What are homosexual values?

[judasmachine]

god people. can you not lay off the busybody bs for one minute? among consenting adults it in no way matters what they do to get their jollies behind closed doors, or whose hand they hold as they walk down the street. look inside of yourselves because it is you who have the problem, not those you discriminate against.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The experiment was to determine how much outrage there would be if I made asinine sweeping, baseless generalizations about homosexuality relative to how much outrage aidanjm caused by doing the exact same thing about Christianity in this thread... People are very ignorant about what Christianity is (as demonstrated by the lack of calling aidanjm out on his 'opinions', which are mostly patently false statements)... People are more willing to tolerate lies defaming Christianity than they are willing to tolerate facts that portray the 'homosexual lifestyle' in a negative light.

I wrote but three sentences on christian churches or conservative christian/ Republican ideology:

"You'd think the Church would be an important moral voice in society, but it seems that the various christian churches are mostly obsessed with sex and what others are doing in the privacy of their bedrooms."

"According to mainstream conservative christian/ Republican ideology, morality in public policy involves barring gays from marriage, securing enormous tax cuts for the wealthy, and preventing women from having abortions."

"How did Jesus' message become so twisted in the hands of these people?"


Reviewing each of these sentences, they seem quite reasonable to me. If you think they contain factual errors, then by all means point out those errors.

 

[Rangoric]

Originally posted by: CessnaFlyer

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: CessnaFlyer
Homosexuals are of no value

Of no value to who (whom)?

Is there an obligation for any given citizen to be of value to you or the government or any other authority?

America

Wrong, since they pay taxes, and obey the laws of the land, they have as much value as you do.

And before you bother mentioning children, not even all straight people have children. And some (many?) g/l people can have or can adopt children.

So how exactly do you prove that they hold no value for America?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Tab
Agreed, however not until recently same-sex couples often didn't speak out about their on going relationships. I know one specific individual who has had an on-going relationship with his partner for over ten years; of course this isn't common.

Aidanjm, I know you're gay. Why do you think there's more promisicutiy in the homosexsual community compared to the hetrosexsual community? Why are gay monogamous relationships rare?

EDIT: It seems that ChiPCGuy is gay as well, if you don't mind that'd be nice if you could address my question.

I don't think monogamous gay relationships are rare. There are plenty of gay people in that type of relationship.

I do think gay males are probably - on average - somewhat more promiscuous than heterosexuals. (I think lesbians are probably a little bit less promiscuous than heterosexuals, on average).

One reason often given, which seems reasonable to me, is the basic difference between males and females when it comes to sex and attitudes towards sex. It's a generalization, but men seem to want more sex, with more partners, than women do. In heterosexual society, there are more constraints preventing men from actually getting all the sex they want. (The chief constraint being women saying "no"). Whereas in gay male society, you don't have the women slowing down or reducing the amount of sex taking place.

I also think that public policy and social attitudes and expectations influences the kinds of relationships individual citizens partake in. There is no socially sanctioned union for gay people (as they can't marry) and in general gay couples get very little support from the government, society, or (often) even their relatives. Even parents who support their gay kids often act like the relationships that their heterosexual kids are in are somehow more important than the relationship that their gay kid is in. I think this means that their are less resources and support and encouragement for gay people to draw on when they do experience problems in their primary relationship.

Also, if society/ the government/ public figures keep sending the message that your relationships are worthless, it is impossible not to absorb some of that hatred. So I think some gay people have low self-esteem, and probably do believe deep down that their relationships are worthless and so what's the point?

I also wonder about the effect of missing out on all the normal, developmental milestones in the teenage years, and whether that has an effect. I.e., when their peers at school are starting to flirt, date, etc. the gay kids are (or at least were) trying to keep their sexuality a secret, or struggling and feeling guilty over their sexuality. Maybe now that kids are "coming out" in their school years, things will be a bit different.

So those are maybe some reasons, but who really knows.

My own view is that it's fine for people to be promiscuous, I don't think there is any moral virtue in monogamy. Nor do I think it is morally inappropriate or wrong to sleep with numerous sexual partners. People have to work out what suits them from an emotional and also from a political and ideological point of view.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: johnnobts
heterosexual immorality is no better than homosexual immorality...

Damn, I am slow. I haven't tired either so don't really know. But I've always suspected that I would enjoy heterosexual immorality far and away more.

