Homosexuality in Public - Discussion

padser

Yeah iv gotta agree with the last post. No gay person can honestly find hetrosexuality repulsive and I do feel they should accept that hetrosexuality is the way nature intended it.

Also the fact that such a proportion of society views men holding hands (or more) as 'uggg' is probably the reason why if its going to be done it should be done in private.

Also in reference to an earlier post (on page 4) I would love to hear an answer on how homosexuals feel looking at a straight couple making out etc

damien

Word of Warning: Please remember the original premise of this thread which was for people to ask various questions and get answers etc. I would not like to see a thread I started way back when, turn into another futile debate on whether homosexuality is natural/legit/genetic etc. Some people are ok with homosexuality and some are not. Try and get them to see your viewpoint but don't ram your opinion down their fcking throat ! Or start another thread and continue the arguments there.

TerrorFirmer

LiouVille wrote:

And i have the right to frown upon you. You have a deep mis understanding about sexuality, it is a shame you are unwilling to open yourself up to the truth, maybe one day, when you do meet someone who is gay the truth will dawn on you. For now I merely pitty you.

I'm afraid if thats your only response, you're the one that needs pity, for yourself being unwilling to open up to the truth - no matter how understanding everyone is of being gay, no matter how little you care or how much you are accepted in your social surrounding - homosexuality is both biologically and socially wrong - the social side of it I have no doubt is debatable.

And what am I suppose to open up to? Whats the "big truth" you speak of? That gay is alright? That gay people and straight people are equal? They are equal as people yes, but in their choosen (or pre decided) sexual preference they are not and never will be equal. I am very tolerant of Gay people and I try my best to make sure I am not judgemental in person, regardless of what I genuinely think in my mind.

From what you are saying, you'd imagine I'm going to meet a gay man someday and say "Hell yeah, what have I been missing" :rolleyes:

You need to grow up, and YOU need to realise that its you thats "unwilling to open up to the truth"

damien

padser wrote:

would love to hear an answer on how homosexuals feel looking at a straight couple making out etc

"Oh look a couple making out, oh look there's football on the telly, oh look it's happy hour"

I wouldn't see any difference between a same sex or hetero couple making out. If they were being very physical in a very public space I'd tell em to get a room no matter gay or straight. If they are being all cute and romantic I'd probably go "awwww" possibly followed by a mental comment like "lucky bastards".

Boston

Also in reference to an earlier post (on page 4) I would love to hear an answer on how homosexuals feel looking at a straight couple making out etc

In my presence it can be annoying, like any couple making out while your trying to have a drink with them. Nothing worse then going somewhere with a couple.

fletch

padser wrote:

Also in reference to an earlier post (on page 4) I would love to hear an answer on how homosexuals feel looking at a straight couple making out etc

I am a homosexual & I have no problem whatsoever when I see a hetrosexual couple kissing in the street. Moreover I feel a sense of envy that I "feel" I cannot do the same with my boyfriend. It is in no way, me being uncomfortable with my sexuality, rather, I do not wish to be the topic of prying eyes & more seriously put myself in physical danger.

hawkmoon269

If you're straight are you allowed to listen to the Pet Shop Boys?

Boston

hawkmoon269 wrote:

If you're straight are you allowed to listen to the Pet Shop Boys?

Yes, but no kylie.

damien

Oh for fcks sake joe, way to go taking another fcking thread way off topic. Have you examined why you end up getting completely wound up in every thread in this forum? Seriously guy, go back and look at your posts.

padser

LiouVille wrote:

you have no right to tell people where they can and cannot kiss or hold hands.

on that point in a sense i beg to differ. what people choose to do in their own time is, in a sense, their own business. However your average joe has a right to walk down the street without seeing something that repulses them.

Its the same reason why its illegal to walk naked down grafton st. it offends public morality.

Goodshape

MobileInfantry wrote:

homosexuality is both biologically and socially wrong - the social side of it I have no doubt is debatable.

All sorts of animals have gay sex. Only humans play tennis. Tennis is unnatural.

(think I read that somewhere on these forums (edit: yea, its from here.)... sorry for ripping it off, but it's well put I think).

hawkmoon269

padser wrote:

However your average joe has a right to walk down the street without seeing something that repulses them.

Who is this average joe whereof you speak? Do you speak for the entire public?

