TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
edited September 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Sep 6 2003, 07:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 6 2003, 07:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Fine, my argument still stands because it's not like they are forced to live a homosexual lifestyle - they can choose to, or they can choose not to. Having the urge to do something doesn't equate to me having the right to, nor the compulsion by force, to do it. E.g. I have the urge to drink a soda right now, and I have the urge not to have to pay for it. Does this mean that I should be allowed to steal a soda from a store? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh, quite true. If you desired something, but it was illegal for you to simply take it, you would need to suppress that. In sexual terms, your analogy would be much closer to 'rape'.
Homosexual love is not illegal in any sense. Honestly, a much closer parallel would be 'if I loved someone of the opposite gender, and said person loved me back, should we resist the urge to go any further and simply stay friends, though we both want more?'
And I ran across a much more interesting theory. Straight or g*y, men are (assumed to be) men. Your average ex-jock straight man assumes that at least in the back of his mind somewhere, a g*y man is very quietly assessing every male in the area for (lacking a better term) 'f**kability'. This makes them uncomfortable, being subjected to the exact same manner in which they treat women, even subconsciously. They know that even if they're unattractive, uninterested, and so on, there's that little bit of libido whispering about him... and it amplifies even the simplest of actions.
Personally, I'd prefer educating people about asexuality. Where it isn't the person's gender that matters, but rather the person themself. I likely would be one, but for the fact that women hold very little interest for me.. I won't say 'none', but it is extremely difficult to find a female who will not take themselves too seriously, or even worse, put on a false face to make a better impression. So far, in the course of my entire life, I've only met one femme with that level of honesty. And it sure as hell ain't my mom, nor my sister. And given that she has a boyfriend (who she keeps well away, as I'd be tempted to intentionally squick him.. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ) I'll end up just dealing with guys.
Guys have nicer c*cks, anyway. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
The original question was whether it was a choice or not. This is not a discussion of whether it's right or should be illegal, so let's not go off on a tangent. My argument stands.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
Well, I mean, what's the point of asking whether it's a choice or not? What does itr matter in the real world? Even if it turned out to be a choice, what difference would it make?
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Sep 6 2003, 08:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 6 2003, 08:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The original question was whether it was a choice or not. This is not a discussion of whether it's right or should be illegal, so let's not go off on a tangent. My argument stands. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Your argument is flawed, and is a feeble attempt at neurolinguistic programming, Wheeee. Drawing a parallel between living an openly **** lifestyle, and stealing.
Here's a better one. Would you prefer, if a plastic bag were taped over your head, to pull it off.. or would you rather resist the urge to breathe, and suffocate?
Many closet-*** end up reduced to severe depression and suicide, because they are afraid of what others will think of them. So afraid of the intolerance, that they would rather die 'straight' in everyone's minds, than simply admit their desires, live with them, and maybe have a chance to be happy... despite the hate of bigots.
I'm not talking about sixty, seventy-year-old men here. You know the teenage suicide rate? How high it is? Remember how horrible it was in high school? How '****' was (and still is) the ultimate insult? Ever seen the persecution, ostracization, brutality a YGM tends to go through at the hands of those peers... after having the strength to overcome that fear? Two plus two equals.... what now?
Nice sidestep Talesin, but you still don't address the issue, which is whether homosexuality is a choice or not. Resisting the urge to screw another guy if you're a homosexual is the same as resisting the urge to screw a girl if you're straight. It won't kill you.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
But what does it matter, man? What are you trying to prove? If it's a choice it doesn't make it the wrong choice, and if it's only a choice to actually commt the act then are you saying that they shouldn't make the choice just because you say so?
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
All right.
Apparently it's definition time. 'Homosexuality' is NOT the act of screwing another guy. Homosexuality is the *attraction* to those of the same sex. You can be completely chaste, and be homosexual. You can go your entire <i>life</i>, choosing to engage in heterosexual intercourse, and STILL be homosexual. That is what 'closet homosexuals' <b>are</b>.
Understanding is the first part of being able to debate an issue. And this issue, broken down more simply, is if the attraction to the same sex is always a choice or not.
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Sep 6 2003, 11:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 6 2003, 11:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My take: homosexuality is not a choice, but a homosexual lifestyle is. Many people choose to be abstinent before marriage; they cannot consciously decide not to be aroused, but they can choose not to partake in sexual congress. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> looks like we've come full circle.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
The problem is, during the course of that little walk, you apparently likened choosing to accept homosexuality and engaging in said lifestyle to an illegal act. Perhaps we should look a touch more closely at that, for the sake of clarity.
