Homophobia

[currentchristian]

Another phrase that bugs me is the term "homosexual acts". Usually when people say this they mean sex. But look at the term closely.......it can mean ANY act performed by a homosexual.

 

So making coffee.....can be a homosexual act. Having a bath can be a homosexual act. By definition anything a homosexual does can be defined as a homosexual act.......so the phrase is absolutely meaningless, unless you know what it refers to.

 

If a fundy were to start going on about homosexual acts being forbidden in the bible, I might say something like, "So you mean a homosexual can,t prepare a meal for their friends?"

 

I mean we never refer to heterosexual acts do we?!

 

Yep! I have seen headlines such as, "Man Caught in Gay Sex Scandal." When was the last time a headline screamed, "Man Caught in Straight Sex Scandal."

 

-CC in MA

 

When I was a Christian, I was against homosexuality. I'm not against homosexuality anymore.

 

However, I'm still not supportive of it either, because I'm straight and homosexuality is not appealing to me. As far as homosexual people go? They can do whatever they want. That's not my business. But, just because I don't find homosexuality appealing doesn't make me a homophobic. It just means I'm a heterosexual, that's all. They're still people that do human things.

 

Good point. I have known homosexuals who, seems to me, are heterophobic, yet we never hear about that. We all, after all, are results of heterosexual intercourse, that is the norm. But I think that some gay people have been so hurt that they are very angry at everyone who is a "breeder." (That is not my word and I would not use it myself at all; it is the word some more aggressive gay people might use and it shows lots of anger, I think.)

 

We all just need to chill out a little -- a lot -- and let people be.

 

-CC in MA

[LosingMyReligion]

In response to "do women like to see two guys together?" one of my girlfriends watches nothing but gay male porn...She thinks the guys in gay porn are hot(they are!)...So I guess it holds the same appeal for a straight male watching lesbian porn...

 

Anyway, the thought of having sex with a woman leaves me null and void. I don't hate it so much as I am indifferent too it. However, I don't care what heterosexuals do in their own bedrooms...Infact, I don't want to imagine the average person, gay or straight, having sex...Lots of unattractive folks in the world(especially southern Heterosexual Baptists). But should their sex lives be policed simply because they aren't attractive? I think not...

 

Growing up in an evangelical background I used to be very homophobic...The irony is that I'm gay too. So I basically had a severe self hate complex, and it took a year of therapy and deconversion from all things christian to learn to embrace myself as a sexual being.

 

I just decided that being happy with the one life I have is better than being like Ted Haggard or Jim Mcgreevy.

 

Closets are for clothes.

[Dave]

Yes, "they shall be put to death" is there in black and white. But my experience has taught me otherwise. Experience trumps the harsh law laid down by a priest 3,000 years ago who claimed it was God's word. I just don't buy it.

Yet you fully accept the story about the empty tomb as the absolute truth. Again, that's just picking and choosing. Why not just toss the whole thing out as all of it being the words of men?

Circumcision is a matter of choice, but obviously little ones have no choice. I was circumcised before I left the hospital at birth and my mother still remembers hearing me screaming (do they at least anesthesize the penis these days before cutting it?). But I was not circumcised for religious reasons--for cultural ones. I'm very glad we are moving away from blindly circumcising our little boys.

Most of the time there is no anesthesia involved.

Sadly, we have gone the other way in our cultural morality, far too far, from the 1950's. Working as I do with "messed up" people, I see so much heartache because there are no regulations around sexuality. So women who can't take care of one child are pregnant with their fifth. I once had a male student, 20 years old, in prison, unable to read or write beyond a 6th grade level, with no high school diploma, who already had FIVE kids. What a burden he is on our society. Somehow, we need to find a middle ground between the preposterousness of 1950's mores and folkways and the lack thereof in 2006.

That's just a few isolated examples, and in no way reflects on the norm. The messed up people I've had to deal with have all had fundamentalist religious backgrounds and ended up in a religiously based program that claims to be for those that need help with drug/alcohol addictions - a 12 step program.

 

I'm very glad we are moving away from blindly circumcising our little boys.

In Australia circumcision was almost non-existant by the late 1970's. Today NO medical practitioner will perform a circumcision unless there is a genuine medical need.

More proof that the USA is "developed" but not matured.

