Bastard homophobes (2 Viewers)

[Estel]

When gays seek to impose their sexuality on other people (eg. through the education system), it gets messy indeed.

Anyhow, we must agree to disagree. You're too far left to argue with.

 

[Vahl]

vahl3: teaching homosexuality and polygamy in class is just wrong.

This is untrue. If you can teach about heterosexual relationships you can teach about homosexual ones. Homosexuality has been thoroughly proven to be natural in most advanced species and therefore must be taught to balance the topic(sex ed)

edit: Vahl3: teaching polygamy is not secular.

Teaching polygamy is indeed secular because it is fact. The development of humanity is so dependant on polygamy that monogamy hasn't even yet impacted on our genes.

Polygamy isn't taught in schools. but it should be. But sadly, as with restrictions on the age one may view pornography, 'morals and values' come before what is logically best.

 

[Vahl]

When gays seek to impose their sexuality on other people (eg. through the education system), it gets messy indeed.

It is often argued that 'gays impose their sexuality' on others. This is not true. Two men kissing in the street are not imposing their sexuality on others in the same way that two heterosexuals kissing on the street aren't. Everyone has the right to express their sexuality because sexual openess is the key to self awareness, satisfaction and therefore happiness in life.

Imposing ones sexuality would involve some sort of unwanted sexual suggestion to another person. Which is just as true in the straight world as it is in the gay one.

 

[Estel]

You don't need to teach homosexuality- it would be a purely political move at the behest of extreme leftists. There are no children in a homosexual relationship! Sex education is about the risk of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Since teaching about STDs means that homos are covered, and the latter is not an issue, there is no need to teach about homosexuality!

Many people would be most offended by the teaching of polygamy. Should a small minority such as yourself be satiated at the expense of the majority? Additionally, you're going to increase STDs if you encourage more sex.

Homosexuality shouldn't be an issue- it should be something that people recognise as existent, and leave it at that.

 

[Vahl]

you're going to increase STDs if you encourage more sex.

This is nonsense. The prevalence of such diseases is more common in areas where sex is a taboo topic. Eg American states that teach abstinance in schools have higher rates of unwanted pregnancies and transmission of STD's.

You don't resolve an issue by ignoring it. Teaching children about sex as much as we can is essential to encouraging them to be responsible when engaging in sex. Furthermore, the greater ease with which sex can be talked about will encourage greater sexual confidence and openness within relationships and therefore longer lasting and more positive, rewarding relationships. Therefore happier lives, a happier society and more fun for everyone!

 

[Estel]

It is often argued that 'gays impose their sexuality' on others. This is not true. Two men kissing in the street are not imposing their sexuality on others in the same way that two heterosexuals kissing on the street aren't. Everyone has the right to express their sexuality because sexual openess is the key to self awareness, satisfaction and therefore happiness in life.

Imposing ones sexuality would involve some sort of unwanted sexual suggestion to another person. Which is just as true in the straight world as it is in the gay one.

gay only areas
gay parades
"you're with us or against us" attitudes...
They're the ones that make it an issue.

There's a difference between kissing on the street, and having sexual intercourse on the street, or showing off/making banners and screaming out to the world how wonderful it is to be gay.

 

[Estel]

Polygamy is morally repugnant. You can't run on your idea of nihilism forever... rape is WRONG, yet it is naturally occuring. So it murder, thievery, indecent exposure in public... we must draw the line.

There's a difference between teaching about sex, and teaching for sex, and teaching for more and more sex.

ahh this is turning religious.
I think I've had enough tonight... continue some other time.
Very opinionated fellow you are

 

[ihavenothing]

I know to a degree you're either gay or not, it's as simple as that. You don't need to learn about homosexuality to the degree where ppl are sick of it. The only thing needs to be taught is just like any other religion and needs to be tolerated and be in harmony with everything else, but not ignored so ppl get hung up on issues that are so minor.

Homosexuality should not be enforced on anybody who is not psychologically homosexual, it will fuck them up. But if ppl are gay themselves they need to look inside themselves to know what their needs as a human being is which is respect and tolerance for other lifestyles.

The role of the church has been diminished in modern times as we do not have a cookie cutter Christian view of the world and we know that there are different things for ppl to explore in the world. People who publically denounce homosexuals may not know much about it and exhibit more of a fear of the unknown, which is normal human self defence, but this is where education can come in to sort issues such as homophobia out.

Gay marriage need not be fussed about so much by church leaders and religious clerics, as obviously there are worse sins happening in the community. The government should be open minded enough to know that all humans have access to marriage and children. Gay marriage should be swiftly and silently legalised to not attract as much attention in the community.

As for all the blokes who have denounced their homosexuality and have married (women) and had sex and children against their sexuality i feel so sorry for you and you have a heart of stone not to bring yourself to what you have been given.

I strongly agree with Estel's last quote as it can be tolerated without much worry otherwise.

 

[Vahl]

gay only areas
gay parades
"you're with us or against us" attitudes...
They're the ones that make it an issue.

There's a difference between kissing on the street and having sexual intercourse on the street, or showing off/making banners and screaming out to the world how wonderful it is to be gay.

This is a stereotype of gay people. However if this is their sexuality then they should be encouraged to express it. Mardi-Gras is a once a year event, and it is a positive portrayal of sex andacceptance of difference and therefore valuble to our society as a whole.