<i>Should</i> a homosexual individual choose to deny that aspect of themself? If so, why?
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
No, there is not. The only other thread was regarding a hypocritical act by a certain group in regard to a group with the same beliefs who just happened to be ****.
NOTHING on-topic in that thread about the question I just posed to you.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
edited September 2003
Pardon? Hijacking would be shifting the thread to the discussion of cheese (or in this case, what a thread-hijack is). What this thread is about is regarding a discussion about the original topic with a bit of expansion... minus religious dogma.
At this point, the main theme has been talked through. It has thereby evolved to a larger question of why a homosexual should deny an aspect of themself, logically. Is there a danger inherent in its acceptance, that would not otherwise present itself? Is the risk of suppressing a fully-legal-in-implementation urge worth possible mental and emotional breakdown?
(edit: And your new topic is not a fair question to pose. It begins with 'Why should homosexuals deny themselves a homosexual lifestyle?'... which is assuming that they should, and simply giving reasons... <b>not</b> a 'discussion'. A more proper question would be 'Should homosexuals deny themselves a homosexual lifestyle?'. A thread I will still not touch unless it also strikes religious arguments from the conversation... as I simply refuse to go through the same, rehashed religious dogma spewed by Rev. Phelps. It is a waste of my time.)
Ok Talesin, that was uncool. You asked why they should repress themselves, and I gave an answer. If they want to join [an] institution that requires them not to engage in [a homosexual lifestyle], then they should repress themselves. That's the short and long of it. In normal life, if they're just going about their own business? I couldn't care less.
*edit* feel free to delete the other thread, if you wish to continue this discussion here...although i'm pretty sure this is off-topic.
<!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Sep 7 2003, 12:08 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Sep 7 2003, 12:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, I mean, what's the point of asking whether it's a choice or not? What does itr matter in the real world? Even if it turned out to be a choice, what difference would it make?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It is important to ask because I believe that many people refuse to acknowledge homosexual urges as valid (the usual meaning of "valid" in this context is whether those urges have any foundation in biology/genetics).
Why does this make a difference ? Well, perhaps then people will stop viewing it as some sort of "illness" or something that needs to be cured/driven out of someone. Maybe if they realize that the same fundamental reason they have a need for a sexual relationship is what drives people of _any sexual orientation_ to seek a sexual relationship. Perhaps then, they would have some understanding of what it truly means to try and force someone to deny themselves there sexual identity.
Do people have a right to their own sexual identity ? Of course ! It is a part of who we are as human beings. (disclaimer: obviously nobody has the right to rape someone, we are talking about consentual sex).
A final point that I would like to make is this: At a basic level, it is of course a choice to engage in homosexual sex, but then again <b> it is a choice for someone of any sexual orientation to engage in sex </b>. A thread about the merits of celibacy (if any <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> ) would therefore be appropriate for discussing this fundamental choice, but not this thread please.
Nobody ever reads what I write -__- I've already said that I think that homosexuality *ISNT*a choice but leading a homosexual lifestyle *IS* a choice. jeebus people.
Damn straight man. Female genitalia just wasn't designed for mouths. I say to my fiancee all the time "Honey, if you had a c*ck, I'd go down on you all the time". They're just more attractive. Back me up here guys <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think that homosexuality *ISNT*a choice but leading a homosexual lifestyle *IS* a choice. jeebus people. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why should such a choice even have to be made? Would you rather people simply supress these feelings they have because society won't accept them? Leading a homosexual lifestyle is the same as leading a heterosexual lifestyle. You live in a house, you go to work, you get a few drinks on Friday night, you go to the movies every now and again, you share a loving relationship with a significant other. How is it even a choice one could ever make: either a lifetime of denial with friends who you know would hate you if you revealed your "true self", or embracing your sexuality and spending your life with people who love and care for who you are. Thats' not a choice. To force such "decisions" upon members of our society is something that should not be occuring in any way, shape or form. I believe that we are achieveing a society where such a "choice" is no longer made. Given time, we may achieve that goal.
But there's no choice in the matter. It's like saying to some guy on the street "Ok, I can chop both your legs off or give you this free car". No choice in the matter.
Red herring, and bad analogy. The issue of whether or not they should supress their urges isn't just an argument of "is it ok in general?" Sure, whatever. But what if they want to join an "institution" which requires them to refrain from it? Should they now say "Oh, but it's a natural part of us...your institution should change to accomodate us, instead?" If I wanted to be a firefighter, but was too short (yes, they have height requirements for firefighting crew), I would be wrong if I told the stationmaster "You should change the rules, because I really want to be a firefighter even though I don't have the qualifications to become one."
