some people make. Sorry, but little is going to sway my opinion on this matter. The "findings" I've seen supporting a genetic cause for homosexuality always reeked of political motivation rather than scientific.

Have you ever tried to alter your feelings by decision? If you have lost someone you care deeply for, could you just decide that you no longer care for that person, and so no longer miss them? If it is a matter of choice, have you ever chosen to have some other sexual orientation for a few days just to understand how it is. If you have not, why not?


Not that there's anything wrong with someone choosing to be homosexual, if that's your thing, knock yourself out.

Hmmm... It being someone’s "thing" kind of negates the possibility of it being by choice, doesn't it?...

I wonder if it may not just be that we are thinking about the subject differently. When someone says homosexual or heterosexual it usually indicates whether the person in question is sexually attracted to someone of the same sex or the opposite. Attraction is a key word, someone can be homosexual and never have had sex with someone of the same gender, but having sex with someone of the same gender does not necessarily mean you are homosexual by orientation.

This can be applied to paraphilia* too, for example, many people live with paraphilias they just can not practice without hurting someone, they never choose to feel this way, and choosing not to act on the feelings will not change the feelings(though I guess it may be hurtful to mental health but that is another subject).

I would say that people can chose their actions, but not their feelings...

*A paraphilia is a deviation from the normal, what is often called perversion, it is something people can have in addition to orientation. For example pedophilia(attraction to children(pre-pubescent, not babies)) and zoophilia(attraction to animals) would be paraphilia. But attraction to younger people(ephibophilia(sp?)) is not uncommon(especially in males it seems) so it is not really a paraphilia(though many would likely call the older man looking at the young girls a pervert anyway).

pghnative
2004-Oct-23, 04:56 PM
Where did I say or even suggest that homosexuals deserve to be discriminated against? I never said or implied any such thing.


I didn't say you did. But it has been said.


I truly believe that it should be legal to descriminate based on lifestyle choices. That, after all, is the concept of shame.

Now, I think I'll take my leave here before I start the spitting of the venom.Please, please take note that there is a difference between stating that something should be legal and stating that something deserves to be done. I've taken pains in several of my posts to say that I personally wouldn't descriminate against any of the groups mentioned (except perhaps the creationist, and even then only in certain circumstances). I would never, ever, state or mean to imply that homosexuals deserve to be descriminiated against. However, presuming that it is a lifestyle choice, it should be legal for others to descriminate if they so choose. Presuming that it is genetically predetermined, it should be illegal to descriminate. Given that it is scientifically unobvious whether homosexuality is a choice or predetermined, I would tend to err on the side of not granting minority status.

Another way of stating this is that I personally would vote to grant "marriage" type benefits to non-married coupled (of any gender variety, perhaps even more than two people). But I believe that my neighbor can vote otherwise. And I (currently) do not believe that these benefits should be granted by judges based on equal protection grounds.

Humphrey
2004-Oct-23, 04:59 PM
Guys this is getting very close to being over the line. Please i beg you calm down. There is no need for any of you to get banned.


:(


Several years ago in one of my classes we were discussing homosexuality froma Anthropologist standpoint. I do not remember her facts anyomore but one of my professors came out with her belief and what she stated does make a bit of sense on how Homosexuals came out in the past. They were the caregivers for the tribes. While the rest of the tribe hunted and gathered they took care of the children and young. The nannys of the past.

Now i have no clue how true it is. Just stating what one professor i had thought of their origins.



Personally? I cannot understand what all the hooplah is over this. There is absolutely no difference between Billy Bob abnd Billy Joe. All that seperates them is homosexuality in one of them. So why should he be treated differently? Give him all the rights the other has and leave it alone. If his is beaten up because he is homosexual, treat it as a hate crime. But don't punish the guy for being something he can't control. Allow him to marry. No matter how many times you say it it will not affect your marriage or your kids marriage in any way. It is not a disaease and cannot be passed on by encountering a homosexual.


All this really boils down to is politics and religion. Your beliefs are framed by your ideas on the two of them and those form your thoughts on this subject. Thus this really should not be discussed on this board the way we are doing it.

pghnative
2004-Oct-23, 04:59 PM
And even if it is a choice, it should not open people up to blind discrimination. I doubt too many people would like it if they were shunned because they were Yankees fans. I wouldn't expect them to like it. But it should be legal. It would be ridiculous to pass a law making it illegal to descriminate based on baseball team preference.

pghnative
2004-Oct-23, 05:01 PM
But don't punish the guy for being something he can't control.That, in my opinion, is the crux of the matter. Is it something he can't control? Or is it a choice?

Humphrey
2004-Oct-23, 05:04 PM
But don't punish the guy for being something he can't control.That, in my opinion, is the crux of the matter. Is it something he can't control? Or is it a choice?

I ment his liking of same sex, not the way he goes about it. sorry was not desciptive enougth.

[edit:]
Basically i mean that his liking of the same sex is something he cannot control. Hes born with it. But like all of usa he can choose not to follow that. But he in no way should be punished because he likes guys. Thats just wrong.

Thats what i mean.

[edit 2] This is getting too political and religious so im going to politely step out of thus. Im sorry if i do not reply. I will continue of PM if you like.

pghnative
2004-Oct-23, 05:09 PM
I understood you. The crux of the question is whether the underlying sexual preference is actually a choice (such as preferring the Yankees over the Red Sox) or not (such as skin color).

SKY
2004-Oct-23, 05:16 PM
I quite frankly do not believe any of this talk relating homosexuality to genetics. It doesn't relate to our attraction to members of the opposite sex at all. There is a biological imperative for us to reproduce, it is how our species continues to exist. Homosexuality is quite contrary to that aim, so even if it were genetic, it would be a genetic defect.

But it would be tough to sell me on the idea of it being genetic in the first place.

I knew a person once (who was gay), who believed the exact opposite. He said that he tried to fight it for the longest time. Married a woman and even had children. But he had the hardest time fighting it and they ended up getting a divorce. He swore up and down that he did not want to be gay, but that he couldn't help it. I've heard others say they fought the urges too, but couldn't help but to submit to them. Because of this I think that it can be genetic. Maybe not in all cases, but it is possible.

Humphrey
2004-Oct-23, 05:22 PM
I understood you. The crux of the question is whether the underlying sexual preference is actually a choice (such as preferring the Yankees over the Red Sox) or not (such as skin color). Ahhhh....


My vote is genetics. There are examples of animal homosexuality and like SKY said, people who are gay cannot control who they like.

Gullible Jones
2004-Oct-23, 05:32 PM
Could be genetic, could have other factors; most likely both.

There is obviously nothing wrong with it, though - the problem is with the bigots who can't tolerate anything that differs from some imaginary "norm", or try to force their screwed-up way of thinking on everyone.

2004-Oct-23, 05:35 PM
The crux of the question is whether the underlying sexual preference is actually a choice (such as preferring the Yankees over the Red Sox) or not (such as skin color).

That's the way I see it too. I just wonder though, whether given a free choice how many folks would adopt a lifestyle that's almost guaranteed to provoke little short of hatred from so many people? Personally I suspect that I'd take the easiest option. That's why it seems to be more a matter of biological/genetic factors than a matter of choice IMO.

On the idea that "gay genes" would somehow be eliminated via natural selection, I doubt that's the case either. There are many fatal genetic mutations that still occur; why would a "gay" mutation be eliminated - it doesn't even kill its host? There are also numerous lethal recessives that are protected from elimination because they are recessive. They hide in the shadow of their dominant counterpart...

I think that if the putative "gay gene" were recessive in the Mendelian sense, it would still never be eliminated by natural selection. If it's random then it'll always occur at the frequency that it always has?

IMO, all we can do is to accept gay people for what they are - just like we accept now that albinos aren't witches! :D

pghnative
2004-Oct-23, 06:17 PM
There is obviously nothing wrong with it, though - I personally agree. As long as everyone is consenting, my own philosophy is to let bygones be bygones.

The problem is with [snip] (those) who can't tolerate anything that differs from some imaginary "norm", or try to force their [snip] way of thinking on everyone. That sentence could equally apply to some people on both sides of the debate.

Edited once to avoid the appearance of name-calling.

Normandy6644
2004-Oct-23, 07:14 PM
Well of course the irony in any situation like this is that those who are tolerant are in fact intolerant of those who are not. It's always like that. You can say, "have an open mind" to someone, and then dismiss them as being close minded, but in fact you are being close-minded against close-mindedness. I know it's not the same thing, but it is an interesting concept.

Jpax2003
2004-Oct-23, 07:15 PM
What are you guys thinking?

This is not the place for it. Those of you who hae been here long enough know this is a bad topic, and those who are new should have read the FAQ and know that politics and religion and obscenities are prohibited. This is a family board and a science board. Diuscussions of sexual proclivities has no place here. Even if it is a discussion of biology, it's not astronomy. Unless you are posting a neutral news report about an astronaut coming out of the closet... no, even then it is out of place.

In other words,
stop posting
Please
thank you

pghnative
2004-Oct-23, 07:40 PM
Well, I agree that we've delved too far into politics, and I feel bad for my part in that. I actually think, however, that the last several posts have gone back toward the philosophical and away from the political.

In looking over the posts, religion has barely been mentioned. I brought it up once, only in the most general of ways.

I also am puzzled by the accusation of obscenity. I used a word beginning with "m" that would make my grandmother blush, but that's a far cry from obscenity in my opinion. If you are offended by the topic, I'd suggest that you not open the thread instead of yelling at us in brightly colored fonts.

And yes, this has nothing to do with astronomy. Which is why it is correctly placed in BABBling.

TrAI
2004-Oct-23, 09:13 PM
...
This is a family board and a science board. Diuscussions of sexual proclivities has no place here.
...

Hmmm... Actually, discussions on sexuality and "family board" is not mutually exclusive. It is an important part of the nature of humans. Actually I would think that any children reading the board has already had the subject at school(Or rather, I expect that the concept of reproduction, sexuality, hetero/homosexuals and so on is thought at schools in your part of the world too...)

I don't think this thread is much more corruptive than reading a newspaper or something. I wouldn't wonder if a child reading it would just shake his/her head and think about how adults really do go on about unimportant stuff... :wink: :P

But perhaps you have a point about part of it being a bit political...

Lurker
2004-Oct-23, 09:34 PM
I have to agree... this has had LOCKED THREAD written all over it since it began. But before it is locked, I want to say a couple of things.

I am losing the woman that I love to a brain tumor. She is Iranian and a grad student in Phusics. She is considered a danger to this country by my government just as I am considered dangerous to her country by her government. I have been told more than once that I should break off my relationship with this woman for the good of my career, for the good of my country, and because it is just the wrong for the two of us to fall in love right now.

From the beginning all the two of us wanted was a chance to love each other and be free to share our lives together side by side. Why that is such a terrible thing, while it is ok to hate each other... hate each other's loved ones... is a mystery that I don't think I ever want to understand.

This country was founded on the idea of personal liberties and freedoms. There are many things in life that are a choice... religion... education... where one lives... ect... there are many things in life that are not a choice... gender... genetic flaws (like mine) etc. This country has always stood for the ideal of equal opportunity for all. I can choose my religion and I have the right practice it even if it creeps someone else out. I can choose my clothes and the length and style of my hair and I have the right to express myself this way even if it creeps others out.

I honestly don't kow if homosexuality is a choice or not... and for the purposes of this discussion I honestly think it is irrelevant. The world today seems consumed by hate and too many people seem to think this is alright. All these people want is what my Rose and I want; a chance to live together and love in peace. So what if homosexuals kissing together in public creep you out. They are in love... they want the same chance to love together that everyone else does. In a world sooo consumed by hate and anger I say we should nurture love wherever it is found between consenting adults.

Let people live and love as the wish; it certainly couldn't do as much harm as the hate and killing that is broadcast in great detail each day. Let people marry whom they wish and let all couples be treated equally under the law. No special rights for any group, just let the law be blind to these things.

AliCali
2004-Oct-23, 10:09 PM
Wow, good post, Lurker.

First, I want to address those who think it's a choice. It's estimated that 8% of the population is gay. Even if that's inaccurate, it's still a whole lot of people. Let me ask you this: Who would choose to be gay? Who would choose a lifestyle where you're likely beaten up, disowned from your family, called a sinner by your church, etc?

I live near West Hollywood, and there is a huge gay community. Gays are constantly ridiculed and beaten up. According to many gays I've talked to, a crime against a gay man is lower on the totem-pole for the LAPD than many other crimes (this is putting it kindly).

I play on a hockey team that's the first openly gay hockey team in the US (to play on an organized league). You can check them out at www.bladeshockey.com. They accept gays and straights (I'm straight).

Before I played on their team, I was very ignorant of gays. Now years later, I understand a lot more. I ask questions and get various replies. Here are the more common questions and replies:

When did you know that you were gay? Most say in their teens, although most were either in denial or didn't really understand why they weren't attracted to the opposite sex.

Were you ever in the closet? All of them said yes. Why? Either because of society and their views of gays, or because they didn't know what it meant to be gay.

When did you come out of the closet? This answer varied widely, from the upper teens to their thirties. Some are in their 50s, and still haven't told their parents.

What happened when you came out of the closet? This also varied, but many said their parents disowned them or their church did not accept them anymore. One said his dad stopped talking to him for years, until the dad went to a support group for relatives of gays, and realized that being gay doesn't mean you crossdress and act weird.

Was it a choice? Everyone says NO. Some ask back, "When did you choose to be heterosexual?" They also think it's fair to ask, "Who would choose that lifestyle?"

Did you try to be heterosexual? Almost everyone said yes. Some were even engaged, but it's only because they were in denial. They don't WANT to be gay, so they try to have heterosexual relations. It never works.

I see and talk to them often. Do you have any questions you want me to ask? I can get a pretty good population of both male and female homosexuals. (Evidence gathering...science at work.)

(Note that there's more, but it's political and religious in nature. I am deliberately keeping these out.)

pghnative
2004-Oct-23, 11:00 PM
...The world today seems consumed by hate and too many people seem to think this is alright. I'm curious if people think that I am one who thinks that hating is alright. I stated above that I thought it was OK to descriminate against people based on how they choose to live their lives. Do people equate "descriminate" with "hate"?

I don't, but perhaps I'm naive.

Lurker
2004-Oct-23, 11:13 PM
...The world today seems consumed by hate and too many people seem to think this is alright. I'm curious if people think that I am one who thinks that hating is alright. I stated above that I thought it was OK to descriminate against people based on how they choose to live their lives. Do people equate "descriminate" with "hate"?

I don't, but perhaps I'm naive.
I can only speak for myself here. I was refering to the clash of cultures that has kept me and my beloved apart. It has caused such anger... such pain... such violence... It has caused people to tell me that it would be better to hate my Rose than to love her...

I see a world consumed with such hate and anger... so much fear... so much violence... I just don't understand why love in any form should not be considered preferable...

Kesh
2004-Oct-23, 11:20 PM
So who on this board is homosexual? (You obviously don't have to answer if you don't want to. We won't know.) We're talking about them a lot like they're the other people who aren't here. One of my friends is and he posted here once a while ago. We should have a User Gender: Sexuality thread. Hetero, homo, a mix or an amoeba.

I'll step forward.

I'm a bisexual man. Currently involved in a long-distance relationship with another man.

I never had a choice about my orientation. From the first time I started having sexual thoughts, I found myself attracted to both men and women. The only choice I made... was to deny my attraction to men for about 10 years.

Why? Because I grew up in rural Appalachia, where being gay was a good way to get yourself beaten. I brushed it off as 'hormones' because I was afraid to consider the idea that I might be attracted to other males.

It wasn't until college that I seriously forced myself to stop and consider who I was, and how I felt. That wasn't easy. It took me two years to finally accept that all these feelings I've had were simply a part of who I am. My only choices were to keep repressing a part of myself, or to accept it and try to live with it.

I've dated both men and women. I've loved both men and women. And I've finally met a man who really makes me happy.

So, regardless what some folks may believe, I'm telling you that I had no choice. I am bisexual. I don't know if it's genetic or something imprinted on my personality as a child... but I've always been like this.

Kesh
2004-Oct-23, 11:32 PM
I'm curious if people think that I am one who thinks that hating is alright. I stated above that I thought it was OK to descriminate against people based on how they choose to live their lives. Do people equate "descriminate" with "hate"?

I don't, but perhaps I'm naive.

I would have to say 'naive.' And I don't mean that in an insulting way. However, experience has shown me that discrimination really is a form of hate, even if the person doing the discriminating doesn't see it that way.

You're thinking of the word 'discrimination' in the dictionary usage, ie. choosing whether or not to include something. However, in real-world use, the word is synonymous with 'bigotry.' No one uses it as a clinical term anymore... it's solely in the realm of discussing prejudice now.

I believe there was an example earlier about a hypothetical evolution researcher refusing to hire a creationist. In this example, if the only reason given for refusal is that the person is a creationist, it's discrimination for one purpose only: to tell the creationist "You aren't worthy of this job, because I don't like you and/or your beliefs."

There's no rational reason for it. If the person is qualified, and there's no indication that who they are/what they believe will interfere with the job... what reason can be given for not hiring them?

It's really no different from having a sign on a movie theater that says "No Blacks" or "No Christians." There's no rational reason to discriminate on that basis other than inherent bigotry.

Even if homosexuality were a lifestyle choice, putting up a sign on a store that says "No Homosexuals Allowed" is discrimination in the worst sense of the word. You're telling a group of people, "You're not welcome here, just because I don't like your kind."

Stylesjl
2004-Oct-24, 01:03 AM
Great responses never thought i'd get this many in 12 hours

It is sad to see the world is full of fear, poverty, and hate but now i just don't care anymore becvause it happens all the time.

But when in a developed country people hate each other because they are just not normal its just sickening to see all the hate.

Now im just down to making cynical coments at everything now.

paulie jay
2004-Oct-24, 05:04 AM
Whether it's choice or genetics - I just don't care. I have no problem seeing homosexual people in public and I have no problem if a gay man finds me attractive (hey, better than being unattractive).


I look forward to the day when it's just not an issue. Even people who say that they are fine with homosexuality feel the need to qualify their open mindedness by mentioning it in the same sentence -

i.e. "Do you know Bob, my gay friend? Well he just told me..."
instead of "Do you know Bob? Well he just told me..."
I mean, who says "Do you know Bob, my straight friend? Well he just told me..."??

I just wish it wasn't an issue.

Normandy6644
2004-Oct-24, 05:21 AM
Whether it's choice or genetics - I just don't care. I have no problem seeing homosexual people in public and I have no problem if a gay man finds me attractive (hey, better than being unattractive).


I look forward to the day when it's just not an issue. Even people who say that they are fine with homosexuality feel the need to qualify their open mindedness by mentioning it in the same sentence -

i.e. "Do you know Bob, my gay friend? Well he just told me..."
instead of "Do you know Bob? Well he just told me..."
I mean, who says "Do you know Bob, my straight friend? Well he just told me..."??

I just wish it wasn't an issue.

Same with race.

Candy
2004-Oct-24, 05:30 AM
I mean, who says "Do you know Bob, my straight friend? Well he just told me..."?? We do at my company. If you don't clarify first, the next question will be, "Is he gay?" I kid you not.

I guess it's because my company is like a big family. A lot of the people met and married or are domestic partners to another co-worker. It's not unusual to see 2 or 3 generations working during the same time period.

