Hey, let's just remember that some of us didn't vote him in. The American people is a big group to make generalizations about.

Alright, Now I'm getting Mad! You can find the text I'm responding to beneath my responce because I suspect you've all read it already.

Laramon, you're being short sighted about this. I have gay friends that are 'married' in the way that you're talking about. They are content with the fact that they have found a partner that they love and aren't bothered by they fact that they aren't 'legally' married. However! They happened to have been born in the same country as one another and neither of them have ever been hospitalized in critical condition. We have friends that are gay and the only reason that they can be together is because one of them happened to be in a profession that the UK was happy to give them a visa for. If she was a musician, electrician, or plumber she would have been out of luck. Consequently, she can't move back home with her partner because they aren't "legally" married. If Jonman and I couldn't get LEGALLY married then we would have been separated without recourse. If he gets sick I am going to be beside him. So many people I know don't have these simple basic rights with concern to their loved ones. This is crap and it's unacceptable.

Marriage can be taxed though and be a financial liability, you're right. The deductible for income taxes is increased while married but it's not doubled. It's a benefit only if only one of them is working. If one is going to school, it's a financial boon. The penalty is erased once you have at least two children.

I don't understand the intensity of the issue. It's not that big of a deal (there are a few exceptions as people have pointed out). I think what homosexuals want is respect and no amount of legislation or required reading is going to give it to them. To fight with hatred and rancor politically (I'm talking to both sides here) is just going to make the argument into a political hatefest dividing both sides until the only winner will be the majority who will ruthlessly crush the minority. While conservatives hold a slim majority now, the tide could slip at any time either way. I'd rather have the other side not still smarting from legislative wounds ready to pounce and wreak vengeance.

I was watching a court hearing in San Francisco. When the attorney who argued that the marriages should be struck down because they were in violation of state law and not placed into a kind of quasi-legal limbo he was greeted by screams accusing him of fascism and lines of 7 year olds standing there with signs about how their mom deserved the right to get married. Politics of cowardice. A child has no business trying to present a political view because their view will be what their parent's believe (almost always). I hated those people. They were disrespectful, crass, and childish.

The next day I hit a religion channel praising Bush's ascendance with hallelujah's and another court decision as the 'judgement of God' upon the 'servants of the devil, the possessed homosexuals'. I hated them. Their pious if you're not for me you're obviously the servants of demons claptrap. I should point out I'm devoutly religious and believe that there are demons and have participated in several exorcisms where I saw things that if they weren't supernatural were at least inexplicable to me. A wise leader once told me, "Once you decide God must hate everyone you hate you've reached the height of pride and no matter how much good you do, you are evil."

I disagree. Even if its immediate impact is inconsequential - I don't believe it is - it is still bigotry enshrined in law, or will be if the Bill is passed. I see that as very important.

We've dealt with bigotry enshrined as law for years. It's not armageddon. I don't feel that strongly on the issue -I'm pretty ambivalent- but shouldn't you be glad that while the conservatives are in power they're creating laws that will likely just get stuck in the judicial system for a while before either being stricken down or get on the books and probably stay weakly enforce.

I mean, they could be messing with the Constitution or trying to pass legislation against sodomy that the judiciary will have a harder time striking down. I will say that the force of history and time is on your side. Each new generation since the rise of western democracy has led to looser laws on private citizen's actions. Where the citizenry goes you can be sure the government is sure to follow.

Or as a hero of mine once said, "Great causes are not won in a single generation."

Wow, 2 more highly relevant posts by Xeno that I can almost completely agree with!

Xeno pointed out some of the biggest penalties in marriage, such as the deductible changes. One of the biggest reasons Fey and I are not married yet has to do with these things, as we are struggling bad enough as it is. We do not intend to have children, and once Fey goes out and gets a job to help support the 2 of us, the last thing we need is less money coming back into our shrinking pockets.

Also, as Xeno said, I do not have a firm stand on this subject. I have personal views about particulars in the matter, but if the issue floats either way, I will not put force against it. My only stand is on the RELATIONSHIP and not anything more, although I would support a change in the marriage code. It would make my marriage cheaper and less of an issue for my family (they still haven't accepted my "alternative religion"). I could happily handfast Fey, then go to the courthouse and sign a paper if we feel that legal marriage is the route for us. Frankly, the legal aspect is only marginally beneficial at best, so that may not happen unless the marriage code stays as is. If so, the traditional marriage for our families will happen after our handfasting and the vows will be spoken and the paper signed anyways.

Wow, three more posts that ignore valid points made by other debaters...

Go easy Kisah, keep the tone civil please. I know it's difficult when we all feel so strongly about this but if after repeated bangings against a brick wall no progress has been made, then it's better to stop than get angry.


I would argue that if, as you admit, it is a big deal to the 'few exceptions' (which I would argue are more than a considerable number) and there is no harm in the current state of affairs then what is the need for the law? I'll come back to this in a moment.

Respect... It might seem simple, and yes, in some ways it is that that is sought by non-heterosexuals. How can a population ever learn to respect a group if that group is penalised by the state? If the supposed intelligentsia of the country cannot abide with the thought of homosexual acts then it is hard to decide how the population can ever be expected to come to terms with their existence. Respect comes from understanding, that's why the rules of this forum are the way that they are. If we disagree with each other then they encourage you to find out about the other person's opinions and to ask questions.