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Sep 6 2003, 11:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Sep 6 2003, 11:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Back me up here guys <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You have a fiancee to back up your claims to heterosexuality, all I have is the pornography on my computer. So I don't think so. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But what if they want to join an "institution" which requires them to refrain from it? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What in the world are you talking about?
What "institution", if any, would refuse a person because there were homosexual. The only one I can remotely think of is military service, but for starters there are women soldiers and the army seems to get by fine without their soldiers getting "distracted" and secondly there's no reason why a homosexual can't make just as good a soldier as a straight guy. You gotta provide actual examples of the kind of "institutions" a homosexual would be excluded from.
Height requirements for firefighters make sense: larger, taller men can elevate water higher (or at least I suppose that's the reasoning). Being a homosexual doesn't make you any differant from anyone else. Yes, you stick your meat somewhere else. How in the name of anything does that disqualify you from any "institution" (with the exception of hetro porno).
Wheeee, you're just not making sense man. I am honestly trying to understand your POV but I just can't! Explain to me what you mean by homosexuals not being fit for certain "institutions" and perhaps I will be able to see where you're coming from.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Ryo, seconded. Do not bait him. I edited his post and switched his specific reference to 'an institution' to keep any arguments based upon the particular institution (of which we ALL know is being nudged toward) out of this thread.
Whatever. Like I've said, I don't see where he's coming from because I can't think of an institution where homosexuals would be inappropriate. If you understand Wheee feel free to explain his POV to me.
coilAmateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance.Join Date: 2002-04-12Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
<i>Note: this is based on United States law, as I am unfamiliar with the laws in other countries.</i>
Institutions where *** are not tolerated: -many religious institutions -the military -the Boy Scouts of America -and more
It seems we're taking another tangent here, with the question of living a homosexual lifestyle vs. institutions that frown upon homosexuality. So the question that one could now ask is this:
Do institutions that frown upon homosexuality have an obligation to allow *** into their ranks? We have laws that prevent discrimination based on gender, creed, and race; should sexual orientation be similarly defended by law?
Starbucks can choose not to hire someone because that someone has a pierced eyebrow or visible tattoo (this *will* hold up in court, as Starbucks is selling an image as much as it sells coffee). However, Starbucks cannot choose not to hire someone specifically because of that person's race. The line, as I see it, is drawn along the line of personal choice. If the distinction is an issue of personal choice (e.g. piercings), it can be discriminated against. If the distinction is an unchangeable, unchooseable attribute (e.g. race, gender), it is beyond your control and you cannot be discrimitated against for it.
So... full circle again. Is homosexuality a choice? If not, should it be protected by law, and should institutions be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals? And to head in this new direction, should homosexuals have to repress an aspect of their personality if they wish to be part of certain societal circles?
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
<!--QuoteBegin--coil+Sep 8 2003, 06:09 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (coil @ Sep 8 2003, 06:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And to head in this new direction, should homosexuals have to repress an aspect of their personality if they wish to be part of certain societal circles? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> that's the only thing i think is an issue. everything else is opinion and action by individuals. it's their choice, whether or not to have the prejudice. but when certain activities are barred from h0mosexuals as such, that's where you've just gotta draw the line.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Red herring, and bad analogy. The issue of whether or not they should supress their urges isn't just an argument of "is it ok in general?" Sure, whatever. But what if they want to join an "institution" which requires them to refrain from it? Should they now say "Oh, but it's a natural part of us...your institution should change to accomodate us, instead?" If I wanted to be a firefighter, but was too short (yes, they have height requirements for firefighting crew), I would be wrong if I told the stationmaster "You should change the rules, because I really want to be a firefighter even though I don't have the qualifications to become one." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ah... but consider this: you're a boy scout. you're gonna go do good things for people, camp, learn about nature, whatever they do. sell stuff, too. what's being g@y have to do with it?
if i interpreted that wrong, then sorry. but...
if you're attracted to men, does that prevent you from being an effective soldier? an effective community member? an effective worshipper? there are divisions and sects of churches that'll accept h0mosexuals. if that's what you've got to deal with, that's really unfortunate.. but it's there. there aren't g@y divisions in the military, g@y scout troops.
Comments
Oh, quite true. If you desired something, but it was illegal for you to simply take it, you would need to suppress that. In sexual terms, your analogy would be much closer to 'rape'.
Homosexual love is not illegal in any sense. Honestly, a much closer parallel would be 'if I loved someone of the opposite gender, and said person loved me back, should we resist the urge to go any further and simply stay friends, though we both want more?'