It helps to know the sexual preference sometimes, because it's not always obvious. Especially, if the odds of meeting your future mate is from where you work. :wink:

Grand Vizier
2004-Oct-24, 05:41 AM
Whether it's choice or genetics - I just don't care. I have no problem seeing homosexual people in public and I have no problem if a gay man finds me attractive (hey, better than being unattractive).


I look forward to the day when it's just not an issue. Even people who say that they are fine with homosexuality feel the need to qualify their open mindedness by mentioning it in the same sentence -

i.e. "Do you know Bob, my gay friend? Well he just told me..."
instead of "Do you know Bob? Well he just told me..."
I mean, who says "Do you know Bob, my straight friend? Well he just told me..."??

I just wish it wasn't an issue.

Right on, paulie - me too! But I think things are getting better - in some places at least. In my milieu, qualifying your friend's sexuality in that way would be totally gross (perhaps as many as 1/4 of my friends are gay or lesbian [1], so I cringe at the whole idea). And also substituting 'black' for 'gay' in the first example you give is interesting, to say the least... :o

I have to say, though, that it can sometimes be handy to delicately hint at another's sexuality, particularly you are hosting a party. Some people just do not get the right realtime messages, so it can be helpful if they know in advance...

[1] Of course, one or more of the other 3 might not have come out yet :)

[I wasn't going to post on this thread, but since the thread police told me I mustn't, I've been determined to.]

Stylesjl
2004-Oct-24, 05:45 AM
[I wasn't going to post on this thread, but since the thread police told me I mustn't, I've been determined to.]

Errr i don't understand

Jpax2003
2004-Oct-24, 06:30 AM
[I wasn't going to post on this thread, but since the thread police told me I mustn't, I've been determined to.]

Errr i don't understandI think he/she is referring to me. I asked people not to continue with this thread as it is probably in violation of the BA's policies. The BABB has no police, unless you consider it self-policing. I think that the BA is probably away from the keyboard and didn't see this thread yet. I suspect it will be locked as soon as he notices it. The topic of homosexuality is politically charged and almost always becomes religous as well. When I wrote obscenities, was meaning obscene things, not swear words. Sorry about the confusion, I think it's due to medicine I'm on. Anyways, I think a discussion of homosexuality is obscene in this forum and BBoard. Truth be told, I think a discussion of heterosexuality may be out of line too. But it doesn't matter, my opinion is not the ruling opinion. But I think grand vizier may be upset due to another thread. Of course, I can not be sure about that because I deleted his private message to me unread based on the subject heading. I prefer to not have threads get heated and locked because people did what the knew they should not. The BA has said repeatedly that he wants action not apologies when he finally locks a thread and tells people exactly what the veterans have said early on. But the burned hand teaches best, so go ahead and get yourselves banned.

AliCali
2004-Oct-24, 09:08 AM
...Anyways, I think a discussion of homosexuality is obscene in this forum and BBoard.

I don't see how a discussion on homosexuality is obscene. If we were talking about the details in the bedroom, then sure, but we're talking about whether it's (a) a choice, and (b) why people get so worked up about it.

There is a lot of ignorance about homosexuals, and I think it's great that it be discussed in the open.

I always compare society's view of homosexuals with the 50s view of African-Americans (at least from a USA point of view). There is a group of people being hated for what they are, and rules were being made to keep them separate. I know many straights that want gays as far away from them as possible. Same as the white folks who didn't want to drink from the same water fountain as blacks.

There are political and religious aspects to this topic, but the crux of homosexuality has nothing to do with politics or religion. We can talk about what homosexuality means, and how it affects society, without it turning into a lockable thread.

AliCali
2004-Oct-24, 09:15 AM
I'm a bisexual man...

Kesh, I've never met someone bisexual. I've always wanted to ask a bisexual if they're really bisexual, or if they're really gay, but since society teaches you that you must have relations with the opposite sex, that they're trained to be attracted to the opposite sex as well.

It seems that you've answered the question, that you're truly bisexual, and you can be attracted to either sex. I think that's fascinating.

On a similar note, I have a lesbian friend who had a girlfriend that was bisexual. My friend said that she was uncomfortable with the idea of being with a bisexual, because it seemed that the bisexual would be more inclined to cheat (more choices, I guess). My friend and I knew that this was irrational, as sexuality does not equal to infidelity, but it was hard for her to shake that feeling. Did you encounter similar feelings when/if whomever you're dating finds out that you're bisexual?

Stylesjl
2004-Oct-24, 10:25 AM
As long as the thread tries to minimize politics and religion then we should be fine

Just don't talk about it being locked, if the BA wants it locked he will lock it full stop

Hyperkubus
2004-Oct-24, 10:50 AM
There is a biological imperative for us to reproduce, it is how our species continues to exist. Homosexuality is quite contrary to that aim, so even if it were genetic, it would be a genetic defect.
Now this is an argument presented almost every time homosexuality is discussed. That homosexuality is ultimately against nature. As often, things may be not as simple and common sense as they seem to be:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/13/wgay13.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/13/ixworld.html

Homosexuality is a natural side-effect of genetic factors that help women to have more children, a study suggests.
A team led by Prof Andrea Camperio-Ciani, of Padua University, found that female maternal relatives of homosexual men seemed to have more children than female relatives of heterosexual men.
Actually, I must say that I've never considered the thought that your sexual preferences are not mainly determined by your genes. It may sound somewhat ... cynical, but it seems to me that much of what we are is a product of genetic predisposition and a share of environmental factors.

As to sexual orientation, I am dead sure that it's not a choice. I remember that in an odd way I was attracted to and fascinated by the other sex long before I reached the age of ten. There never came a point that even remotely had something to do with a decision. And I guess that's what most people experienced, too.

Candy
2004-Oct-24, 11:09 AM
Doing a search of the word gay resulted in 109 matches (not all were from this thread).

Interesting. . . "A" pride??? (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=347723&highlight=gay#347723)

2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany Thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=340479&highlight=gay#340479)

Turing (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=273408&highlight=gay#273408)

I don’t think any of those threads were locked. 8-[

As long as one doesn't keep leading with politics and/or religion [-X , the thread appears to stay focused. I also find it very educational.

2004-Oct-24, 12:06 PM
I do think that this thread has been handled very constructively. No-one's resorted to either religious or political justifications of their point of view...We all have a point of view, of course we do. But that doesn't prevent us taking-part in a sensible discussion; even if the subject can be thought-of as "sensitive"...

That's my opinion anyway. If the BA decides to lock it, it's his site and it's his decision... :D

Grand Vizier
2004-Oct-24, 12:31 PM
[...]

Of course, I can not be sure about that because I deleted his private message to me unread based on the subject heading.

[...]



Sorry to interrupt a thread that, contrary to Jpax's opinion, continues to maintain its dignity and has not descending into obscenity at any point [1], but I have to clear this up. He is insinuating here that I sent him a PM with a pejorative (perhaps even obscene) heading. This was not so. The heading was 'Sorry, I just can't let that go...'. The reference is to a flame that he directed at myself and another poster on this thread:

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=17095&start=50

...which Jpax has padded out with ad homs that frankly would get him banned if he were a newbie or a woo-woo. For my part, there was nothing in my PM (I retain a copy) that I would not post in public, and certainly no ad homs. The reason I did not post it on the thread was that I had already said that I would not make any more posts on a thread that had veered way off topic.

But I see now that I was wasting my time and that Jpax will not confront plainly made points, preferring to taint opponents in public with insinuation and innuendo.

OK, that's it. Again, I'm very sorry to interrupt, but I had to clear my name.

[1] In fact, it's rather reassured me about human nature.

Jpax2003
2004-Oct-24, 06:39 PM
[...]

Of course, I can not be sure about that because I deleted his private message to me unread based on the subject heading.

[...]



Sorry to interrupt a thread that, contrary to Jpax's opinion, continues to maintain its dignity and has not descending into obscenity at any point [1], but I have to clear this up. He is insinuating here that I sent him a PM with a pejorative (perhaps even obscene) heading. This was not so. The heading was 'Sorry, I just can't let that go...'. The reference is to a flame that he directed at myself and another poster on this thread:

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=17095&start=50

...which Jpax has padded out with ad homs that frankly would get him banned if he were a newbie or a woo-woo. For my part, there was nothing in my PM (I retain a copy) that I would not post in public, and certainly no ad homs. The reason I did not post it on the thread was that I had already said that I would not make any more posts on a thread that had veered way off topic.

But I see now that I was wasting my time and that Jpax will not confront plainly made points, preferring to taint opponents in public with insinuation and innuendo.

OK, that's it. Again, I'm very sorry to interrupt, but I had to clear my name.

[1] In fact, it's rather reassured me about human nature.So are you claiming that your reference to "thread police" was not directed at me? you may have read too much into what I wrote. I never claimed your pm was obscene. I wouldn't know because I deleted it. Based on the header, it sounded like an argument, and I didn't want an argument, obscene, academic, or otherwise. I brought it up because your attitude towards someone in this thread seemed to be your posting intent, not an academic discussion of the topic. Whether you refer to me or others as thread-police the fact remains that you stated plainly that your posting intent was for the specific intent to be contrary. Your post is an intent to start an argument, not to continue the thread with some modicum of decency.

So now, you try to sow dissension by claiming I have committed some error in another thread with which you take offense. If so, then that is unfortunate. Perhaps you do not understand the parody and satire in that thread. If you are truly offended by the use of the word "blank" then I apologize and will treat you with kid gloves from now on, lest you misunderstand that which is clearly marked as humor. You even accuse me of using ad hominem attacks, while there is no evidence of such a fallacy being made. Now you also claim I do not respond to claims plainly made? Did you make plain claims in your PM, because if you did I never read them. I don't do private arguments. If you want to spew venom then do it publically so that everyone else can see you for who you are, or don't do it at all (preferably, not at all). Moreover, you have hijacked this thread to make personal accusations and arguments. Thread hijacking is also frowned upon.

I find it interesting that most those clamoring for continuance of this thread are those with either low post counts or recent join dates. I've posted to threads that had no hint of argument but were purely scholarly discussion on topics that were not allowed which were subsequently locked. It seems that this comes up about every couple months or so.

The point I make is that I have no authority to police this or any other thread. I am merely warning you about the likely outcome. If you don't like what I said then ignore it. It's not hard to ignore a single post that asks for people to cease a discussion. Why there were posts in response is beyond me. The appropriate responses would be to 1 stop posting, or 2 ignore it. Arguing with he who would ask you not to do so, only proves the point that such intent was there ready to surface.

When I want to learn more about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transexual issues, I ask those of my friends, acquaintences, and family who are. However, I don't go to the local astronomy club for these questions. The problem is that I do not think this is appropriate to this forum and Bulletin Board. It's like people's dogs pooing in the park. I can't give you a fine, but I can ask you to clean it up.

Kesh
2004-Oct-24, 08:15 PM
I'm a bisexual man...

Kesh, I've never met someone bisexual. I've always wanted to ask a bisexual if they're really bisexual, or if they're really gay, but since society teaches you that you must have relations with the opposite sex, that they're trained to be attracted to the opposite sex as well.

It seems that you've answered the question, that you're truly bisexual, and you can be attracted to either sex. I think that's fascinating.

glad I could answer that for you. :)

Keep in mind, sexuality is a difficult thing to pin down. Similar to what you described, some folks do go through a 'phase' of identifying as bisexual before they're finally comfortable labeling themselves as gay. Others experiment as bisexual, before confirming that they're really straight.

However, there are also folks who label themselves as gay, but enjoy having sex with members of the opposite gender sometimes 'just for fun.' Same way with some heterosexuals. They never consider themselves bi, and likely wouldn't fall in love with the opposite of their preference... but still find that kind of sex enjoyable.

And then there are those of us who feel attracted to both sexes (not necessarily equally!), and who identify as bisexual. That would be me. I'm attracted to and love people of both genders. Always have. It's just my 'orientation'.

When someone tells you that 'all bisexuals are just confused' or 'in denial', don't buy it. 8)


On a similar note, I have a lesbian friend who had a girlfriend that was bisexual. My friend said that she was uncomfortable with the idea of being with a bisexual, because it seemed that the bisexual would be more inclined to cheat (more choices, I guess). My friend and I knew that this was irrational, as sexuality does not equal to infidelity, but it was hard for her to shake that feeling. Did you encounter similar feelings when/if whomever you're dating finds out that you're bisexual?

Mmph. Yes, I've dealt with this. I was becoming very close with a man, one of my first loves, but... he just couldn't bring himself to trust bisexuals, after one of his first loves had used him. The guy had claimed to care about this man, but after having sex he said he was going to marry his fiancee... and still wanted to have sex with the man, no strings attached.

That sort of thing hurts. And it gave the man I had grown fond of an inability to trust bisexuals anymore. That was a big part of what led to our fallling-out, I believe.

Suffice to say, if someone is going to cheat, their orientation doesn't matter. Temptation is temptation. Bisexuals may have more choice, but that doesn't make us more likely to cheat.

There's plenty of other bad stereotypes bisexuals get, from both the hetero- and homosexual communities. Like anything, they don't apply to everyone.

Candy
2004-Oct-24, 08:20 PM
When I want to learn more about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transexual issues, I ask those of my friends, acquaintences, and family who are. However, I don't go to the local astronomy club for these questions. The problem is that I do not think this is appropriate to this forum and Bulletin Board. It's like people's dogs pooing in the park. I can't give you a fine, but I can ask you to clean it up. I thought this was

Things currently on the BABB (just to name a few).
Van de Graaf generator
how to make a web site
He’s Just Not That Into You
Bad Legalese
In Light of the Upcoming Hunting Season
Word Association Game
Brain Teaser
Simpsons Characters: The ultimate fluff Thread
International Spy Museum – Washington DC
Computer prob
Homosexulality: ie gays- Whats the problem
Baseball Playoffs
Cross fingers and Toes- GO SOX!!!
Science and the upcoming US election
Simpsons Trivia Game
User Gender II:User Age
Physics Professor Goes on Rage in Class
Bad Medicine…Part 2
CSI
What candy are you?
Program to calculate pi
Bad Astronomy coming to Oz!
Ig Nobels Celebrate Weird Science
Service pack 2 issues???

Which of those do you want us to stop posting on, because you don't want to read about it? Or because they are not astronomical in nature?

I have a suggestion, stop reading and posting to this thread if you don't like it.

[b]Please, let those that can't talk to friends or family about a subject deemed inappropriate for fear of ridicule. At least, the BABB acquaintances are listening and not judging. The decision is ultimately the BA’s. This goes for everyone, PM the BA with your concerns, and stop sabotaging this thread. Believe it or not, it’s a good topic.

Sammy
2004-Oct-24, 08:37 PM
Candy wrote


Please, let those that can't talk to our friends or family about a subject deemed inappropriate for fear of ridicule. At least, our BABB acquaintances are listening and not judging. The decision is ultimately the BA’s. This goes for everyone, PM the BA with your concerns, and stop sabotaging this thread. Believe it or not, it’s a good

I pretty much agree with the above. I'm a married straight white male, and not exactly young, liberal in politics, and traditional in general outlook. I have not seen anything obscene or improper in this thread, tho I personally find some of comments narrow-minded. I've been reading and posting on BA fora for a year and a half now, and have never seen the BA reluctant to post a warning on, or lock, a thread heading in an unsuitable direction. He has not yet done so here. Why second-guess what he might do? Let this thread run it's course. The BA will either lock it if it violates his sensibilities, or run until people feel there is nothing else to say.

Humphrey
2004-Oct-24, 08:50 PM
Kesh, Glad you told us. thanks. :-)


Perasonally i have never known a person who has come "out of the closet". Sure i bet at least a few of my friends have been gay or Bi-, But none have come out in the open and said anything about it. So i find it very interesting and enjoyable to talk to someone who is. I find nuthing offensive or problematic with this discuaiion if it remains entirely positive and informal and does not dissolve into a "who is right" and politics argument that it started with. Lets keep it to what it has changed into, something about personal information.



Something i wonder is this: When a heterosexual male looks for attractive qualities in a woman there are certain abvious parts: Face, Breasts, Legs, Butt.
When a heterosexual woman looks for atractive qualities in a male they look at: Face, Butt, Muscles (and other stuff i have no clue about, but im sure you gals can fill in. :-)).

So does a Homosexual person look for those same qualities? Or different?





I know that sounds like a stupid question, but hey, i wonder. :-)

Jpax2003
2004-Oct-24, 08:54 PM
I have a suggestion, stop reading and posting to this thread if you don't like it.I did, until someone made a snide remark in my direction.

I wash my hands of this. Go fight with each other, I'll stay out of it. But don't say you weren't warned.

Candy
2004-Oct-24, 09:38 PM
Mmph. Yes, I've dealt with this. I was becoming very close with a man, one of my first loves, but... he just couldn't bring himself to trust bisexuals, after one of his first loves had used him. The guy had claimed to care about this man, but after having sex he said he was going to marry his fiancee... and still wanted to have sex with the man, no strings attached. I never in my wildest dreams would have thought this happens, until I met a man such as the man with the fiance above.

My work buddy, Paul, and I went to a gay club. We met this guy named John. John was straight as straight could be, and he was in the military. He was on leave and visiting family in Illinois. John said he is straight, but he enjoys having intimate encounters with men with no strings. John preferred having meaningful relationships with women.

My buddy, Paul, said this is very common in the homosexual community. Yet, no one labeled John bisexual or homosexual. Not even me. 8-[

MrObvious
2004-Oct-25, 02:53 AM
Personally I can't see any issue with this thread, kids nowdays have better sex education than we ever did. Hell there was no such thing (sex ed) in my day. Don't discuss it and maybe it'll go away was the moto of the day. Most of us kids learned about it from the older kids, wow what wisdom they had #-o

It appears we have a long way to go with tolerance and equality since a discussion about sexual orientation automaticaly invokes the feeling of people arguing and the thread being locked. :(

I live next door to a pub and almost half the staff there are gay (men and women). I go out some of them and others I don't. Some are great friends and others I don't asscociate with at all. We have BBQ's at my place and sometimes a few crash the night. So what's the point? Simple, there is no differrence across the board, they are no better nor any worse than anyone else. We are all individuals and should be treated as such. One day we will hopefully be able to discuss sexual preference as easily and with as little controversy as discussing what car we prefer, ford or holden etc and have a good laugh with each other about it.

Speaking of laugh about it, my gay male friends joke that the only reason I go out with them is that they do the ground work for me and I reap the rewards(never! :D ok, once or twice :oops: ), the girls say I only go out with them because I want to convert them. :roll: (ok, I thought about it! :wink:) So I tell them that the only reason I go out with them is because I want to remain single, nothing what so ever to do with the fact they are great fun to be with and I enjoy their company. :D

Morrolan
2004-Oct-25, 03:15 AM
i'm coming late to this discussion, but i have no problem with homo- or bisexuality. i have several friends and acquiantances that are homosexual.

i'm also proud that i come from a country where homosexual men and women can marry and are accorded all rights and duties the law provides to married couples (as are people that live together on a contract basis other than marriage) and that includes adoption, pension rights, health care, etc. etc.

AliCali
2004-Oct-25, 04:11 AM
Something i wonder is this: When a heterosexual male looks for attractive qualities in a woman there are certain abvious parts: Face, Breasts, Legs, Butt.
When a heterosexual woman looks for atractive qualities in a male they look at: Face, Butt, Muscles (and other stuff i have no clue about, but im sure you gals can fill in. :-)).