Boston

damien.m wrote:

Oh for fcks sake joe, way to go taking another fcking thread way off topic. Have you examined why you end up getting completely wound up in every thread in this forum? Seriously guy, go back and look at your posts.

Fair enough, I've removed off topic comments.

padser

hawkmoon269 wrote:

Who is this average joe whereof you speak? Do you speak for the entire public?

No obviosly not the entire public....but enough that we are still a majority.

Banterville

padser wrote:

on that point in a sense i beg to differ. what people choose to do in their own time is, in a sense, their own business. However your average joe has a right to walk down the street without seeing something that repulses them.

Its the same reason why its illegal to walk naked down grafton st. it offends public morality.

Here Here, i say!

moridin

Padser, why don't you come back and post on this topic again when you've considered why you're offended when two guys hold hands on the street. You use the word "repulses", which is a pretty charged term...

If you feel that strongly, how can you gain anything from posting on this thread? Isn't the whole point to ask questions in order to gain more understanding, and thereby increase acceptance or perhaps see things through someone elses eyes?

What are you trying to accomplish, other than upset the other posters with your trolling? There's a huge difference between holding someone's hand and parading around naked.

moridin

Banterville wrote:

Here Here, i say!

Nice postcount.

ixoy

padser wrote:

However your average joe has a right to walk down the street without seeing something that repulses them.

You know what used to repulse some people in America? Black people using the same facilities as white people. Since white people made up the greater percentage of the population, they would be your "average joe" I'm sure. Therefore, by your esteemed logic, Rosa Parks, that brave girl who refused to give up her bus seat, should never have acted out and just stoop up meekly? I shouldn't think so.

Its the same reason why its illegal to walk naked down grafton st. it offends public morality.

Not the same at all. See above. This thread is for asking questions about homosexuality and I'm this close *separates fingers by a miniscule amount* to splitting it off. I'm also asking you to respect the tone of the thread and not be inflammatory, okay?

Banterville

Moridin,

RE: "nice postcount"

I didn't know that you had to have some 600 odd posts before you can have an opinion on this site,

but hey, there is a first time for everything as you must have found out in the past!!! :mad:

Boston

Please do just split this off.

padser

i wasnt aware that voicing what i would regard as a legitimite opinion could be regarded as inflametary???

Also please elaborate on how i have disrepected the 'tone of this thread'. Almost everything iv said has already been said before, please refer back to page 4.

Morodin: im sorry if the word repulses seems to be a bit too 'charged' for you. I was trying to convey the message that it is more then a 'slight irratation' as was suggested previously. the reason i am posting is in response to comments about 'holding hands with boyfriends' in public which i regard as inappropriate especially in situations where children might be present.

ixoy

Thread split off.

padser wrote:

the reason i am posting is in response to comments about 'holding hands with boyfriends' in public which i regard as inappropriate especially in situations where children might be present.

Argh - why is it inappropriate in situations with children? And again could you address my point about how it used to socially unacceptable, and frowned upon, for black people to use services frequented by white people but now it's seen differently.

Boston

padser wrote:

the reason i am posting is in response to comments about 'holding hands with boyfriends' in public which i regard as inappropriate especially in situations where children might be present.

I was waiting for the thread ot be split before replying. Damien this is why I get wound up in threads like these. I get angry at suggestions like this and I get pissed off but more then that it hurts reading stuff like this, and i reply far too quickly, but I am trying to cut down, so please, a little slack would be nice.

padser

Ixoy: yeah ok ill reply to the 'used to be socially unnacceptable point'.

Also can u explain what 'splitting off a thread' means?? im not too long a member of boards.

I find your analogy with blacks to be slightly flawed. I am not suggesting that gays should have a different legal status at all. Whats done beind closed doors between consenting adults i may not agree with but is in a way none of my business.

However if young impressionable children a walking down a street they should have their innocence preserved and shoud not have homosexuality shoved in their face. thats one of the main reasons i would object to hmomsexuals walking down a street holding hands.

Boston

Holding hands is not shoving anything in anybodies face. Also children are innocent, most would see nothing wrong with two males holding hands. Watch the teletubbies, to see that. If you see two women holding hands does it bother you?

azezil

padser wrote:

However if young impressionable children a walking down a street they should have their innocence preserved and shoud not have homosexuality shoved in their face. thats one of the main reasons i would object to hmomsexuals walking down a street holding hands.

