Homosexuality in Public - Discussion

padser

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

I've heard people use that phrase, even family members. But thats a result of conditioning, and ignorance.

thats a commmon argument constantly used by the gay community to deride and explain away the way most people find what you do repulsive. Its very easy to simply call this 'ignorance' or 'conditioning' but to be honest thats B****. Its not that we are ignorant. We know what disgusts us. Two men having sex.

Also with me its certainly not conditioning. Im 20 and both my parents have little or no problem with gays. (with the caveat that my 'queeney' gays like graeme norton drive my dad mad but sure thats the same with everyone) Bottom line i grew up in a household where their was no animosity towards gays and yet still i know its disgusting, wrong and immoral. Its buried deep inside straight people, and not the result of conditioning.

Boston

padser wrote:

thats a commmon argument constantly used by the gay community to deride and explain away the way most people find what you do repulsive. Its very easy to simply call this 'ignorance' or 'conditioning' but to be honest thats B****. Its not that we are ignorant. We know what disgusts us. Two men having sex.

Also with me its certainly not conditioning. Im 20 and both my parents have little or no problem with gays. (with the caveat that my 'queeney' gays like graeme norton drive my dad mad but sure thats the same with everyone) Bottom line i grew up in a household where their was no animosity towards gays and yet still i know its disgusting, wrong and immoral. Its buried deep inside straight people, and not the result of conditioning.

Actually it's holding hands that disgusts you. Stop talking for everyone, you know you can't and I'm starting to think your a complete troll, goign by the shear number of times you've insisted that you know the mind sets of everyone. Your wrong, you don't, back under your bridge you go.

delly

padser wrote:

Its buried deep inside straight people

The animosity towards gays is far from being buried, its the 'fear' thats well hidden. From what, i don't know.

damien

MobileInfantry wrote:

Its a primal thing, that the HUGE majority of the population understand to be just plain and simple wrong.

War is a primal thing, as is murder, as is polyamory. Should we start donning animal skins and carrying clubs and living in caves ?

If I were wrong, or Padser here, then there would not be so much rife and huge inequalities based on orientation.

There's rife and there are inequalities based on EVERYTHING. From gender, to skin colour, to religion to sexuality. That's a very dodgy argument in fairness.

b3t4

umm, MobileInfantry and padser, ye do not in any way speak for the rest of society so please refrain from doing so. I am part of that society and I have absolutely no problem with gay people showing their loved ones affection in public. I can also speak for my friends who I have discussed such issues with and they also have no problem with gay public displays of affection. I think it's an awful shame that gay people are restricted to showing their love for a person to the confines of their home.

On a side note, Men also hold the hands of men in India platonically or otherwise.


Also, with regard to MobileInfantry and padser, it would please me to see if ye could come up with some better points to back up yeer side. Rehashing the same points over and over again without substantiating them with some sort of evidence is ridiculous in my thinking. A discussion is something that moves forward rather than something that goes round and round in circles. I have read every post in this thread and I do believe that what ye said could have been said in just one post. In my thinking this kind of discussion is something along the lines of "la, la, la, I'm not listening, la, la, la"

A.

BuffyBot

10% of people are not homosexual. Thats a myth propagated by the gay communiry. Its a gross overstatement.

It's a myth? Please post up some support for your assumption

Also far more paedophiles are gay then are straight. Thats prettty undisputable i feel. Its pretty evident from current affairs sections in the news.

Unfortunately, the "current affairs sections in the news" isn't a particularily good source. Even if I were to accept your claim that the media makes claims that more paedophiles are gay than straight (which I don't, because I for one have never seen this claim made), what is featured in the news isn't a representative sample of what goes on. News shows the new, the shocking, the outrageous - whatever draws sales/viewing figures. It does not cover every story, about every incident. So again, please come up with some decent, checkable figures which back up your assumption, because saying "it was on the (unspecified) news doesn't cutt he mustard.

MobileInfantry, first you are saying it's an "unnatural" act, and now it's again "the moral does and dont": make up your mind, please. As a species, we do plenty of things which are "unnatural" - but we're not going to stop flying on planes, living in houses, wearing headphones, using computers etc, are we? Now, if it's a moral concern, then that is a different matter - but try to decide which it is, exactly.

BuffyBot

I think this is the crux of what the 'general population' want. thats all we are asking.

No, it's what you and a few others are asking. You've yet to prove any signifigant part of the general populus supports you.