So does a Homosexual person look for those same qualities? Or different?

I know that sounds like a stupid question, but hey, i wonder. :-)

You know, this is one of the questions I've asked my gay friends. I always wondered what a lesbian looks for in another woman, or a gay man looks for in a man.

The answers I've received varied pretty much the same as if you'd ask heterosexuals what they look for in the opposite sex. In general, the gay men liked to look at a body, while the gay women were more interested in the face and personality.

Forgive my generalization, but I think most guys are attracted to looks while most women are attracted to personality. Not all, but in general. Based on my little survey, this seemed to be the same, no matter your sexual orientation.

Again, I'm generalizing about genders, but as Dave Barry said, "If God didn't want us to generalize about genders, then She wouldn't have given us genders."

Candy
2004-Oct-25, 04:31 AM
Forgive my generalization, but I think most guys are attracted to looks while most women are attracted to personality. Being a 37 year old single heterosexual female, I am attracted to looks (it could be the dumbest thing like nice eyes or great legs - baseball players rule), humor, intelligence, phonics (very important - foreign accents rule), good work ethics, career orientated, self-sufficient, creative, witty, charming, NICE...

No wonder I'm still single. #-o

ALL THE GOOD GUYS MY AGE ARE TAKEN OR LIVE IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY! 8-[

Brady Yoon
2004-Oct-25, 05:03 AM
So are you claiming that your reference to "thread police" was not directed at me? you may have read too much into what I wrote. I never claimed your pm was obscene. I wouldn't know because I deleted it. Based on the header, it sounded like an argument, and I didn't want an argument, obscene, academic, or otherwise. I brought it up because your attitude towards someone in this thread seemed to be your posting intent, not an academic discussion of the topic. Whether you refer to me or others as thread-police the fact remains that you stated plainly that your posting intent was for the specific intent to be contrary. Your post is an intent to start an argument, not to continue the thread with some modicum of decency.

So now, you try to sow dissension by claiming I have committed some error in another thread with which you take offense. If so, then that is unfortunate. Perhaps you do not understand the parody and satire in that thread. If you are truly offended by the use of the word "blank" then I apologize and will treat you with kid gloves from now on, lest you misunderstand that which is clearly marked as humor. You even accuse me of using ad hominem attacks, while there is no evidence of such a fallacy being made. Now you also claim I do not respond to claims plainly made? Did you make plain claims in your PM, because if you did I never read them. I don't do private arguments. If you want to spew venom then do it publically so that everyone else can see you for who you are, or don't do it at all (preferably, not at all). Moreover, you have hijacked this thread to make personal accusations and arguments. Thread hijacking is also frowned upon.

I find it interesting that most those clamoring for continuance of this thread are those with either low post counts or recent join dates. I've posted to threads that had no hint of argument but were purely scholarly discussion on topics that were not allowed which were subsequently locked. It seems that this comes up about every couple months or so.

The point I make is that I have no authority to police this or any other thread. I am merely warning you about the likely outcome. If you don't like what I said then ignore it. It's not hard to ignore a single post that asks for people to cease a discussion. Why there were posts in response is beyond me. The appropriate responses would be to 1 stop posting, or 2 ignore it. Arguing with he who would ask you not to do so, only proves the point that such intent was there ready to surface.

When I want to learn more about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transexual issues, I ask those of my friends, acquaintences, and family who are. However, I don't go to the local astronomy club for these questions. The problem is that I do not think this is appropriate to this forum and Bulletin Board. It's like people's dogs pooing in the park. I can't give you a fine, but I can ask you to clean it up.

Jpax, this board is BABBling.

Jpax2003
2004-Oct-25, 05:09 AM
Jpax, this board is BABBling.
#-o
](*,)

Stylesjl
2004-Oct-25, 05:09 AM
ENOUGH!! Seriously i am losing my temper, stop talking about the thread being locked, offtopic, or whatever

This is BABBLing this topic is within its topic grounds

If you wanna have an argument, go pollute some other topic

If their is a problem with the thread in general the BA will make the verdict no one else

Good, anymore people want to go offtopic, bicker amognst yourselfs, or raise an objection to the nature of the topic? Because if you do PM someone who cares and then a discussion can start somewhere else.

Now back ontopic

Jpax2003
2004-Oct-25, 05:17 AM
ENOUGH!! Seriously i am losing my temper, stop talking about the thread being locked, offtopic, or whateverEmphasis mine

Sounds familiar. I think someone got yelled at for saying that earlier... hmmm. Interesting use of language. Note that I am not complaining about it, just observing the turnabout. However, I am interested in knowing who you are directed your post toward.

Candy
2004-Oct-25, 05:19 AM
"It's very hard to criticize what you don't understand." Jerry Seinfeld :lol:

Kesh
2004-Oct-25, 05:56 AM
Kesh, Glad you told us. thanks. :-)

Welcome! :)


Something i wonder is this: When a heterosexual male looks for attractive qualities in a woman there are certain abvious parts: Face, Breasts, Legs, Butt.
When a heterosexual woman looks for atractive qualities in a male they look at: Face, Butt, Muscles (and other stuff i have no clue about, but im sure you gals can fill in. :-)).

So does a Homosexual person look for those same qualities? Or different?

I know that sounds like a stupid question, but hey, i wonder. :-)

It's not a stupid question. :)

In my experience, folks find various things attractive... but in general, the things straight women find attractive about men are the same things gay men find attractive about men. Same for lesbians.

There's always variables (tall or short? thin or heavy? etc.), but most folks look at chest, rump, face and overall build the most.

MrObvious
2004-Oct-25, 06:02 AM
Forgive my generalization, but I think most guys are attracted to looks while most women are attracted to personality. Being a 37 year old single heterosexual female, I am attracted to looks (it could be the dumbest thing like nice eyes or great legs - baseball players rule), humor, intelligence, phonics (very important - foreign accents rule), good work ethics, career orientated, self-sufficient, creative, witty, charming, NICE...

No wonder I'm still single. #-o

Judging by your requirements it explains why there's a lot of single men too :D :wink:

Kesh
2004-Oct-25, 06:05 AM
My work buddy, Paul, and I went to a gay club. We met this guy named John. John was straight as straight could be, and he was in the military. He was on leave and visiting family in Illinois. John said he is straight, but he enjoys having intimate encounters with men with no strings. John preferred having meaningful relationships with women.

My buddy, Paul, said this is very common in the homosexual community. Yet, no one labeled John bisexual or homosexual. Not even me. 8-[

It's pretty common, in general.

One thing you learn by spending more time in the gay community is that labels are pretty much useless. Like you said, just because a man has sex with other men, it doesn't mean he identifies as gay or bi. He may identify as straight, but enjoy homosexual activity from time to time, while having no emotional interest in other men at all. He might not even find other men sexually attractive, per se... simply the act itself interests him.

After a while, the labels lose their purpose. If you see a guy in a dress what is he: a drag-queen, a transsexual, a guy who lost a bet, the submissive one following his master's orders, or just some guy who wanted to wear a dress tonight?

When you keep finding situations that don't fit your expectations, you stop trying to label them. 8)

Harvestar
2004-Oct-25, 06:09 AM
When I want to learn more about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transexual issues, I ask those of my friends, acquaintences, and family who are. However, I don't go to the local astronomy club for these questions.

I find that highly amusing since if I want to go talk talk to my friends who are gay, lesbian and bisexual, I DO go to the local astronomy club (if I may define "local astronomy club" to be the Astronomy Department here). ;) In fact, one of the stats sited by a (bisexual) friend of mine said that 10% of the grad students were gay, lesbian or bisexual (and that's just the ones who have talked to her!).



I'm a bisexual man...

On a similar note, I have a lesbian friend who had a girlfriend that was bisexual. My friend said that she was uncomfortable with the idea of being with a bisexual, because it seemed that the bisexual would be more inclined to cheat (more choices, I guess). My friend and I knew that this was irrational, as sexuality does not equal to infidelity, but it was hard for her to shake that feeling. Did you encounter similar feelings when/if whomever you're dating finds out that you're bisexual?

all second hand here, but my bisexual friend I quoted above is quite happy in a very obviously long term relationship with another of our friends who is lesbian. They suit each other very well and aside from some joking between them, I've never heard them express any instances of jealousy. (except at the very beginning before they started going out when the one asked me if the other was involved with one of our guy friends - who I had a crush on at the time - (and who we've since figured out is bisexual anyway - kind of odd to think about now...)).

Candy
2004-Oct-25, 06:10 AM
Being a 37 year old single heterosexual female, I am attracted to looks (it could be the dumbest thing like nice eyes or great legs - baseball players rule), humor, intelligence, phonics (very important - foreign accents rule), good work ethics, career orientated, self-sufficient, creative, witty, charming, NICE...

No wonder I'm still single. #-o

Judging by your requirements it explains why there's a lot of single men too :D :wink: That's why once I graduate, I start my quest to travel the world. I'll make it easier for Mr. Right to find me. :P

MrObvious
2004-Oct-25, 06:51 AM
What really gets to me is guy's who think gay men are warped but have no problem fantisising about two women. :-?

Most of these guys are single and easily had fun with. I usually throw a spanner into the works with this : "more gay men = more single women. More gay women = less single women". This works well in a pub situation when someone throws off a rude comment. They actually think about it for a second or two, for that fleeting instant they realise another point of view which is totally oposite to their current one. The thin edge of the wedge is secured and just maybe their mind will slowly open. A quick follow up with some more jokes about the advantages of having a gay friend works wonders at this point.

Ironic fact is at the pub a lot of guys say stupid things in front of the bartender who they "think" they've known for years. Too bad the guy that's been serving him for years and listening to his crap is gay. I get to listen to all the steam letting when having drinks at my place from most of the staff, though not all of it is gay (verbal)bashing. Gives us something to laugh at later in the night :)




That's why once I graduate, I start my quest to travel the world. I'll make it easier for Mr. Right to find me.

Hmmm, too bad I'm MrObvious, I'll be happy to change my name just for you though :D :wink:

Tobin Dax
2004-Oct-25, 06:54 AM
Being a 37 year old single heterosexual female, I am attracted to looks (it could be the dumbest thing like nice eyes or great legs - baseball players rule), humor, intelligence, phonics (very important - foreign accents rule), good work ethics, career orientated, self-sufficient, creative, witty, charming, NICE...

No wonder I'm still single. #-o

Judging by your requirements it explains why there's a lot of single men too :D :wink: That's why once I graduate, I start my quest to travel the world. I'll make it easier for Mr. Right to find me. :P

Now we all understand why you work for an airline. ;)

Candy
2004-Oct-25, 07:09 AM
Hmmm, too bad I'm MrObvious, I'll be happy to change my name just for you though :D :wink: :P

TriangleMan
2004-Oct-25, 11:12 AM
After a while, the labels lose their purpose.
I couldn't agree more. I lived in downtown Vancouver for six years, in the heart of the "village" yet I shared a one-bedroom apartment with a buddy of mine (I had the bedroom, he slept in the living room). So here we had two men sharing a one-bedroom apartment in the "village" yet no one in the neighbourhood assumed we were gay because there was just no point in labelling and jumping to conclusions. They were right too - neither of us was gay.

I've met men who I would have swore on a stack of Bibles were as straight as Hugh Hefner but they were actually gay (or in one case used to be a woman) while the guy who always wore lavendar shirts and avidly followed figure skating turned out to be married to a woman and had 2 kids. After a while in that neighbourhood you just stopped labelling people.

Glom
2004-Oct-25, 11:29 AM
However, there are also folks who label themselves as gay, but enjoy having sex with members of the opposite gender sometimes 'just for fun.' Same way with some heterosexuals. They never consider themselves bi, and likely wouldn't fall in love with the opposite of their preference... but still find that kind of sex enjoyable.

I think you've hit on an interesting point there, Kesh. It doesn't have to be one, the other, or both equally. Probably, no-one is completely one or the other, there is only grey, often of a very decided shade (partly due to society in that as long as you can function straight, you go completely that way and similarly if you're gay, then you might as well embrace it completely otherwise no one side will accept you).

Richard of Chelmsford
2004-Oct-25, 11:30 AM
I bet the most homophobic people in private parade up and down in taffata ball gowns drinking mint julips whipping the house boy.

Why are people constantly being accused of 'homophobia?'

I'm not homophobic.

I spend most of my life at home. 8)

Glom
2004-Oct-25, 11:31 AM
Most of these guys are single and easily had fun with. I usually throw a spanner into the works with this : "more gay men = more single women. More gay women = less single women". This works well in a pub situation when someone throws off a rude comment. They actually think about it for a second or two, for that fleeting instant they realise another point of view which is totally oposite to their current one. The thin edge of the wedge is secured and just maybe their mind will slowly open. A quick follow up with some more jokes about the advantages of having a gay friend works wonders at this point.

Exumptly. Pulling is hard enough as it is without have people who'd rather be gay being forced to flood the market. :P I have a gay friend. Don't think it's ever helped me but he only recently came out.

Incidentally, after the initial night where lots of jokes went flying around such as my Indian friend calling him queer and he responding by sending out racial slurs, all in good fun of course, it's never been mentioned otherwise. I guess this hasn't changed our feelings about him. Of course, we knew he was long before he knew it. He's very camp.

Glom
2004-Oct-25, 11:36 AM
That's why once I graduate, I start my quest to travel the world. I'll make it easier for Mr. Right to find me. :P

Visiting Birmingham anytime soon? :P

Candy
2004-Oct-25, 11:54 AM
That's why once I graduate, I start my quest to travel the world. I'll make it easier for Mr. Right to find me. :P

Visiting Birmingham anytime soon? :P How far is this event (http://www.airshow.co.uk/) from Birmingham? I can't turn the dang pop-up blocker off, so I can't surf the site to get a location to check on Mapquest. :evil:

Does this mean I can get you to take me for a ride (in an airplane)? 8-[

Glom
2004-Oct-25, 11:57 AM
Never heard of that base. I don't think it is near me or I'd be able to see it on my map.

Hang on, it's in Scotland. That's way away, unfortunately.

Humphrey
2004-Oct-25, 12:11 PM
Kesh, Glad you told us. thanks. :-)

Welcome! :)

[snip]

It's not a stupid question. :)

In my experience, folks find various things attractive... but in general, the things straight women find attractive about men are the same things gay men find attractive about men. Same for lesbians.

There's always variables (tall or short? thin or heavy? etc.), but most folks look at chest, rump, face and overall build the most.

Cool. Thanks Kesh and Alicali! :-D

Candy
2004-Oct-25, 12:18 PM
Never heard of that base. I don't think it is near me or I'd be able to see it on my map.

Hang on, it's in Scotland. That's way away, unfortunately. My plan is to land at LHR, rent a car, and drive on the wrong side of the car and road. Watch out, pedestrians! :-?

I do this kind of thing a lot. Well, I used to up 'til 3 years ago. I usually travel alone, which probably isn't the wisest thing to do. I meet a lot of people who 'protect' me. I must have gullible sap written on my forehead or something. :wink:

When I come your way, I will PM you. I would kill to have a commuter airplane ride over Britain. Oh, the photos to make my friends die of envy.

Ok, back to topic. :D

Glom
2004-Oct-25, 12:23 PM
You're going to drive from London to Dumferline? :o

Candy
2004-Oct-25, 12:32 PM
You're going to drive from London to Dumferline? :o It can't be that far. I drive 3 hours tomorrow to Indiana, stay a few hours, and then head back to Illinois. :-?

Candy
2004-Oct-25, 12:56 PM
I couldn't agree more. I lived in downtown Vancouver for six years, in the heart of the "village" yet I shared a one-bedroom apartment with a buddy of mine (I had the bedroom, he slept in the living room). So here we had two men sharing a one-bedroom apartment in the "village" yet no one in the neighbourhood assumed we were gay because there was just no point in labelling and jumping to conclusions. They were right too - neither of us was gay.

I've met men who I would have swore on a stack of Bibles were as straight as Hugh Hefner but they were actually gay (or in one case used to be a woman) while the guy who always wore lavendar shirts and avidly followed figure skating turned out to be married to a woman and had 2 kids. After a while in that neighbourhood you just stopped labelling people.

Come to think of it, everytime I have had a roommate of either sex, one of two questions would be asked.
1) If it were a female roommate, then I would be asked if we were girlfriend/girlfriend.
2) If it were a male roommate, then I would be asked if we were boyfriend/girlfriend.
I live alone now. :D

At work, there are men I would guess were gay - [married with kids] - nicest guys.
Then there are men I would guess as manly men - [closet homo/bi-sexuals] - so full of anger.
Then there are men that are very open - my second favorite.
Then there are men that are straight manly men - my favorite. :P

kucharek
2004-Oct-25, 02:10 PM
You're going to drive from London to Dumferline? :o
When you're from the US, no distance in Great Britain can be far.

Richard of Chelmsford
2004-Oct-25, 02:37 PM
I once knew a bloke who was bi-sexual.

He liked girls and women.

iFire
2004-Oct-25, 02:51 PM
I recently had a discussion with my friends about this. Basically it went like this:
Me: Whats so wrong about homosexual marriage?
Them: God says its wrong.
Me: And why does that matter to you?
Them: Becuase they'd go to hell.
Me: And that affects you how?
Them: Um... Its just gross!
Me: Again, and that affects you how?
Them: Dunno.......

I don't care what the bible says about it. If God did decide to send someone to hell for being in a homosexual relationship so be it. It doesn't affect me, so why should I care? There is no reason what so ever why a man and another man (or woman and woman) shouldn't be able to marry. Hell, when people talk about preserving the sanctity of marriage, I think: "Since when has a state marriage been sacred?" I can understand why a religious organisation refuses to allow it, they're a private organisation and can do just about whatever they want (within reason of course). That is what I think.

--iFire--

(I probably have like a million spelling errors in there...)

Glom
2004-Oct-25, 04:17 PM
It can't be that far. I drive 3 hours tomorrow to Indiana, stay a few hours, and then head back to Illinois. :-?

By car, you're talking no less than six hours. Probably longer. It'll take an hour just to get out of London. Three hours will maybe get you to Manchester.

Humphrey
2004-Oct-25, 04:22 PM
Think of it as an action movie. She can stand on the roof of her car and you fly by on your plane, reach out and heroically grab her from eminent doom. Then fly her to wherever she goes (as long as you get a beautiful picture of the sunset from the chase plane).

Candy
2004-Oct-25, 04:31 PM
Think of it as an action movie. She can stand on the roof of her car and you fly by on your plane, reach out and heroically grab her from eminent doom. Then fly her to wherever she goes (as long as you get a beautiful picture of the sunset from the chase plane). Better yet, I hire him for the day to fly me around that big old Island. :P

Humphrey
2004-Oct-25, 04:37 PM
Which version, with Wales or without? :-P


I can't believe you are passing up a heroic rescue, hey we have never seen Gloms face, he could be Fabios sexier, younger brother for all we know!!! :-)

Candy
2004-Oct-25, 04:52 PM
Which version, with Wales or without? :-P


I can't believe you are passing up a heroic rescue, hey we have never seen Gloms face, he could be Fabios sexier, younger brother for all we know!!! :-) His Occupation is listed as Almost a pilot. It is inevitable. And I have the class 1 to prove it! Should he be attempting anything dangerous? :P

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Oct-26, 04:29 AM
I have had several PMs about this thread, saying it is getting heated, it's inappropriate, etc.