Without the presence of any references at all to homosexuality in education then how can young adults ever be expected to come to any understanding of the fundamental similarities between all people of any sexuality? Preventing that understanding only means that knowledge of homosexuality will be gained from playground chatter, which does no favours for heterosexuals or those with a different sexuality that they are coming to terms with. Puberty is often a stressful time in your life even with freely available information about what's happening, now take away any appreciation from your peers of what a gay youth might be feeling and that isolation becomes far worse. The suicide rates among non-heterosexuals has always been a lot higher than straight people just because of the stress of daily prejudice, and taking away all books that refer to homosexual acts can only make this worse.

This is an issue of lives. You will never see in the news 'Suspected gay boy kills himself because there were no books to make him feel that he could live that way' because the link would not be visible, but with every chip away at progress that has been made towards gay, bisexual, and transgender rights this kind of thing happens.

Returning to my earlier point, is there harm that is being done to children by these books, or will their removal cause more harm? Well... In reverse order, yes, I really do believe that a lack of awareness of the equal humanity of non-heterosexuals would cause a great deal of harm. It would never be directly visible, because the way that culture effects our actions is sublime, but it would be there, and I strongly believe that it would result in unnecessary suffering and possibly deaths.

Which leaves one question: Is there harm that is being done to children by these books? More harm than would be done by removing them? ... And that is where we get to issues of faith and homosexuality. If you believe that homosexuality is a temptation sent by the devil, that it is not a valid choice for living, and indeed that it is a choice rather than something in you physiological make-up, then you will be far more likely to answer that you believe that the children are being harmed by these books. You might not of course. You might think that children should be educated in the ways of the devil so that they can avoid them.

Alternatively, you might not believe any of these things. You might feel that homosexuality is something that has been in the world for as long as there has been sex, that it is a natural predisposition of some individuals and that we are fortunate to live in a time where finally some equality and understanding of your views is legal to be stated in public. If this is the way that you feel then of course you will not believe that any harm can be done to a child by reading 'The Color Purple'.

Xeno, I agree that recent history does appear to be on the side of liberals in this, but that is no reason to not oppose this bill. The thought that it will be repealed in four year's time is no compensation, partly because it is far harder to remove a law than to make one (civil privacy rights laws have demonstrated this, once gone they don't come back), but also because any step in the wrong direction should be fought against tooth and claw. Standing by and expecting time to sort all of it out is no compensation to those that have to live, and die, with the attitudes that a lack of education breeds.

As I said before, it might seem simple, but this is about life and death.

I did come back to the board with the intention of replying, but it seems that in my absence the points I would have waned to have made have been made (and argued against ).

Also a point I wanted to make which occured to me as I was reading through, was that some posters seemed to be writing from the point of view of their ideals and the 'solutions' that would be found in those ideals (ie if the world was like that _now_), as opposed to some posters who seemed to be writing from the point of view that is realisticaly dealing with the here and now. (Long sentance I know, please feel free to add as many comma's as you want if you're gonna read it out loud. I would'nt want to be blamed for anyone going blue faced). Acceptedly both will be biased. Just thought it would be worth pointing out.

Maybe public education is different in England but I had no sex education in school until I was 15. I could therefore say I was taught neither homosexuality or heterosexuality. I learned what I knew from asking my parents questions. What I learned in school later was a load of rubbish so carefully crafted to avoid offending anyone that it was worse than useless.

I will say I don't believe homosexuality is inborn because I have met people who have switched sexualities (both ways) and maintain that they weren't repressing the second one. The presence of bisexuals. Homosexuality is not an on/off gene code because there are too many gray areas. I still maintain that to say that a homosexual is 'forced' to live that life is demeaning to them. It means that they are powerless victims of genetics which I believe of no one. I can respect a choice but I have a hard time respecting someone who whines that they have no choice. That's the same as saying they are weak.

I am in college right now and I think the intelligentsia is on the side of a more liberal society (i.e. accepting some form legal recognition of homosexual couples). This will trickle down. I haven't heard any gay bashing in college (except from evangelicals in the free speech area and playful bashing amongst friends with no harm intended that goes both ways). The problem with the current political debate in America is most people don't care strongly on those issues. Most people seem to favor the Republican's economic agenda at least and that obscures this issue. The remedy is to get in touch with your congressional leader and ask for this to be struck down. I don't think it will pass. There are enough moderate Republicans who don't want to be attached to this bill and the public fervor on this bill is mostly muted.

