Gay friends

[fastenatingguy]

fastenatingguy;9709526:

(Donning asbestos suit)

I would argue that no, they wouldn’t. They have tied their entire identity into Being Gay™ because it gives them (even if only subconsciously) an instant “nuclear option” in any disagreement: Those who don’t agree are bigots/homophobes. Right now, it IS cool to be LGBTWTFBBQ. Look at the way non-minority straight men are generally portrayed in the media: Either evil or dumb. Non-minority gay men? They’re happy, successful, intelligent, and fashionable.

I am sorry, I just don’t understand this.Sorry for being dense.

I would argue that no, they wouldn’t. Who is they? and what wouldn’t?

 

[fastenatingguy]

Monkey1976;9709575:

Words cannot even describe the stupid…

So, you’re telling me that people choose to have sexual relations with members of their own sex in order to get sympathy? That’s dumb. That’s utterly, utterly stupid and just false on so many levels.

First of all, gay people generally call people bigoted or hateful when people claim to oppose gay rights and NOT simply when they oppose that persons views in something. This is enough to suggest that people don’t choose to be gay just to use bigotry as an excuse for people disagreeing with them, because they don’t do that apart from issues surrounding homosexuality.

It ISN’T cool to be a member of the LGBT community, which I suppose just shows how out of touch you are with young people. The term gay is generally used as an insult amongst young people (“That’s really gay!” “You’re really gay!” ETC) so it’s not considered “cool” at all.

To address your last point, who are these “non-minority straight men” and who are these “non minority gay men”. Can you tell me? Can you give me an example of either of those situations you stated?

Thanks, I think I understand (and agree with) this.

 

[Monkey1976]

Monkey1976;9709575:

Words cannot even describe the stupid…

So, you’re telling me that people choose to have sexual relations with members of their own sex in order to get sympathy? That’s dumb. That’s utterly, utterly stupid and just false on so many levels.You’re oversimplifying. I didn’t say that it is to get sympathy. I said that, at this point in our culture, self-identifying as “gay” provides a mental “escape hatch”. “I’m different because I’m gay!” “I get bad grades because my teachers don’t understand me as a gay student!” “I didn’t get the job because I’m gay!” It gives vulnerable people who might have deep psychological issues - including, possibly, same-sex attraction - a simple home diagnosis that they can apply to every bad thing in their life while also providing them with an instant community that approves of them.

First of all, gay people generally call people bigoted or hateful when people claim to oppose gay rights

and NOT simply when they oppose that persons views in something. This is enough to suggest that people don’t choose to be gay just to use bigotry as an excuse for people disagreeing with them, because they don’t do that apart from issues surrounding homosexuality.If I express my opinion that the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade is an obscene display, is that an issue surrounding homosexuality or public decency? One reason I oppose gay “marriage” is that there is no possible benefit to the state from recognizing these unions in any legal sense - is that an issue of homosexuality or politics? I think Sandra Bernhard is a particularly unfunny excuse for a comedian and a horrible actress - is that an issue of homosexuality or taste?

It ISN’T cool to be a member of the LGBT community, which I suppose just shows how out of touch you are with young people. The term gay is generally used as an insult amongst young people (“That’s really gay!” “You’re really gay!” ETC) so it’s not considered “cool” at all.

Perhaps you should let Neil Patrick Harris, Ellen DeGeneres, Rosie O’Donnell, and Vin Diesel know how “uncool” it is to be gay. Regarding “that’s gay”: Nobody has their finger on the pulse of American culture like a 3rd grader, right?

To address your last point, who are these “non-minority straight men” and who are these “non minority gay men”. Can you tell me? Can you give me an example of either of those situations you stated?

Married With Children. The Simpsons. Roseanne. Home Improvement. Two and a Half Men. I could go on, but it would look more like I’m just listing every sitcom in the past 10-20 years. Oh, wait. I would be doing almost exactly that.

 

[Monkey1976]

Words cannot even describe the stupid…

So, you’re telling me that people choose to have sexual relations with members of their own sex in order to get sympathy? That’s dumb. That’s utterly, utterly stupid and just false on so many levels.