The heat has been pretty mild as these things go, and seem to be relegated to just a couple of people, and also appears to have either cooled off or been taken offline.

This topic would be inappropriate on another forum, but this is BABBling. And while I do frown on religious and political topics, I do that knowing, from vast experience on the web, that even rational people tend to dissolve under such topics.

But I have now read all the posts in this thread, and while I don't agree with all of them, most are posted in a clearly thoughtful way. And Lurker's post was moving, even beautiful. As an aside, Lurker, I am terribly saddened by your situation. I sometimes wonder about the role of hope in a skeptic's life, but if hope is a positive thing, then I certainly hope things take a turn for the better for you. I can also hope that things will yet turn around in this world, and there will be a dearth of stupidity in the future. Hate is natural, and not necessarily bad. But unreasoned hatred, hatred based on prejudgment, only leads to darkness.

Back to the topic at hand. Homosexuality on its own is not a topic that is obscene, nor is it inappropriate for children. It is something that exists, and as such it's something we should all be aware of. When I talk about this board being family-friendly, I mean I don't want there to be unreasonable attitudes, swearing, impoliteness, and other things I don't want children to be exposed to. Sure, they will have to deal with it in life, but here, on my board, they will see people acting civilly toward one another, they will see people respecting ideas as long as they are presented well and based on evidence, and they will be watching as informed debates unfold between disagreeing adults.

One other thing. This is a personal preference, and not to be construed (yet) as coming from the admin. In every board I read, there comes a time when people start policing each other. That is fine, but when it becomes overt in a thread, I find it somewhat distasteful. If you have a beef with a thread, PM me. I happened to be out of town the past couple of days, and have not had internet access. But in general, if you think a thread is out of control, then PM me, and I'll decide.

As long as things continue here as they have, then this thread stays open. This is an important topic, and I am proud to have a board where this can go five pages and not have epithets flying.

Richard of Chelmsford
2004-Oct-26, 11:02 AM
Hear Hear.

TriangleMan
2004-Oct-26, 11:03 AM
Love you BA! *kiss* :wink:

R.A.F.
2004-Oct-26, 12:16 PM
As long as things continue here as they have, then this thread stays open.

Good on you, BA! I guess that means that I'll "jump back in". :)


...Lurker's post was moving, even beautiful. As an aside, Lurker, I am terribly saddened by your situation. I sometimes wonder about the role of hope in a skeptic's life, but if hope is a positive thing, then I certainly hope things take a turn for the better for you.

I agree. It's very hard to read of others problems, and realize that I can do absolutely nothing to help. Lurker, I wish you well.

Now a personal story...

A few months back, I attended the Gay Pride Parade held in San Diego. There were literally thousands of people lining both sides of the street. It was a happy, joyous, celebration of life. I got "caught up" in it all and had a marvelous time!

All the people I saw there were comfortable with who they are...

I don't understand why there are those in this world who would go out of their way to try to make them feel uncomfortable.

snowcelt
2004-Oct-26, 12:45 PM
As long as things continue here as they have, then this thread stays open.

Good on you, BA! I guess that means that I'll "jump back in". :)


...Lurker's post was moving, even beautiful. As an aside, Lurker, I am terribly saddened by your situation. I sometimes wonder about the role of hope in a skeptic's life, but if hope is a positive thing, then I certainly hope things take a turn for the better for you.

I agree. It's very hard to read of others problems, and realize that I can do absolutely nothing to help. Lurker, I wish you well.

Now a personal story...

A few months back, I attended the Gay Pride Parade held in San Diego. There were literally thousands of people lining both sides of the street. It was a happy, joyous, celebration of life. I got "caught up" in it all and had a marvelous time!

All the people I saw there were comfortable with who they are...

I don't understand why there are those in this world who would go out of their way to try to make them feel uncomfortable.

You are right. Why should anyone try to make these proud people uncomfortable?

My question is---why is it that so many of these proud people are trying to make the rest of us uncomfortable? Be proud! Great! Just tone it down.

R.A.F.
2004-Oct-26, 12:56 PM
...why is it that so many of these proud people are trying to make the rest of us uncomfortable?

The "rest of us"? Hmm, I know that I don't feel uncomfortable. Why are you uncomfortable?

Argos
2004-Oct-26, 01:43 PM
Like you said, just because a man has sex with other men, it doesn't mean he identifies as gay or bi.

In fact, in some cultures, being the "active" player in a sexual intercourse with another man is considered, paradoxically, a "macho" thing. It´s especially true when it comes to prisoners of war.

Edited to clarify.

snowcelt
2004-Oct-26, 01:55 PM
...why is it that so many of these proud people are trying to make the rest of us uncomfortable?

The "rest of us"? Hmm, I know that I don't feel uncomfortable. Why are you uncomfortable?

You are right. In the back of my mind I was thinking that I was a bit inclusive. I apologize. However, I do believe that there are many heterosexual people who find the in-the-face approach a bit much. Indeed, many are not tolerant, many are some what ambivalent, and many are bewildered by the stridency of the heterosexual community.

The uncomfortness is, I believe it too be, that people are uninformed.

Disinfo Agent
2004-Oct-26, 01:57 PM
many are bewildered by the stridency of the heterosexual community.
I know that was a typo, but, you know, it's probably just as true as what you intended to write. :D

AstroSmurf
2004-Oct-26, 02:04 PM
I'll jump in with some one-liners...
Thanks BA for letting the discussion continue. iFire, great post - I agree fully.
Lurker... well, what can I say. My sympathies to you both.

Speaking from my own perspective, I've gotten some interest from a few gay guys that I've met. It's no big deal as far as I'm concerned - I wasn't interested, and they seemed to catch on pretty quick. Frankly, they gave me a lot less trouble than some girls have. :wink:

Still, I sympathise a bit with snowcelt. Seeing two people of the same sex make out publicly makes me uncomfortable too - my views can be summarised as 'consenting adults, in private, please'. So the same goes for different-sex situations - that my reactions are for different reasons and to a different degree still is something I consider a flaw that I need to work on.

While there's a long road to go still towards full acceptance, I find it encouraging with the parades, actors and others who come out publicly. While some of the shows involving gays seem prone to stereotyping (e.g Fab 5), at least it's not hidden away anymore. Sweden has come pretty far; there's still not complete equality, but you can get a state marriage and (I think) adopt as well. There is some pressure on the church to allow church weddings as well, but I disagree with those trying to impose this from the outside; if this will happen, it must come from the inside, or religious freedom becomes a sham. If some people want a church that allows gay marriage, let them start one, or work within the hierarchy to change the doctrine. (I think the end result will be much the same though - there will always be those that are completely opposed, so two churches are almost inevitable).

Me? I used to be straight, but now it's bordering on asexual... :-?

R.A.F.
2004-Oct-26, 02:13 PM
You are right...I apologize.

No problem...sometimes I do "stumble" into rightness. :)

However, I do believe that there are many heterosexual people who find the in-the-face approach a bit much.

I know that to be the truth...but, I think that says more about some heterosexual "opinions" of gays, than it does about the gays themselfs.

Gerrsun
2004-Oct-26, 02:14 PM
n example of someone who found the whole 'gay' lifestyle too much.

My wife was friends with two men who were in a homosexual relationship for many years and she says one, JAMES, didnt like the whole 'Pride' parade, dress up in gold lame short-shorts and march the streets. In fact, he didnt really believe in the whole 'gay' lifestyle movement at all. Not sure about the others views.

His relationship was his and his partners and it was personal and private. It wasnt something he wanted to march up and down the streets about. He just wanted his quiet life of church choir, work and cats.

And as I understand it, his was a monogamous view, his partners was not appearently, and she lost both of them to Aids.

Grand Vizier
2004-Oct-26, 02:27 PM
n example of someone who found the whole 'gay' lifestyle too much.

My wife was friends with two men who were in a homosexual relationship for many years and she says one, JAMES, didnt like the whole 'Pride' parade, dress up in gold lame short-shorts and march the streets. In fact, he didnt really believe in the whole 'gay' lifestyle movement at all. Not sure about the others views.

His relationship was his and his partners and it was personal and private. It wasnt something he wanted to march up and down the streets about. He just wanted his quiet life of church choir, work and cats.

And as I understand it, his was a monogamous view, his partners was not appearently, and she lost both of them to Aids.

I'm saddened to hear that. Aids is a whole other issue, and that's where the real prejudice starts to show up - and there's still much superstition on the subject.

But on your topic - no, none of the gay men I know, monogamous or not, are very thrilled at the idea of being identified with 'Screaming Queens'. But I guess, if some people want to act like stereotypes, that's their choice.

Gerrsun
2004-Oct-26, 02:37 PM
Yeah I think I'd be uncomfortable with a parade of rainbow wigged leather boys proclaiming their STRAIGHTNESS too.


EDIT> And yes AIDS is a whole nother subject. My wife worked for a professor who was doing research on AIDS and how to change public attitudes. She would have prostitutes come in and say, "yeah, I tell my customers I have AIDS and I offer a condom and they tell me no, they wont wear it. What am I gonna do, turn down the money?" :(

Candy
2004-Oct-26, 02:43 PM
Like you said, just because a man has sex with other men, it doesn't mean he identifies as gay or bi.

In fact, in some cultures, being the "active" player in a sexual intercourse with another man is considered, paradoxically, a "macho" thing. It´s especially true when it comes to prisoners of war.

Edited to clarify. I wonder if it is also used as an act of power, too. I've heard some stories that just seem unbelievable from many different cultures (even the US).

Normandy6644
2004-Oct-26, 03:20 PM
Yeah I think I'd be uncomfortable with a parade of rainbow wigged leather boys proclaiming their STRAIGHTNESS too.


EDIT> And yes AIDS is a whole nother subject. My wife worked for a professor who was doing research on AIDS and how to change public attitudes. She would have prostitutes come in and say, "yeah, I tell my customers I have AIDS and I offer a condom and they tell me no, they wont wear it. What am I gonna do, turn down the money?" :(

That's pretty frightening.

Grand Vizier
2004-Oct-26, 03:26 PM
Like you said, just because a man has sex with other men, it doesn't mean he identifies as gay or bi.

In fact, in some cultures, being the "active" player in a sexual intercourse with another man is considered, paradoxically, a "macho" thing. It´s especially true when it comes to prisoners of war.

Edited to clarify. I wonder if it is also used as an act of power, too. I've heard some stories that just seem unbelievable from many different cultures (even the US).

Isn't it a question of consent? After all, the ultimate power thing is rape, which is an act of power whether it is hetero- or homo-. Rape is about subjugation and humiliation more than sexual gratification, in my opinion. I'm not sure the active/passive thing maps completely on to that - it might be as trivial as harmless role-playing, in a consensual context.

Lurker
2004-Oct-26, 04:17 PM
I just wanted to say thanks to the BA and to others who have offered their support. I thought a long time before posting in this thread. I didn't a post that wallowed in self-pity; but it did seem that so many chances for happiness are lost over so many small issues... I am glad that my post was taken in that spirit.

Again thanks for the understanding and support. I have been through a lot in my life, but I have now had a chance to share love with a very compassionate and gentle woman... in that respect I am very lucky...

Grand Vizier
2004-Oct-26, 04:37 PM
I just wanted to say thanks to the BA and to others who have offered their support. I thought a long time before posting in this thread. I didn't a post that wallowed in self-pity; but it did seem that so many chances for happiness are lost over so many small issues... I am glad that my post was taken in that spirit.


I didn't read any self-pity in your post, Lurker, just an straight account of your situation and an honest expression of your feelings. And with regard to the level of hatred in the world right now, yes, it's similar all over. I haven't personally heard of anyone's career being jeopardised here because of a relationship with a Muslim or an Iranian, but I'm sure it happens. It's disgraceful.

I hope the world will calm down and start to get things in perspective again soon. But I think it's always important to stand firmly against any hatred of people with other creeds and of other races, nationalities and orientations. That doesn't necessarily mean marching on the street, but every little word counts.

My sympathies go out to you.

gethen
2004-Oct-26, 09:54 PM
Lurker, it could be any of us. Hang on.
[climbing on soapbox] I cannot help but remember an old friend from highschool with whom I spent lots of time discussing music, literature, and art. While I was getting started in life, marrying and having my children, he was coming home to his parents' house to die of AIDS in the care of his mother, an RN. He refused to see any old friends because he was afraid of their reactions to his situation. It broke my heart. No one should have to die in isolation because of society's inability to deal with a biological reality. Amen.[stepping down from soapbox]

Grand Vizier
2004-Oct-26, 11:04 PM
Lurker, it could be any of us. Hang on.
[climbing on soapbox] I cannot help but remember an old friend from highschool with whom I spent lots of time discussing music, literature, and art. While I was getting started in life, marrying and having my children, he was coming home to his parents' house to die of AIDS in the care of his mother, an RN. He refused to see any old friends because he was afraid of their reactions to his situation. It broke my heart. No one should have to die in isolation because of society's inability to deal with a biological reality. Amen.[stepping down from soapbox]

That's a terrible thing to bear, gethen. It's probably left you feeling there was something more you should have done, but if someone adamantly refuses help, there simply isn't.

I have two friends who have AIDS but, thank heavens, they have quite a robust support network, including their families. It's very important because even with modern therapies, which are very good, keeping morale high is of the essence. On a simple practical level, unhappy people tend to neglect themselves - perhaps not eat and sleep properly - and that you cannot do if your immune system is shot to pieces, because there are plenty of organisms out there waiting to pounce on a weakened immune system.

And I know it also sounds pseudo-scientific, but I tend to feel that in some way, a good mental state can directly raise the body's resistance and a bad one lower it (perhaps via the endocrine glands or the autonomic nervous system, I don't know.).

It doesn't have to be AIDS. One of my oldest friends nearly died this summer from an opportunistic Strep A infection she picked up from a tiny graze that most people would have hardly noticed. She'd just broken up from her boyfriend and wasn't sleeping or eating - and was drinking an awful lot of wine on an empty stomach, which she doesn't normally do. No-one realised how bad things were because she lives way out in the sticks and she put a brave front on it on the phone. The doctors said she was within a day of severe systemic septicemia, which is frequently a killer.

Anyway, it's taken an awful lot of effort by family and friends to bring some sort of smile back to her face, and her immune system is still going to be low for the next couple of months.

Well, it's a cliché, but people really do need people.

electromagneticpulse
2004-Oct-27, 01:37 AM
I've read through most of the thread and all i can say is wow. Im personally not homosexual and not interested that way. Also makes me want to get an axe and do something incredibly against my personal stance on violence when people say AIDs is a "plaugue for sinners" because those people don't diserve the bodys their minds inhabit.

It always makes me sad when i hear about cases like gethen's and his friends or Lurker's. Its so sad that society is this much of a mess in which people are affraid of what others think.

In Lurker's place i know what i would do and i hope your going to keep doing the right thing and ignore what "society" thinks because its only your life that counts to you, all other peoples opinions and idea's if they dont agree with what your doing you should consider them all wrong when it comes down to love.

Society will hopefully cool down enough for people to live in peace but everyones scared of whats "different".


Well, it's a cliché, but people really do need people.

Its also a medical fact, with a lack of stimulation the brain starts to imagine things. Sit in a black room for a few days and you'll see what i mean but it also goes for human contact with very little you start to imagine other "people".

I never caught it looking through the posts but the meaning of the word gay is Good As You. I personally would like to be a G.A.Y. because then i wouldn't be classed with the scum of society that has a problem with different sexual stances.
Im personally a backside man its my personal sway point on if i think a woman is good looking (i should probably change this as it doesn't seem to be working for me) but im not going to go up to a guy who's a legs man and insult him i mean if we think of it that way im sure everyone would agree with me that it would be idiotic to. So i dont see why there is such a problem with someone who's a guy guy or a girl girl, i mean its just what they find attractive.

Love is a mental and chemical thing but its a "need" for someone, Im an introvert im content being by myself its how i relax but i still have lots of friends and i can go out and have a lot of fun and i need this. Granted i dont need other people as much as an extrovert (who need lots of attention) but we all need people its how we survive we have a basic need for another person (IE procreation).

I think inflation has gone major negatives cause my 2 cents got a lot today :lol:

Stylesjl
2004-Oct-27, 05:34 AM
Some great posts ive seen now. It's probaly the best topic i have started here =D>

And the BA finally came in and put an end to the arguments and thread policing

One day homosexuality will be accepted by the church and the government will recognise gay marriages. Its a long road but it is inevitable.

Prahaps educating people about homosexuals, and bisexuals in school could be the first step to understanding by the population

Well i'll be sitting back and watching :D

Kesh
2004-Oct-27, 05:59 AM
Personally, I avoid pride parades. I'm a very private person... if asked (like on here) i'll talk about it. But I'm not going to announce my sexuality to the world.

On the flip side, I'm not going to hide it (unless I feel unsafe).

As to the "keep it in private" issue... mmph. All I can say is, many people are still of that mindset with regards to interracial couples. Is there really any difference in rationale between the two?

I can appreciate that folks aren't necessarily comfortable seeing two people of the same gender being affectionate... but telling them to "take it inside" is stepping across a line that distresses me. :(

Grand Vizier
2004-Oct-27, 06:20 AM
As to the "keep it in private" issue... mmph. All I can say is, many people are still of that mindset with regards to interracial couples. Is there really any difference in rationale between the two?

I can appreciate that folks aren't necessarily comfortable seeing two people of the same gender being affectionate... but telling them to "take it inside" is stepping across a line that distresses me. :(

I suppose there is the simple issue of good manners - and this applies to straight couples as much as gay (even more really, because they're usually the worst offenders). There is a huge difference between holding hands in many social settings and out-and-out canoodling. (If it's a party, fair enough.)

And why do some people insist on snogging in the front rows of the cinema? That's what the back row is for. :evil:

Kesh
2004-Oct-27, 06:23 AM
Good point, Grand Vixier. :D

Honestly, if it's going beyond affection and up to 'petting' then I agree, they should get a room regardless of the genders involved. It's folks who think hand-holding or a simple kiss are too much for public that irk me...

electromagneticpulse
2004-Oct-27, 04:01 PM
Good point, Grand Vixier. :D

Honestly, if it's going beyond affection and up to 'petting' then I agree, they should get a room regardless of the genders involved. It's folks who think hand-holding or a simple kiss are too much for public that irk me...

I agree with this when its obvious that if they were alone they would be doing something else then "petting" thats when the cold water needs to come out.
I would be up for the all the time wrong place wrong time, but thats more cause i always get considered a friend :evil:

I know a complete jack [donkey] who's had a girl friend for like 2 years even though he treats her like trash. I always get told i'll find a girl cause im nice and caring and polite but apparently women are big lying hypocrits when it comes to advice. So thats my reason for cold waterings for hand holders in public :lol:

I dont see how people can have a problem with people of the same sex kissing. Im actualy friends with a girl (ex girl friend long story) who is bisexual and i dont have a problem with her kissing other girls as its what she does (which leads to the long story) but if a guy wants to kiss a guy its his choice.
I think the case should be less "needing" a room but more "wanting" a room with some of these people because then it is behind closed doors and not on public benches. Im all up for the "wanting" a room side of it :lol:

Candy
2004-Oct-27, 09:13 PM
I always get told i'll find a girl cause im nice and caring and polite...