Oh so showing signs of affection for someone you care about is perversion is it? // also it is common place in other cultures (eg saudi-arabia, for grown men, straight men, to walk down the street hand in hand)

I know many people, mostly straight, I've never gotten a negitive reaction from any of them when I tell them I'm gay, or I turn up to a gathering with a male date, be it a family gathering or formal ball... even some work parties.

My 7yr old nephew knows I'm gay and has no issue with it either.

You really should climb out from under your rock sonny and join the rest of us in modern life. *hugs n kisses!*

padser

Lets have a little bit of a more detailed look at saudi arabian laws and see if you really want to use that culture as an example to follow.

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/04/040705saudi.htm

there are plenty more examples of ridiculas social norms in SA.

LiouVille; i wouldnt have the same problem with two women 'linking arms' as that doesnt necessarily mean they are gay. However i would have the same problem with them being openly gay in front of children.

Young children's minds are impressionable and therefore they need to be protected. However this is not the only problem. Gayness is something most people simply dont want to be confronted with on an everyday basis.

Boston

padser wrote:

Young children's minds are impressionable and therefore they need to be protected. However this is not the only problem. Gayness is something most people simply dont want to be confronted with on an everyday basis.

two men holding hands does not mean they are gay either. As for children, the only impression they would get is that it's ok to be gay, something you're fearfull of. Also you have no choice but to deal with the fact that gay people exist, and most of us are not happy with hiding away in dark conors where none can see. Perhaps it is you that should stay at home. The world is changing and what you consider the norm, may not be so in afew years.

padser

things may change but i think that people like me will ensure that its a slow process. someone needs to make a stand and say enough is enough. Legalising it was one thing but we shouldnt have to put up with it on an everyday basis. Its simply not fair on us, we deserve to be able to live our lives and go about our everyday lives without seeing things we simply dont want to see

Boston

I agree, It would be great to go through life without having to see or hear things I don't like, but I live in a democracy and as a result that's never going to happen. I'd like to walk don't a Dublin street holding hands with my boyfriend without the constant fear of abuse. Or people telling me I'm a danger to children. The simple things you take for granted you wish to deny us. A kiss good bye at the bus stop after a night out, holding hands in a movie, dancing together in a club. How would you feel if someone said you couldn't do these things.

padser

get a grip here,

of course you can dance together a club, im sure this happens in the george constantly????

Im sure you hold hands in the cinema when the lights are dimmed???

As for people telling you that you are a danger to children I do see your point that its a bit unfair to tar all homosexuals with the same brush however you must concede that the majority of paedophile's are in fact gay.

BuffyBot

No gay person can honestly find hetrosexuality repulsive and I do feel they should accept that hetrosexuality is the way nature intended it.

Actually, I find exessive displays of emotion (be it gay or straight) a bit much in public. Some people, no matter what their persuasion, just don't know where to draw the line. I've sat on buses where the entire bus has had to watch (straight btw) couples examine each others tonsils for long periods of time. Not pleasant to witness.

I find your analogy with blacks to be slightly flawed. I am not suggesting that gays should have a different legal status at all.

No, you aren't suggesting a change in legal status, but you are saying that it should be one rule for heterosexuals and another for homosexual couples.

However if young impressionable children a walking down a street they should have their innocence preserved and shoud not have homosexuality shoved in their face.

How exactly will they have their innocence corrupted exactly? Most young kids wouldn't bat an eyelid because they don't understand the concepts involved. It's just two people holding hands.

padser wrote:

things may change but i think that people like me will ensure that its a slow process.

Indeed.

someone needs to make a stand and say enough is enough. Legalising it was one thing but we shouldnt have to put up with it on an everyday basis.

Everyday basis. My good, you must go out of your way to encounter it on a daily basis.

Its simply not fair on us

Who is "us" exactly?

we deserve to be able to live our lives and go about our everyday lives without seeing things we simply dont want to see

And people deserve to live their lives without interference from people like you. You are entitled to your views, but you aren't entitled to impose them on others. If you don't want to see, don't look.

Stark

padser wrote:

As for people telling you that you are a danger to children I do see your point that its a bit unfair to tar all homosexuals with the same brush however you must concede that the majority of paedophile's are in fact gay.