And I ran across a much more interesting theory. Straight or g*y, men are (assumed to be) men. Your average ex-jock straight man assumes that at least in the back of his mind somewhere, a g*y man is very quietly assessing every male in the area for (lacking a better term) 'f**kability'.
This makes them uncomfortable, being subjected to the exact same manner in which they treat women, even subconsciously. They know that even if they're unattractive, uninterested, and so on, there's that little bit of libido whispering about him... and it amplifies even the simplest of actions.
Personally, I'd prefer educating people about asexuality. Where it isn't the person's gender that matters, but rather the person themself. I likely would be one, but for the fact that women hold very little interest for me.. I won't say 'none', but it is extremely difficult to find a female who will not take themselves too seriously, or even worse, put on a false face to make a better impression.
So far, in the course of my entire life, I've only met one femme with that level of honesty. And it sure as hell ain't my mom, nor my sister. And given that she has a boyfriend (who she keeps well away, as I'd be tempted to intentionally squick him.. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ) I'll end up just dealing with guys.
Guys have nicer c*cks, anyway. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Your argument is flawed, and is a feeble attempt at neurolinguistic programming, Wheeee. Drawing a parallel between living an openly **** lifestyle, and stealing.
Here's a better one. Would you prefer, if a plastic bag were taped over your head, to pull it off.. or would you rather resist the urge to breathe, and suffocate?
Many closet-*** end up reduced to severe depression and suicide, because they are afraid of what others will think of them. So afraid of the intolerance, that they would rather die 'straight' in everyone's minds, than simply admit their desires, live with them, and maybe have a chance to be happy... despite the hate of bigots.
I'm not talking about sixty, seventy-year-old men here. You know the teenage suicide rate? How high it is? Remember how horrible it was in high school? How '****' was (and still is) the ultimate insult? Ever seen the persecution, ostracization, brutality a YGM tends to go through at the hands of those peers... after having the strength to overcome that fear?
Two plus two equals.... what now?
If it's a choice it doesn't make it the wrong choice, and if it's only a choice to actually commt the act then are you saying that they shouldn't make the choice just because you say so?
Apparently it's definition time. 'Homosexuality' is NOT the act of screwing another guy. Homosexuality is the *attraction* to those of the same sex. You can be completely chaste, and be homosexual. You can go your entire <i>life</i>, choosing to engage in heterosexual intercourse, and STILL be homosexual. That is what 'closet homosexuals' <b>are</b>.
Understanding is the first part of being able to debate an issue. And this issue, broken down more simply, is if the attraction to the same sex is always a choice or not.
looks like we've come full circle.
<i>Should</i> a homosexual individual choose to deny that aspect of themself? If so, why?
NOTHING on-topic in that thread about the question I just posed to you.
At this point, the main theme has been talked through. It has thereby evolved to a larger question of why a homosexual should deny an aspect of themself, logically. Is there a danger inherent in its acceptance, that would not otherwise present itself? Is the risk of suppressing a fully-legal-in-implementation urge worth possible mental and emotional breakdown?
(edit: And your new topic is not a fair question to pose. It begins with 'Why should homosexuals deny themselves a homosexual lifestyle?'... which is assuming that they should, and simply giving reasons... <b>not</b> a 'discussion'. A more proper question would be 'Should homosexuals deny themselves a homosexual lifestyle?'. A thread I will still not touch unless it also strikes religious arguments from the conversation... as I simply refuse to go through the same, rehashed religious dogma spewed by Rev. Phelps. It is a waste of my time.)
*edit* feel free to delete the other thread, if you wish to continue this discussion here...although i'm pretty sure this is off-topic.
It is important to ask because I believe that many people refuse to acknowledge homosexual urges as valid (the usual meaning of "valid" in this context is whether those urges have any foundation in biology/genetics).
Why does this make a difference ? Well, perhaps then people will stop viewing it as some sort of "illness" or something that needs to be cured/driven out of someone. Maybe if they realize that the same fundamental reason they have a need for a sexual relationship is what drives people of _any sexual orientation_ to seek a sexual relationship. Perhaps then, they would have some understanding of what it truly means to try and force someone to deny themselves there sexual identity.
Do people have a right to their own sexual identity ? Of course ! It is a part of who we are as human beings.
(disclaimer: obviously nobody has the right to rape someone, we are talking about consentual sex).
A final point that I would like to make is this: At a basic level, it is of course a choice to engage in homosexual sex, but then again <b> it is a choice for someone of any sexual orientation to engage in sex </b>. A thread about the merits of celibacy (if any <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> ) would therefore be appropriate for discussing this fundamental choice, but not this thread please.