 

 

However, I'm still not supportive of it either, because I'm straight and homosexuality is not appealing to me....

You do not have to engage in it to be supportive.

[currentchristian]

I just decided that being happy with the one life I have is better than being like Ted Haggard or Jim Mcgreevy.

Closets are for clothes.

 

Speaking of Ted Haggard. When this scandal broke, I went to the website of his New Life Church. There I found mp3's of his sermons, including the one preached the Sunday morning before the scandal broke -- so about four/five days earlier. I downloaded the last three months of his sermons. (Thank goodness I did as these were yanked from the church's website very quickly.)

 

Anyway, for the past several days, I have been listening to them in the car as I drive here and there. His preaching skills do not impress me. His sermons were very typical evangelical fodder. Lots of talk about "the Bible says" and "the word of God" and praying "in the mighty name of Jesus," and so on. (And that's fine; each person must find what feeds their souls).

 

He made a few references to "adultery" and "Internet pornography," and "temptation," how we must not be rebellious, etc. I felt very sad for him while listening to his sermons, trapped as he was in a religion that was not working for him -- obviously. It is very interesting this three or four-year process of rehabilitation they are putting him through. I'm sure part of that will be aversion therapy to rid him of his homosexuality. That will only torment him -- and do nothing to change his "genetic distinction" as somone so wisely worded it on this thread.

 

-CC in MA

[Ramen666]

Current Christian this just not add up to me at all. You are a Christian and you are gay. God hates gays and Christians hate gays. Yet you still believe God is the good guy. I am sorry but that is like a Jew siding with the Nazis. You are also "cherrypicking" verses again picking and twisting them completly around so that they can not offend you. That is the thing I hate most about Christians is when they do that and you know they are doing it.

 

So go on defend God and even when he orders the killing of homosexuals.

 

Kill Homosexuals

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

 

Just pointing it out that this in the Bible, do go pull shit out of your ass and say that is not what that means. Why not we just throw out the whole Bible since awwwwwwww it doesn't mean anything anyway. That is how you are acting that these simple verses and you change the meanings, treat them as they do not exist, AND YOU make God a lovable puppy dog.

[currentchristian]

Yes, "they shall be put to death" is there in black and white. But my experience has taught me otherwise. Experience trumps the harsh law laid down by a priest 3,000 years ago who claimed it was God's word. I just don't buy it.

Yet you fully accept the story about the empty tomb as the absolute truth. Again, that's just picking and choosing. Why not just toss the whole thing out as all of it being the words of men?

Circumcision is a matter of choice, but obviously little ones have no choice. I was circumcised before I left the hospital at birth and my mother still remembers hearing me screaming (do they at least anesthesize the penis these days before cutting it?). But I was not circumcised for religious reasons--for cultural ones. I'm very glad we are moving away from blindly circumcising our little boys.

Most of the time there is no anesthesia involved.

Sadly, we have gone the other way in our cultural morality, far too far, from the 1950's. Working as I do with "messed up" people, I see so much heartache because there are no regulations around sexuality. So women who can't take care of one child are pregnant with their fifth. I once had a male student, 20 years old, in prison, unable to read or write beyond a 6th grade level, with no high school diploma, who already had FIVE kids. What a burden he is on our society. Somehow, we need to find a middle ground between the preposterousness of 1950's mores and folkways and the lack thereof in 2006.

That's just a few isolated examples, and in no way reflects on the norm. The messed up people I've had to deal with have all had fundamentalist religious backgrounds and ended up in a religiously based program that claims to be for those that need help with drug/alcohol addictions - a 12 step program.

 

I'm very glad we are moving away from blindly circumcising our little boys.

In Australia circumcision was almost non-existant by the late 1970's. Today NO medical practitioner will perform a circumcision unless there is a genuine medical need.

More proof that the USA is "developed" but not matured.

 

 

However, I'm still not supportive of it either, because I'm straight and homosexuality is not appealing to me....

You do not have to engage in it to be supportive.

 

Hi Dave. To throw it all out as the "word of man" would be as disturbing to my instincts as would be embracing it all as "the word of God." One must follow the leading of his reason, intellect, soul, instinct and conscience -- in order to be fully integrated. While putting to death the poor animal with whom some person has had sexual relations seems quite unreasonable to me, an empty tomb is not only reasonable (to me) but wonderful!

 

For sure -- we each have our isolated anecdotes. For me, very few of those in trouble I have worked with had much of a religious background at all, other than perhaps cultural. No real believers. Once in jail, however, many become quite religious. It seems to me that young people need not religion, but guidance, reasonable boundaries set by their families, their neighbors and their schools, and unconditional love and acceptance.

 

-CC in MA

[Dave]

Hi Dave. To throw it all out as the "word of man" would be as disturbing to my instincts as would be embracing it all as "the word of God." One must follow the leading of his reason, intellect, soul, instinct and conscience -- in order to be fully integrated. While putting to death the poor animal with whom some person has had sexual relations seems quite unreasonable to me, an empty tomb is not only reasonable (to me) but wonderful!

Both are completely unreasonable. Since the bible IS the "word of man" to pick and choose what to believe makes no sense to me what so ever.... and I use all my reason, intellect, instinct and conscience to come to that conclusion. "Soul" is a word with far too much religious baggage for me to use.

For sure -- we each have our isolated anecdotes. For me, very few of those in trouble I have worked with had much of a religious background at all, other than perhaps cultural. No real believers. Once in jail, however, many become quite religious. It seems to me that young people need not religion, but guidance, reasonable boundaries set by their families, their neighbors and their schools, and unconditional love and acceptance.

I cannot believe that you have avoided dealing with the 85% (rough figure) of this country that believe in the christian god. How do you define a "real believer"? One that believes as you do? 99% of those in prison were believers BEFORE they went to jail or prison. (Note the 99% religious prison population compared to 85% religious in the free population.) People in prison/jail do not "find" religion there, they find it comforting to join in with others in a safe place..... in other words, you're safer in the majority. Some are looking for forgiveness and since this society is not mature enough to do that, they seek a deeper religiosity to get it. They were believers before they went in and it didn't stop them from committing whatever crime it was. With the guidance from their parents bit, they don't get that. What they do get is their parents forcing religion on them instead. They actually believe that religion teaches morals.

[roman]

Another phrase that bugs me is the term "homosexual acts". Usually when people say this they mean sex. But look at the term closely.......it can mean ANY act performed by a homosexual.

 

So making coffee.....can be a homosexual act. Having a bath can be a homosexual act. By definition anything a homosexual does can be defined as a homosexual act.......so the phrase is absolutely meaningless, unless you know what it refers to.

 

If a fundy were to start going on about homosexual acts being forbidden in the bible, I might say something like, "So you mean a homosexual can,t prepare a meal for their friends?"

 

I mean we never refer to heterosexual acts do we?!

I was living in Florida when the John Wayne Gacey (or Gacy...) story broke...you may remember the story of the man who seduced boys and young men for sex and then murdered them, burying many in his yard and under his house. The Miami Herald carried the headline "...Homosexual Murders...", and I was very pissed off about it. I wrote them a letter chastising them for this absurdity and prejudice, and surprisingly, they printed it. I told them that many of us gay people manage not to murder our tricks, and that most heterosexuals also manage not to murder their sex partners...and questioned why nonetheless there were never any "Heterosexual Murder" headlines.

 

John Gacy was not "a homosexual." He was a murderer. Jeffrey Dahmer was not "a homosexual." He was a psychopathic killer and a cannibal. Yet both of these were and are frequently referred to, especially by homophobic Xians (including their pastors) as "homosexuals."

 

BTW, I have noticed that CC seems to be looked at by some on this board as the spokesperson for gay members of this board. He isn't. Neither am I, or any other gay member. Please remember that we are all individuals. I don't even like this guy CC, because he claims to be gay but yet claims also to be Xian, which to me is a sign of some kind of mental disorder. I mean, really...Gay Christian? Black Republican? Indian Cowboy?

 

When I was a Christian, I was against homosexuality. I'm not against homosexuality anymore.

 

However, I'm still not supportive of it either, because I'm straight and homosexuality is not appealing to me. As far as homosexual people go? They can do whatever they want. That's not my business. But, just because I don't find homosexuality appealing doesn't make me a homophobic. It just means I'm a heterosexual, that's all. They're still people that do human things.

Please be aware that as a gay person I find your post utterly patronizing.

[R. S. Martin]

I have no problem with how just about anyone enjoys thier sex and love as long as it's consenting and not coerced.

 

Agreed. About straights kissing or holding hands with members of their own gender in North America. Perhaps none of you has been inside a church that practices the "holy kiss of peace" as commanded somewhere in the NT.

 

On another forum some time ago I read a funny story but true never the less. A batch of conservative Mennonites rented rooms at a hotel for some function. They practiced the holy kiss of peace as part of formal greeting. When the men got out of their cars and kissed each other on the lips the hotel owner was shocked and came to talk to them. He said he had not been aware that he was renting to a batch of homosexuals. Incidentally, these Mennonites believed homosexual behaviour is condemned by God. That is what makes it funny.

 

I was shocked at the hotel owner's discrimination against gays, but I did get a deep satisfaction out of the story of these conservative Christians being mistaken for what they considered to be great sinners.

[currentchristian]

Current Christian this just not add up to me at all. You are a Christian and you are gay. God hates gays and Christians hate gays. Yet you still believe God is the good guy. I am sorry but that is like a Jew siding with the Nazis. You are also "cherrypicking" verses again picking and twisting them completly around so that they can not offend you. That is the thing I hate most about Christians is when they do that and you know they are doing it.

 

So go on defend God and even when he orders the killing of homosexuals.

 

Kill Homosexuals

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

 

Just pointing it out that this in the Bible, do go pull shit out of your ass and say that is not what that means. Why not we just throw out the whole Bible since awwwwwwww it doesn't mean anything anyway. That is how you are acting that these simple verses and you change the meanings, treat them as they do not exist, AND YOU make God a lovable puppy dog.

 

Ramen666, I know that text very well. I mentioned it in the very first posting. I'm sorry, but you cannot convince me that God is the author of that passage. You see, I am not a literalist-fundamentalist who worships the Bible and has made a god of it and says things like, "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." The Bible is not my god. Leviticus 18.31 offends me very much; but God is not its author. (I do not subscribe to plenary verbal inspiration of scripture.)

 

Believe me, Ramen666, I have very serious issues with the position of many churches and Christians on this issue. (This is the issue that, more or less, got me kicked off a Christian forum.) That said, most Christians do not hate gay people and God most assuredly does not hate gay people. How can Love (God) hate gay people?

 

-CC in MA

 

 

 

Hi Dave. To throw it all out as the "word of man" would be as disturbing to my instincts as would be embracing it all as "the word of God." One must follow the leading of his reason, intellect, soul, instinct and conscience -- in order to be fully integrated. While putting to death the poor animal with whom some person has had sexual relations seems quite unreasonable to me, an empty tomb is not only reasonable (to me) but wonderful!

Both are completely unreasonable. Since the bible IS the "word of man" to pick and choose what to believe makes no sense to me what so ever.... and I use all my reason, intellect, instinct and conscience to come to that conclusion. "Soul" is a word with far too much religious baggage for me to use.

 

I fully support your right to your views on this issue, Dave. I just don't share them. For me, it's not a matter of "the Bible is perfect" or "the Bible is bunk." These extreme positions are not tenable, in my view. You and others must believe/not believe and embrace/not embrace that which seems reasonable, sensible, possible -- from your perspectives. I must do likewise.

 

-CC in MA

[Dave]

I fully support your right to your views on this issue, Dave. I just don't share them. For me, it's not a matter of "the Bible is perfect" or "the Bible is bunk." These extreme positions are not tenable, in my view.

Tossing out the bible is not an extreme position. It is a logical one. It is also the position of most of humanity that the bible is not a book to be followed or even passages of it. Believing someone found an empty tomb is an extreme position.

You and others must believe/not believe and embrace/not embrace that which seems reasonable, sensible, possible -- from your perspectives. I must do likewise.

That's not the point.

[currentchristian]

quote]For sure -- we each have our isolated anecdotes. For me, very few of those in trouble I have worked with had much of a religious background at all, other than perhaps cultural. No real believers. Once in jail, however, many become quite religious. It seems to me that young people need not religion, but guidance, reasonable boundaries set by their families, their neighbors and their schools, and unconditional love and acceptance.

I cannot believe that you have avoided dealing with the 85% (rough figure) of this country that believe in the christian god. How do you define a "real believer"? One that believes as you do? 99% of those in prison were believers BEFORE they went to jail or prison. (Note the 99% religious prison population compared to 85% religious in the free population.) People in prison/jail do not "find" religion there, they find it comforting to join in with others in a safe place..... in other words, you're safer in the majority. Some are looking for forgiveness and since this society is not mature enough to do that, they seek a deeper religiosity to get it. They were believers before they went in and it didn't stop them from committing whatever crime it was. With the guidance from their parents bit, they don't get that. What they do get is their parents forcing religion on them instead. They actually believe that religion teaches morals.

 

I most definitely am not saying that the religious or the non-religious or those in between have a monopoly on what we call morality. Absolutely not. What I am saying, simply, is that most of the people I have worked with in jail have absolutely no knowledge of the Bible, or of other religons, or of reading, writing, and arithmetic (for that matter) beyond about 6th grade. I have not found very many who come to jail who are in any way engaged with the community, except to steal from it, sell drugs to it, and abuse it. That's all I'm saying.

 

The fact that more Americans are involved in the criminal justice system than are the people of any other nation (percentage wise, I'm talking) is a terrible indictment. In my view it indicts the following: teenage pregnancy (now my mother was 18 when I was born, so I'm not judging teenage mothers; I'm saying that teenage pregnancy is in this day a terrible start for a child); drug (including alcohol) abuse; unstable homes in which one or both (usually teenage) parents are missing; child neglect/abuse; poverty; and poor schools.

 

-CC in MA

 

 

I fully support your right to your views on this issue, Dave. I just don't share them. For me, it's not a matter of "the Bible is perfect" or "the Bible is bunk." These extreme positions are not tenable, in my view.

Tossing out the bible is not an extreme position. It is a logical one. It is also the position of most of humanity that the bible is not a book to be followed or even passages of it. Believing someone found an empty tomb is an extreme position.

You and others must believe/not believe and embrace/not embrace that which seems reasonable, sensible, possible -- from your perspectives. I must do likewise.

That's not the point.

 

Thankfully, neither of us will be put to death for our views. We have a right to them. And we should not cling to our views with such tenacity that our decisions seem logical while no one else's do, as views often change over time.

 

-CC in MA

 

I was living in Florida when the John Wayne Gacey (or Gacy...) story broke...you may remember the story of the man who seduced boys and young men for sex and then murdered them, burying many in his yard and under his house. The Miami Herald carried the headline "...Homosexual Murders...", and I was very pissed off about it. I wrote them a letter chastising them for this absurdity and prejudice, and surprisingly, they printed it. I told them that many of us gay people manage not to murder our tricks, and that most heterosexuals also manage not to murder their sex partners...and questioned why nonetheless there were never any "Heterosexual Murder" headlines.

 

John Gacy was not "a homosexual." He was a murderer. Jeffrey Dahmer was not "a homosexual." He was a psychopathic killer and a cannibal. Yet both of these were and are frequently referred to, especially by homophobic Xians (including their pastors) as "homosexuals."

 

Yep! It's a double standard that the so-called liberal media needs to be much more cognizant of.

 

-CC in MA

 

 

BTW, I have noticed that CC seems to be looked at by some on this board as the spokesperson for gay members of this board. He isn't. Neither am I, or any other gay member. Please remember that we are all individuals. I don't even like this guy CC, because he claims to be gay but yet claims also to be Xian, which to me is a sign of some kind of mental disorder. I mean, really...Gay Christian? Black Republican? Indian Cowboy?

 

Roman is right. No, not that I have a mental disorder! He is right that I represent no one. I am a member of no religious or political denomination, nor am I president of Gays of the World Unite, Inc.!

 

Remember how exclusivist the early Jewish followers of The Way were? They were not going to allow Gentiles into their little club. The existence of Gentile believers offended them. Well, roman, you should not be so offended by the existence of Gay believers. We are out there! There are Black Republicans, too. In fact, I find black Republicans much more interesting than black Democrats. There were Indian cowboys, too, and Black cowboys. Why pigeonhold anyone?

 

-CC in MA

 

I have no problem with how just about anyone enjoys thier sex and love as long as it's consenting and not coerced.

 

Agreed. About straights kissing or holding hands with members of their own gender in North America. Perhaps none of you has been inside a church that practices the "holy kiss of peace" as commanded somewhere in the NT.

 

On another forum some time ago I read a funny story but true never the less. A batch of conservative Mennonites rented rooms at a hotel for some function. They practiced the holy kiss of peace as part of formal greeting. When the men got out of their cars and kissed each other on the lips the hotel owner was shocked and came to talk to them. He said he had not been aware that he was renting to a batch of homosexuals. Incidentally, these Mennonites believed homosexual behaviour is condemned by God. That is what makes it funny.

 

I was shocked at the hotel owner's discrimination against gays, but I did get a deep satisfaction out of the story of these conservative Christians being mistaken for what they considered to be great sinners.

 

 

We had an elderly man in our church (when I went to churhc, in my late teens) who desired to follow Paul's instruction to "greet each other with a holy kiss" -- BUT only when the one on the receiving end of his "holy kisses" was a pretty woman!! You should see how the women tried to avoid him! Finally, someone had to talk to him about a hand-shake being the equivalent!

 

-CC in MA

[Dave]

I most definitely am not saying that the religious or the non-religious or those in between have a monopoly on what we call morality. Absolutely not.....

Many believers make that claim.

The fact that more Americans are involved in the criminal justice system than are the people of any other nation (percentage wise, I'm talking) is a terrible indictment. In my view it indicts the following: teenage pregnancy (now my mother was 18 when I was born, so I'm not judging teenage mothers; I'm saying that teenage pregnancy is in this day a terrible start for a child); drug (including alcohol) abuse; unstable homes in which one or both (usually teenage) parents are missing; child neglect/abuse; poverty; and poor schools.

And the answer coming from our government is to fund more "faith based" programs and teach abstinence - all based on their belief that religion, especially the christian one, holds the key to morals.

[currentchristian]

I most definitely am not saying that the religious or the non-religious or those in between have a monopoly on what we call morality. Absolutely not.....

Many believers make that claim.

The fact that more Americans are involved in the criminal justice system than are the people of any other nation (percentage wise, I'm talking) is a terrible indictment. In my view it indicts the following: teenage pregnancy (now my mother was 18 when I was born, so I'm not judging teenage mothers; I'm saying that teenage pregnancy is in this day a terrible start for a child); drug (including alcohol) abuse; unstable homes in which one or both (usually teenage) parents are missing; child neglect/abuse; poverty; and poor schools.

And the answer coming from our government is to fund more "faith based" programs and teach abstinence - all based on their belief that religion, especially the christian one, holds the key to morals.

 

I do not make such a claim about morality.

 

Happily, we are two years away from a new president. (Not trying to offend any Bush supporters.)

 

-CC in MA

[Jun]

What people do in the privacy of their own homes (or cars, or toilets blocks, or bushes and parks ) is THEIR business and no-body else has the right to judge it.

 

Gays don't do anything to warrant us straight people talking about them as if they were a disease.

[currentchristian]

What people do in the privacy of their own homes (or cars, or toilets blocks, or bushes and parks ) is THEIR business and no-body else has the right to judge it.

 

Gays don't do anything to warrant us straight people talking about them as if they were a disease.

 

What's a toilet block?

 

I disagree with you, however, that what one does in bushes and parks is no one's business. It's very much everyone's business. Ask George Michael.

 

-CC in MA

[Jun]

What people do in the privacy of their own homes (or cars, or toilets blocks, or bushes and parks ) is THEIR business and no-body else has the right to judge it.

 

Gays don't do anything to warrant us straight people talking about them as if they were a disease.

 

What's a toilet block?

 

I disagree with you, however, that what one does in bushes and parks is no one's business. It's very much everyone's business. Ask George Michael.

 

-CC in MA

 

I was actually referring to George Michael! He got caught in a toilet block in a carpark. I have no real thoughts on the matter. If two guys or two girls want to get it on outside, so long as they aren't within view, that's their business.

 

Leaves post singing to himself......

 

"Let's go outside,

You know you want to but you can't say yes................."

[Dave]

I do not make such a claim about morality.

I cannot understand why you keep saying that. No one has said you made any such claim?

Happily, we are two years away from a new president. (Not trying to offend any Bush supporters.)

Offend them. The person they support has offended our laws and our society.

 

What people do in the privacy of their own homes (or cars, or toilets blocks, or bushes and parks ) is THEIR business and no-body else has the right to judge it.

 

Gays don't do anything to warrant us straight people talking about them as if they were a disease.

You're preaching to the choir here.

[Jun]

You're preaching to the choir here.

 

Yes, I know.

[Everglaze]

However, I'm still not supportive of it either, because I'm straight and homosexuality is not appealing to me....

You do not have to engage in it to be supportive.

 

I know, but I don't have to be supportive of something that's not appealing to me. They can do whatever they want, but I'm not chipping in any votes that are against or are with them.

[currentchristian]

However, I'm still not supportive of it either, because I'm straight and homosexuality is not appealing to me....

You do not have to engage in it to be supportive.

 

I know, but I don't have to be supportive of something that's not appealing to me. They can do whatever they want, but I'm not chipping in any votes that are against or are with them.

 

So if the issue of equal access to civil marriage for same-sex couples came before you on the ballot in the voting booth, how would you vote?

 

-CC in MA

[Dave]

However, I'm still not supportive of it either, because I'm straight and homosexuality is not appealing to me....

You do not have to engage in it to be supportive.

I know, but I don't have to be supportive of something that's not appealing to me.

Why would it have to be "appealing" to you?

[Kurari]

I think that has something to do with us straight males getting excited watching two women doing their thing. I have no idea why that is?

 

That is a very interesting question I have wondered about, too. I wonder, Do heterosexual women enjoy watching two men interacting sexually?

 

-CC in MA

 

Oh yeah, I love it. I have a bunch of gay porn and I'm female. I like it because I love men in general, I actually get to see CUTE guys in a porno, and gay porn is a lot more animated than heteroporn is (same with lesbian porn). With gay porn I'm guaranteed to actually watch a guy DO something. In heteroporn it's mostly an average to ugly guy sitting back and getting his rocks off while the pretty girl does all the work. The guy rarely even vocalizes.

 

I've also noticed something kind of interesting about gay porn. A lot of people equate homosexual men with being effeminate, and there really isn't anything effeminate about it. Even if one of the men ends up in a more passive position, he still has the aura of being nothing but masculine about it.

 

Other than that, I'm not seeing anything in homosexual porn that I don't see in heterosexual porn these days. It looks pretty normal to me.

[currentchristian]

I think that has something to do with us straight males getting excited watching two women doing their thing. I have no idea why that is?

 

That is a very interesting question I have wondered about, too. I wonder, Do heterosexual women enjoy watching two men interacting sexually?

 

-CC in MA

 

Oh yeah, I love it. I have a bunch of gay porn and I'm female. I like it because I love men in general, I actually get to see CUTE guys in a porno, and gay porn is a lot more animated than heteroporn is (same with lesbian porn). With gay porn I'm guaranteed to actually watch a guy DO something. In heteroporn it's mostly an average to ugly guy sitting back and getting his rocks off while the pretty girl does all the work. The guy rarely even vocalizes.

 

I've also noticed something kind of interesting about gay porn. A lot of people equate homosexual men with being effeminate, and there really isn't anything effeminate about it. Even if one of the men ends up in a more passive position, he still has the aura of being nothing but masculine about it.

 

Other than that, I'm not seeing anything in homosexual porn that I don't see in heterosexual porn these days. It looks pretty normal to me.

 

Very interesting, Kurari. I wonder, too, how much of what one sees in pornographic videos reflects sexual reality and how much alters/adds to what people do sexually. For example, oral sex, which is quite popular these days. Was this form of sexual expression common in my grandparents' day? If not, how did this form of sexual expression (aside from President Clinton) come to be a seen as a normal sexual activity? The Masters & Johnson or Kinsey institutes need to do some updated studies on male and female sexuality.

 

-CC in MA

[roman]

However, I'm still not supportive of it either, because I'm straight and homosexuality is not appealing to me....

You do not have to engage in it to be supportive.

 

I know, but I don't have to be supportive of something that's not appealing to me. They can do whatever they want, but I'm not chipping in any votes that are against or are with them.

I wouldn't have thought you were old enough to vote. And anyway, you're from Canada aren't you? I wasn't aware of any gay issues on the ballots in Canada.