Moonbeam, you really need to get in touch with your inner gay man.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tab
Agreed, however not until recently same-sex couples often didn't speak out about their on going relationships. I know one specific individual who has had an on-going relationship with his partner for over ten years; of course this isn't common.

Aidanjm, I know you're gay. Why do you think there's more promisicutiy in the homosexsual community compared to the hetrosexsual community? Why are gay monogamous relationships rare?

EDIT: It seems that ChiPCGuy is gay as well, if you don't mind that'd be nice if you could address my question.

I don't think monogamous gay relationships are rare. There are plenty of gay people in that type of relationship.

I do think gay males are probably - on average - somewhat more promiscuous than heterosexuals. (I think lesbians are probably a little bit less promiscuous than heterosexuals, on average).

One reason often given, which seems reasonable to me, is the basic difference between males and females when it comes to sex and attitudes towards sex. It's a generalisation, but men seem to want more sex, with more partners, than women do. In heterosexual society, there are more constraints preventing men from actually getting all the sex they want. (The chief constraint being women saying "no"). Whereas in gay male society, you don't have the "female" element slowing down or reducing the amount of sex taking place.

I also think that public policy and social attitudes and expectations influences the kinds of relationships individual citizens partake in. There is no socially sanctioned union for gay people (as they can't marry) and in general gay couples get very little support from the government, society, or (often) even their relatives. Even parents who support their gay kids often act like the relationships that their heterosexual kids are in are somehow more important than the relationship that their gay kid is in. I think this means that their are less resources and support and encouragement for gay people to draw on when they do experience problems in their primary relationship.

Also, if society/ the government/ public figures keep sending the message that your relationships are worthless, it is impossible not to absorb some of that hatred. So I think some gay people have low self-esteem, and probably do believe deep down that their relationships are worthless and what's the point?

I also wonder about the effect of missing out on all the normal, developmental milestones in the teenage years, and whether that has an effect. i.e., when their peers at school are starting to flirt, date, etc. the gay kids are (or at least were) trying to keep their homosexuality secret, or struggling and feeling guilty over their homosexuality. Maybe now that kids are "coming out" in their school years, things will be a bit different.

So those are maybe some reasons, but who really knows.

My own view is that it's fine for people to be promiscuous, I don't think there is any moral virtue in monogamy. Nor do I think it is morally inappropriate or wrong to sleep with numerous sexual partners. People have to work out what suits them from an emotional and also from a political and ideological point of view.

I guess we can only guess but these guesses make a lot of sense to me. I guess the only place where I have questions in in the area of promiscuity. What is the reason to have sex. Perhaps it differs for different people, but to me it is a way to form a lasting bond. That to me seems like its natural function in the mammalian world, a bond that holds parents together for the benefits of them and their kids. I seek the Beloved and no other will do for there is no other but you. Sex is union with the divine where I disappear in my Lover. Sex as sex just doesn't even come close to that and to me looks more like the endless scratching of an itch. But this may be only my opinion.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: johnnobts
heterosexual immorality is no better than homosexual immorality...

Damn, I am slow. I haven't tired either so don't really know. But I've always suspected that I would enjoy heterosexual immorality far and away more.

Moonbeam, you really need to get in touch with your inner gay man.

In all honesty I can find not the slightest trace of such a being so I opted to get in touch with my inner woman instead. Hehe, she has been an enormous help with me loving myself. She can whip up a killer mango chutney beef on rice dish.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What is the reason to have ex. Perhaps it differs for different people, but to me it is a way to form a lasting bond.

That's the PC answer.

But in reality sex serves all sorts of roles. Some people use sex as their profession (prostitutes, strippers, etc.)

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
That to me seems like its natural function in the mammalian world, a bond that holds parents together for the benefits of them and their kids.

But if you look at recent studies on supposedly monogamous animals (birds, monkeys) you see that often the female partner has secret sex with secret male partners on the side. The male partner might be raising baby birds that aren't even his. In monkeys like Bonobos, sex is used for all sorts of things, ranging form greeting someone and expressing friendship, to reducing tension and aggression. The Bonobos are interesting, also, in that they are highly promiscuous, and also around half of their sexual interactions occur with monkeys of the same gender.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I seek the Beloved and no other will do for there is no other but you. Sex is union with the divine where I disappear in my Lover. Sex as sex just doesn't even come close to that and to me looks more like the endless scratching of an itch. But this may be only my opinion.