That's what I am looking for, but I haven't met that man yet. Well, at least, not an unmarried man my age living in the Chicago area. 8-[

The last guy I attempted to date here failed to mention he had a wife in another country, plus a girlfriend on the East Coast. :evil: He was quickly dismissed after I learned of his extra curricular activities. Thank goodness, I found this out within a month, because it could have really scarred me emotionally.

electromagneticpulse
2004-Oct-27, 09:48 PM
I always get told i'll find a girl cause im nice and caring and polite...

That's what I am looking for, but I haven't met that man yet. Well, at least, not an unmarried man my age living in the Chicago area. 8-[

The last guy I attempted to date here failed to mention he had a wife in another country, plus a girlfriend on the East Coast. :evil: He was quickly dismissed after I learned of his extra curricular activities. Thank goodness, I found this out within a month, because it could have really scarred me emotionally.

Well he was cheating on you with women, like my ex girlfriend was. Actualy she was cheating on me with her ex girlfriend while i was going out with her and she just forgot to mention that she liked women and that she was sleeping with one while she had been saying that me and her should wait before doing anything.
The thing is i got dumped because of some joking around i did with my friend that introduced me to her, my ex overheard and dumped me for it and then later when i tryed to make it up to her she told me all the stuff she'd been doing behind my back. Instead of doing the cliché glass of water in someones face i did it down her top knowing she had to walk through the busiest part of town with a see through white top on. She's lucky i don't like coffee though :lol:

And the above is why i dont do blind dates anymore... first time i did one and worst of my dating life. Im 16 and i have already lost faith in dating. This life bodes well for me :D

hickboy
2004-Oct-27, 11:02 PM
And I know it also sounds pseudo-scientific, but I tend to feel that in some way, a good mental state can directly raise the body's resistance and a bad one lower it (perhaps via the endocrine glands or the autonomic nervous system, I don't know.)

Don't know if anyone cares, but it really isn't pseudo-scientific. Health psychologists have been advocating this posittion for years, and thanks to an increasing amount of (yes, scientific) research, many in the medical profession are beginning to listen.

Off topic, I know, but I felt like mentioning it.

On topic, we are voting next month for an amendment to the state's constitution that would ban same-sex marriage. I don't want to get political, but I find it interesting that they want to make a constitutional amendment to ban something that is already illegal. Anyway, I don't want to get into a political discussion (well, not on the BABB, anyway) but I will say, if you live in Utah or one of the other states having votes like this, it sure is a good reminder of the importance of voting, no matter which side of the debate you are on. Hopefully that does not offend anyone...

"We fear things in proportion to our ignorance of them."
-- Titus Livius

"To hate and to fear is to be psychologically ill ... it is, in fact, the consuming illness of our time."
-- H. A. Overstreet

hickboy
2004-Oct-27, 11:10 PM
Ok, one more thought. Some argue that homosexuality is unnatural. My question is this: since when do we (people in general, most Americans definately) care about what is natural?

I drove in my (unnatural) car this morning on the way to work, on a (unnatural) road. I work in an artificial environment, typing on my (unnatural) keyboard. I am wearing unnatural clothing. Tonight, I will go home to my (unnatural) house, and watch a baseball game, on my (unnatural) television set. If the sky clears, I may use my (unnatural) binoculars to observe the natural lunar eclipse.

I do not mean this post to be inflammatory in anyway, just an observation.

iFire
2004-Oct-27, 11:36 PM
Ok, one more thought. Some argue that homosexuality is unnatural. My question is this: since when do we (people in general, most Americans definately) care about what is natural?

I drove in my (unnatural) car this morning on the way to work, on a (unnatural) road. I work in an artificial environment, typing on my (unnatural) keyboard. I am wearing unnatural clothing. Tonight, I will go home to my (unnatural) house, and watch a baseball game, on my (unnatural) television set. If the sky clears, I may use my (unnatural) binoculars to observe the natural lunar eclipse.

I do not mean this post to be inflammatory in anyway, just an observation.

That is a very good observation... a good thing to use in a discussion... I think I shall steal that. :P

(But it has been pointed out that Homosexuality exists in animals..*

Glom
2004-Oct-28, 12:39 AM
Natural sucks. It's dirty and disease ridden. It's this new age bilk that convinces people that something is better if it's "natural", like the way they stick a load of gunk from some ransid trees in a forest into a bottle of Fairy liquid and slap on £1.

Gullible Jones
2004-Oct-28, 01:45 AM
Glom, I hate to say this... But if you think that a tree can go ransid, you really need to get out more. :P

electromagneticpulse
2004-Oct-28, 02:28 AM
Natural sucks. It's dirty and disease ridden. It's this new age bilk that convinces people that something is better if it's "natural", like the way they stick a load of gunk from some ransid trees in a forest into a bottle of Fairy liquid and slap on £1.

Im with GJ i dont know what rotting tree's you get in your fairy liquid but most tree's aren't rancid.

I have to agree that natural does suck the cost of my tomatoes has gone up by £2 because their organic... i like the stinking chemicals they last longer so i can cash in on the deals now their ripping me off :evil:

Also on the not of sales why are there sales on coke "vanilla" and not normal coke, who drinks coke "vanilla" it tastes wrong.

As for the homosexuality in animals i'd surgest bonobo's they pritty much "do" anything. Not meaning to cross any taboo's here but they apparently start while they can't even walk... they also do other things which im surpressing from entering my current memory.

So if unnatural passes for most "taboo" subjects i surgest we stick a zoo full of bonobo's in anti-any sexual behaviour i think the only thing they dont do is S&M because of obvious technological limitations. Dirty monkeys!!! :lol:

Jpax2003
2004-Oct-28, 06:52 AM
Ok. If the BA has decided to bless this thread then who am I to argue. I thought I was doing everyone a favor. Apparently I needn't have bothered. I just know that I have been on threads that, while no one got angry or upset, the discussions were related to politics or religion and were locked based on the possibility of argument. Homosexuality is hardly ever discussed in mixed company without references to politics (equality, marriage, discrimination) or religion (marriage, sin, AIDS as a punishment). I have seen these subjects mentioned here, but so far I don't think anyone has argued them.

Moreover, when I saw a thread about "homosexuality - What's the problem?" it appeared, prima facie, to be asking for argument. Maybe it's a regional thing, but when someone starts a discussion with "What's the problem?" it often indicates a fight is about to break out. The phrase itself means negative issues demanding solutions, not tell me your warm and fuzzy stories of love and tolerance. I don't think of the latter as "problems".

I didn't think I would return to this bulletin board after the BA's post. I realized that I did not understand him as well as I thought I did. I thought the fact that homosexual issues are intimately entangled with politics and religion and are frequently causes of heated discussions would make it unlikely to be allowed. Add to this my realization that those homosexual issues that are not political or religious in nature tend to be explicitly sexual. I admit that I may not be fully aware of homosexual issues, but to me it seems that the basis of homosexuality (male and female) is how a person prefers to get their jollies.

Now, I don't understand the reason for a topic devoted to a group of people who prefer orgasmic stimulation one way versus another. That is what seems left to me when we remove the political and religious aspects of the discussion. There are effeminate men who identify as straight, and macho men who identify as homosexual (and analogous distinctions for women). So, issues related to "culture" are more often than not, cross-cultural.

If the issues are about relationships and love, then why can't we just discuss those issues directly without the baggage or insisting it be male-male or female-female? If, in a discussion of relationships and love and friendship, homosexuality comes up then discuss it as incidental instead of insisting it be implicit. By isolating homosexuality into it's own thread, it seems, by definition, to exclude other forms of human sexuality. In a time when people are asking for inclusion, acceptance, and equal treatment, why segregate the issues?

I'm not against the topical discussion of homosexuality. I'd be interested in discussing specific issues. I just thought that those issues were forbidden on this bulletin board. It appears that they are not. I was wrong. I retract my earlier statements in this thread.

One last thing. I do not like being PMed for arguments. PMs for other reasons are fine, but if someone feels the need to argue, either make your case in public or not at all. If you feel that no one else wants to read it, then neither do I. Unless, it's a technical detail or error, you can assume I already considered your argument and dismissed it.

Careless
2004-Oct-28, 08:21 AM
Natural sucks. It's dirty and disease ridden. It's this new age bilk that convinces people that something is better if it's "natural", like the way they stick a load of gunk from some ransid trees in a forest into a bottle of Fairy liquid and slap on £1.
One of my favorite commercials was for some herbal supplement. The commercial said (and this is an exact quote) "And because it's all natural, you know it's safe"
](*,) ](*,) ](*,)
In that same commercial break I heard a commercial for a jewelry store saying the following: "And remember, the bigger the diamond, the better the chances she'll say yes".

Glom
2004-Oct-28, 11:09 AM
I didn't mean the word literally. It was a figure of speech. Maybe I should have chosen a better one.

Careless, that is one frightening comment. E. coli is natural. Hurricanes are natural. Asbestos is natural. Are they safe? ](*,)

Gerrsun
2004-Oct-28, 11:45 AM
Glom, I hate to say this... But if you think that a tree can go ransid, you really need to get out more. :P


I have a tree that's gone rancid....

We have a maple in our front yard that has developed some sort of bacterial infection. As the bacteria multiple under the tree bark they are forced out through cracks in the bark and interact with free yeast in the air...


...the end result, I have a tree which smells like beer and weeps frothy foam from various locations.

Looks pretty nasty, just in time for Halloween! :o



EDIT>> That being said......if 'homosexuality' is 'natural', to what purpose does it serve? Population control? Is it some sort of coping mechanism for dealing with others? Is it just for companionship? If so why can this not be gotten through heterosexual relationships since they already fit the reproductive necessities of life?

Disinfo Agent
2004-Oct-28, 12:35 PM
That being said......if 'homosexuality' is 'natural', to what purpose does it serve?
Must all natural things have a purpose?


Population control?
If so, it hasn't been very effective. :)

Wally
2004-Oct-28, 01:09 PM
[

(But it has been pointed out that Homosexuality exists in animals..*

Does it??? I mean, sure, sometimes animals are driven by a flood of hormones to have sex with basically anything that moves (cows mounting each other while in heat, rabbits, etc.), but they ultimately resort to male/female sex if able, don't they?

Candy
2004-Oct-28, 01:12 PM
[

(But it has been pointed out that Homosexuality exists in animals..*

Does it??? I mean, sure, sometimes animals are driven by a flood of hormones to have sex with basically anything that moves (cows mounting each other while in heat, rabbits, etc.), but they ultimately resort to male/female sex if able, don't they? Don't forget the over friendly dog and the unsuspecting human leg. :o

ocasey3
2004-Oct-28, 01:31 PM
When I first saw this topic I went "uh-oh, what now?" As a few of my fellow BABBlers know, I am gay, or more specifically, a lesbian, so you know I have to say something eventually. First and foremost, I am greatly pleased and hopeful about the human race in general after reading your replies. Sounds kind of silly and cliche' but I mean it. At 36 years of age I have been out for half my life and it has been quite a journey. I've been very lucky to have had the support of my family, friends and a few employers over the years, and that made being gay easier but I have also faced some of the most hateful garbage you could imagine. It is good to know that there are many more people who are tolerant and accepting than it seems.

So what is the big deal? I don't know. Homosexuality isn't something that I would have necessarily decided for myself. It's tough. Especially when you first come to terms with it. You face the alienation of everything you have ever known. Will your family kick you out on the streets? Will you get beat up? Am I the only one who feels like this? Some are not as lucky as me and after coming out to their families they have found themselves homeless or badly beaten. The suicide rate is proportionally higher amongst gay teens than teens in general. I don't know if being gay is genetic or not, but it is something that is definitely inherent in me. It is no choice.

As to public displays of affection, depending upon where you live, just how often do you see a homosexual couple hanging all over each other? I mean, really. Now how often do you see straight folks hanging all over each other? It is poor taste either way, but for that matter, how often do you see homosexual couple simply holding hands as they walk down the street? For most of us I would say it is still rather a rare thing. My partner Pam and I don't most of the time because we feel a bit unsafe. Why risk it? So that is part of the reason that we go to every pride march, parade, festival, etc., we can. Yes, some people may push the envelope, but most of us are there for support, for ourselves and our community. We can let our guard down and express ourselves naturally towards one another.

It is said that to be gay is to be political. In order to protect our basic human rights we have to be. We have to be vigilant and sometimes we have to be right in your face. Until we all are treated fairly and justly we will continue to do what we have to. I will continue to go to Washington, Lansing, Ferndale, wherever, and I will demand that my voice be heard.

I loved the question about attraction. I would say that it is all about individual taste, nothing that is gender or sexuality specific. You like what you like. My unique position in life, lol, has allowed me to float between groups of women and groups of men with a fair amount of ease and I can tell you honestly, men and women like the same things and are as equally crass about discussing said things. 8)

I do not consider myself to be living a "lifestyle." There is no gay lifestyle. I am living my life.

Disinfo Agent
2004-Oct-28, 01:31 PM
(But it has been pointed out that Homosexuality exists in animals..*
Does it??? I mean, sure, sometimes animals are driven by a flood of hormones to have sex with basically anything that moves (cows mounting each other while in heat, rabbits, etc.), but they ultimately resort to male/female sex if able, don't they?
Not necessarily. (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=352465#352465)

AliCali
2004-Oct-28, 02:13 PM
Now, I don't understand the reason for a topic devoted to a group of people who prefer orgasmic stimulation one way versus another. That is what seems left to me when we remove the political and religious aspects of the discussion. There are effeminate men who identify as straight, and macho men who identify as homosexual (and analogous distinctions for women). So, issues related to "culture" are more often than not, cross-cultural.

If the issues are about relationships and love, then why can't we just discuss those issues directly without the baggage or insisting it be male-male or female-female? If, in a discussion of relationships and love and friendship, homosexuality comes up then discuss it as incidental instead of insisting it be implicit. By isolating homosexuality into it's own thread, it seems, by definition, to exclude other forms of human sexuality. In a time when people are asking for inclusion, acceptance, and equal treatment, why segregate the issues?

It seems that you're asking, "Why do we need to make homosexuality an issue?"

That's like asking during the 50s in the US, "Why do we need to make race an issue?" Because, as a group, they are being descriminated against (blacks and gays).

Just like blacks, gays are being hated for who they are. There are hate crimes against gays. Hmm...I have other examples, but they are political and religious in nature.

So what's to discuss if we can't discuss the political or religious side, and we're not going into detail about their sex life? How about removing misconception that being gay is a choice? How about educating the ignorant, who will gladly rally against gays and their lifestyle, without knowing anything about them or the issue?

How about listening to other gays on the board, and hearing their story? We can all learn a lot about this unknown world.

electromagneticpulse
2004-Oct-28, 02:30 PM
That being said......if 'homosexuality' is 'natural', to what purpose does it serve?
Must all natural things have a purpose?

Generally yes. But the moon is natural and its got no purpose other then make england get smaller... bout 20 years time (IIRC) and i have a beach side view from my house.

So i'd go with the no natural things dont serve a purpose, looking around me i see nothing natural at all.

As for the population controle i think homosexuality should have been introduced to china a long time ago :lol:

Disinfo Agent
2004-Oct-28, 02:33 PM
As for the population controle i think homosexuality should have been introduced to china a long time ago :lol:
I'm sure it has.

SciFi Chick
2004-Oct-28, 02:41 PM
But the moon is natural and its got no purpose other then make england get smaller... bout 20 years time (IIRC) and i have a beach side view from my house.

Time for you to head on over to the General Astronomy forum or even the website that is attached to this board and do some research. :o

electromagneticpulse
2004-Oct-28, 02:42 PM
But the moon is natural and its got no purpose other then make england get smaller... bout 20 years time (IIRC) and i have a beach side view from my house.

Time for you to head on over to the General Astronomy forum or even the website that is attached to this board and do some research. :o

I know it has more uses then that but its not going to build me a new house when its in the drink so it has no use to me :D

Jpax2003
2004-Oct-28, 05:23 PM
It seems that you're asking, "Why do we need to make homosexuality an issue?"

That's like asking during the 50s in the US, "Why do we need to make race an issue?" Because, as a group, they are being descriminated against (blacks and gays).

Just like blacks, gays are being hated for who they are. There are hate crimes against gays. Hmm...I have other examples, but they are political and religious in nature.

So what's to discuss if we can't discuss the political or religious side, and we're not going into detail about their sex life? How about removing misconception that being gay is a choice? How about educating the ignorant, who will gladly rally against gays and their lifestyle, without knowing anything about them or the issue?

How about listening to other gays on the board, and hearing their story? We can all learn a lot about this unknown world.
Yes, that is pretty much what I am asking: Why is it an issue? Maybe things are different in different regions. Or maybe I don't notice it because I'm not a homosexual or a homophobe, so I am not attune to it. I know that some people commit violence against gays, but people also commit violence against lots of other groups of society and individuals as well. If someone wants to be an idiot and commit crimes they should be treated as a common criminal, not elevated to some form of morality martyr. I think this would allow the victims to feel like part of society and safe with equal rights. Treating the group as a whole as a victim would seem to me to create a segregation from society and requests/demands for special treatment and rights. This would lead to even more alienation from society at large, more misunderstanding, and legitimate reasons for discontent from other individuals and groups of society.

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Oct-28, 06:58 PM
Jpax: just to clarify, this thread has potential for heated arguments, of course. Any topic does, but with politics and religion it tends to certainty. But I was away for the weekend, and this thread was already 4 pages long when I got to it. Yet, it was maintaining an almost entirely rational and civil level of discourse, and it still hasn't strayed too far into religion or partisan politics.

I may yet ease up on the P&R "rule". I think of every thread like this as a test case, to see how the discussion goes. This one has been amazing to me.

And no offense to you: I was not posting to contradict you. In fact, your reaction was rational given my past actions in these types of threads. I was posting because the thread had many posts about the thread itself, and not the topic, and I had a half-dozen PMs about it. :o So it seemed pertinent.

Harvestar
2004-Oct-28, 07:12 PM
It seems that you're asking, "Why do we need to make homosexuality an issue?"

That's like asking during the 50s in the US, "Why do we need to make race an issue?" Because, as a group, they are being descriminated against (blacks and gays).

Just like blacks, gays are being hated for who they are. There are hate crimes against gays. Hmm...I have other examples, but they are political and religious in nature.

So what's to discuss if we can't discuss the political or religious side, and we're not going into detail about their sex life? How about removing misconception that being gay is a choice? How about educating the ignorant, who will gladly rally against gays and their lifestyle, without knowing anything about them or the issue?

How about listening to other gays on the board, and hearing their story? We can all learn a lot about this unknown world.
Yes, that is pretty much what I am asking: Why is it an issue? Maybe things are different in different regions. Or maybe I don't notice it because I'm not a homosexual or a homophobe, so I am not attune to it. I know that some people commit violence against gays, but people also commit violence against lots of other groups of society and individuals as well. If someone wants to be an idiot and commit crimes they should be treated as a common criminal, not elevated to some form of morality martyr. I think this would allow the victims to feel like part of society and safe with equal rights. Treating the group as a whole as a victim would seem to me to create a segregation from society and requests/demands for special treatment and rights. This would lead to even more alienation from society at large, more misunderstanding, and legitimate reasons for discontent from other individuals and groups of society.

Among my friends who are gay, one of them got significantly different treatment from her landlord after her partner started coming by more often/staying the night. Another of my friends grew up in Laramie, WY, and was scheduled to be the altar boy for Matthew Shepard's funeral. He was not allowed to go because of the people protesting outside, shouting hate-filled messages while the funeral was going on. His mother won't talk to him now that he's come out. Some of my friends are worried about going to swing dances together as a couple, even though I've seen many a case where there were way more women than men and so the women danced together. They also worry that if their partner was in the intensive care unit, they would not be allowed to see them, because the nurse on duty says that "they are not family".