OK this is the first time that i have ever replied on one of these forums, so bear with me. I got so drawn into this debate i felt i had to reply.
As a homosexual, lesbian, gay, whatever you would like to refer to me as it has been exiciting to hear what other people have to say about the issue of gay marriage and how government should deal with homosexuality in general. My girlfriend and i have been in a long-term relationship for three years, and like someone mentioned at the start of this debate, unless you are personally friends with me there is no way that you would be able to tell my sexual orientation by looking at me. (I apologize in advance for the lengthy backstory of this opinion, but i feel that it is necessary to explain myself before i make my points) My story is a little different from that of the stereotypical gay you might find in "Will and Grace" or some movie with a token "gay" character. I was raised in a wonderfully religious family. My father is a Baptist minister (American not southern: he's a little more conservative) who dearly loves his family (there are five kids) and was always there for us and my mother. i had a great relationship with both my parents. And I have seen the greatest "straight" relationship imaginable between the two of them, who love each other dearly and showed us kids that even if they had an occasional fight or disagreement the important thing was that they were able to come to a compromise and work things out equally within the relationship. From them I learned that good relationships take time and hard work. (I know this is cliche and some of you are yawning but stay with me my point is ahead.) As i grew up i was a good christian girl. Fighting against abortion in my sex-ed classes( I had three Xeno one in 6 grade and two in 7th and i live in a really really small town) and attending church both on wed and sun. I knew a lot about sex becuase anything that i asked about, my parents told me, and i completely intended to save sex for marriage becuase i had been warned many times about the dangers that premarital sex could do to your emotions and body. All this was great, i rededicated my life every summer at church camp made straight A's all the way throughout school, and occasionally sang on sunday morning. During my high school years i had three serious christian boyfriends whom i remain great friends with to this day. And then when i was about 16 years old my perfect, sappy, uptempo life was turned completely upside down.
i met my future girlfriend at a church that my father was preaching. She was the daughter of a prominent deacon who just happened to also work on my father's council. And she too had led the perfect life, even more so than me. SHe had one long term boyfriend and was looking for theperfect christian boy to spend the rest of her life with. When we were first introduced we talked for over an hour . Now mind you i was completely against homosexuality. ALmost every part of it, I thought it was unnatural, unmoral, and just plain gross, however i was a little uneasy about churches rufusing to let gays join. Needless to say as this new girl and i became best friends, i began to feel that our relationship was different than one that i had ever had. There was a level of understanding that we had for each other that i had not found in another human being. She was my best friend,. See the problem with no one telling you about gay people, pretending they don't exsist, informing you that the ones that do exsist are rare and misled by thier society is that you never learn what to do if you end up in a comprimising situation with your sexuality. Here i was at 16 years old and I had no idea that i was falling head over heels for my best friend because NO ONE TOLD ME IT COULD HAPPEN TO NORMAL PEOPLE!! i though only pagans ended up gay because the devil cursed them or something. i was going through the motions that one goes through when they are in love and i didn't even know what was happening. When we first kissed, I prayed to God every night that he would forgive me, but that didnt' help. i couldn't stop spending time with this girl I spent an entire year hating myself, not understanding what was happening to me, and being to scared to talk to anyone about it because of the fear of being labeled by society as the freak. I would have given anything for someone to have given me a hug and told me that i am not going to eventually turn into a pediphile now or a rapist. And that i don't have to be afriad to walk into a church because God still loves me. I heard the way that people in the congregation talked about "the gays" and i didn't want my name to ever be brougt up in those conversations. After a year of crying and asking why, i got to the point where I realized that my girlfriend and i were not much different than regular couples. We went to the movies, did our homework together, read to each other, and even went on dinner dates. I understood that sex was not something that was not a very big part of the relationship at all. For some reason i had the idea that gay people were all about having sex every chance they got. With my girlfriend i knew that sex was something that people may or may not enter into but it doesn't define the relationship as a whole. In college, of course, my girlfriend and i were able to accept our relationship for what it was and stop beating ourselves up. We did research on passages in the bible about homosexuality and came to our own conclusions. and most of all we decided that we could still be christians whether we are right or not, jesus died to save us too, a fact which many moralists fail to present.
Now as i get ready to graduate from college my girlfriend and i are looking to get married and yes . .start a family. At the state that things are now, it would be easy to go to a church an have an accepting minister marry us, but marriage means a lot more to us than that. We want to change our names and as the system is now we have to go through lengthy court processes to do that. If after the many months that it takes we do actually adopt a child, if my future wife dies that child could be taken away from me and given back to an agency. the same could happen with artifical insemination, which is also an optioin. If my girlfriend has the baby and passes away her immediate family would decide where that child would end up. Also when i die it is possible for me to leave all of our possessions to my wife in a will, however she would have to pay a large tax on her own possessions which is something that wouldn't happen if we were married. And of course i have no medical say about her at all. So while we may be married in our own minds society has a different plan for us.
Was i born gay? I don't know. But i don't think many people would choose to be gay. I always tell people to turn it around and look at it from a straight point of view. If you as a straight person were forced to be gay, would you want to? WOuld any amount of coercion or counceling make you desire the same sex. Most straight people would say no. I love my girlfriend. Alot. I could marry a man. But why add to the unhappy marriages that already exsist. Some people might call my decision weak, but i feel like my overcoming this situation has taken a lot of strength. And im happy. Reall,y truelly and blissfully happy. Because i have found my soul-mate and not very many people can say that. If people disagree with me, that's completely fine. I just want them to be respectful, and even more importantly i just want the same rights over my life as everyone else has, without having to climb a mountain to get them. I done enough mountain climbing to last a lifetime, and i want to be done. So now that you all are snoring soundly or have hung yourselves because you couldn't take it anymore here is the conclusion. I don't want more potential kids to have to go through what i went through. (i know again cliche . . but it's true.) Kids deserve to know facts and then what they do with those facts is completely up to them. I'm not saying that we should rub these issues in thier faces, but if youth groups and churches want to stop people from being gay maybe they should start by making sure their kids know that gay people exsist. By governemnt removing funding of gay-literature confused kids like me will never have a chance. . . ok i have written a novel and i have tons more to say . . .email me if you have any questions at all and don't be afriad to ask stuff, i don't get offended easily. sorry this had little to do with the topic i just wanted everyone to see it from a scary gay's perspective

Well....umm...cool! Glad you're happy with your relationship!