Not everyone is fortunate enough to have found their soul mate. I think it is unreasonable to expect celibacy, until someone finally meets their soul mate.

Also, sometimes scratching an itch is just what's required.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt
Homosexual values and Christian values both have their benefits and flaws; the more the two groups fight, the more they will repel. Christians and homosexuals are normal everyday reasonable people. Grouping their views into a lifestyle is just as stupid as siding with one party all the time.

'Homosexuals' don't have values. They're just people.

Both groups are just people...
And homosexuals do have values...

they value...state recognition of same sex relations (marriage), raising children without a member of the opposite sex, and many others.

I would argue that those aren't 'values' per se, and that as heterogeneous as 'christians' are, homosexuals are even less cohesive as a group.

See...I see homosexuals as more cohesive than Christians. Christians have a lot of in-fighting, especially in a world becoming more secular and progressive. There have been major Christian conflicts in the past...when was the last time you saw a couple of homocsexuals in a fight?

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt
Homosexual values and Christian values both have their benefits and flaws; the more the two groups fight, the more they will repel. Christians and homosexuals are normal everyday reasonable people. Grouping their views into a lifestyle is just as stupid as siding with one party all the time.

'Homosexuals' don't have values. They're just people.

Both groups are just people...
And homosexuals do have values...

they value...state recognition of same sex relations (marriage), raising children without a member of the opposite sex, and many others.

Those are not "values" they are basic civil rights not afforded to them.

Not quite so.
In Canada the Supreme Court of Canada, which unlike the US count system is NOT politicized (has voted for piracy rights, for child porn rights, for access to healthcare even through private means) has determined this issue to be not a rights issue. Homosexuals have all the same rights as every other human and will be given these rights as need be through the courts. But when it came to defining the word marriage, the courts left it to the House of Commons (elected officials). I therefore feel that if the marriage issue was a rights issue, the Supreme Court would have ruled in favour of the law. Instead it was left to the politicans; making it a populous definition of a term...not a rights issue.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt
Homosexual values and Christian values both have their benefits and flaws; the more the two groups fight, the more they will repel. Christians and homosexuals are normal everyday reasonable people. Grouping their views into a lifestyle is just as stupid as siding with one party all the time.

'Homosexuals' don't have values. They're just people.

Both groups are just people...
And homosexuals do have values...

they value...state recognition of same sex relations (marriage), raising children without a member of the opposite sex, and many others.

I would argue that those aren't 'values' per se, and that as heterogeneous as 'christians' are, homosexuals are even less cohesive as a group.

See...I see homosexuals as more cohesive than Christians. Christians have a lot of in-fighting, especially in a world becoming more secular and progressive. There have been major Christian conflicts in the past...when was the last time you saw a couple of homocsexuals in a fight?

that is absurd. there are all sorts of political and ideological conflicts within the so-called gay cand queer communities. the fact that you are oblivious to these controversies doesn't mean they don't exist. just as there are gay people who support same sex marriage, there are also plenty of gay and/ or queer people who believe the institution of marriage is harmful and irrelevant and that gays should be putting their political energies to better use seeking other goals.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt
Homosexual values and Christian values both have their benefits and flaws; the more the two groups fight, the more they will repel. Christians and homosexuals are normal everyday reasonable people. Grouping their views into a lifestyle is just as stupid as siding with one party all the time.

'Homosexuals' don't have values. They're just people.

Both groups are just people...
And homosexuals do have values...

they value...state recognition of same sex relations (marriage), raising children without a member of the opposite sex, and many others.

I would argue that those aren't 'values' per se, and that as heterogeneous as 'christians' are, homosexuals are even less cohesive as a group.

See...I see homosexuals as more cohesive than Christians. Christians have a lot of in-fighting, especially in a world becoming more secular and progressive. There have been major Christian conflicts in the past...when was the last time you saw a couple of homocsexuals in a fight?

that is absurd. there are all sorts of political and ideological conflicts within the so-called gay cand queer communities. the fact that you are oblivious to these controversies doesn't mean they don't exist. just as there are gay people who support same sex marriage, there are also plenty of gay and/ or queer people who believe the institution of marriage is harmful and irrelevant and that gays should be putting their political energies to better use seeking other goals.

Sounds like you are not so different relative to your Christian foes...

I agree, I am not familiar with the homosexual infighting; odd as my lesbian aunt talks with me on these issues regularly.