You’re oversimplifying. I didn’t say that it is to get sympathy. I said that, at this point in our culture, self-identifying as “gay” provides a mental “escape hatch”. “I’m different because I’m gay!” “I get bad grades because my teachers don’t understand me as a gay student!” “I didn’t get the job because I’m gay!” It gives vulnerable people who might have deep psychological issues - including, possibly, same-sex attraction - a simple home diagnosis that they can apply to every bad thing in their life while also providing them with an instant community that approves of them.

First of all, gay people generally call people bigoted or hateful when people claim to oppose gay rights and NOT simply when they oppose that persons views in something. This is enough to suggest that people don’t choose to be gay just to use bigotry as an excuse for people disagreeing with them, because they don’t do that apart from issues surrounding homosexuality.

If I express my opinion that the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade is an obscene display, is that an issue surrounding homosexuality or public decency? One reason I oppose gay “marriage” is that there is no possible benefit to the state from recognizing these unions in any legal sense - is that an issue of homosexuality or politics? I think Sandra Bernhard is a particularly unfunny excuse for a comedian and a horrible actress - is that an issue of homosexuality or taste?

It ISN’T cool to be a member of the LGBT community, which I suppose just shows how out of touch you are with young people. The term gay is generally used as an insult amongst young people (“That’s really gay!” “You’re really gay!” ETC) so it’s not considered “cool” at all.

Perhaps you should let Neil Patrick Harris, Ellen DeGeneres, Rosie O’Donnell, and Vin Diesel know how “uncool” it is to be gay. Regarding “that’s gay”: Nobody has their finger on the pulse of American culture like a 3rd grader, right?

To address your last point, who are these “non-minority straight men” and who are these “non minority gay men”. Can you tell me? Can you give me an example of either of those situations you stated?

Married With Children. The Simpsons. Roseanne. Home Improvement. Two and a Half Men. I could go on, but it would look more like I’m just listing every sitcom in the past 10-20 years. Oh, wait. I would be doing almost exactly that.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Regular Atheist;9709614:

You’re oversimplifying. I didn’t say that it is to get sympathy. I said that, at this point in our culture, self-identifying as “gay” provides a mental “escape hatch”. “I’m different because I’m gay!” “I get bad grades because my teachers don’t understand me as a gay student!” “I didn’t get the job because I’m gay!” It gives vulnerable people who might have deep psychological issues - including, possibly, same-sex attraction

• a simple home diagnosis that they can apply to every bad thing in their life while also providing them with an instant community that approves of them.

Well, then I see what the problem is here. We have a different definitions of the word gay. See, now days someone with same-sex attraction is often considered gay. Under this definition, it’s hard to claim that being gay is a choice. It’s also untrue that all people who confess to being homosexuals are automatically given access to a community that approves of them, and often it can seriously damage their relationship with their families:

huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/father-letter-disowning-gay-son_n_1752053.html#slide=817227

Anyway, no I don’t believe people use excuses like this because of their homosexuality. I’ve never heard a gay person claim that they got bad grades because they were a homosexual. You’re dehumanizing homosexuals in an attempt to further you’re anti-gay agenda. Of course, it may happen, but to claim that most people would pursue homosexual relationships just to use it as a “mental escape hatch” is absurd.

If I express my opinion that the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade is an obscene display, is that an issue surrounding homosexuality or public decency? One reason I oppose gay “marriage” is that there is no possible benefit to the state from recognizing these unions in any legal sense - is that an issue of homosexuality or politics? I think Sandra Bernhard is a particularly unfunny excuse for a comedian and a horrible actress - is that an issue of homosexuality or taste?

Generally it is an issue surrounding homosexuality rather than politics. You make up other reasons for opposing the rights of homosexuals, but it does normally come back round to the fact that you believe homosexuality is wrong, rather than any political reasons.

Perhaps you should let Neil Patrick Harris, Ellen DeGeneres, Rosie O’Donnell, and Vin Diesel know how “uncool” it is to be gay. Regarding “that’s gay”: Nobody has their finger on the pulse of American culture like a 3rd grader, right?