Im 20 and both my parents have little or no problem with gays. (with the caveat that my 'queeney' gays like graeme norton drive my dad mad but sure thats the same with everyone)

Eh, no it isn't and your anecdotal evidence isn't really relevant - but then again, all you've given us so far is anecdotal evidence and your own assumptions on what people think and feel.

Hmm_Messiah

If its not from conditioning, then its hard not to see you as a bigot.

Noun: A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

Boston

BuffyBot wrote:

It's a myth? Please post up some support for your assumption

As far as the 10% thing goes. It's a very was achieved through a very flawed survey, but ultimately the most accuracy survey on the subject ever commissions. This is why, despite it's faults the figures are still used. Depending on your reference point, there are either allot more then 10% or allot less then 10%. As the survey put it, 10% of people surveyed have had nearly exclusively samesex relationships for a period of up to three years prior to the survey. When the time range was extended to four years that figure became closer to 7.5%. subsequent surveys returned different figures, all of which defined homosexuality differently. Some surveys commissioned by right wing conservatives in the states have the figure as low as a fraction of a percent.

Stark

The irony is they'd have nothing to worry about if it really was that low.

They surveyed college students recently and got a figure of 10% (They just asked the students what they identify themselves as. As far as I know the figure excluded bisexuals).

Now that either means that 10% of the general population is gay, or that homosexuality is linked to academic achievement

Boston

Stark wrote:

The irony is they'd have nothing to worry about if it really was that low.

They surveyed college students recently and got a figure of 10% (They just asked the students what they identify themselves as. As far as I know the figure excluded bisexuals).

Now that either means that 10% of the general population is gay, or that homosexuality is linked to academic achievement

I wouldn't view a USI survey as being a reflection on the general population. When was the survey done btw? Have to remember kinsey had a definite method for working out the truth and surveys where carried out in person and in private, I doubt the USI put the same resources into it. I would say people in universities are more willing to experiment and less willing to comform to accepted norms or what a man or a woman should be.

bopper

I think public displays of affection are disgusting. Gay or straight no-one wants to see it, get a ****ing room.

fletch

bopper wrote:

I think public displays of affection are disgusting. Gay or straight no-one wants to see it, get a ****ing room.

lol lol lol....somebody got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning!

Tiffany

MobileInfantry wrote:

I mean crap aside, come on. You guys honestly thing the act of gay sex is the way nature intended? It's not.

And I'm sure nature didn't intend for disease, hunger and suffering either... did it?

muckwarrior

muckwarrior wrote:

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

Ok, first let me explain what I meant by that. I did not mean that most people find it repulsive. I meant that most people find it either uncomfortable or disturbing or repulsive. Admittedly I don't think most people would go so far as to say they find it repulsive, but IMO most people would at least find it in some way unsettling.

Secondly when I say most I mean the majority of normal people, i.e. greater than 50%. I think that saying "practically everyone" is definitely an exaggeration.

ixoy wrote:

You got anything to back up this claim?

I base this on everyone I've ever known in my life. As I'm originally from the country, now living in Dublin, and I've worked in a number of industries including construction, pubs and IT, I would conclude that these people represent a reasonably accurate cross-section of society.

Of these people I've known many that were vocally supportive of homosexuality, yet even these people were unnerved by displays of homosexual affection. I'll give two examples.

In a debate on the subject of homosexuality in the pub one night a friend said "I've no problem at all with homosexuality. I get on really well with my gay flatmate. Although I hate when he brings a guy home, it makes you feel so awkward."

At a class night out a gay classmate started kissing his boyfriend. An uneasy silence descended on that whole section of the pub. When he asked his friends was everything OK they said "Oh of course yeah, go on ahead." (needless to say he didn't ask me!)

Any way my point is that even though most people won't admit it to a gay friend, seeing a gay act makes them in some way uncomfortable.

As for the whole disabled people debate that has been hinted at a few times, I don't think it's really relevant. I suppose there can be some comparisons drawn, i.e. they both involve being born with a flaw and they both may make other people feel uncomfortable. However the BIG difference is that disabled people cannot choose to hide their disability in public whereas homosexuals can easily choose not to show displays of affection between each other.

LiouVille wrote:

Also can the moderators delete/ ban some of these trolls.

Ah yeah go on. Ban everyone on the other side of the argument. You might actually stand a chance of winning then!