All of these reasons (and more) are why I try to educate people that gay people are normal people too. And in fact, as one of my friends is fond of saying, we're boring too. (meaning have a house, cat, and go sailing some weekends...) ;) I've also heard some of them wondering if they should move to another country that is more accepting of their lifestyle, and for me, that's really sad. We'd be losing a great many young, bright astronomers that could really contribute to the community.

Some people also wonder why I should go to a Women in Astronomy conference, but there are still people out there surprised when I say "I'm an astronomer" and say, "Oh, how many women are there in astronomy?" - and surprised that a woman could be a scientist. :(

snowcelt
2004-Oct-28, 07:14 PM
ocasey3 said that "[i]t is said that to be gay is to be political. In order to protect our basic human rights...we have to be right in your face". I can understand this. It matters not if anyone likes this or not. But, as I said before sometimes it is a bit much.

The Royal Bank Of Canada (RBC) recently sent a memo to their employees that to promote safety in the workplace for its gay members all employees should affix a triangular, rainbow hued sticker to there desk/window/cubical to show that their area in safe. Within the memo it said that ten percent of all people are gay, transsexual,hermaphrodites,cross dressers etc. They go on to say that terms like marriage and boyfriend/girlfriend should not be used because the words are to exclusive: instead words like life partner should be used instead.

I find this is away to in my face, politically correct for me. This forces people to comply or be branded a homophobic. I find this PC environment to oppressive, and frankly, scary.

Why didn't the RBC send out a memo saying that all employees should be nice to every one, just like ANY CIVILIZED PERSON SHOULD BE! Why be specific? If we enforced basic human rights to the maximum there would be no need for any specific legislation, or memos enacted or sent to anyone.

Takes a deep breath. I am not homophobic, but this in your face PC crap is starting to get to me. I think that there is a genuine possibility that this PC crap is going to backfire, and a lot of people are going to get hurt.

SciFi Chick
2004-Oct-28, 07:18 PM
I can't believe they want you to put up a sticker. That's amazing. I agree with you that it's over the top, and in my opinion is downright unPC. I also can't imagine there are too many gay people who think it's a wonderful idea.

I think perhaps it's an example of corporate stupidity moreso than gay people getting in your face.

Wally
2004-Oct-28, 07:28 PM
Take 2 deep breaths Snowcelt! :) You have some valid points, but in light of this being a "litmus test" for how we're able to handle controversial threads, try not to let your emotions get the better of you. i.e. no need to shout, etc.

Let's show the other boards out there that we are, in fact, the best board around.

gethen
2004-Oct-28, 07:28 PM
The Royal Bank Of Canada (RBC) recently sent a memo to their employees that to promote safety in the workplace for its gay members all employees should affix a triangular, rainbow hued sticker to there desk/window/cubical to show that their area in safe.

A sticker makes it a safe workplace? I guess I don't understand what they're thinking? Is this supposed to say to gay co-workers, "Hey, no problem with gays at this desk/window/cubicle?" Even though the sticker is mandated by the company and may not reflect that employee's views at all? Or am I missing the point?

Candy
2004-Oct-28, 07:31 PM
Yes, that is pretty much what I am asking: Why is it an issue? Maybe things are different in different regions. Or maybe I don't notice it because I'm not a homosexual or a homophobe, so I am not attune to it. I know that some people commit violence against gays, but people also commit violence against lots of other groups of society and individuals as well. If someone wants to be an idiot and commit crimes they should be treated as a common criminal, not elevated to some form of morality martyr. I think this would allow the victims to feel like part of society and safe with equal rights. Treating the group as a whole as a victim would seem to me to create a segregation from society and requests/demands for special treatment and rights. This would lead to even more alienation from society at large, more misunderstanding, and legitimate reasons for discontent from other individuals and groups of society. Do you remember the gay student that brought so much attention to himself last year by pretending to receive hate threats and being accosted? I can't remember the details, but that was here in good old Chicago, Illinois.

That could be something we discuss. Why a young person feels the need to bring national attention to himself? Obviously, he was crying out for help. Socialogical, psychological, etc? :-?

The news never followed up with the story, so I don't know what happened to the young man. Did he get the help he needed? Was his behavior related to his sexual preference? Was it school related? Did he get expelled from his university?

snowcelt
2004-Oct-28, 07:58 PM
The Royal Bank Of Canada (RBC) recently sent a memo to their employees that to promote safety in the workplace for its gay members all employees should affix a triangular, rainbow hued sticker to there desk/window/cubical to show that their area in safe.

A sticker makes it a safe workplace? I guess I don't understand what they're thinking? Is this supposed to say to gay co-workers, "Hey, no problem with gays at this desk/window/cubicle?" Even though the sticker is mandated by the company and may not reflect that employee's views at all? Or am I missing the point?

Basically yes. This is also to make the customer feel safe as well. Though, in all fairness, the memo did NOT come from the head office. However, the memo did make its way to so many branches that the company had to let it carry on in a 90 day trial.

As an aside. Within the memo's dictionary of terms they included Twin spirited. Apparently this is a Native American term for a homosexual that is coming back in vogue within the native community. It has a nice ring to it.

pghnative
2004-Oct-28, 08:07 PM
to promote safety in the workplace for its gay members all employees should affix a triangular, rainbow hued sticker to there desk/window/cubical to show that their area in safe. I'd suggest creating about 50 different triangular stickers. Some could be mono-hued (white, red, black, etc), some could be random combinations, some with rainbows, some with patterns, etc, etc. This would allow you to follow the letter of the law while still making the point that you are "safe" for all of humanity.

Weird Dave
2004-Oct-28, 08:17 PM
Please can I make a personal protest against using the word "partner" to mean boy/girlfriend/husband/wife (except in the most general sense). It's too easily confused with non-sexual meanings like business partner or golfing partner.

If you're friendly enough with someone to start talking about your boy/girlfriend/husband/wife, then they should be able to accept it if you are homosexual. If you know they might react badly, then don't mention the subject or lie...

I can imagine very embarassing situations occuring if you don't know what sex someone's sexual partner is.

SciFi Chick
2004-Oct-28, 08:21 PM
Please can I make a personal protest against using the word "partner" to mean boy/girlfriend/husband/wife (except in the most general sense). It's too easily confused with non-sexual meanings like business partner or golfing partner.

If you're friendly enough with someone to start talking about your boy/girlfriend/husband/wife, then they should be able to accept it if you are homosexual. If you know they might react badly, then don't mention the subject or lie...

I can imagine very embarassing situations occuring if you don't know what sex someone's sexual partner is.

I understand your issues with partner, but I think it sounds ridiculous when people over the age of 30 refer to their significant others as boyfriend or girlfriend -- I mean, as long as we're talking preferences here. :D

Candy
2004-Oct-28, 08:27 PM
I understand your issues with partner, but I think it sounds ridiculous when people over the age of 30 refer to their significant others as boyfriend or girlfriend -- I mean, as long as we're talking preferences here. :D My sister uses the phrase, "My old man!" :o

snowcelt
2004-Oct-28, 08:28 PM
I understand your issues with partner, but I think it sounds ridiculous when people over the age of 30 refer to their significant others as boyfriend or girlfriend -- I mean, as long as we're talking preferences here. :D My sister uses the phrase, "My old man!" :o

Sounds like she is a biker babe. :D

Candy
2004-Oct-28, 08:36 PM
I understand your issues with partner, but I think it sounds ridiculous when people over the age of 30 refer to their significant others as boyfriend or girlfriend -- I mean, as long as we're talking preferences here. :D My sister uses the phrase, "My old man!" :o

Sounds like she is a biker babe. :D Oh she's headed for Jerry Springer, that's for sure. We aren't close. :-?

Weird Dave
2004-Oct-28, 08:42 PM
Please can I make a personal protest against using the word "partner" to mean boy/girlfriend/husband/wife (except in the most general sense). It's too easily confused with non-sexual meanings like business partner or golfing partner.

If you're friendly enough with someone to start talking about your boy/girlfriend/husband/wife, then they should be able to accept it if you are homosexual. If you know they might react badly, then don't mention the subject or lie...

I can imagine very embarassing situations occuring if you don't know what sex someone's sexual partner is.

I understand your issues with partner, but I think it sounds ridiculous when people over the age of 30 refer to their significant others as boyfriend or girlfriend -- I mean, as long as we're talking preferences here. :D

Fair comment.

Grand Vizier
2004-Oct-28, 08:48 PM
Please can I make a personal protest against using the word "partner" to mean boy/girlfriend/husband/wife (except in the most general sense). It's too easily confused with non-sexual meanings like business partner or golfing partner.


Well, I have a business partner. I get round this problem by using the phrase 'business partner' :)

I would probably use the term 'partner' in the context of a gay couple, and usually with straight couples, but I have no great problems with wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend/lover if that's OK with the person involved. (Some married folk prefer that their union be recognised in conversation). It's about courtesy really, and I think 'partner' carries less baggage than the other terms. Plus 'significant other' makes me wince...

SciFi Chick
2004-Oct-28, 09:04 PM
I guess what it comes down to is unless you're close to someone, it's really none of our darn business what they call the people with whom they have relationships.

Makgraf
2004-Oct-28, 09:07 PM
Please can I make a personal protest against using the word "partner" to mean boy/girlfriend/husband/wife (except in the most general sense). It's too easily confused with non-sexual meanings like business partner or golfing partner.

If you're friendly enough with someone to start talking about your boy/girlfriend/husband/wife, then they should be able to accept it if you are homosexual. If you know they might react badly, then don't mention the subject or lie...

I can imagine very embarassing situations occuring if you don't know what sex someone's sexual partner is.
I knew someone who called his girlfriend his "Superfriend".

Candy
2004-Oct-28, 09:14 PM
I knew someone who called his girlfriend his "Superfriend". Wonder Twins! :D

paulie jay
2004-Oct-28, 11:02 PM
Here's another take on "partner".

I play many shows with different bands in Sydney, and it's often the situation after the gig has finished that a girl strikes up a conversation with me - "What's your name? Want a drink? What are you doing now the show's over? Do you have a girlfriend?".

If I say that do I have a "girlfriend" they assume (coreectly) that I'm straight. If I say I have a "partner" they assume (incorrectly) that I'm gay.

On the other side of the coin, I find that the girls who say that they have a "partner" are more prepared to cheat on that partner than the ones who say they have a "boyfriend". I don't know, but it seems that in Australia girls use the term "partner" as a form of distancing - "oh yeah, I'm seeing someone but it's not serious" kind of thing.

Just an observation.

Harvestar
2004-Oct-28, 11:06 PM
Please can I make a personal protest against using the word "partner" to mean boy/girlfriend/husband/wife (except in the most general sense). It's too easily confused with non-sexual meanings like business partner or golfing partner.


Well, I have a business partner. I get round this problem by using the phrase 'business partner' :)

I would probably use the term 'partner' in the context of a gay couple, and usually with straight couples, but I have no great problems with wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend/lover if that's OK with the person involved. (Some married folk prefer that their union be recognised in conversation). It's about courtesy really, and I think 'partner' carries less baggage than the other terms. Plus 'significant other' makes me wince...

That's interesting, around here "Significant Other" is the preferred word since typing out a party invitation to a large email list and having to say "husbands/wives/boyfriends/girlfriends/friends are invited as well" is just too long for us. ;)

Grand Vizier
2004-Oct-28, 11:45 PM
Please can I make a personal protest against using the word "partner" to mean boy/girlfriend/husband/wife (except in the most general sense). It's too easily confused with non-sexual meanings like business partner or golfing partner.


Well, I have a business partner. I get round this problem by using the phrase 'business partner' :)

I would probably use the term 'partner' in the context of a gay couple, and usually with straight couples, but I have no great problems with wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend/lover if that's OK with the person involved. (Some married folk prefer that their union be recognised in conversation). It's about courtesy really, and I think 'partner' carries less baggage than the other terms. Plus 'significant other' makes me wince...

That's interesting, around here "Significant Other" is the preferred word since typing out a party invitation to a large email list and having to say "husbands/wives/boyfriends/girlfriends/friends are invited as well" is just too long for us. ;)

I see the problem with an printed invite. But, since you include friends too, wouldn't something like 'you are welcome to bring another person' do - that is, unless some people are in the habit of inviting enemies or random people off the street. :)

I simply can't imagine saying 'S.O.' without making bunny ears. In practice, though, I'd say we use people's names 90% of the time in conversation, which solves the problem. It's only when explaining the existence of a relationship to a third party the question usually arises. I've always rather liked 'item' as in: 'You do realise that those two are an item?', though this can often imply a simple fling as opposed to a long-term committment.

MrObvious
2004-Oct-29, 01:18 AM
SciFi Chick wrote:

I understand your issues with partner, but I think it sounds ridiculous when people over the age of 30 refer to their significant others as boyfriend or girlfriend -- I mean, as long as we're talking preferences here.

I was over 30 and had no problem calling my (other half, S.O, Better Half etc) my girlfriend. Nobody else did either, at least they never mentioned it. I only refered to her as my partner if she was present and rarely at that.

Maybe a cultural thing but here we use the term partner as the first step in the dating process, then it becomes girlfriend and if all goes well fiance then wife. Interestingly if marriage is not an option but it goes beyond the girlfriend stage it goes back to partner???

Depending on how close the relationship is and the company present the S.O is refered to by insulting names here, but, they are actually endearing terms, go figure???

e.g. The handbrake, Shedevil, The Boss, The Cook etc.

It does go both ways too, such as The handyman, The Wallet.

Many others available but sadly not on this site.
And what have you got against old people like me having a girlfriend anyway, eh?? :D :wink:

Candy
2004-Oct-29, 01:37 AM
I usually call my other half, blind date. :roll:

Cylinder
2004-Oct-29, 01:53 AM
I usually call the girl I am interested in - but they rarely call back. :lol:

SciFi Chick
2004-Oct-29, 01:59 AM
And what have you got against old people like me having a girlfriend anyway, eh?? :D :wink:

I don't know - maybe I'm just bitter 'cause I'm alone. :D

Jpax2003
2004-Oct-29, 02:29 AM
Please can I make a personal protest against using the word "partner" to mean boy/girlfriend/husband/wife (except in the most general sense). It's too easily confused with non-sexual meanings like business partner or golfing partner.


Well, I have a business partner. I get round this problem by using the phrase 'business partner' :)

I would probably use the term 'partner' in the context of a gay couple, and usually with straight couples, but I have no great problems with wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend/lover if that's OK with the person involved. (Some married folk prefer that their union be recognised in conversation). It's about courtesy really, and I think 'partner' carries less baggage than the other terms. Plus 'significant other' makes me wince...

That's interesting, around here "Significant Other" is the preferred word since typing out a party invitation to a large email list and having to say "husbands/wives/boyfriends/girlfriends/friends are invited as well" is just too long for us. ;)

Maybe using the word "date" would work better on invitations. Not only does it cover heterosexual and homosexual relationships, but it covers asexuals, and singles as well.

In everyday conversation "partner" might work. Although the word partner sounds like a contractual arrangement. Business partners are bound together. So are those in marriage or permanent legal unions. I think most people would agree that the word "partner" would not describe a temporary union for convenience in activities.

I don't know what word would work for temporary or new relationships that we currently call girlfriend or boyfriend. I like the use of the word "lady" or "gentleman/gent" for formal or casual talk, but not for legal or business usage. I think there should be a word for those who are dating seriously but not marriage or united. I think there should be another word for people who are first tier friends, or friends of close order. I think the word "friend" is overused, but should apply to second tier friends. I think "acquaintance" works for third tier or less close relationships.

I agree that there should be more allowances for people that are in close relationships that are not yet considered contractual arrangements at the same level as married or united or family. In other words, best friends, boyfriends/girlfriends, roommates, godparents, should be allowed in hospitals etc.

AGN Fuel
2004-Oct-29, 02:31 AM
Just wanted to add my 0.02c....

For a topic that often engenders such polarisation in the general community, this thread is a testament to you all. I don't think I have ever seen a public discussion board address this topic with such sensitivity, honesty, openness, generosity and understanding. Thank you. You should be proud.

(Darn near renews my faith in the human spirit, it does! :D )

MrObvious
2004-Oct-29, 02:49 AM
And what have you got against old people like me having a girlfriend anyway, eh?? :D :wink:

I don't know - maybe I'm just bitter 'cause I'm alone. :D

Be patient girl, read your signature :wink:

You're young, plenty of time to find the right one. Just remember, there is no one MrRight, it's always MrRightForYou.

Candy wrote:

I usually call my other half, blind date.

I object to that...... I was only tipsy. :D

Err, sorry force of habit....

Kesh
2004-Oct-29, 05:45 AM
snowcelt, I have to agree with you. The enforced stickers are way over the top. If the memo had made them optional, that would have made sense to me.

Harvestar
2004-Oct-29, 05:55 AM
*snip*

I see the problem with an printed invite. But, since you include friends too, wouldn't something like 'you are welcome to bring another person' do - that is, unless some people are in the habit of inviting enemies or random people off the street. :)

I simply can't imagine saying 'S.O.' without making bunny ears. In practice, though, I'd say we use people's names 90% of the time in conversation, which solves the problem. It's only when explaining the existence of a relationship to a third party the question usually arises. I've always rather liked 'item' as in: 'You do realise that those two are an item?', though this can often imply a simple fling as opposed to a long-term committment.

No, it's not a printed invite, but email ones I was referring to. And since people also usually add "kids, dogs" are ok too, if they are to that particular party, it's good to be a bit specific. Just pointing out that S.O. and Significant Other are the common terms around here. I TOTALLY got myself into trouble by saying someone and "their fiancee" when they weren't engaged. :oops:

I don't get the bunny ears thing. ?

And "item" makes me cringe. Reminds me of my mom. <motherly voice> "So are you two an Item?"

:roll:

Of course, then there's my friend who just refers to people's girlfriends as "chickie-poo". She does this just to push buttons - which she's quite good at. There's also the good-ole "What's his/her name". (my office mate actually referred to her boyfriend this way the other day when she had a brain fart and couldn't think of his name. I told her this was a sign. ;) )

Jpax2003
2004-Oct-29, 03:21 PM
I don't get the bunny ears thing.I didn't either, but now I am beginning to think it means making finger "quotes" in the air.

Grand Vizier
2004-Oct-29, 05:19 PM
I don't get the bunny ears thing.I didn't either, but now I am beginning to think it means making finger "quotes" in the air.

Yes, that's exactly it, sorry - couldn't think of another word. It's one of those things that I used to do ironically and now sometimes do without thinking about it. It's so easy to develop bad habits...



And "item" makes me cringe. Reminds me of my mom. <motherly voice> "So are you two an Item?"


That's kind of why I like it. Must be my age. But perhaps I'll go northern English next and just refer to people as 'courting'. (Though this is more properly used to ask an acquaintance if they have a Significant Other: 'Are you courting, then?'. Best said in a Lancashire accent.)

Glom
2004-Oct-29, 05:35 PM
I may yet ease up on the P&R "rule".

Woo hoo! So what does everyone think of abortion? :D (That was a joke by the way. Nobody is to actually answer the question. If you do, there will be vicious bludgeoning with floppy disks.)

