Since there are so many threads about homosexuality

[CopticChristian]

I would, I personally don’t subscribe to the whole “butch/femme” stereotype. I don’t think anyone really expects that heterosexuals have a certain “look” either.

Of course not.

I don’t watch a lot of movies, actually.

The thing is that minorities tend to create sub-cultures within a larger culture. Individual LGBTs might not like, say Rubyfruit Jungle but it is one of the earliest examples of “lesbian literature”. There are LGBT+s who want to distance themselves from stereotypes, and there are those who say “Well, if you insist on branding me like this, I might as well embrace it.” and there are those for whom, well, dressing flamboyantly is a part of their personality regardless of their sexual orientation. The “leather” community first gained popularity among gay men, but that doesn’t mean all gay men are into the kinds of things that those gay men are into. Personally, I’m not into leather.

Lokabrenna,

Fantastic.

So there is diversity.

Would it be fair to say that homosexuals and heterosexuals have organs like the heart, lungs, kidneys, bones, muscles that function as you might expect from a physiologic point of view. Exclude the notion of sex as this is not part of the premise. Is it fair to say that parts is parts and they do what they do?

Would it be fair to say that homosexuals take in the world with the 5 senses, sight, sound, taste, touch and smell?

Would it be fair to say that homosexuals have minds that have consciousness and that which is not conscious?

Would it be fair to say that homosexuals have feelings associated with thoughts and thoughts associated with feelings?

Would it be fair to say that homosexuals have conscious awareness and imagination?

Would it be fair to say that homosexuals have only two sources on information in their mind, stored memory and imagination?

What I have proposed is true for heterosexuals so there is no trick here.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Lokabrenna: IMO, is claim that we are blind to these prejudices, because these things don’t go away just because someone says “But I don’t see color/gender/sexual orientation…” As for why LGBT+ comes first. Well, why do we speak of “the black community”, “the Pagan community”, or well, any community of minorities? It’s the nature of a minority group to find commonalities in their shared oppression. In the case of the LGBT+ community, we are defined by the fact that we are “not-heterosexual”.

Well…I think there is a reason why wearing homosexuality on your sleeve will always be noticed. Homosexuality will never be “normal” and I don’t mean that in a bad way. My baldness will never be “normal”. People will always notice it because, well…I’m bald! I don’t really know anyone who cares about a persons orientation so much. Since I’m not gay…I don’t witness or even percieve “opression” on the gay community, just as I’m not black, so to me I doubt those claims. How have YOU been opressed?

 

[Lokabrenna]

Lokabrenna,
Would it be fair to say that homosexuals and heterosexuals have organs like the heart, lungs, kidneys, bones, muscles that function as you might expect from a physiologic point of view. Exclude the notion of sex as this is not part of the premise. Is it fair to say that parts is parts and they do what they do?

Would it be fair to say that homosexuals take in the world with the 5 senses, sight, sound, taste, touch and smell?

Would it be fair to say that homosexuals have minds that have consciousness and that which is not conscious?

Would it be fair to say that homosexuals have feelings associated with thoughts and thoughts associated with feelings?

Would it be fair to say that homosexuals have conscious awareness and imagination?

Would it be fair to say that homosexuals have only two sources on information in their mind, stored memory and imagination?

What I have proposed is true for heterosexuals so there is no trick here.

It’s not like we’re a different species lol. I’m human in the same way that my heterosexual brother is human or my black professor is human or my Muslim colleagues are human. My dog, however, is not human, so some of those things wouldn’t apply.

 

[Joe_5859]

…why not ask questions of an actual homosexual? As long as they’re, you know, clean.

I wasn’t sure where to put this thread. It didn’t seem appropriate for the non-Catholic religions board (unless I was to change it to be about GLBT+ Pagans) or the Back Fence, so I’m sticking it here.

Hey, a thread on homosexuality that has over 100 posts and has remained civil. Congrats!