Stark

These feelings you describe aren't unique to homosexual situations. People generally feel uncomfortable in "couply" situations. When I was living in a houseshare, two of my flatmates had girlfriends. One couple I got on well enough with, when they came round they'd keep their couply stuff to the bedroom and when they were downstairs we'd all chat. But the other couple made me feel very uncomfortable by being a closed unit.

Was out with a friend of mine, his brother and his girlfriend one night. He was snogging his girlfriend for half the night and myself and his brother were hanging around on our own. His brother kept remarking on how rude he was and how they had plenty of time for that when they were alone together.

At class parties, we wouldn't be too happy about any guy who brought a partner, male or female and made out with him/her all night to the exclusion of everyone else (and I mean exclusion in the talking sense, not anything else ). Fine in the club, but very rude in the pub.

Yes inappropiate displays of public affection(gay or straight) do make people uncomfortable.

I think hand holding is appropriate for most situations though. In this regard, I feel that homosexual couples should have just as much right to walk down the street holding hands as heterosexual couples.

TerrorFirmer

Yes inappropiate displays of public affection(gay or straight) do make people uncomfortable.

To be honest I understand where you're coming from, but again, also being honest, ask the general population which makes them more uncomfortable - gay people, or straight people kissing in public?

Or indeed, even ask a general public if the two situations are on even a remotely similar level for them?

I think not. No-one wants to see a straight couple eating their faces off in front of them agreed, but I'd be willing to bet they'd rather see that then a gay couple under any circumstance.

I know I don't speak for everyone but I think a large majority would agree with me when I say that its not a valid comparison as such - for such as argument to be put forward it would really have to be of two sides which are 50/50 each.

azezil

There was also a time when noone wanted to see women in the work force, I've no doubt if a woman said she had a right to work she'd get similar reactions as you're displaying. Public opinions change, if it weren't for a few brave people taking the frist steps to stand up and saying 'Oi hang here, that's not right', women wouldn't be allowed in the workforce, peoples of different colours and beliefs couldn't go to the same schools etc. etc. etc.

This is no different, gay people finally have a voice, we're being heard and in time will be accepted.

L5

azezil wrote:

, we're being heard and in time will be accepted.

dont bet on it.

Steven

They surveyed college students recently and got a figure of 10% (They just asked the students what they identify themselves as. As far as I know the figure excluded bisexuals).

Wouldn't that mean that 10% of non-bisexuals are homosexuals and, lets face it, college is a time of experimentation. That would inflate the number of people who consider themselves bisexual. Ask half of them in 10 years and I doubt you'd get the same answer.

That aside, the only reason public displays of between gay couples make people uncomfortable is that it's not commonplace enough to have become socially acceptable. Fifty years ago if two people were kissing in the park, regardless of sexuality, they would nearly have been ostracised from the community and, if young enough, would have had the faeces pounded out of them by their parents.

Give it fifty years and ask the same question again. Your children... (whoops, wrong board) Your nephews, nieces and adopted children will laugh at the bigoted times we grew up in just like every generation for the last hundred years.

damien

azezil wrote:

This is no different, gay people finally have a voice, we're being heard and in time will be accepted.

What voice, where ? A united one ? Who speaks on behalf of the gay community ? Where's the umbrella group that speaks with one voice for community issues ? There is none. The gay community is full of little inconsequentual fiefdoms all with their own agenda and all far too into poltiking to unite and represent the entire community.

TerrorFirmer

azezil wrote:

There was also a time when noone wanted to see women in the work force, I've no doubt if a woman said she had a right to work she'd get similar reactions as you're displaying. Public opinions change, if it weren't for a few brave people taking the frist steps to stand up and saying 'Oi hang here, that's not right', women wouldn't be allowed in the workforce, peoples of different colours and beliefs couldn't go to the same schools etc. etc. etc.

This is no different, gay people finally have a voice, we're being heard and in time will be accepted.

Again, with the unsuitable comparisons.

Woman constitute half of the population. And also, that whole issue was due to the whole idea that men were the stronger, and therefore the natural providers, and women were weak etc. It was not based on biological fact like "Woman are not biologically able to work", it was bigotry on a certain level.

Gay people are different. And again, you know it. perhaps gayness will someday become more socially tolerabe but never will the population say "The gay man and his partner are the exact same as their hetrosexual counterpart"

Unless of course - as I point out again - people become generic in the future and gay couples can naturally produce the same family unit as hetrosexuals. Which I doubt.

Face it, no matter how tolerable things become socially, gayness will still never be considered as an equal social norm.

Stark

Oh here we go again.