Actually, I think it says a lot that BA is considering a slight ease up of the P&R rule. It shows that we are a cool bunch that can be trusted.

Lurker
2004-Oct-29, 05:51 PM
I may yet ease up on the P&R "rule".

Woo hoo! So what does everyone think of abortion? :D (That was a joke by the way. Nobody is to actually answer the question. If you do, there will be vicious bludgeoning with floppy disks.)

Actually, I think it says a lot that BA is considering a slight ease up of the P&R rule. It shows that we are a cool bunch that can be trusted.
I have to say... I thought this thread would erupt into hard feelings, but it has been very civilized. It gives me hope. I have had my hopes and my dreams shaken, but the people here make me feel like there can be common ground and respect and most important... compassion.

I think this is a wonderful group and I am proud and happy to be made to feel a part of it. I hope it is not unique, but I fear that GLP sometimes seems to be much more "main stream" which is troubling. But as long as there are groups like this that can soften the BA's heart, I have hope.

That last is not a comment on the BA as much as a comment on the difficult position of moderator... (he is a good moderator because he doesn't want the position... :wink: )

Grand Vizier
2004-Oct-29, 06:06 PM
That last is not a comment on the BA as much as a comment on the difficult position of moderator... (he is a good moderator because he doesn't want the position... :wink: )

Yes indeed - a toast to the BA. It's a hard, frequently thankless, task moderating - I wouldn't volunteer in a hurry.

But I wish we chose our political leaders on the basis of their reluctance to lead. Of course establishing that they really really don't want the job could be tough...

And, Glom, you are a bad bad man. Shame on you. :)

[edited for last para]

pghnative
2004-Oct-29, 06:19 PM
So what does everyone think of abortion? I hate it when NASA scrubs a mission.

Glom
2004-Oct-29, 06:43 PM
I hate it when NASA scrubs a mission.

That's it! I beat you sir with a floppy disk! :D Well some people say we should respect NASA's right to choose. :D

Okay, that's enough now. :)

Lurker
2004-Oct-29, 08:10 PM
So what does everyone think of abortion? I hate it when NASA scrubs a mission.
There are millions of tax dollars invested in those missions!! Since when does NASA have the unilateral right to scrub a mission that we are ALL paying for!! [-(

Please!! I plead insanity!!! Don't beat me!! 8-[

:wink:

ocasey3
2004-Oct-29, 09:01 PM
ocasey3 said that "[i]t is said that to be gay is to be political. In order to protect our basic human rights...we have to be right in your face". I can understand this. It matters not if anyone likes this or not. But, as I said before sometimes it is a bit much.

The Royal Bank Of Canada (RBC) recently sent a memo to their employees that to promote safety in the workplace for its gay members all employees should affix a triangular, rainbow hued sticker to there desk/window/cubical to show that their area in safe. Within the memo it said that ten percent of all people are gay, transsexual,hermaphrodites,cross dressers etc. They go on to say that terms like marriage and boyfriend/girlfriend should not be used because the words are to exclusive: instead words like life partner should be used instead.

I find this is away to in my face, politically correct for me. This forces people to comply or be branded a homophobic. I find this PC environment to oppressive, and frankly, scary.

Why didn't the RBC send out a memo saying that all employees should be nice to every one, just like ANY CIVILIZED PERSON SHOULD BE! Why be specific? If we enforced basic human rights to the maximum there would be no need for any specific legislation, or memos enacted or sent to anyone.

Takes a deep breath. I am not homophobic, but this in your face PC crap is starting to get to me. I think that there is a genuine possibility that this PC crap is going to backfire, and a lot of people are going to get hurt.

I am more than a little disturbed by this supposed memo. I do not advocate or support such actions by any corporation or government. I had a wierd image akin to the Star of David in Nazi Germany. Really creepy. I am not the most PC person on the planet. Not by a long shot. And this absolutely bothers me.

We are not asking for special rights just the same rights as everyone else. Nothing more nothing less. Unfortunately the language of the law allows crimes to slip through the system without justice being served. And not just crimes but also the basic rights of every citizen. The USA had to ammend the Constitution a couple of times in order to ensure the right to vote to people of color and women because the language wasn't specific enough and open to too much interpretation.

But obviously many people overreact as seems apparant in the RBC memo and thats too bad, really. There are bound to be many stumbling blocks like this ahead, but eventually, hopefully the question will be moot because we will have advanced enough as a species and a culture to move beyond our obsessions with everybody elses life.

Candy
2004-Oct-29, 09:07 PM
That's kind of why I like it. Must be my age. But perhaps I'll go northern English next and just refer to people as 'courting'. (Though this is more properly used to ask an acquaintance if they have a Significant Other: 'Are you courting, then?'. Best said in a Lancashire accent.) I love the term 'courting'. It's so romantic. I'm a sap for romance. :D

Lurker
2004-Oct-29, 09:18 PM
I love the term 'courting'. It's so romantic. I'm a sap for romance. :D
I agree... I used the term with my Persian to communicate the formality of my actions. It was an attempt to show her that my intentions were honorable and that I was worthy of her trust...

Harvestar
2004-Oct-29, 10:20 PM
I was curious about the Canandian bank memo item and did a Google search. I came up with this:


Royal Bank Eliminates "Rainbow Triangle" Sticker

October 18, 2004

In a dramatic reversal, the Royal Bank of Canada announced that its Rainbow Space initiative for employees to display a "Rainbow Triangle" at their workstation has "unintentionally created divisiveness." Therefore they have made the decision to eliminate the Rainbow Sticker program.



http://www.canadafreepress.com/2004/cover101804b.htm

Yeah, ok, the article's a bit one-sided (meaning I don't agree with all that's said in it), but felt I should post the link where I got the above info.

Stylesjl
2004-Oct-30, 01:33 AM
9 pages great

The easing up of the politics and religion thing is interesting

Maybe i should start a topic on abortion (seriously) or then again maybe not

My stance on the homosexuality/Bisexual issue is that the lifestyle/habbit/whatever does not cause any harm and so hatred of that is irrational

It unfortunately reminds of the 50's and history repeats itself due to peoples incredible ignorance

I am saddened to hear about how people who come out and tell everyone what they are disowned by their parents, bashed on the streeets, or forbidden to come to the church

Well i won't be posting here for a bit unless anything interesting comes up :wink:

Grand Vizier
2004-Oct-30, 02:20 AM
Stylesjl, thanks for the the thread, but don't come unstrung now, thread-leader :wink:



It unfortunately reminds of the 50's and history repeats itself due to peoples incredible ignorance


The current situation seems like a repeat of that appalling decade, yeah [1]. But no way. We would not be talking like this in the 50s, it hasn't quite got that bad yet. Honest.



Well i won't be posting here for a bit unless anything interesting comes up :wink:


You cop-out! (OK, we all have work to do.)

[1] For us Brits, there is a little word: 'Suez'

SAMU
2004-Oct-30, 02:21 AM
Homosexuality could be an evolutionarily selected for trait.

Consider a population where infection can be spread by sexual vectors (consider all before penicillin). Since male to male or male to female is a more infectuous activity then those actions that result in an infection from male to male prevents an infection that may otherwise have been to a female. Thus females in that population survive, the males die but in a given population male mortality is not as important to reproduction as female mortality ie fewer males can maintain a population at the same level as one with more males.

Consider AIDS. In the U.S. females were infected later, had a much lower infection rate and continue to have a somewhat lower infection rate than males.

So the selected for traits are those that prevent infections to females including male/male, female/female homosexuality, masturbation, male celibacy and many other antisexual rules and even psycosis.

Stylesjl
2004-Oct-30, 02:24 AM
Stylesjl, thanks for the the thread, but don't come unstrung now, thread-leader :wink:



Well i won't be posting here for a bit unless anything interesting comes up :wink:


You cop-out! (OK, we all have work to do.)

[1] For us Brits, there is a little word: 'Suez'

I just can't think of any other stuff to say right now maybe i'll get something by the next day

BTW: One more thing to add. My maths teachers son is gay if i remember correctly but im not sure he doesn't attend my school

Grand Vizier
2004-Oct-30, 02:30 AM
I just can't think of any other stuff to say right now maybe i'll get something by the next day


No pressure :wink: Truly, have a great weekend. You're a hero.

Jpax2003
2004-Oct-30, 03:12 AM
My stance on the homosexuality/Bisexual issue is that the lifestyle/habbit/whatever does not cause any harm and so hatred of that is irrational

It unfortunately reminds of the 50's and history repeats itself due to peoples incredible ignorance

The lifestyle may not cause any physical harm, but I can see how some would be mentally distressed over another's homosexuality. Many parents who would prefer grandchildren, or someone to carry on the family name, or business, etc. may feel let down when a child identifies as homosexual. While an individual has the right to choose their own course, I can see how a parent who has struggled 20 years towards a goal for their child can feel disappointed. I would not call their feelings irrational. Hatred may be an extreme emotion in this instance, but I do not think anger is excessive.

Some heterosexual men feel threatened by homosexual men. I think this is often due to the erroneous expectation of being asked out on a date or invited to participate in homosexual sexual activity. However, that expectation is not always erroneous. Some heterosexual men are asked out or asked to engage is sexual activity with other men, despite their known status as heterosexual. Moreover, the public image of homosexuals as permiscuous only serves to further this stereotype. Perhaps not all homosexual males are so permiscuous, but it is sometimes accurate.

I don't think that people's ignorance is incredible. Incredible implies that they ignore what is clear and distinct and without confusion. I do not think that this is the case. There is plenty of confusion, incidental or intentional. The claims that homosexuals are only interested in cozy relationships akin to traditional marriage appear at odds with Gay Pride Parades. If the homosexual community wants the general population to not be ignorant then perhaps they should engage in better public relations.

There is also the question of whether homosexuality is a choice or not a choice. Both positions have positive and negative extrapolations. How do people know how to act when they don't understand the source of another's behavior? Some will say it does not matter, but I think it may. But I'll wait to make that case if someone asks for it.

Stylesjl
2004-Oct-30, 03:44 AM
Parents could feel let down by the prospect homosexuals can't breed therefore they can't continue inheritence, etc but seriously when i become a parent (im only 14 now) i woundn't disown my son/daughter for being what they are or denounce it as a sin or wrong its just something that is, so stop and notice then go back to what you were doing.

Stereotypes are quite a problem and theres no solution except education to people

Lurker
2004-Oct-30, 03:50 AM
SAMU I find your argument interesting... I honestly don't feel at all qualified to make any sort of comment other than to say that I think that there may well be such reasons if homosexuality could be discussed dispassionately...

Lurker
2004-Oct-30, 04:00 AM
Parents could feel let down by the prospect homosexuals can't breed therefore they can't continue inheritence, etc but seriously when i become a parent (im only 14 now) i woundn't disown my son/daughter for being what they are or denounce it as a sin or wrong its just something that is, so stop and notice then go back to what you were doing.

Stereotypes are quite a problem and theres no solution except education to people
Then there is me... I have lost the first 45 years of my life to depression. I am hetrosexual and in love with a woman that I will not be able to share my life with. I am currently 48 years old and have no plans to go out and find another mate so that my parents can have grand children. My parents had their lives... I do not expect to have to deal with their anger simply because my life did not unfold as they would have liked it to.

I do not mean to be in anyone's face concerning these matters... I just wish to point out that life is complex and as tragic as it is beautiful. Rather than being filled with anger or disappointment at what does not go as we plan... we need to come together and celebrate what is...

Jpax2003
2004-Oct-30, 04:13 AM
Parents could feel let down by the prospect homosexuals can't breed therefore they can't continue inheritence, etc but seriously when i become a parent (im only 14 now) i woundn't disown my son/daughter for being what they are or denounce it as a sin or wrong its just something that is, so stop and notice then go back to what you were doing.Well, I was talking about societal pressures that parents may feel which are not strictly related to religion. If you want to include religion then ask the BA if it's ok to go there. But without getting into religion, I think we can all agree that dutiful obeisance to a supreme deity gives, in the mind of the faithful, all the impetus they need. It need not be rational. Attempts to change the mind of one who feels it is not their mind to make up leads to ineffectual discourse. Requesting or demanding that they change their mind is asking them to change their lifestyle to suit another. Tolerance and Acceptance: It's a two edged sword.


Stereotypes are quite a problem and theres no solution except education to peopleWhich people and which problem? There is a reason sterotypes exist: they tend to be accurate portrayals of the majority of a group of people at least occasionally. Do you think the stereotype should be changed by asking people to ignore an accurate portrayal, or asking those engaged in the sterotypical behavior to act differently?

Grand Vizier
2004-Oct-30, 05:17 AM
Then there is me... I have lost the first 45 years of my life to depression.


Grief, Lurker, that's a bit severe. I speak as a depressive, but I'm not sure how you can assess things that absolutely. 45 years? I know the depressive thing where you think your entire life has been wasted, and nothing ever ever ever ever is worth doing, and everything you've ever done is worthless - but that's when you're depressed - it ain't necessarily so all the time. I hope you haven't felt that way all this time, I really do.



I am hetrosexual and in love with a woman that I will not be able to share my life with. I am currently 48 years old and have no plans to go out and find another mate so that my parents can have grand children. My parents had their lives... I do not expect to have to deal with their anger simply because my life did not unfold as they would have liked it to.

I do not mean to be in anyone's face concerning these matters... I just wish to point out that life is complex and as tragic as it is beautiful. Rather than being filled with anger or disappointment at what does not go as we plan... we need to come together and celebrate what is...

From your earlier post, friend, it seems you were not given any choice at all. You expect to lose the person you hold most dear in the world, without much/any support from friends, family and colleagues. And now, from my reading of your posts, you are taking the whole burden on yourself (which is something I can understand, by the way.) And this totally sucks bigtime.

[And I wrote some mealy-mouthed wimpy advice here, realised it was rubbish and deleted it. I wish I had a practical solution to hand.]

stu
2004-Oct-30, 05:20 AM
Stereotypes are quite a problem and theres no solution except education to peopleWhich people and which problem? There is a reason sterotypes exist: they tend to be accurate portrayals of the majority of a group of people at least occasionally. Do you think the stereotype should be changed by asking people to ignore an accurate portrayal, or asking those engaged in the sterotypical behavior to act differently?

Stereotypes are not necessarily an accurate portrayal of the majority of a group. They are usually an accurate portrayal of the most public/accessible parts of a group. For example, a stereotype for Jewish people is that they have a large nose; it's an easily seen feature and so is readily visible. But, I'm Jewish, and there were several people I went/go to school with that are Jewish. NONE of us have large noses.

For homosexuals, many of the stereotypes (for male homeosexuals, especially) is the effeminate, eyebrow plucking, limp wrist, promiscuous, clubbing type. BUT THE MAJORITY OF HOMOSEXUALS ARE NOT LIKE THIS!!

We were carving pumpkins for our astronomy department two nights ago and we were discussing a homophobic induvidual - who wasn't there - who had insisted that no one in his frat was gay. Afterall, they're "brothers" and they all live together. As we discussed, the fatal flaw in his bigotted argument that no one in his frat was a "fag" (a word that I personally hate) was that once you're out, or even when in the closet, you don't necessarily act that way!

I have read estimates that 11% of the population is homosexual or have some homosexual leanings. Look around you tomorrow. Does 1 out of every 10 people you see look gay? Unless you're in San Francisco, then I believe I've made my point.

Brady Yoon
2004-Oct-30, 05:46 AM
Exactly. The way people view gay people and the stereotyping annoys me so much.

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Oct-30, 05:50 AM
Maybe i should start a topic on abortion (seriously) or then again maybe not


Stick with the "not". Posting about abortion is simply asking for a flame war.

Grand Vizier
2004-Oct-30, 05:57 AM
EXCUSE ME???



Stereotypes are quite a problem and theres no solution except education to peopleWhich people and which problem? There is a reason sterotypes exist: they tend to be accurate portrayals of the majority of a group of people at least occasionally. Do you think the stereotype should be changed by asking people to ignore an accurate portrayal, or asking those engaged in the sterotypical behavior to act differently?


Stu, or whoever got their quoting garbled, if you look back through the thread you will see that I never said any such darn fool thing. Someone did. It wasn't me. I expect an apology once you've fixed it. Yes - it's that serious. :evil:

[edited to remove contentious comment]

stu
2004-Oct-30, 06:07 AM
Stu, or whoever got their quoting garbled, if you look back through the thread you will see that I never said any such darn fool thing. Someone did. It wasn't me. I expect an apology once you've fixed it. Yes - it's that serious. :evil:

[I now find that it was jpax2003 who actually said what was attributed to me above. I find that interesting.]

[edited to include further research (see above)]

Geesh, calm down. It was a simple mistake on my part. I messed up the quoting when I first submitted, and by the time I went back to see which post was directly before mine that I had quoted, you'd posted already and I didn't realize it so I grabbed your name instead. Sorry! But really, calm down, it was a simple mistake. And it's been corrected.

Grand Vizier
2004-Oct-30, 06:12 AM
Stu, or whoever got their quoting garbled, if you look back through the thread you will see that I never said any such darn fool thing. Someone did. It wasn't me. I expect an apology once you've fixed it. Yes - it's that serious. :evil:

[I now find that it was jpax2003 who actually said what was attributed to me above. I find that interesting.]

[edited to include further research (see above)]

Geesh, calm down. It was a simple mistake on my part. I messed up the quoting when I first submitted, and by the time I went back to see which post was directly before mine that I had quoted, you'd posted already and I didn't realize it so I grabbed your name instead. Sorry! But really, calm down, it was a simple mistake.

Sheesh, for me. Your apology accepted!!! It's about context. That was the worst possible mistake you could have made right now. But it was not your fault.

Candy
2004-Oct-30, 06:13 AM
I usually call the girl I am interested in - but they rarely call back. :lol: I forgot to tell you I found this extremely funny. :lol: =D>

Candy
2004-Oct-30, 06:55 AM
Test Your Gaydar<---click here! (http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=041030&cat=frontpage&st=frontpagegay dar_041029&src=abc)
New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey surprised a lot of people a few months ago when he announced: "I am a gay American."

But a lot of people say they can tell right away -- just by looking at someone -- or listening to them -- whether they're gay or not. They say they have "gaydar." (The word is a play on radar ... seeing what's hidden.)

Apparently McGreevey's wife doesn't have gaydar. They are reported to have separated. And his ex-wife said she had no clue and most of his constituents didn't know. So if so many people can be fooled, does gaydar really exist? I thought this was a neat article. 8)

Kesh
2004-Oct-30, 07:13 AM
Gaydar is a myth, yes. :) It's just that sometimes, folks can notice small hints that a person is gay (usually by choice of words, or if their eyes linger on another guy longer than most).

Jpax2003
2004-Oct-30, 08:26 AM
Stu, or whoever got their quoting garbled, if you look back through the thread you will see that I never said any such darn fool thing. Someone did. It wasn't me. I expect an apology once you've fixed it. Yes - it's that serious. :evil:

[I now find that it was jpax2003 who actually said what was attributed to me above. I find that interesting.]

[edited to include further research (see above)]

Geesh, calm down. It was a simple mistake on my part. I messed up the quoting when I first submitted, and by the time I went back to see which post was directly before mine that I had quoted, you'd posted already and I didn't realize it so I grabbed your name instead. Sorry! But really, calm down, it was a simple mistake.