Does it personally offend you that people think homosexual activity is sinful?

 

[Lokabrenna]

Well…I think there is a reason why wearing homosexuality on your sleeve will always be noticed. Homosexuality will never be “normal” and I don’t mean that in a bad way. My baldness will never be “normal”. People will always notice it because, well…I’m bald! I don’t really know anyone who cares about a persons orientation so much. Since I’m not gay…I don’t witness or even percieve “opression” on the gay community, just as I’m not black, so to me I doubt those claims. How have YOU been opressed?

Have people ever said to you “because you are bald, you can’t work at this job” when said job has NOTHING to do with hair (or lack thereof)?" I don’t know of anyone who really attaches a value to lack of hair except in an aesthetic sense (some people find a bald head to be very attractive). I don’t find blond/e hair aesthetically appealing, but I wouldn’t deny a blond/e haired person a job because of their hair, that would just be stupid and unjustly discriminatory.

As for not experiencing oppression, well, why would you? You’re not in a minority, and privilege by it’s very nature is invisible to the people it benefits. I have no idea what it’s like to be black in a society that privileges whites, just because I don’t experience oppression based on the colour of my skin doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I suggest you take a good long look at the article White Privilege: The Invisible Knapsack specifically the numbered list, you don’t even have to look at the article, just the list.

As for myself, let’s see:

• I can’t come out to my homophobic parents, for fear that they might reject me
• I can’t come out to my brother, in case he decides I’d be better off not seeing my nephew

These are small things compared to what others have to face: loss of jobs, loss of housing, beatings, death, all because they have the audacity to love someone of the same sex. A cousin of mine came out, his grandfather disowned him and refused to speak to him, so when another cousin told my mother he was gay, her response was “Don’t tell your grandfather,” because she was worried that he was going to be disowned too. None of this would have happened if either of them were heterosexual.

So no, I’m not surprised you don’t see any of this, because it just doesn’t happen when you’re heterosexual (or when you can at least “pass” as one).

 

[Lokabrenna]

Hey, a thread on homosexuality that has over 100 posts and has remained civil. Congrats!

Does it personally offend you that people think homosexual activity is sinful?

I’m not the thought police, you can think what you like, but if you (generic you) happen to act on those convictions, don’t be surprised when I act on mine (non-violent actions, of course, I would hope no one has to resort to violence).

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m not the thought police, you can think what you like, but if you (generic you) happen to act on those convictions, don’t be surprised when I act on mine (non-violent actions, of course, I would hope no one has to resort to violence).

Thanks. So, for example, when Catholics/Christians push for a traditional definition of marriage based on our convictions, we should be surprised for you tor raise your voice in opposition based on your convictions. Is that what you mean?

 

[Armor_of_Light]

As for myself, let’s see: * I can’t come out to my homophobic parents, for fear that they might reject me * I can’t come out to my brother, in case he decides I’d be better off not seeing my nephew
These are small things compared to what others have to face: loss of jobs, loss of housing, beatings, death, all because they have the audacity to love someone of the same sex.

That is self-imposed opression. Nobody is forcing you to not come out…you freely made that choice. I realize that there still are people who would ‘disown’ and such, but that really is their short-coming…not yours. I’m sorry you have people like that in your life. I will pray for them. Your brother probably already knows anyway… And YOU are not going to be beaten or stoned to death in Canada for being gay, just as I’m safe being catholic in America. I’m not saying opression isn’t real…I will not be travelling to the middle east anytime in my life and flaunt my rosary or wear my American flag baseball hat or anything! Ughh…those poor people…I wanted to know if you have actually been opressed. Like the hiring scenario you describe or something like that.

And, as for your parents…It will always tear at the heart of parents to have gay children.

 

[Lokabrenna]

Thanks. So, for example, when Catholics/Christians push for a traditional definition of marriage based on our convictions, we should be surprised for you tor raise your voice in opposition based on your convictions. Is that what you mean?