By the way...what are "other goals", i have been told by 3chord that homosexuals don't have values and are just people. But if you yourself are saying there are goals and values; I guess 3chord's argument has been blown out of the water.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt
Homosexual values and Christian values both have their benefits and flaws; the more the two groups fight, the more they will repel. Christians and homosexuals are normal everyday reasonable people. Grouping their views into a lifestyle is just as stupid as siding with one party all the time.

'Homosexuals' don't have values. They're just people.

Both groups are just people...
And homosexuals do have values...

they value...state recognition of same sex relations (marriage), raising children without a member of the opposite sex, and many others.

I would argue that those aren't 'values' per se, and that as heterogeneous as 'christians' are, homosexuals are even less cohesive as a group.

See...I see homosexuals as more cohesive than Christians. Christians have a lot of in-fighting, especially in a world becoming more secular and progressive. There have been major Christian conflicts in the past...when was the last time you saw a couple of homocsexuals in a fight?

that is absurd. there are all sorts of political and ideological conflicts within the so-called gay cand queer communities. the fact that you are oblivious to these controversies doesn't mean they don't exist. just as there are gay people who support same sex marriage, there are also plenty of gay and/ or queer people who believe the institution of marriage is harmful and irrelevant and that gays should be putting their political energies to better use seeking other goals.

Sounds like you are not so different relative to your Christian foes...

I agree, I am not familiar with the homosexual infighting; odd as my lesbian aunt talks with me on these issues regularly.

By the way...what are "other goals", i have been told by 3chord that homosexuals don't have values and are just people. But if you yourself are saying there are goals and values; I guess 3chord's argument has been blown out of the water.

Obviously individual people have values, but trying to classify all homosexuals under one big gay umbrella is at least as silly as trying to do the same with Christians.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Sounds like you are not so different relative to your Christian foes...

many gay people are christian, so it's pretty silly assuming that gays in general see christians as foes.

Originally posted by: Stunt
I agree, I am not familiar with the homosexual infighting; odd as my lesbian aunt talks with me on these issues regularly.

Infighting seems like an odd choice of word. It implies that there is a closely knit group in the first place. Which there really isn't. Even the notion that there is a "Gay community" is
probably not terribly accurate. It's probably more accurate to talk about gay communities, plural.

Originally posted by: Stunt
By the way...what are "other goals", i have been told by 3chord that homosexuals don't have values and are just people. But if you yourself are saying there are goals and values; I guess 3chord's argument has been blown out of the water.

[/quote]

I think his point was that it is rather idiotic to speak of "homosexual values" as if there is an ideology or political system or moral system that all homosexual people adhere to.

There are plenty of gay rights or gay political groups that espouse their own particular visions of how society should be.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Obviously individual people have values, but trying to classify all homosexuals under one big gay umbrella is at least as silly as trying to do the same with Christians.

If people actually bothered to read my OP in that other thread, they would note that I refered to "conservative christian/ republican ideology" - it's pretty obvious that I was referring to a subset of christians, i.e., the religious right. I think it is quite reasonable to make generalisations about the religious right.

 

[shadow9d9]

Why have you people let Cyclo get away with his farse? It is so beyond obvious that this was not an "experiment"... His "experiment" post was just made up to try to save face.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

just a simple post from a bigot. Substitute any other 'identifier' in the title and see how idiotic your ideals are. For example, your moronic title was:
What are homosexual values?
And if we take out a word and put in another, we have What are Jewish values or What are Black values or What are womens' values.
Why don't you go back to your cave, and stay there. The world doesn't need or want your idealogy.

 

[piasabird]

I have one word for you: Bigot.

big·ot (big'?t) pronunciation
n.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

So if you post a pro-gay and anti-religion post you are by this definition above a Bigot!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
just a simple post from a bigot. Substitute any other 'identifier' in the title and see how idiotic your ideals are. For example, your moronic title was:
What are homosexual values?
And if we take out a word and put in another, we have What are Jewish values or What are Black values or What are womens' values.
Why don't you go back to your cave, and stay there. The world doesn't need or want your idealogy.

But that is the Republican way and we all voted for it including you. Enjoy

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Obviously individual people have values, but trying to classify all homosexuals under one big gay umbrella is at least as silly as trying to do the same with Christians.

If people actually bothered to read my OP in that other thread, they would note that I refered to "conservative christian/ republican ideology" - it's pretty obvious that I was referring to a subset of christians, i.e., the religious right. I think it is quite reasonable to make generalisations about the religious right.