Liberal Mindedness 1 - Church 0

Comically enough I didn't think (and no one else will think) agghh!! a lesbian! no, I was thinking "agghhh! middle american Christian!!" (they scare me a little).

Oh, we have pagans here too, they're not evil, in fact, she's lovely

Blimey, that was quite a first post Aphronic! Thanks for writing it, that's exactly the kind of situation that I was talking about. I'm really pleased that it's turned out well for you. Welcome to my forums!


We don't get it a lot earlier here either, maybe when we're 14.

This isn't about sex education, this is about mental preparation for the spectrum of sexualities in the world. I am definitely not saying that kids in school should be taught the practicalities of anal sex, that women should all be given dental dams to practice with, or other practical information about gay sex (although I do believe that if people wish to learn about these things then it is in the interests of their health that such information should be available on request, because, let's face it, your parents are not likely to answer questions on this). I am saying that teenagers in school should be allowed to study books that contain homosexual characters if the books are important works of fiction, such as 'The Color Purple'.

My reason is simple; by allowing students to know that homosexuality can be a normal way of living for many people without them being devil-worshipping sex beasts then you give them the best chance of two things

1 Not becoming violent and hateful towards gay people in later life

2 Coping more successfully with their own sexuality if they should find that they are not straight.

Absolute removal of any non-monstrous portrayals of homosexuality leads to situations such as those encountered by Aphronic, where she had no idea that you could be gay without being evil. Fortunately she has become happy in her life, but there are many others that do not, they end up hating themselves and becoming self-destructive, or they end up in loveless relationships with either gender because they cannot accept what they are.

To put it in a different context, imagine this was a bill to remove all sympathetic portrayals of Jews in literature. Imagine if the only books that you had ever read that mentioned Jews were Shakespeare's 'The Merchant of Venice' and Christopher Marlowe's 'The Jew of Malta'. How would you feel about Jews that you met in your life given that this is the education that you had received?

Obviously this is a slightly different circumstance, because a faith is often something that is a choice, but when you feel it is right for you then no-one should tell you otherwise, unless you are strapping bombs to your body and boarding the local school bus... But this is my point. People like Allen (returning to the original article) feel that any non-condemnatory mention of homosexuality is the equivalent of boarding that bus with bombs. He feels that it is an (im)mortal threat to children because he too is acting on his faith and in doing so may well be risking the lives of any child that grows up non-heterosexual.


Again, this is not about practical sex education (unfortunately an internet hoax email a few years ago managed to almost completely destroy that in American schools). This is about sexual education, that is, getting people to understand that if a person does not feel the same way as everyone else then that's fine.


Mine was rubbish too, from a practical point of view, but it did give me an understanding of what happened physically. It's good to know some things are equally useless across the world!


This precisely illustrates the point that I am making. Sexuality is a spectrum. When I was coming out I had massive problems because there was almost no visible culture of bisexuality, so straight people thought I was gay and gay people insisted that I was straight. After all, you couldn't possibly fancy both now could you? But that's it. You can. I do. There's nothing wrong with this, but for a long time I struggled because so often I would meet people who could not understand the existence of bisexuality, they had always known that there was either one or the other. If there had been media around then that had shown that people could be bi then maybe I wouldn't have had such a hard time.

Because everyone else told me that I couldn't possibly be what I felt I was inside it made me question myself. Surely if that many people say something is true then maybe they are right... Maybe I am gay? But the gay people say I must be straight if I can fancy women too...

Of course homosexuality is not an on/off gene, but it doesn't mean that there are not genes that make it more likely that you might be attracted to the same gender. I believe the way you grow has a lot of influence, maybe if I had a different life I would be gay, or another life again and I would be straight. Who knows? But I know that I am bi.


Please answer this question in your next post: Do you really honestly believe that people have chosen to be gay?

I agree that it is very unlikely that it is entirely genetic, but from my own experience I can also say that if I had the choice eight years ago I would have chosen to be straight, but I could not deny what I felt inside.

Maybe your friends who have 'changed sexualities' were actually bi, or maybe they really have changed. I have been dating a woman for the last five years. I'm still bi. Some might say that I'm straight, I know I'm not, but if I believed that bisexuality is some kind of wishy-washy non-identity then maybe I would say so too. If I should in the future break-up with my current partner then the bets are off about what gender the next person might be. If I were to then date a man for five years, would I then be gay? The world would see me that way, and again if I believed that bisexuality is some kind of wishy-washy non-identity then maybe I would say so too.