The prevalance of exhibitionist type people is the same on both sides of the line: people always wear suggestive clothes, etc. Most Advertising blasts heterosexual messages to society, this is itself screaming out to the world how wonderful it is to be straight. As is marriage, adoption laws, imbalance in age of consent etc.

When so much of our society is organised around the principles of hetero good, homo non existant, it is understandable that this otherwise smothered group needs to express itself in a vibrant way. Extreme circumstances encourage an extreme response: therefore gay activism may be toned down when equal rights and social status etc are achieved.

Another point to note is that to engage in a gay relationship the gay individual has had to overcome many personal and social barriers and is therefore perhaps more in touch with their emotions and thus less confined in their expression of self etc.

 

[Estel]

I assume you agree with the 2nd last, not the last.

I still disagree with giving homo couples children, but that's for another day.

 

[Xayma]

But many of those wanting equality don't view the parades as necessary, don't want the gay only areas. You are stopping their equality because some others make a tool of themselves?

Children raised by lesbian couples (at least, not enough in the study to bring results of gay raised children) were no better or worse off then those in similar circumstances in straight relationships (ie financial, ethnicity, city)

 

[Estel]

The prevalance of exhibitionist type people is the same on both sides of the line: people always wear suggestive clothes, etc. Most Advertising blasts heterosexual messages to society, this is itself screaming out to the world how wonderful it is to be straight.

Isn't that like
Homo says: hetero's are evil. Wow, we must follow suit and plumb the depths of depravity as well!

Xayma: I don't want them to make a big fuss... they can have their relationships and whatever... but I wish they wouldn't make the big scene of gay empowerment!

 

[Vahl]

As for all the blokes who have denounced their homosexuality and have married (women) and had sex and children against their sexuality i feel so sorry for you and you have a heart of stone not to bring yourself to what you have been given.

Yeah, this is like Emmet's brainwashing through the 'See the Light' republican christian organisation in Queer As Folk. S1

 

[Estel]

"Children raised by lesbian couples (at least, not enough in the study to bring results of gay raised children) were no better or worse off then those in similar circumstances in straight relationships (ie financial, ethnicity, city)"

All children deserve to be breastfed, to be touched intimately by a female and male at a young age, to appreciate love and have role models from both genders throughout their lives, etc..

I cannot believe this! I am playing the part of the conservative! I'm a leftist, damnit... you guys are extreme socialists

 

[Xayma]

I'm a Liberal voter.

So what about single mothers? Or those with abusive mothers or fathers, or dead mothers or fathers?

 

[malkin86]

So, Estel, you have no issue with gay people being gay, rather, your issue is with gay people being "We're Queer, We're HERE!!!"?

 

[Vahl]

"Children raised by lesbian couples (at least, not enough in the study to bring results of gay raised children) were no better or worse off then those in similar circumstances in straight relationships (ie financial, ethnicity, city)"

All children deserve to be breastfed, to be touched intimately by a female and male at a young age, to appreciate love and have role models from both genders throughout their lives, etc..

I cannot believe this! I am playing the part of the conservative! I'm a leftist, damnit... you guys are extreme socialists

All children DO NOT deserve to be breast fed.
The most important aspect in any child's development is the love and devotion of their parents. Too often the gender of the parents is seen as the issue, and this is sad because it reveals that the interests of the anti-gay/single parent club are in discriminating against minorites rather than the interests of the children.

Gay parents are less likely to be locked into gender roles, and are more likely to be capable of communicating to their children through their own greater self awareness.

Besides, with a falling population growth rate it is important to encourage everyone to have children.

 

[Estel]

I'm a Liberal voter.

So what about single mothers? Or those with abusive mothers or fathers, or dead mothers or fathers?

Look, if I had my way, people would wait before marrying and be more careful to ensure they met the right person, thus reducing the chance for divorce. I wish people would make more informed decisions about sex. I wish people would be tolerant and not be abusive. I'd rather parents not die when they're children are young....

why make a problem when it's bad enough?
There's no need to knowingly marry into an abusive family. There's no need to deliberately die when your child is young.
We can't control lots of things, but for gays, we have the choice, the ability to prevent the problem. There's no need to give gays the right to adopt children.

Incidentally, I wouldn't call myself a Liberal or a Labor voter. Just a non-greens non-family first voter.

malkin: yes!

 

[Estel]

Vahl, like it or not, it's fact that children without male role models suffer. That's enough of a case for me to deny lesbians adoption.
Similarly, gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

People are too selfish nowadays.

edit: I should add, if the parents are selfish enough to adopt a child knowing that it will place him/her at a disadvantage, they're not going to play the role of devotion too well either...

 

[Xayma]

These children have no parents! Not all those adopted are 1 or 2. They are past the stage of breast feeding often. And often remember their mothers and fathers.

I disagree with your marriage comment, no where does a couple need to be married to be good parents.

If it came to a custody battle between a mother and a father and one of them was a homosexual (which due to some reason they had a child) would you discriminate against them (in one former case in the USA, custody was granted to a committed murderer, due to the "right" of a child to grow up in a heterosexual family).

Like I posted above (Ill grab the link in a sec) the children are not disadvantaged! They are the same as those with heterosexual parents.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6670

Vahl3: The breast feeding thing can be argued, that is where a child gets immunity boosters, alot of fat and other nutrients.