I’m saying you can push for “traditional marriage” all you like, but you can expect that I’ll vote the way my convictions dictate (ie. pro-SSM). I’ll write my MPs, I’ll push for GSAs in schools that want them. I’ll spread the word online, and I will fight to keep same-sex marriage legal in my country. I wouldn’t expect the church to be quiet on this issue, either.

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m saying you can push for “traditional marriage” all you like, but you can expect that I’ll vote the way my convictions dictate (ie. pro-SSM). I’ll write my MPs, I’ll push for GSAs in schools that want them. I’ll spread the word online, and I will fight to keep same-sex marriage legal in my country. I wouldn’t expect the church to be quiet on this issue, either.

I can certainly respect that.

 

[AveChriste11]

As someone who can remember experiencing same sex attraction since I was at least in the 1st grade, I have always found difficulty with the teaching of the Apostolic churches on this subject. I understand that according to the traditional understanding of sex, it was only meant for bringing forth life. I understand the argument toward natural law, and Divine law – that it takes a male and a female to bring forth life, and the prohibitions of God against certain actions in the Torah and in the Gospel.

I have come to believe that what you feel is not in and of itself sinful, but it is when you act on those feelings – that makes the difference. As for me I’m a man, and have absolutely no interest in women beyond being just friends. I seriously doubt that any woman could ever strike my interests, and it is possible that God is calling me to celibacy. I have always considered that point. I have a great love for traditional, historical Christianity and could probably teach many about the Faith – that is a desire of mine. I went to my first RCIA class last night, and it reminded me how I’ve been away from church for months. Perhaps confession with my priest is in order…

I believe that everyone feels a gap in their lives, but that hunger we feel is ultimately for God. Man longs, and desires for God and he seeks the things of this world to replace the Lord that loves him. Everyone desires companionship, and having friends helps – but anything beyond that may in fact be just our cross that we must bear. The road to Heaven is strait and narrow, and there are few that find it. St. Paul says we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling, so I suppose in all things we must take up our cross and follow Jesus no matter what the cost to ourselves.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

These are small things compared to what others have to face: loss of jobs, loss of housing, beatings, death, all because they have the audacity to love someone of the same sex.

The people you’re referring to are not happy because you have romantic, sexual love for people of the same sex. I love my friends, for instance, and nobody cares.

This, of course, doesn’t justify ANYTHING you said, but there is a difference.

You’re spinning this emotionally, which I think is pretty unfair. You remind me of pro-choicers-clearly we’re pro-life because we “hate women”. So it is with same sex marriage-clearly we’re against it because we hate love.

 

[Dale_M]

Lokabrenna;9769256:

These are small things compared to what others have to face: loss of jobs, loss of housing, beatings, death, all because they have the audacity to love someone of the same sex.

You’re spinning this emotionally, which I think is pretty unfair. You remind me of pro-choicers-clearly we’re pro-life because we “hate women”. So it is with same sex marriage-clearly we’re against it because we hate love.

Marc, in all fairness, I think you just did some serious spinning of your own. Lokabrenna said nothing about opponents of same-sex marriage hating love. Her comment had to do with family members who mistreated an individual because he or she came out as gay or lesbian. She gave specific examples from her personal knowledge.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Marc, in all fairness, I think you just did some serious spinning of your own. Lokabrenna said nothing about opponents of same-sex marriage hating love. Her comment had to do with family members who mistreated an individual because he or she came out as gay or lesbian. She gave specific examples from her personal knowledge.

Well, she never gave any personal examples of loss of jobs, loss of house, beatings, or death.

But anyway, I’ll grant her that, so let’s skip past that. She is talking about the oppression of homosexuals in society because they have the “audacity to love somebody of the same sex”.