Maybe your friends did not change sexualities, maybe they are really bi but are just incredibly well-adjusted and self-accepting so that they have no problem with whoever they are attracted to and take the appropriate sexual label. There's nothing wrong with that, I'm glad that they're happy.

To put it in your terms, I am not 'repressing' my homosexuality by dating a woman, I'm just being a happy bisexual who dates a woman.

One of the gay guys who had massive trouble with me being bi asked me what is a very common question; "So, do you think that you're completely 50% gay and 50% straight?" My answer was that no, I am 100% bisexual. By dating a woman there is no repression of a homosexual impulse because I do not have homosexual impulses, I have bisexual ones. I am happy dating a woman because I am bisexual, if I were not then that would mean that I am gay, which I am not. In the times that I have been with men I have also been happy. There was no 'repression' of my sexuality required to be happy, and no 'switching', I just had to be myself.


Well then I am very happy for the non-heterosexuals at your college. I have had friends attacked. I have been threatened with hockey sticks. I have had groups of guys banging on my door. I have been shouted at in the street. This was while at university, supposedly among the intelligentsia. We are not in a tolerant society yet and removing books from schools that contain gay characters will not help this come to pass.


Now there's poetic justice!

Anyway, to summarise: As Aphronic's story demonstrates, being non-heterosexual is not a choice, for whatever reason it is something that just happens, and removing material that helps people accept this from education will only make life worse for non-heterosexuals and straight people less accepting.

Thanks for posting so personal a story for us to absorb into our debates, Aphronic; I'll admit this is my first post in this thread so far, but I've been following it every day with great interest and its only now that I reckon I should make my own opinion clear, thanks to the matter of the church and you being misled being raised in your own post.

For a long time now I've been uncomfortable with my religion (Catholicism), but as it has been forced upon me sinse birth I find it difficult to shake off its icy tendrils. Whereas a lot of the tenets taught (we are taught to follow the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, most of which are just good common courtesy and "nice" behaviour) are actually of great moral value, the religion itself is of questionable moral background. I found myself growing up into a world where it seemed that, to a child of such a religion, there was no god. Death and evil was everywhere; in crime, in war, in everyday bullies and in dictators. Now it seems this has been further confirmed by more detailed looks at our world today: corporations are harming our environment and our health and slowly eroding our futures (because by law they HAVE TO); corrupt governments are promoting cuts in health, safety and welfare budgets to increase productivity in the marketplace; people's freedoms are being slowly impinged upon and removed, whilst those of corporations are being slowly expanded resulting in further harm. Where can God exist in a world like this?

I found my answers (for what little they count for) within the structure of the church itself. For hundreds of years it has been playing the same game as corporations. Today its power, although reduced by the private sector, is still overwhelmingly massive, and it does very little to actually benefit the masses of followers that encompass its charitable donors. True, many people are happy to give money to an organisation that can "cleanse" them of their sins on a weekly basis, but isn't this the definition of philanthropy? Up until recently, the church of England was the single biggest landowner in all of Britain, meaning that aside from its "flock" (a term I find highly applicable to people who are led on in a mass like sheep), the church has access to vast resources besides all of this. In short, it became a business a long time ago, and business is all about the bottom line. Just ask any expert in the field today, as they all seem to be using that phrase. Even the ones that are opposed to capitalism admit that the hallmark of good business is profit, and not how well it performs for its customers, or in this case, followers.

So how is this relevant to this current argument? Well, it is precisely this monetary and political power that the church uses to enforce its own beliefs upon us all: by the same manner that corporations have no right to be running our lives for us, neither should the church, as they both serve only their own interests, though there is, I admit, a key difference in that whereas corporations are forced to do this by the laws inherent in their system, the church seems to be doing it out of the kindness of its heart. And it is this meddlesome attitude that is restricting our lives and livelyhoods these days: gay marriage laws are completely out of date, as has been described by many here already; also gays are still seen by the masses as "outsiders" and freaks rather than just people who, in some way or another, have come to a different path in life than the majority. These stupidly harsh restrictions are all a result of the church's long grip on government and peoples through sermons and masses - a grip more secure than any other long-term organisation has ever had, and one that will probably continue to go without being seriously challenged for the majority of what time is left to us. It is safe and secure, whilst it sits maliciously destroying peoples lives through practises of discrimination (did not Jesus teach that every man is his brother, respectless of creed or colour?) and oppression (did not God free his jews from the "oppressive" egyptians?).

Anyway, I think I've got something of a point across here, though I'm not sure if most of it is relevant to this topic. I guess you can tell most of my views on the world are a little jaded these days, but then again I do think that, mostly, they're justified.

The religous clash is between two overarching world-views of the teachings of Jesus. Some see his message as one of acceptance, others see it as one of repentance. The truth is probably somewhere between the two but the second has been corrupted. Repentance is the changing of one's life, not free license to bash those who don't match up to your standards. The greatest danger in any church though isn't contradiction or bashing, it's contempt.