I’m not American, but I live in the UK and youth culture here is basically American. Anyway, teenagers do use the term gay as an insult, even in their very late teens, believe it or not, and homosexuality isn’t seen as something to engage in because it’s cool. You would, however, be right in saying that people now days are a little more free with their sexuality, and are more ready to openly discuss it.

I also don’t see how naming a few gay celebrities proves that it’s cool. Gay people exist in all walks of life, so I don’t see why you feel that the reason there are gay celebrities must be because it’s seen as cool. There are also gay celebrities who are terribly uncool, such as Stephen Fry. You seem to be making the assumption that these people only consider themselves to be homosexual for the identity , and are ignoring the possibility that they are actually homosexual (which, judging by the relationships they’re in, seems to be the correct theory).

It’s also untrue to claim that most teenagers will copy the behaviour of their idols. A few footballers in the UK have engaged in sex scandals with prostitutes, and yet I don’t believe this has made any teenagers want to purchase the services of hookers. The fact is that if teenagers are not already gay (or, as you would have said, have same-sex attraction) then they will feel no need to sleep with members of the same sex no matter what their idols are doing.

Married With Children. The Simpsons. Roseanne. Home Improvement. Two and a Half Men. I could go on, but it would look more like I’m just listing every sitcom in the past 10-20 years. Oh, wait. I would be doing almost exactly that.

So, you’re telling me that the fact that homosexuals are sometimes featured in popular entertainment proves that society is leaning towards discriminating against heterosexuals?

The only show on that list I’ve actually watched is the Simpsons, and I can tell you that they insult everyone, including gays. I recall an episode in which Moe opened up a gay bar, and his customers were angry at the fact that they couldn’t hold a pride parade. They then went on to list ten or so parades they have, and to state that they were tired of being treated like second-class citizens. So, not the best example.

 

[manualman]

I’ve had some luck diffusing hostility in such settings by conceding that much of the larger culture is logically inconsistent and opposes gay intimacy for ultimately arbitrary reasons. Face it, it’s true. There’s no other explanation for why people who routinely go out to the club scene and engage in hookups should be opposed in principle to gay people having committed, monogamous relationships. It’s inconsistent.

But I then proceed to ask them to understand that the current culture and worldview about the meaning of sex is rather new and contrary to the moral system that shaped the formation of modern western civilization. I proceed to explain that christianity historically saw human sexuality as an intertwined ecosystem of sorts. In this worldview, marriage, sexual intimacy and babies were NOT separate topics, but parts of a single whole. In our understanding, humans are a union of body and soul and the physical generally has a significant, but not immediately visible impact on the spiritual. Attempts by individuals or cultures to separate these various aspects of human sexuality into different topics aren’t just “wrong” according to an arbitrary list mof morality, but harmful to the basic wellbeing of the human soul. This is why catholics are opposed to ALL sorts of attempts to mutilate the whole of human sexuality into separate pieces. Some examples:

1. Fornication or adultery: sexual intimacy chopped off from marriage and babies.
2. Divorce / remarriage: marriage split from stable parenthood.
3. Contraception: The babies aspect of sexuality torn from sex & marriage.
4. In Vitro Fertilization: Making babies from lab science instead of marital intimacy.
5. Polygamy: Sex and babies cut off from the total gift of self to a spouse that is genuine marriage.
6. Gay marriage: the attempt to have marriage and sex in a relationship sterile by its very nature
7. Lust (porn, masturbation, etc): The attempt to utilize sexual ecstasy for purely selfish purposes cut off from the marriage relationship or procreative meaning of sex.

The catholic understanding of sexual morality is that rather than an arbitrary restriction it is a divine protection against self-harm. Just as foolish attempts to defy the restrictions of gravity atop a cliff result in self harm, so do attempts to defy the ‘restrictions’ God has informed us of innate to our sexual identities. As we understand it, sinning results in grave harm to the self and others. If the 7 violations really do violate the meaning and purpose of human sexuality, then we should expect the people who engage in them to reap a harvest of misery upon themselves and their families. Do they? Look around our society and have a look.