Actually reports have shown 90% of paedophiles to be heterosexual.

moridin

Banterville wrote:

I didn't know that you had to have some 600 odd posts before you can have an opinion on this site,

but hey, there is a first time for everything as you must have found out in the past!!! :mad:

Well, originally I was somewhat less restrained in what I said, but didn't want to assume too much. Surely you can see how it could look just a *little* suspicious is a newly registered account makes that their first posting?

padser

Stark wrote:

Actually reports have shown 90% of paedophiles to be heterosexual.

even if this figure were true, and i dispute that it is , less then 10% of population is gay. Therefore if 10% of paedophiles are gay this would imply a connection between homosexuallity and paedophilia.

However I would not accept that in the slightest. At least 70 or 80% of cases you read about are men abusing boys, or girls and boys. There is no chance that 90% of paedophiles are straight.

newgrange

Oh your world is so black and white, it's marvellous.

Do you think people are 'either' gay or straight?

Do you think if a paedophile abuses a boy, he is gay? Paedophilia has nothing to do

with orientation, IT IS ABUSE.

If I hit you on the head with a hammer, am I a carpenter?

ixoy

padser wrote:

However I would not accept that in the slightest. At least 70 or 80% of cases you read about are men abusing boys, or girls and boys. There is no chance that 90% of paedophiles are straight.

Gah! Paedophiles are generally abusive power controllers, acting out either fantasies or abuses visited upon them when they were children. They shouldn't be seen in such simplistic terms as "gay" or "straight" either - they're in a different class.

And while we're here, we could probably get some statistics about how straight people are more likely to murder each other - better stop them holding hands in case kids grow up into little butchers!

Hmm_Messiah

even if this figure were true, and i dispute that it is , less then 10% of population is gay. Therefore if 10% of paedophiles are gay this would imply a connection between homosexuallity and paedophilia.

Does that make any sense!!!

And the majority of cases published are male. Just male abusers.

And the idea of harming children: seeing two me hold hands, if it had any affect, would encourage tolerance and an understanding of diversity, children not yet overwhelmed with cultural or societal bias.

What would harm children, would harm growing and impressionable minds, is contact with an adult who's mind is so closed.

padser

Hmmm Messighah: i dont see your problem with the logic behind the comment about the stats. But ill add in some more steps to clarify.
if 10% of Paedolphiles are gay, and less then 10% of the general population are gay then a higher proportion of paedophiles are gay then simply of the general population. This would seem to imply a link between homosexuality and paedophilia.

Newgrange: yes i do believe a paedophile who abuses a boy is gay and a girl is straight. The same as i would regard a cold blooded murderer as on some level unhuman but still ultimataly a man.

TerrorFirmer

And again could you address my point about how it used to socially unacceptable, and frowned upon, for black people to use services frequented by white people but now it's seen differently.

Homosexuality is different. I mean honestly. Black people are equal to white in everyway on a basic human level and we can accept that God made both races as equals, as does the church. However, Homosexuality is, as I said before, biologically wrong. The church does not condone it either, and I doubt they ever will.

Being Black is not biologically wrong. However, its quite obvious that being gay is undebateably wrong. Just examine the very essence of it. As I said

The very sexual act of homosexuality is totally wrong, although I see no reason why 2 gay men should not be happy together, I consider exactly the very nature of a gay relationship totally wrong. And so gay affection should not be shown in public.

It is not right to subject children, and indeed the largely general public to what displays something so unnatural.

If you're gay, fine. I respect thats how you are born and I wouldn't do anything to prevent happiness for any Gay couple.

But don't flaunt it. It's not right - argue it until the cows come home, but at a base level, its plain not right and should be kept in the private life to the fullest extent possible.

I'm not trying to flame gay people either. As said before regardless of my opinions I consider them equal and would treat them so.

Oh so showing signs of affection for someone you care about is perversion is it? // also it is common place in other cultures (eg saudi-arabia, for grown men, straight men, to walk down the street hand in hand)

Since thats culture, its not the same. If everyone knew they were Gay, I don't think they'd have the same Tolerance. You guys are raising some dumb points that aren't entirely valid, and you know it.

Inter-friend relationships with girls inevitable results in alot of hand holding and contact, so its not the same. I'd only have a problem with it if everyone knew they were gay, and so associated their hand holding with lesbianism.

Stark

Padser.

10% is the accepted figure for homosexuality in the population. This has been shown by the original Kinsley studies and by subsequent studies such as the USI survey.

Breaking down the statistics (in black and white terms)
90% of population straight, 90% of paedophiles straight
10% of population gay, 10% of paedophiles gay

This means that paedophilia and sexual orientation are not linked.