Contempt is the destruction of someone else's dignity as a human being which is what goes on with the hate-mongering. The scenarios being described are usually those wherein someone is raised from their youth to believe anyone who does X is sub-human and is undoubtedly doing Y and Z. Then the young person meets someone doing X who is well-adjusted and is not involved with Y and Z. It's fear-mongering of the worst kind because it relies on lies.

One day in England I was in front of a pub talking with some people I'd met a few times and talked some with and the subject of religion came up and I told them what church I attended. One of them pulled out his card listing the "Churches of the Devil" and found mine (think I was 5 on the list of worst) and told me that I must have abducted women for sex slavery, consorted with the Illuminati and was involved with every major conspiracy for the last hundred years. He seriously asked me if I knew who killed JFK. I laughed.

Mata, yes, I really think it's a choice. I don't know if it's a concious choice. I don't know what governs it. I think what demeans homosexuals more than anything else is this feeling that it is forced. Talk about shooting your cause in the foot. That's like pleading insanity. It almost says we know it's wrong and different but we have no choice, we're tragic figures. We have enough victims in society without having people make more.

Mata, sorry to hear about what happened to you. I won't say my campus is totally free of homophobia but those who practice it generally hate everyone else too so it's hard to tell the difference. It's just one more thing to scream at people in insult. I had a confrontation not too long ago with someone bashing on a homosexual I knew fairly well telling him how messed up he was and weak, etc. I responded by saying he didn't hate the homosexual guy nor homosexuality in general, he feared it. He feared he was going to be infected by it. I think he would have punched me if the campus police weren't in walking distance. I told him he was one of the saddest things in existence as the worst fear of all is to fear yourself. He started swearing and threatening proving to all present that he was incapable of speaking his thoughts coherently (assuming he had thoughts). I've wondered often since then where the hate came from: religion, parents, friends?? I really wish I knew.

If it's not a conscious choice, how is it a choice?

And I don't see how it demeans me to say my sexuality is not a choice. I like oranges. This is not a choice; I never chose to like oranges, nobody asked me whether I'd prefer to think them overly sour. Similarly, I never chose to find - picking a name at random - Ando Masanobu attractive. Nobody asked me. I didn't wake up one morning and think, "Hm, I was heterosexual up until now, but I think I'll give bisexuality a try!"

In fact, the idea that it is a choice is the rationality behind giving transsexuals electric shock therapy to "cure" them. The idea that it is a choice is the rationality behind institutionalising homosexuals as insane, or worrying that they will "turn our kids gay".

Did you choose your sexuality? How? You must be a lucky one, most of us didn't.

Sorry Commie, I must not be clear, I didn't mean that the feelings are a choice, I meant following them is. You may have realized that oranges look good and tried them but it's still a choice to keep eating them.

Ah, I misunderstood. Of course, acting on one's sexuality is a choice, regardless of what that sexuality is.

Jesus seemed to go round kissing everyone, male or female, hung around with prostitutes (mary magdelen) etc...

Mary Magdalen a prostitute?

I thought this was something invented by some mysogenists about 200 years after JC is supposed to have died.



Misty Rain

I was writing a rather long reply to Xeno's post earlier but my machine had to restart and I didn't save it... Damn!

Xeno, while technically you are correct that acting on an impulse is a choice, what is a person supposed to do if they only ever have homosexual desires? Are they supposed to repress these for their whole lives and be miserable? That's no kind of choice. 'You can act straight and not find physical love and tenderness, or you can be gay and happy.' That's not a choice, that's common sense.

So, you admit that people have impulses towards homosexual acts in the same way that they have heterosexual impules that are involuntary (and for unknown reasons, probably a mix of genetics and upbringing, but the cause is irrelevant).

I think where we are sticking here is that you appear to be suggesting that every person has a bisexual set of impulses and they only choose to act on those towards one gender. I agree that many people probably are in this situation, and given the option of living with the socially comfortable label of heterosexuality only pursue liasons with people of the opposite gender, with whom they can form a happy relationship without any internal conflict, just as I am bisexual and can happily be monogamous with a woman.

What your approach does not seem to accept is that some people may only ever have impulses towards one gender. There are some straight people I know who are like this, and I would say that the majority of gay people are in this situation. The 'choice' for them is literally 'being gay and happy' or 'being celibate and single forever'. They cannot find a satifactory partner in both physical and mental terms in a person of the opposite sex, no matter how much they may wish that this could be the case.

The bias in our society towards heterosexuality means that if people are internally bisexual they are quite likely to never act on these desires and only ever date the opposite gender. There are many people (mainly women, again I think this is due to social factors) that admit that they can/have/do enjoy kissing people of their own gender but would never consider forming a relationship with them, and so these people, who technically are bisexual, fit easily into a straight society. I suspect that there are a lot of gay people who occasionally dally with heterosexual acts too, but would not consider themselves any the less gay for it.

As I said before, sexuality is a spectrum, and as such there will always be people at the ends who have no desires in common with their polar opposite. For these people I would say that there is no choice about whether to act on their impulses, because they either act on them or accept a life alone.

Essentially for these 100% people the 'choice' that you suggest exists for them is akin to that offered by Eddie Izzard; 'Cake or death?' Yes, that is still technically a choice, but if the people ever want to find happiness with another the way other people do then there really is no choice.

I'm not really sure where you're going with the idea of choice to be honest. It seems that you are arguing that the most important part of sexuality is the way that you act, and that your choice is to be in denial (which by definition is a psychologically unhealthy state to be in) or to act on the desires.

To return to the oranges (and stretch the metaphor to breaking point), what if you find that after oranges all other fruit tastes rotten and so they are all that you can eat, but everyone then picks on you for having orange skin? Well, you know you are different for eating only oranges, but if it's the only thing that can make you happy then why would you choose not to eat them? That's what being gay is. There is only one type of partner-relationship that can satisfy you, if you can be equally happy with a partner of the opposite gender then, no matter what convenient label you took at the time, you are bisexual.

You argue that a person is defined by their actions (you say that a person is only gay if they act on homosexual impulses), then why do you say that your friends have switched sexualities? Surely if they are defined by their actions then they are bisexual, no matter what they may say they are. It's my belief that a person's internal feelings are more important than their actions. To me, a person could live miserably in a sham marriage all their life and still never be straight.

I think happiness needs to be the ultimate measure of a person, not the way they act. If a person is unhappy then the way that they are acting is contrary to what they feel is right (unless we start getting involved with the Catholic guilt complex, but that's a whole new issue).

Examples:

A person could live miserably moving from one failed relationship with a woman to another, always failing and denying their impulses towards men. If they are always going to be unhappy with women and feel drawn towards men then that suggests that they should be with a man, no matter what sexuality that makes them.

A person is happy in a relationship with a man, and then is happy in a relationship with a woman. The happiness rating would then indicate that they are bisexual.

So those were the obvious ones, now to expand it:

A person has violent fantasies about killing their boss and co-workers, are they a psychopath? Well, if they act on these, then yes, then that is what they are. What we're interested in here is the 'choice' that you suggest defines a person.

So a person chooses not to kill everyone they see. Great. Does this mean that they are not a psychopath? Not necessarily.

If the person is happy that they have not killed everyone then it's pretty safe to say that it's just a person having an off-day, but if they are not happy about their restraint then they probably really are a psychopath.

My point is that the choice of whether to act or not has no relevance about the nature of the person, it is how they feel about that action or inaction that truly defines them. A person can act straight all their life but if they are miserable and are constantly trying to resist snogging their best mate of the same gender then to me that unhappiness signals that they are not being true to themself. Do you agree with this?

(Apologies for the rather rambling post, but I think I got to my point in the end!)

Kudos, Mata. You're doing a fantastic job of explaining your point of view. I've never heard this put into such in-depth and clear wording.

I'm straight, but I honestly think that I could have switched straight around to being bi or lesbian if Larry had been born a woman. We just match on so many levels, and I don't think my life would be complete without him.

I disagree with you on one point Mata....that living in denial is unhealthy. For me it is a way of life and it's a good thing it is. I'm a megalomaniac with a god-complex and delusions of grandeur. I don't say that as a joke or something to laugh about. Part of me genuinely believes that I'm the destined ruler of the Earth and can ascend and become a deity once my power is great enough. Rationally I know this isn't so but I have to fight it every day because if I let it rage wild I will end up in a loony bin, prison, or in a position of political power. That's why I feel so strongly about choice. You would know none of this about me to meet me and talk with me. I'm not defined by what genetics or upbringing has bound me to.

By your definition not only am I a megalomaniac but I'm a danger just for having these feelings. In your 'cake or death' choice though I choose death. Death to a part of my psyche. I hope one day that I can kill this part of myself. That's why I believe in choice so strongly. Every time a homosexual says they have no choice I want to say the same thing and let Hyde out. I eat the tasteless other fruit because the oranges just can't be eaten without dire consequences.

I hope I'm not defined by how I feel about some things as you say. Otherwise my recurring dreams are who I am...and that is not good.

Xeno, your example of yourself is irrelevant. In your highly specific instance you can ignore/deny a part of yourself without harmful consequences - indeed, with beneficial consequences. That is where the analogy breaks down. There is nothing intrinsically harmful about a homosexual living that part of him/herself, and there is something damaging about them denying that part.

Hmm...i don't know why this popped into my mind...but here it goes.

My friend Nikki is a lesbian...she's a sweet, sad, nice, generous person...(Though a bit grumpy at times ^_-)
her and her girlfriend are in AFJROTC (Air Force Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps) and they get nothing but hate, every single day.
they throw stuff at them, taunt and jeer them, and sometimes, they aren't even allowed on the bus.
People stand in their way and trip them on the way to their seats. They even once said that they were doing 'innapropriate' things on the bus, so now they are no longer allowed to sit near eachother...
It's so sad...
It really is...
but our school is making progress.
We have a club named 'SSAL', or 'Students Supporting Alternative Lifestyles'
We have 29 people, and we sit around and talk about issues...
we get hate mail, though...some teachers even yap about it...
but it's a step in the right direction, don't you think?

Commie, I wasn't claiming homosexuality fit in the same status as my problems. I was just using it as a point to show that not all forms of denial are inherently bad or harmful to the person repressing some desires.