If respecting these three aspects of human sexuality as a unified and indivisible whole (marriage, intimacy, and babies) is the only truly healthy manifestation of human sexuality then we should expect those who recognize and respect this reality to have healthy and happier family lives. Do we? :yup:

 

[Julia_Mae]

You’re oversimplifying. I didn’t say that it is to get sympathy. I said that, at this point in our culture, self-identifying as “gay” provides a mental “escape hatch”. “I’m different because I’m gay!” “I get bad grades because my teachers don’t understand me as a gay student!” “I didn’t get the job because I’m gay!” It gives vulnerable people who might have deep psychological issues - including, possibly, same-sex attraction - a simple home diagnosis that they can apply to every bad thing in their life while also providing them with an instant community that approves of them.

Can you provide any kind of evidence that this is occurs in even a small part of the adolescent or adult population? I’ve never heard anyone say this - ever.

 

[Joe_5859]

I’ve had some luck diffusing hostility in such settings by conceding that much of the larger culture is logically inconsistent and opposes gay intimacy for ultimately arbitrary reasons. Face it, it’s true. There’s no other explanation for why people who routinely go out to the club scene and engage in hookups should be opposed in principle to gay people having committed, monogamous relationships. It’s inconsistent.

But I then proceed to ask them to understand that the current culture and worldview about the meaning of sex is rather new and contrary to the moral system that shaped the formation of modern western civilization. I proceed to explain that christianity historically saw human sexuality as an intertwined ecosystem of sorts. In this worldview, marriage, sexual intimacy and babies were NOT separate topics, but parts of a single whole. In our understanding, humans are a union of body and soul and the physical generally has a significant, but not immediately visible impact on the spiritual. Attempts by individuals or cultures to separate these various aspects of human sexuality into different topics aren’t just “wrong” according to an arbitrary list mof morality, but harmful to the basic wellbeing of the human soul. This is why catholics are opposed to ALL sorts of attempts to mutilate the whole of human sexuality into separate pieces. Some examples:

1. Fornication or adultery: sexual intimacy chopped off from marriage and babies.
2. Divorce / remarriage: marriage split from stable parenthood.
3. Contraception: The babies aspect of sexuality torn from sex & marriage.
4. In Vitro Fertilization: Making babies from lab science instead of marital intimacy.
5. Polygamy: Sex and babies cut off from the total gift of self to a spouse that is genuine marriage.
6. Gay marriage: the attempt to have marriage and sex in a relationship sterile by its very nature
7. Lust (porn, masturbation, etc): The attempt to utilize sexual ecstasy for purely selfish purposes cut off from the marriage relationship or procreative meaning of sex.

The catholic understanding of sexual morality is that rather than an arbitrary restriction it is a divine protection against self-harm. Just as foolish attempts to defy the restrictions of gravity atop a cliff result in self harm, so do attempts to defy the ‘restrictions’ God has informed us of innate to our sexual identities. As we understand it, sinning results in grave harm to the self and others. If the 7 violations really do violate the meaning and purpose of human sexuality, then we should expect the people who engage in them to reap a harvest of misery upon themselves and their families. Do they? Look around our society and have a look.

If respecting these three aspects of human sexuality as a unified and indivisible whole (marriage, intimacy, and babies) is the only truly healthy manifestation of human sexuality then we should expect those who recognize and respect this reality to have healthy and happier family lives. Do we? :yup:

Good approach. One of the things that constantly feeds my love of the Church is the logical and moral consistency of Her teaching.

 

[lllj]

Perhaps you should let Neil Patrick Harris, Ellen DeGeneres, Rosie O’Donnell, and Vin Diesel know how “uncool” it is to be gay.

For what it’s worth, I’m pretty sure Vin Diesel’s not gay.

 

[LJN21]

For what it’s worth, I’m pretty sure Vin Diesel’s not gay.

Looking for a source, but I have heard he is… there was much sadness among some girls I knew.