What about sterile couples who can't produce natural children? Does it revulse you to see sterile couples show affection in public? Disgusting isn't it, their biological unsoundness, their defective bodies thankfully removed from the gene pool. Is that how your mind works?

Again, get it through your thick skull. Social norm DOES NOT EQUAL biological norm!

Social norm does not equal biological norm
Social norm does not equal biological norm
Social norm does not equal biological norm
Social norm does not equal biological norm
Social norm does not equal biological norm
Social norm does not equal biological norm
Social norm does not equal biological norm
Social norm does not equal biological norm
Social norm does not equal biological norm
Social norm does not equal biological norm
Social norm does not equal biological norm
Social norm does not equal biological norm
Social norm does not equal biological norm

Do you get it now?

This is a warning, if I see "it's not biologically sound, you can't pop out wee young wans with that kind of behaviour", I will ban that poster from this forum for as long as these threads are active.

Boston

muckwarrior wrote:

Ah yeah go on. Ban everyone on the other side of the argument. You might actually stand a chance of winning then!

Your first post was like five lines long, in which you called someone an asshole, and you wonder why people think your a troll>

TerrorFirmer

Stark wrote:

Oh here we go again.

What about sterile couples who can't produce natural children? Does it revulse you to see sterile couples show affection in public? Disgusting isn't it, their biological unsoundness, their defective bodies thankfully removed from the gene pool. Is that how your mind works?

Again, get it through your thick skull. Social norm DOES NOT EQUAL biological norm!

Social norm does not equal biological norm
Social norm does not equal biological norm
Social norm does not equal biological norm
Social norm does not equal biological norm
Social norm does not equal biological norm
Social norm does not equal biological norm
Social norm does not equal biological norm
Social norm does not equal biological norm
Social norm does not equal biological norm
Social norm does not equal biological norm
Social norm does not equal biological norm
Social norm does not equal biological norm
Social norm does not equal biological norm

Do you get it now?

This is a warning, if I see "it's not biologically sound, you can't pop out wee young wans with that kind of behaviour", I will ban that poster from this forum for as long as these threads are active.

Are you saying I have no right to reply to another users post? Because that's what I was doing, replying to azezil's post, not replying to the original topic.

Also, seeing as my opinion goes somewhat along the lines of it being socially unacceptable due to the fact that it IS biologically wrong, I find it impossible to put forward my point without that very fact - without all of you hounding me as if I'm tarring you all as genetic freaks.

You are all in a huge minority that will never be accepted as a social norm in any case, regardless of how much time you spend convincing yourselves otherwise that everything is fantastic and you are opressed in the same heroic sense as the blacks and women were - you aren't, because gayness will never be granted equal right status and is not directly comparisonable to the reasons that blacks and women were oppressed (and I pray to god for the sake of not only the general public but also the children that this remains the case forever - which it no doubt will).

Ban me, I'm serious. At least then I won't even be able get back to debate it further, which is always going to be futile anyway

What about sterile couples who can't produce natural children? Does it revulse you to see sterile couples show affection in public? Disgusting isn't it, their biological unsoundness, their defective bodies thankfully removed from the gene pool. Is that how your mind works

No, but the way your mind works, is that you can't just accept that gayness is something that is perhaps tolerated, but totally wrong in every sense of the world. To be honest I'm totally sick of your **** comparing the disabled and the like to gay people. Get it through YOUR head - they aren't the same, stop looking for desperate ways to prove to a straight man that its alright to be queer, because it's not!

But onwards with the ban.

Boston

MobileInfantry wrote:

You are all in a huge minority

A huge minority aye, so like 49%?

TerrorFirmer

LiouVille wrote:

A huge minority aye, so like 49%?

Lol come on, thats pathetic.

the decisively tiny minority, to clarify things. stops nitpicking.

btw - before i am banned, nothing against you in person

Stark

MobileInfantry wrote:

But onwards with the ban.

And onwards we go.

Boston

MobileInfantry wrote:

btw - before i am banned, nothing against you in person

You don't know me in person, I think.

muckwarrior

Stark wrote:

This is a warning, if I see "it's not biologically sound, you can't pop out wee young wans with that kind of behaviour", I will ban that poster from this forum for as long as these threads are active.

it's not biologically sound, you can't pop out wee young wans with that kind of behaviour

MobileInfantry wrote:

Ban me, I'm serious. At least then I won't even be able get back to debate it further, which is always going to be futile anyway

Echo that. Bring it on bitch!