Earlier, she also told me that even though I have no issues with homosexuals per se I’m to be lumped with homophobes. She gave me this link: socialjusticeleague.net/2012/04/the-revolution-will-not-be-polite-the-issue-of-nice-versus-good/. Here’s an actual quote:

On an even more serious note, nice people also DO horrible bad things on an individual level. In The Gift of Fear by Gavin De Becker, he explicitly says that people who intend to harm others often display niceness towards them in order to make them feel safe and let their guard down. This trick only works because we have been taught that niceness indicates goodness. What is more, according to De Becker, women have been socially conditioned to feel indebted to men who are “nice” to them, which is often exploited by abusers. If this doesn’t seem obvious to you, I suggest you pick up the book – it talks a lot about how socialisation of men and women makes it easier for men to abuse women.

This was her attitude to people like me. She posted this in response to something I asked (then later accused me of wanting children to die instead of being adopted. To date she has not apologized). Apparently I’m “only nice to people in order to make them feel safe and let their guard down.”

So when she says that people hare violent to homosexuals only because they have the “audacity” to love somebody of the same sex I have no reason to believe she’s not speaking of people like me, who are “nice” to homosexuals but still oppose same-sex marriage. Sure I’m not OUTWARDLY violent, but that’s not the issue, right?

In fact, according to the article, I only dislike being called a homophobe because it “hurts my feelings”.

So yes, I do think she is implying that we, and I mean people like me and a lot of others on this thread, “hate love”, or at least hate people because of love.

 

[thewanderer]

I would like to question your assertion that being against the legalization of gay marriage means that someone is necessarily biased against homosexuals.

I am against legal homosexual marriages, but my reasons for it have nothing to do specifically with homosexuality, but everything to do with the role of marriage with respect to the state. I see it as the way for the state to ensure that it will haave good healthy emotionally stable future citizens. Because of this I have absolutely no problem with the idea of a country restricting legal marriage to only fertile heterosexual couples. As I said, my reasons have nothing to do with homosexuality itself, but are based on my political beliefs about the duties/role of government and do not pick on those with homosexual tendencies as opposed to other infertile couples. Would you still consider such a reason for being against legalized homosexual marriage as being bigoted and stemming from some sort of anti-homosexual bias?

 

[Seeker1961]

Actual oppression is tough to prove. I have always worked in states with “at will” employment laws-which means an employer can find pretty much any excuse to fire you. How do I know if I was one of the first people laid off at my last job because I was gay or because my last name was at the top of the alphabet? No employer is going to admit that.

I can tell you that I was asked not to continue volunteering at a church when someone found out I was gay. I was asked why I never married or had kids and I answered honestly that I was gay and thus could not have a spouse or children. The person the went to the pastor and made a stink so he had to ask me to leave.

I don’t feel oppressed, not like people in countries where they literally have to fear for their lives. I am very lucky not to live in Uganda or the Middle East.

 

[atheistgirl]

I can tell you that I was asked not to continue volunteering at a church when someone found out I was gay. I was asked why I never married or had kids and I answered honestly that I was gay and thus could not have a spouse or children. The person the went to the pastor and made a stink so he had to ask me to leave.

Was this a Catholic Church, or some other?

Sarah x

 

[Seeker1961]

Was this a Catholic Church, or some other?

Sarah x

Yep…the Pastor felt the “concerns of the parishioner were important”. The parishioners and her friends also were some of the wealthiest people in the parish, but that couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with it, right?

 

[atheistgirl]

Yep…the Pastor felt the “concerns of the parishioner were important”. The parishioners and her friends also were some of the wealthiest people in the parish, but that couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with it, right?

Wow, I’m a little surprized at that.

Love the sinner but not if it upsets Mrs. Sokolowski, our largest donor

Interesting perspective on the universal claim.

Sarah x

 

[Lokabrenna]

Would you still consider such a reason for being against legalized homosexual marriage as being bigoted and stemming from some sort of anti-homosexual bias?

I’d call it consistent, moreso than other arguments I’ve seen, which say that infertile heterosexual couples are okay but same-sex couples are not, because…something about how all the parts fit.