Sheesh, for me. Your apology accepted!!! It's about context. That was the worst possible mistake you could have made right now. But it was not your fault.hmmm... :-k

Jpax2003
2004-Oct-30, 09:02 AM
Stereotypes are not necessarily an accurate portrayal of the majority of a group. They are usually an accurate portrayal of the most public/accessible parts of a group. For example, a stereotype for Jewish people is that they have a large nose; it's an easily seen feature and so is readily visible. But, I'm Jewish, and there were several people I went/go to school with that are Jewish. NONE of us have large noses.

For homosexuals, many of the stereotypes (for male homeosexuals, especially) is the effeminate, eyebrow plucking, limp wrist, promiscuous, clubbing type. BUT THE MAJORITY OF HOMOSEXUALS ARE NOT LIKE THIS!!Where is the difference of opinion? There are always some members of a group that do not conform to the stereotype. However, the perception, or misperception, is based in the visible members of a group. Those who are not visible are often not identified for inclusion. Homosexuals may have a larger variance in identification than other groups that are identified by cosmetic characteristics. Stereotypes may be applied toward the majority of the visible members of the group. I dislike the illegitimate use of stereotypes, but I acknowledge that they do serve a useful perpose. Of course, generalities are usually only useful when talking about broad issues.

But more to the point, my question was not answered, so I repeat it: Do you think the stereotype should be changed by asking people to ignore an accurate portrayal, or asking those engaged in the sterotypical behavior to act differently?

Candy
2004-Oct-30, 10:17 AM
Stereotypes are not necessarily an accurate portrayal of the majority of a group. They are usually an accurate portrayal of the most public/accessible parts of a group. For example, a stereotype for Jewish people is that they have a large nose; it's an easily seen feature and so is readily visible. But, I'm Jewish, and there were several people I went/go to school with that are Jewish. NONE of us have large noses.

For homosexuals, many of the stereotypes (for male homeosexuals, especially) is the effeminate, eyebrow plucking, limp wrist, promiscuous, clubbing type. BUT THE MAJORITY OF HOMOSEXUALS ARE NOT LIKE THIS!!Where is the difference of opinion? There are always some members of a group that do not conform to the stereotype. However, the perception, or misperception, is based in the visible members of a group. Those who are not visible are often not identified for inclusion. Homosexuals may have a larger variance in identification than other groups that are identified by cosmetic characteristics. Stereotypes may be applied toward the majority of the visible members of the group. I dislike the illegitimate use of stereotypes, but I acknowledge that they do serve a useful perpose. Of course, generalities are usually only useful when talking about broad issues.

But more to the point, my question was not answered, so I repeat it: Do you think the stereotype should be changed by asking people to ignore an accurate portrayal, or asking those engaged in the sterotypical behavior to act differently? What stereotype are you referring to? I work for a company where ~5% are homosexual. Systemwide, that's about 3,250 employee's. I am still amazed when I find out a longtime business acquaintance is 'gay'. :-?

stu
2004-Oct-30, 05:47 PM
Stereotypes are not necessarily an accurate portrayal of the majority of a group. They are usually an accurate portrayal of the most public/accessible parts of a group. For example, a stereotype for Jewish people is that they have a large nose; it's an easily seen feature and so is readily visible. But, I'm Jewish, and there were several people I went/go to school with that are Jewish. NONE of us have large noses.

For homosexuals, many of the stereotypes (for male homeosexuals, especially) is the effeminate, eyebrow plucking, limp wrist, promiscuous, clubbing type. BUT THE MAJORITY OF HOMOSEXUALS ARE NOT LIKE THIS!!Where is the difference of opinion? There are always some members of a group that do not conform to the stereotype. However, the perception, or misperception, is based in the visible members of a group. Those who are not visible are often not identified for inclusion. Homosexuals may have a larger variance in identification than other groups that are identified by cosmetic characteristics. Stereotypes may be applied toward the majority of the visible members of the group. I dislike the illegitimate use of stereotypes, but I acknowledge that they do serve a useful perpose. Of course, generalities are usually only useful when talking about broad issues.

But more to the point, my question was not answered, so I repeat it: Do you think the stereotype should be changed by asking people to ignore an accurate portrayal, or asking those engaged in the sterotypical behavior to act differently?

I thought I did answer your question by pointing out that stereotypes are usually NOT accurate portrayals of the majority of a group, so your question is therefor moot. Those who are engaged in stereotypical behavior shouldn't be asked to change because, in most cases (at least with this topic), that behavior is their own business and no one else's, so there's no reason why they should have to change just because someone else doesn't like it.

Jpax2003
2004-Oct-30, 07:03 PM
I thought I did answer your question by pointing out that stereotypes are usually NOT accurate portrayals of the majority of a group, so your question is therefor moot. Those who are engaged in stereotypical behavior shouldn't be asked to change because, in most cases (at least with this topic), that behavior is their own business and no one else's, so there's no reason why they should have to change just because someone else doesn't like it.

Ok, I wasn't sure if that was an answer to the question or just pointing out a technical issue with it. So, if those who engage in stereotypical behavior continue to do so, then how is an observer's observation at fault? Who is more responsible for what is seen: The observer or the actor?

Some behaviors only serve to further homosexual stereotypes. If they are not asked to adjust that behavior because it is their own business, then how can you ask non-homosexuals to adjust their perceptions? Is it not their own business? It sounds like a double standard, or hypocrisy. More to the point, why do you want them to change their perceptions, accurate or inaccurate? Does it matter if someone thinks all homosexuals are "flaming fairies" as long as that person still treats them with respect?

I don't think stereotypical homosexuals should change their behavior because other people disagree with their actions. That's only half the issue. When it comes to stereotypes, the issue is that homosexuals are finding disfavor with others who disagree with their actions. The homosexuals are at the beginning and end of this equation. I think that stereotypical homosexuals might consider changing their behavior because (they, or other) homosexuals take issue with the perceptions generated by those behaviors in the minds of others.

I also think the claims that their behavior is their "own business and no one else's" avoids the point I made earlier about family. Their behavior impacts other people. No man is an island. Turning away from familial and societal obligations is selfish. Now, I do not contend that such bahavior is necessarily wrong, but I think selfish is the correct term. I think a proper dialogue should include this as a base assumption.

Perhaps the issue is the use of terms. I don't think my question is a moot issue, despite unilateral declarations to the contrary. At issue is the language used for discussion. If we can't agree on language for use in discussion, then how can discussion exist? The word "stereotype" is often modified by use of "positive" or "negative" or "true" or "false" or perhaps even "neutral". The word "stereotype" may cannote nagativity in some uses, but I think that is usually indicated by context. Perhaps Stylesjl meant negative stereotypes. I think that he might elaborate upon his intent. When I write "stereotype" I mean it with it's general definition. I'll add modifiers if I need to.

Jpax2003
2004-Oct-30, 07:09 PM
What stereotype are you referring to? I work for a company where ~5% are homosexual. Systemwide, that's about 3,250 employee's. I am still amazed when I find out a longtime business acquaintance is 'gay'. :-?I don't know either. I'm waiting for Stylesjl or another to expand upon that. I've been speaking in generalities without examples.

stu
2004-Oct-30, 07:18 PM
Some behaviors only serve to further homosexual stereotypes. If they are not asked to adjust that behavior because it is their own business, then how can you ask non-homosexuals to adjust their perceptions? Is it not their own business? It sounds like a double standard, or hypocrisy. More to the point, why do you want them to change their perceptions, accurate or inaccurate? Does it matter if someone thinks all homosexuals are "flaming fairies" as long as that person still treats them with respect?

I think that I draw issue with this. I do not believe that I asked heterosexuals to adjust their perception, but rather it is a matter of what's correct and what's wrong. Not all homosexuals act a certain way, and stereotypical homosexual behavior applies to a limited number; as such, it is the duty of an educated person to realize this.

"Does it matter if someone thinks all homosexuals are 'flaming faries' as long as that person still treats them with respect?" I suppose not, but it's the same as asking if it matters if someone goes around thinking that all people with dark skin are stupid and only good for labor, as long as they don't act on this and still treat them with respect. I think this is wrong, I know this is wrong, and I don't do it. So why should it be right for people to do the same thing with people who are homosexual?

As to claims about being selfish by not modifying behavior, this is perhaps true, but it is their perogative and they need to be ready to deal with the consequences. As with any group that is persecuted, there will always be some who go out of their way to try to get people to fight with them so they can point out how they're being mistreated. This goes across groups, and I am not going to argue it, whether it's right or wrong, good or bad.

I also believe that, in general, most stereotypes are negative, so thats what I assumed here. Can you name some good stereotypes?

Jpax2003
2004-Oct-30, 07:37 PM
"Does it matter if someone thinks all homosexuals are 'flaming faries' as long as that person still treats them with respect?" I suppose not, but it's the same as asking if it matters if someone goes around thinking that all people with dark skin are stupid and only good for labor, as long as they don't act on this and still treat them with respect. I think this is wrong, I know this is wrong, and I don't do it.Why? How?


So why should it be right for people to do the same thing with people who are homosexual?I think I'll need your answer to the above question before I can answer this properly.


I also believe that, in general, most stereotypes are negative, so thats what I assumed here. Can you name some good stereotypes?Yes. Gays are cleaner and better groomed. Gays have a better fashion sense. Gays are better interior designers. Asians are smarter in math and science. African decent males are well endowed. Germans are better engineers. Arabs are better traders. Polynesians are happier people. Eskimoes are happier people. Tibetans are more spiritual. The list goes on. Most stereotypes are not good or bad, but simply inaccurate. What are some bad stereotypes?

stu
2004-Oct-30, 07:50 PM
"Does it matter if someone thinks all homosexuals are 'flaming faries' as long as that person still treats them with respect?" I suppose not, but it's the same as asking if it matters if someone goes around thinking that all people with dark skin are stupid and only good for labor, as long as they don't act on this and still treat them with respect. I think this is wrong, I know this is wrong, and I don't do it.Why? How?Alright, if you think this, then there is no point in discussing this further, and I will not comment anymore on this topic.



I also believe that, in general, most stereotypes are negative, so thats what I assumed here. Can you name some good stereotypes?Yes. Gays are cleaner and better groomed. Gays have a better fashion sense. Gays are better interior designers. Asians are smarter in math and science. African decent males are well endowed. Germans are better engineers. Arabs are better traders. Polynesians are happier people. Eskimoes are happier people. Tibetans are more spiritual. The list goes on. Most stereotypes are not good or bad, but simply inaccurate. What are some bad stereotypes?
Bad stereotypes: Gays are promiscuous, on satanists, don't care what other people think, go clubbing every night, gay men are women inside and gay women are all butch. Chinese want to take over the world, no black person can hold a steady job, 'cause they're all stupid, southerners are inbred, etc. The list goes on.

AliCali
2004-Oct-30, 08:00 PM
New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey surprised a lot of people a few months ago when he announced: "I am a gay American."

[edit]

Apparently McGreevey's wife doesn't have gaydar. They are reported to have separated. And his ex-wife said she had no clue and most of his constituents didn't know. So if so many people can be fooled, does gaydar really exist?

Intersting story: A gay friend said that many years ago, his dad ran against McGreevey for some office position. My friend told his dad that McGreevey was gay. The dad said, "No way! He's married." Well, years later, the dad calls my friend, saying, "Wow, you were right!"



Gaydar is a myth, yes. It's just that sometimes, folks can notice small hints that a person is gay (usually by choice of words, or if their eyes linger on another guy longer than most).

I once volunteered for a Gay Rodeo (the attendants were gay, not the animals) (so far as I knew). I sold drink tickets, and almost every guy to whom I sold a ticket looked me square in the eye for a split-second longer than I'm used to. It was a bit surprising, but after a while, I kinda liked it.

electromagneticpulse
2004-Oct-30, 08:29 PM
I also believe that, in general, most stereotypes are negative, so thats what I assumed here. Can you name some good stereotypes?Yes. Gays are cleaner and better groomed. Gays have a better fashion sense. Gays are better interior designers. Asians are smarter in math and science. African decent males are well endowed. Germans are better engineers. Arabs are better traders. Polynesians are happier people. Eskimoes are happier people. Tibetans are more spiritual. The list goes on. Most stereotypes are not good or bad, but simply inaccurate. What are some bad stereotypes?
Bad stereotypes: Gays are promiscuous, on satanists, don't care what other people think, go clubbing every night, gay men are women inside and gay women are all butch. Chinese want to take over the world, no black person can hold a steady job, 'cause they're all stupid, southerners are inbred, etc. The list goes on.


Edit: also i have to say its great this thread is going 10 pages and the heat has been extreamly mild for this type of thread. People are keeping the heat down well :D

All stereotypes are stereotypes and are bad, incorrect and stupid. I was stereotyped litrally the day i walked into school, my 2nd year teacher said that i would get a 1,1,1 in my SAT tests (1,1,1 been the worst) i ended up getting straight 3's in them this is because i am "dumb" in her words (i mean in her words thats what she said to my parents). Im going to stereotype a bit here while stating something most people that get straight 1's failed their gcse's. I was accepted back into 6th form before i even left just on my behaviour and what my headmaster knew of my working level and i ended up getting twice the amount of points needed to get into 6th form but i chose not to go in and go the "failures" way into college.
Im currently exempt from the key skills work im supposed to do because of my high marks i just have to sit 2 exams to prove i still know it. I was actualy stereotyped as being gay because of the course im on (health and social care) which was typicaly by males, simply im male and im on a course with 12 girls i some how find it not gay. Afterspending 5 years in an all male school i can assure anyone women are much better company.

I get stereotyped because of the clothes i wear and the music i listen to.
Im still used to being talked down to by pritty much any adult when (not meaning to boast) i am a lot smarter then most of them. I know a lot on electronics, quantum theory, i've taught myself to play several musical instruments... and i get treated like im a moron every day by my "elders".

No stereotyping is good because it always discriminates.

stu
2004-Oct-30, 08:55 PM
Thank you, electromagneticpulse; I agree. I was also stereotyped against when I entered kindergarten. My teacher thought that I was mentally retarded because I was left-handed.

electromagneticpulse
2004-Oct-30, 09:28 PM
Thank you, electromagneticpulse; I agree. I was also stereotyped against when I entered kindergarten. My teacher thought that I was mentally retarded because I was left-handed.

Exact same situation im a fellow lefty. I was refused from guitar lessons because i wouldn't be able to "learn it like the others". Well im glad i can't "learn it like the others" because i can actualy play it but it sucks so i play bass guitar which i also taught myself.

I find it extreamly annoying how many things are designed for right handed use which means i've actualy become ambidextrous in almost everything.

Edit: Oh and the teacher that surgested i was dyslexic (before calling me dumb) is now the headmistress of the school.

Lurker
2004-Oct-30, 09:45 PM
*snip*
[And I wrote some mealy-mouthed wimpy advice here, realised it was rubbish and deleted it. I wish I had a practical solution to hand.]

Sorry Grand Vizier, I wasn't trying to drag some of the darker experiences in my life across this thread. The comment was made that a lifestyle like homosexuality can problems because parents may see it as an end to their line... their family name will not be carried forward. I just wanted to point out that life is complex and difficult sometimes.

I am not homosexual, but my parents have to face the the same issue because of the hand that life has dealt me. But I would be very disappointed if my parents were angry with me after all I have been through simply because I might not provide them with grand children. I have been treated for my condition and seen the beauty of the world... I have had a chance to love and be loved... I want my parents to celebrate what I have been granted in this life... NOT to feel angry and cheated by what it has not granted me or them through me.

It doesn't matter what color someone's skin is... what their sexual preference is... whether they are a man or a woman... what color and style their hair is... or what type of eyes they have. If they love... share life... are happy... what more is there? Let us celebrate these things... Life throws too much tragedy at humans as it is... We should all to pull together and celebrate life... happiness... celebrate love... We may someday unravel all the laws of space and time... but it will, in my humble opinion, be a sterile victory if we cannot be happy...

The hardbitten engineer has become a mystic. A very wise woman once told me, "Whever you go, there you are." If you conquer all of space and time but cannot find love and happiness... you end where you began.

Note about stereotypes -- let us substitute "black" for "homosexual" for a moment. A good friend of mine named Beverly grew up in Florida where everyone knew that "Blacks were intellectually inferior to Whites because of their genetic makeup". Beverly had that thrown at her day in and day out for most of her life. She now had a PhD in digital image recognition from William and Mary, and works for a very prestigious group in Washington DC. I know that one cannot argue by example, but I doubt that anyone wants to suggest that the stereotypes that she faced, and still faces to this day, are representative of African-Americans.

Weird Dave
2004-Oct-30, 09:50 PM
Even "good" stereotypes can be dangerous, because they imply that the "normal" kind of person is less good. E.g. if many people use the stereotype that "Germans are better engineers" when buying a car, they are discriminating against car makers in other countries, and thus costing them jobs etc. just as surely as if the stereotype was "the Japanese are rubbish engineers". You would be worse off, too, if you buy a rubbish German car rather than an excellent Japanese car.

Of course, there might be some truth behind a stereotype (although I don't know enough Germans, gay men or arabs to know if their engineering, dress sense or bargaining power are better than the average Brit's). But then it isn't a stereotype any more - it's a statistic.

The only use I can see for stereotypes is to make humour easier. Why spend half a joke saying that a particular woman is stupid, when you can just say "blonde" and know that your audience will get the stereotype. Of course, then we must be extremely careful that we don't start believing them...

Anyone is certainly welcome to think that "all homosexuals are 'flaming faries' ", provided they accept that, by making that assumption, they may make embarassing mistakes. I wonder how many people have missed out on the perfect partners, because they thought that person was the wrong sexuality for them. :-k

JPax2003, another danger with holding a private stereotype (e.g. "Blacks are stupid", as the most extreme example) is that you (or I, or anyone) almost certainly can't stop it influencing their actions. Even very subtle actions (such as a lecturer who never directly faces black students in his/her classes) might affect people. You might also be surprised how well people can "read" minds, and nowadays someone might be refused a management position if his boss thinks that he is racist. After all, the company may miss out on very good workers if you never hire black people.

electromagneticpulse
2004-Oct-31, 02:50 AM
Following on from Weird Dave who made some very good points 1/3 of my health and social care course (at the moment) is to do with removing stereotypes because of their effect. The very subtle actions can easily be picked up from people which can cause many problems. What if you had to operate on someone and you didn't like them for some stereotype you had made up in your head, this could be life threatening to them.

I personaly can 99/100 tell what someone is like from first impressions but i can't let them cloud my judgement because of that 1/100 chance. Also i doubt many people would believe how many stereotypes there actualy are my friend for example works with someone who strongly believes all foster children are going to turn out as criminals. My friend is a foster child and i have done more criminal things then she has and is an extreamly nice and caring person.
Also in a H&S career you can get fired on the spot if you do anything discriminatory some are more tolerated but say i insulted a black person using a certain term i could be struck from the nursing registrar or to make it clearer medical career gone bye bye big time. This is the view taken on discrimination in some cases and it is going to tighten up all around the board for all jobs.

So its about time for society to stop inbreeding prejudices into their children because it only makes people dumber.

SciFi Chick
2004-Oct-31, 04:04 AM
Just thought I'd jump in here with this from merriam-webster.com


stereotype - something conforming to a fixed or general pattern; especially : a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment

Doesn't sound like a neutral word that is changed by modifiers to me. It sounds completely negative in fact.

I'm a blond btw, with a southern accent. I can't tell you how many people start off thinking I am dumb. :roll: