Gay Rights

rsynnott

Firespinner wrote:

I've always thought people made up their own definitions of right or wrong, normally to accomodate what they want to do.

Each person ultimately determines their personal morality, often but not always derived from others. Only the most selfish determine it in terms of what they want to do.

The_Minister

rsynnott wrote:

Each person ultimately determines their personal morality, often but not always derived from others. Only the most selfish determine it in terms of what they want to do.

I'm not saying its a concious decision, but often people "make room" for certain activities eg those rioters in O'Connell street would have wanted to do that anyway but had to find away to let themselves.

rsynnott

Firespinner wrote:

I'm not saying its a concious decision, but often people "make room" for certain activities eg those rioters in O'Connell street would have wanted to do that anyway but had to find away to let themselves.

Those people weren't the most upstanding member of society, though, were they?

Do you have a point here (are you saying that people consider homosexuality acceptable only if they want to have sex with the same gender, which would seem to be demonstrably false) or are you just rambling?

The Corinthian

rsynnott wrote:

Each person ultimately determines their personal morality, often but not always derived from others. Only the most selfish determine it in terms of what they want to do.

That’s a bit naïve, TBH. If history has taught us anything is humanity’s capacity to justify the expedient as moral.

Rozie

declanoneill wrote:

Children should never be allowed to be placed in the care of a person or people that would result in their warping as they got older

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/13950130.htm

Good thing that homosexuals are neither, according to essentially every single study ever conducted on the matter.

Probably best not to use American sources unless they have "Edu" in them.

The_Minister

rsynnott wrote:

Do you have a point here (are you saying that people consider homosexuality acceptable only if they want to have sex with the same gender, which would seem to be demonstrably false) or are you just rambling?

That was actually a tangent just ignore it.

The_Minister

rsynnott wrote:

Still less fuss being made over it than the bloody blood ban, tho.

I didn't actually know about that till I went to give blood. I know that HIV transmission is higher among gays but I would have thought that with the spread of condoms that this would have been stopped.

The_Minister

Freelancer wrote:

Insinuating I'm writing threads on LGB board and talking about pm's you got is just more of the pathetic arguments we've grown used to hearing from you.
.

I wasn't insinuating anything. If you look at the thread there is nothing wrong with it, I was just curious if it was you, but since it seems to have been written by an innoffensive and level-headed person then obviously I was mistaken.

metrovelvet

rsynnott wrote:

Also, again, mixed-race (disgusting term, but you know what I mean) kids tend not to have problems, and didn't even when it was almost unheard of.

Actually thats not true. [Not a disgusting term but an applicable one and we unfortunately live in a world where these things matter].

They do have problems, but thats not a reason for people not to mate with other races.

Personally, Im not comfortable with gay men adopting. They are after all still men. I would be more comfortable with lesbians raising my kid.

Our concern should be the well being of the children. Considering the illegal sex child ring in south east asia there is no way I would endorce gay men adopting legally.

Condoms would stop the spread of HIV if people actually used them. But people dont.

coffee_cake

metrovelvet wrote:

Our concern should be the well being of the children. Considering the illegal sex child ring in south east asia there is no way I would endorce gay men adopting legally.

What on earth has that got to do with gay men adopting?

rsynnott

bluewolf wrote:

What on earth has that got to do with gay men adopting?

It's more "duhhh... what's paedophilia? I know, it must be the same as gay!", I'm afraid...

metrovelvet

I should also add or single straight men.

coffee_cake

rsynnott wrote:

It's more "duhhh... what's paedophilia? I know, it must be the same as gay!", I'm afraid...

I figured it was that, but I thought there was a possibility there was some scandal involving gay men adopting and using kids for sex or something.
However unlikely.

What I found annoying was when I read an opinion piece in the paper by some guy insisting gay marriage was the same as polygamy and if we consider one we have to consider the other
what a load of rubbish

metrovelvet

If you consider the theory that men are not monogamous beings then you have to consider what its like when two non monogamous beings are in a relationship who are also very very horny.

rsynnot you know gay men have olympic sex drives and that monogamy is far from de rigeur.

You know Im right about that.

Blluewolf - gay men will tell you the exact same thing as the guy in the article did.

rsynnott

metrovelvet wrote:

rsynnot you know gay men have olympic sex drives and that monogamy is far from de rigeur.

You know Im right about that.

Erm. Have you ever actually met a gay male?

Have you ever met a straight male?

Little enough to choose between as far as that goes, as far as I can see.

coffee_cake

metrovelvet wrote:

If you consider the theory that men are not monogamous beings then you have to consider what its like when two non monogamous beings are in a relationship who are also very very horny.

rsynnot you know gay men have olympic sex drives and that monogamy is far from de rigeur.

You know Im right about that.

Yay for stupid unfounded generalisations.

Blluewolf - gay men will tell you the exact same thing as the guy in the article did.

Which article is this

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

I wasn't insinuating anything. If you look at the thread there is nothing wrong with it, I was just curious if it was you, but since it seems to have been written by an innoffensive and level-headed person then obviously I was mistaken.

What can I say? I tend to react badly to things like the tissues of lies, out bigotry, unfounded accusations, and inane tagents which pretty much sum up the body of your posts on this thread.

So do you still have a point Firespinner? Still got some inane point about homosexual violence? Did your friends in "the gays" get back to you, or your mate in the "guards"?

metrovelvet wrote:

Personally, Im not comfortable with gay men adopting. They are after all still men. I would be more comfortable with lesbians raising my kid.

Our concern should be the well being of the children. Considering the illegal sex child ring in south east asia there is no way I would endorce gay men adopting legally.

From much earlier in the thread

Alfred E. Kinsey, in his landmark study of male sexuality, divided adult sexual interest into seven categories: three categories of homosexuality, one category of bi-sexuality, and three categories of heterosexuality. The Abel and Harlow study used this "Kinsey Scale" in its questions about adult sexual preference.

The 1,038 men who molested boys reported a range of adult sexual preferences. Contrary to popular belief, only 8 percent reported that they were exclusively homosexual who molest boys followed the general pattern of the U.S. male population in regard to their adult sexual preferences. 51 percent said they were hetrosexual in their adult relationships. An additional 19 percent reported they were predominately heterosexual, while yet another 9 percent said they were equally heterosexual and homosexual in their adult sex life. As with other characteristics, the group of 1,038 men who molest boys followed the general pattern of the U.S. male population in regard to their adult sexual preferences. (emphasis mine)

Homosexuality and paedophilia aren't the same thing. I swear every new poster onto this thread should just be forced to re read pages 7-11 were this was comprehensivible proven.

metrovelvet wrote:

If you consider the theory that men are not monogamous beings then you have to consider what its like when two non monogamous beings are in a relationship who are also very very horny.

rsynnot you know gay men have olympic sex drives and that monogamy is far from de rigeur.

You know Im right about that.

I think the secret stash of homoerotic porn in your closet is lying to you.

metrovelvet

rsynnott wrote:

Erm. Have you ever actually met a gay male?

Have you ever met a straight male?

Little enough to choose between as far as that goes, as far as I can see.

Im from manhattan and work in theatre and have friends in soft journalism, what do you think?:rolleyes:

Have you ever met one?

The difference between gay and straight men is that the former like to **** other men and the latter like to **** women. Did I miss something?

rsynnott

metrovelvet wrote:

Im from manhattan and work in theatre and have friends in soft journalism, what do you think?:rolleyes:

Have you ever met one?

The difference between gay and straight men is that the former like to **** other men and the latter like to **** women. Did I miss something?

And do you find that your gay friends have these crazy sex drives you mentioned and find it impossible to be monogamous? That is not my experience, at all.

Freelancer

metrovelvet wrote:

Im from manhattan and work in theatre and have friends in soft journalism, what do you think?:rolleyes:

Have you ever met one?

The difference between gay and straight men is that the former like to **** other men and the latter like to **** women. Did I miss something?

No earlier you said

rsynnot you know gay men have olympic sex drives and that monogamy is far from de rigeur.

you're implying that gay men shag all the time and aren't monogamous and the implication is gay men can't be trusted with children.

Dudess

metrovelvet wrote:

Personally, Im not comfortable with gay men adopting. They are after all still men. I would be more comfortable with lesbians raising my kid.
Our concern should be the well being of the children. Considering the illegal sex child ring in south east asia there is no way I would endorce gay men adopting legally.

It seems it's the idea of men rather than gay men adopting that you have a problem with. Why is that? Why do you think men would make lesser parents than women? That notion stereotypes both men and women - men as the strong, breadwinning types with uncontrollable sex drives (your view) and women as the gentle, nurturing types.

The_Minister

Freelancer wrote:

What can I say? I tend to react badly to things like the tissues of lies, out bigotry, unfounded accusations, and inane tagents which pretty much sum up the body of your posts on this thread.

what did I lie about? What were these accusations? oh, and I don't consider myself a bigot.

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

If you consider the theory that men are not monogamous beings then you have to consider what its like when two non monogamous beings are in a relationship who are also very very horny.

Luckly, for the sake of the civilisation, you don't have to consider the theory that men are not naturally monogamous, because its biological nonsense. Sure some men cheat on their wives, but then some women cheat on their husbands. The idea that two gay men cannot be faithful to each other is nonsense.

What this male bashing dribble has to do with adopting children I've no idea Are you honestly saying that we should not let men adopt children because they cannot be faithful to their partners??

metrovelvet wrote:

rsynnot you know gay men have olympic sex drives and that monogamy is far from de rigeur.

Except for the ones that settle down into long term marriage like partnerships, ie exactly that ones that would want to fecking adopt and raise children in the first place :rolleyes:

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

Did I miss something?

Yeah, about 40 years of the gay community trying to change ridiculous anti-gay, anti-male stereotypes :rolleyes:

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

what did I lie about? What were these accusations? oh, and I don't consider myself a bigot.

Your friends in the "guards" who informed you about the policing situation in the city?

The accusation that "gays were at it all the time?" or "homosexuals do it more often" or "women limit sex"?
or that "children of homosexual couples were more likely to be abused", or that there was "rampant homophobic violence" in the south you just cannot prove it"

And bigots usualy dont consider themselves as bigots.

The Corinthian

Firespinner wrote:

I didn't actually know about that till I went to give blood. I know that HIV transmission is higher among gays but I would have thought that with the spread of condoms that this would have been stopped.

The promotion of condoms in many Western countries since the 1980’s went a long way to breaking down many of the remaining social barriers to sex and left people to feel comfortable in the knowledge that they could have sex and do so safely.

Unfortunately, people being people, they’ll often end up having unsafe sex anyway.

So while many people have safe sex, the increase in sexual activity engendered by the availability of contraception has ironically also seen an absolute increase in unsafe sex.

Wicknight wrote:

Luckly, for the sake of the civilisation, you don't have to consider the theory that men are not naturally monogamous, because its biological nonsense. Sure some men cheat on their wives, but then some women cheat on their husbands. The idea that two gay men cannot be faithful to each other is nonsense.

I’m sure they can, actually I know one gay couple who’ve been faithful for years - at least as far as I know, it’s not really the sort of thing you ask over a plate of Saltimbocca alla Romana at dinner - however there have been a number of studies that have indicated that homosexual couples are less predisposed to monogamy or long term relationships than heterosexuals:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030711-121254-3711r.htm

Of course I’m suspicious of any study of homosexuality as it invariably will end up having been sponsored by either a pro or anti group, however I would say that simply claiming that such an assertion is ‘nonsense’ is, well, nonsense too.

What this male bashing dribble has to do with adopting children I've no idea Are you honestly saying that we should not let men adopt children because they cannot be faithful to their partners??

That’s probably not a bad idea regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple.

metrovelvet

rsynnott wrote:

And do you find that your gay friends have these crazy sex drives you mentioned and find it impossible to be monogamous? That is not my experience, at all.

Yes. Perhaps that has to do with opportunity and what's available and peer pressure.

Generally the policy on sex outside the main relationship is "never more than once with the same person and never in the house." Which in many ways is a policy I admire. I know couples who are together for years but they still **** around and cruise.

Saying that, the men I am truly scared of are the married ones who cruise the subway platforms,are so in denial about their sexuality they wont wear condoms and then go home to their wives and children.

WK - Im repeating common village wisdom from the metropolitan gay community. They are very collaborative with radical feminist/gender ideologies so I dont know how you conclude that they have worked so hard to eradicate anti male stereotypes.

rsynnott

metrovelvet wrote:

Generally the policy on sex outside the main relationship is "never more than once with the same person and never in the house." Which in many ways is a policy I admire. I know couples who are together for years but they still **** around and cruise.

Ooooookay. Now, I know rather a lot of gay people in this country (college LGBT, USI LGBT and such.) I know maybe one person who might go in for that sort of thing. I certainly wouldn't myself. It may be more a cultural thing in New York than a gay thing as such.

metrovelvet

Perhaps. It could be an age thing also. Lesbians as far as I can see are far more monogamous.

Also I know the ENTIRE staff of a very prominant mens fashion magazine are entirely gay men, I wont name it here, but if you want me to tell you, pm mw, and the sexual harasssment is rife once you start working in gay friendly industries.

This pressure is saturated also in the film, theatre, and arts industry. So the culture makes it next to impossible for a gay man to be completely faithful.

Oddly, its probably easier to be faithful if you work in an industry thats more "straight" like finance.

rsynnott

metrovelvet wrote:

Perhaps. It could be an age thing also. Lesbians as far as I can see are far more monogamous.

Also I know the ENTIRE staff of a very prominant mens fashion magazine are entirely gay men, I wont name it here, but if you want me to tell you, pm mw, and the sexual harasssment is rife once you start working.

This pressure is saturated also in the film, theatre, and arts industry. So the culture makes it next to impossible for a gay man to be completely faithful.

Heterosexuals in those environments aren't exactly known for being paragons of virtue, either, are they? I'm not convinced that ordinary gay people are crazed nymphomaniacs (or whatever the male version of that might be)

Oh, and in case you're insinuating something, you know that gay people are allowed work in other industries, right?