General observations tell us that paedophile+gay doesn't imply "likes boys" and paedophile+straight doesn't imply "likes girls". Children are pretty much androgynous anyway, so I don't see why sexual orientation should affect a paedophile's preference. Like an above poster said, it's purely about abuse, not about sexuality.

I don't see why we should put up with discussions on paedophilia in this forum, as if there was a connection. If anyone wants to continue this discussion, they should do so in a different forum. Meanwhile, I'd like this thread to get back on topic (great topic that it is). Anyone veering gets a week's ban.

TerrorFirmer

rightleftright wrote:

As long as they keep it indoors

Thats exactly my point.

Stark

MobileInfantry, let's keep disabled people inside while we're at it will we? After all, it's not biologically right.

You contradict yourself in your own post, you say you consider gay people "equals", but "not as equal as black people".

TerrorFirmer

Stark wrote:

MobileInfantry, let's keep disabled people inside while we're at it will we? After all, it's not biologically right.

You contradict yourself in your own post, you say you consider gay people "equals", but "not as equal as black people".

Never said that. Race is generic, I didn't limit it to a particular origin

I just said that I consider every human equal, but homosexuality is best kept to the private life to the fullest extent possible.

My opinions vary but I still consider every equal on the basic human level.

You obviously misinterpeted my post.

MobileInfantry, let's keep disabled people inside while we're at it will we? After all, it's not biologically right.

Thats debatable also. But not for this thread, and its not in the exact same context and you know it Stark.

Stark

Actually I don't know it? Explain it to me. What do you mean by "debatable?". I can split the thread if gets too much out of hand.

TerrorFirmer

I'm not even going to continue this on - this is a gay support thread for genuinely gay people, and I don't want to be filling it with anti-gay idealism nor do I want to have a gang of homosexual people thinking I'm on some sort of crusade against them...

At the end of the day, its debatable forever, the social implications, side arguments, comparisons, but at the end of the day, no ones going to really change their opinion or have a sudden change of heart.

Everyone is born the way they are, and everyone has a right to the opinion they believe in. I'm just going to leave it at that - and step down for now, in this thread anyway.

muckwarrior

The simple fact of the matter is that most normal* people find displays of homosexuality uncomfortable/disturbing/repulsive. Why should we be subjected to to this in puplic? Some asshole said "well if ya don't like it then don't look". What the fukk are we supposed to do, walk down the street with our eyes closed? Keep it behind closed doors. Simple as that!

*Yes I did say normal, and I stand by that!

Stark

Nice username mucksavage. Normal doesn't always mean better.

ixoy

muckwarrior wrote:

The simple fact of the matter is that most normal* people find displays of homosexuality uncomfortable/disturbing/repulsive.

You got anything to back up this claim?

Why should we be subjected to to this in puplic? Some asshole said "well if ya don't like it then don't look". What the fukk are we supposed to do, walk down the street with our eyes closed? Keep it behind closed doors. Simple as that!

First, don't start calling other posters names. It's the quickest way for you to vanish from the forum.

Secondly, I stand by my analogies from earlier on. Society is generally what's defining what's right/wrong - moral and ethical codes bred up by its citizens. Thus, at one point, an open display of affection between a white man and a black woman would be considered shocking/disgusting/repulsive. Nowadays we generally find people who'd object to this the repulsive ones and rightly so.

But what I want to really know is have you the arrogance to try and tell people how to behave when they're doing nothing to you other than fall in the range of your vision? What if I decide I don't like the D4 accent - should all D4 people not talk when I walk down the street? Hey fat people are an offense to me - they shouldn't be seen either. Trying to regulate what people do/are when they're breaking no laws, is a dark road to go down and I hope most of us can see that.

TerrorFirmer

The basic fact remains constant - An interrecial couple may have been socially wrong at one stage, but were never naturally incompatable on the biology side of things.

Same with D4 accents. Hardly biologically wrong.

Sorry - I just couldn't let this go. And no-one is putting up a civilised and structured response to the gay side of things in recent posts.

Stark

Why should anyone care if something is "biologically wrong"? We were discussing the social implications. Lots of things are "biologically wrong", that doesn't make them wrong in any other sense though. Let's completely do away with modern medicine and instead go down to the eugenics level if we're that worried about things that are "biologically wrong".

As for not letting things go, you never explained what you mean about the proposition that "disabled people being kept indoors" is "debatable".