<span style='color:red'>Marine, read the ENTIRE thread. Opinion based upon religious belief is banned from this one.</span>
Sorry, its just that this discussion has been going on for a couple of days and I'd forgotten the original post.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Damn straight man. Female genitalia just wasn't designed for mouths. I say to my fiancee all the time "Honey, if you had a c*ck, I'd go down on you all the time". They're just more attractive. Back me up here guys <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think that homosexuality *ISNT*a choice but leading a homosexual lifestyle *IS* a choice. jeebus people. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why should such a choice even have to be made? Would you rather people simply supress these feelings they have because society won't accept them? Leading a homosexual lifestyle is the same as leading a heterosexual lifestyle. You live in a house, you go to work, you get a few drinks on Friday night, you go to the movies every now and again, you share a loving relationship with a significant other. How is it even a choice one could ever make: either a lifetime of denial with friends who you know would hate you if you revealed your "true self", or embracing your sexuality and spending your life with people who love and care for who you are. Thats' not a choice. To force such "decisions" upon members of our society is something that should not be occuring in any way, shape or form. I believe that we are achieveing a society where such a "choice" is no longer made. Given time, we may achieve that goal.
But there's no choice in the matter. It's like saying to some guy on the street "Ok, I can chop both your legs off or give you this free car". No choice in the matter.
You have a fiancee to back up your claims to heterosexuality, all I have is the pornography on my computer. So I don't think so. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
What in the world are you talking about?
What "institution", if any, would refuse a person because there were homosexual. The only one I can remotely think of is military service, but for starters there are women soldiers and the army seems to get by fine without their soldiers getting "distracted" and secondly there's no reason why a homosexual can't make just as good a soldier as a straight guy. You gotta provide actual examples of the kind of "institutions" a homosexual would be excluded from.
Height requirements for firefighters make sense: larger, taller men can elevate water higher (or at least I suppose that's the reasoning). Being a homosexual doesn't make you any differant from anyone else. Yes, you stick your meat somewhere else. How in the name of anything does that disqualify you from any "institution" (with the exception of hetro porno).
Institutions where *** are not tolerated:
-many religious institutions
-the military
-the Boy Scouts of America
-and more
It seems we're taking another tangent here, with the question of living a homosexual lifestyle vs. institutions that frown upon homosexuality. So the question that one could now ask is this:
Do institutions that frown upon homosexuality have an obligation to allow *** into their ranks? We have laws that prevent discrimination based on gender, creed, and race; should sexual orientation be similarly defended by law?
Starbucks can choose not to hire someone because that someone has a pierced eyebrow or visible tattoo (this *will* hold up in court, as Starbucks is selling an image as much as it sells coffee). However, Starbucks cannot choose not to hire someone specifically because of that person's race. The line, as I see it, is drawn along the line of personal choice. If the distinction is an issue of personal choice (e.g. piercings), it can be discriminated against. If the distinction is an unchangeable, unchooseable attribute (e.g. race, gender), it is beyond your control and you cannot be discrimitated against for it.
So... full circle again. Is homosexuality a choice? If not, should it be protected by law, and should institutions be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals? And to head in this new direction, should homosexuals have to repress an aspect of their personality if they wish to be part of certain societal circles?
that's the only thing i think is an issue. everything else is opinion and action by individuals. it's their choice, whether or not to have the prejudice. but when certain activities are barred from h0mosexuals as such, that's where you've just gotta draw the line.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Red herring, and bad analogy. The issue of whether or not they should supress their urges isn't just an argument of "is it ok in general?" Sure, whatever. But what if they want to join an "institution" which requires them to refrain from it? Should they now say "Oh, but it's a natural part of us...your institution should change to accomodate us, instead?" If I wanted to be a firefighter, but was too short (yes, they have height requirements for firefighting crew), I would be wrong if I told the stationmaster "You should change the rules, because I really want to be a firefighter even though I don't have the qualifications to become one." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ah... but consider this:
you're a boy scout. you're gonna go do good things for people, camp, learn about nature, whatever they do. sell stuff, too.
what's being g@y have to do with it?
if i interpreted that wrong, then sorry. but...
if you're attracted to men, does that prevent you from being an effective soldier? an effective community member? an effective worshipper? there are divisions and sects of churches that'll accept h0mosexuals. if that's what you've got to deal with, that's really unfortunate.. but it's there. there aren't g@y divisions in the military, g@y scout troops.
=\