Not just that, but you were referring to a political group which has a clear definition of their beliefs and what stance they take on issues. Getting mad about making statements about how conservative christians/republicans feel (when it is well defined and known) would be like getting mad at me for making the "sweeping generalization" that the KKK hates people that are not white, protestant.

The difference for anyone who doesn't know is simple. The group aidanjm made a thread about have stances about how they view/treat other people that many of us have a real problem with. The group cyclowizard posted about, he showed that he has a problem with them existing at all. There's a big difference here.

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Thanks to all for participating in my little experiment. The experiment was to determine how much outrage there would be if I made asinine sweeping, baseless generalizations about homosexuality relative to how much outrage aidanjm caused by doing the exact same thing about Christianity in this thread.

What are the results of my experiment? That the members of this forum are much, much more willing to tolerate intolerance towards Christians than towards homosexuals. Not only that, but more of the gibberish I inserted (in the exact same format as aidanjm, I might add) was factual than was the gibberish he inserted in his thread, yet more people have questioned it here. This leads me to believe that one of two conclusions is correct:
1. People are very ignorant about what Christianity is (as demonstrated by the lack of calling aidanjm out on his 'opinions', which are mostly patently false statements) and also ignorant regarding research conducted on homosexual promiscuity.

2. People are more willing to tolerate lies defaming Christianity than they are willing to tolerate facts that portray the 'homosexual lifestyle' in a negative light.

It could be that both are true. Sorry I didn't ask for consent before performing the experiment, but this would have invalidated the results. Also, please note that my initial commentary in the OP does not necessarily reflect my true opinions on homosexual politics and/or behavior.

I still have one word for you: Bigot.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
just a simple post from a bigot. Substitute any other 'identifier' in the title and see how idiotic your ideals are. For example, your moronic title was:
What are homosexual values?
And if we take out a word and put in another, we have What are Jewish values or What are Black values or What are womens' values.
Why don't you go back to your cave, and stay there. The world doesn't need or want your idealogy.

But that is the Republican way and we all voted for it including you. Enjoy

I never voted for it, I voted against it and unfortunately, it was thrust upon me. No idea what the hell you're talking about.

 

[Caminetto]

Not so fast.

As someone who read both posts yesterday morning I may not agree with, but can understand CW?s response to the "What are Christian values??.

I am fairly liberal, but that thread was titled "What are Christian values?" and followed by a list of indictments and not until later in the thread was there a mention that perhaps the OP meant, "mainstream conservative Christian/ Republican ideology".

On an Easter Morning, I was somewhat offended at what appeared to be a grouping of all Christians into the ?fundie/nutjob? category.

As there has been an all to common occurrence of labeling and generalizing of Christians in this forum into the religious right, I would think posters would reference ?Rightwing Christians? immediately in a post.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Caminetto
that thread was titled "What are Christian values?" and followed by a list of indictments and not until later in the thread was there a mention that perhaps the OP meant, "mainstream conservative Christian/ Republican ideology".

What was the list of indictments? There was no list of indictments, I outlined my views of morality and social justice.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I still have one word for you: Bigot.

He may be a bigot, but he raises an interesting point. A thread emerged, on Easter Sunday no less, that made fairly sweeping generalizations against Christianity, as stated in the OP of that thread:

You'd think the Church would be an important moral voice in society, but it seems that the various christian churches are mostly obsessed with sex and what others are doing in the privacy of their bedrooms. According to mainstream conservative christian/ Republican ideology, morality in public policy involves barring gays from marriage, securing enormous tax cuts for the wealthy, and preventing women from having abortions. How did Jesus' message become so twisted in the hands of these people?

Christianity comes in numerous sects and manifestations, such that not all Christians condone or otherwise associate their belief structure with the Vatican. Similarly, not all Christians associate themselves with the politically motivated and active far right in America.

Christianity, or any organized religion for that matter, is a human construct...and as a human construct, it is as inherently flawed as those who created it...but to dismiss or criticize all of Christianity because you don't agree with the values of politically active Republican Christians is intellectually dishonest.

This thread illustrated a point...that many in this forum seemingly had no problem with a post making sweeping accusations against Christianity, yet were outraged by a similarly phrased thread about homosexuality.

The hypocricy is obvious to the point of ridiculous...and for the record, I consider myself a proponent of deism.