I WANT to jump in the car today and drive to California to go surfing. I WANT to sleep with every other girl I see. I WANT to skip the meeting I need to attend tonight so I can go to bed early. I choose not to do these things. I don't want to sound anti-homosexual if that's the way I'm coming across. I think, as I said, the most important part of their cause is making it sound like a choice that they choose. I choose to act on my desires.

For example, I enjoy surfing at the beach. If I went around saying I was forced to enjoy it and therefore there should be more public beaches I would come across as whiny and pathetic. I think the homosexual cause in general lacks dignity or at least the appearance of it. Part of this is the labels attached by society so they come across as apologetic while facing them. I know of no great reformers who apologized for their vision. Martin Luther King didn't apologize because his dream was offensive (even though that was a case where they could genuinely say they had no choice regarding skin color). Instead of justifying African Americans by saying they were compelled to be this way he gave them a vision of dignity and equality. I just don't see much of that in the homosexual cause.

That's why I think their tactics are winning them more enemies than friends. They want legal recognition before they get social respect. It's true some people can never be won over but most can and they're being alienated. If that respect is earned the political parties will bow to their constituents. If a large majority of Americans are on their side, both political parties by neccessity will support their causes and defend them.

I think you're generalising about "the homosexual cause". I have never heard pro-gay-rights activists claim or imply that while homosexual acts were wrong, homosexuals "can't help" doing it. Such a thing would be inconsistent with my own beliefs, among which is the belief that every sane person is morally responsible for each and every action. I have always argued that the genders of sexual partners is not a morally significant factor: that is, if something is morally permissible between heterosexual partners, it is morally permissible between homosexual partners.



Something we agree on, at least

Dear Matazonians (especially Laramon),

Sorry for getting catty about this one. I felt helpless to express my intense emotions in a mature way. I'll try harder to keep my frustration to a minimum next time. I'm glad that there is a place where we can all have a conversation like this without fear of being attacked. I wouldn't want to feel like I took something away from that again. Thanks to the rest of you for saying the stuff I'd like to say without being grumpy about it.

Lots of love,
kisah

"I WANT to jump in the car today and drive to California to go surfing. I WANT to sleep with every other girl I see. I WANT to skip the meeting I need to attend tonight so I can go to bed early. I choose not to do these things. I don't want to sound anti-homosexual if that's the way I'm coming across. I think, as I said, the most important part of their cause is making it sound like a choice that they choose. I choose to act on my desires. For example, I enjoy surfing at the beach. If I went around saying I was forced to enjoy it and therefore there should be more public beaches I would come across as whiny and pathetic."

I think you're confusing exactly what's being chosen. You do not choose your sexuality, but you can choose which gender you sleep with. You *can* choose to only have sex with people of the opposite gender if you're gay. There's been examples of that (men who have children but, sometime in their life, admit that they're gay. I think the New Jersey govenor who was in the news for awhile had kids, though I'm not sure... but that's just one example). Sexuality is not something you can just decide on one day; it's genetics (I know I shouldn't state this as a fact, cause it's still a much-argued point, but whatever). People often argue that sexuality is a choice because, at least I think, they're confusing the two. It's different than wanting to go surfing but not for whatever reason. Yes, technically, you could say that the two are the same, but the desire to go surfing, as far as I know, is not genetic. Then again, it's as far as I know not proven that sexuality is either. But maybe it has *shrug*.


"Instead of justifying African Americans by saying they were compelled to be this way he gave them a vision of dignity and equality. I just don't see much of that in the homosexual cause."
I don't think the gay rights movement is saying, "Give us full equality because we're forced to be gay." I always thought they were saying, "Give us full equality because we're entitled to it." Which reminds me of all equality movements throughout history.

Cheers Kisah I know exactly how you feel, it's really difficult to discuss such a politically flammable topic as this without getting at least a little riled.

Which actually leads me very nicely to my next point. Xeno, I've disagreed with you on a lot of issues here, and you've had a lot of people questioning you, and I just wanted to say thanks for continuing to answer them. I'm finding this conversation really interesting, and I wanted you to know that I appreciate your time in this.

Back on topic:


Ah, I think this might be where we are getting our wires crossed. 'Denial' and 'repression' are both psychoanalytical terms that indicate specific thought processes, and which by their nature are inherently unhealthy. If what you are doing is _not_ unhealthy then what you are doing is not denial or repression.

I think what you have been doing is using the term for denial when you should be using another terms such as self-control. If you have megalomaniac impulses that you do not act on then it is not the megalomaniac impulses that you are in denial of, those you are instead controlling. It is the cause of the megalomania that you are in denial of. In psychoanalysis, once a patient is aware of the nature of their denial and accept what the issue is then the process of recovery begins. You are aware of megalomaniacal thought patterns and are accustomed to them, so they are not what you are in denial of, the cause of those thoughts is a repressed memory, experience, or something in your psychochemical make-up.

Of course, I'm writing this from a purely psychoanalytical viewpoint, and only basing it on what you have said, but it is the correct use of the words, which I believe may be why we were getting so confused.

So, let's take you example:


So that was a choice, based on what you felt was the right thing to do in the world today. You were not in denial of your surfer-self, and you were not repressing your urge to surf, but you were suppressing them to act in a different manner. You made a choice.

Again, I think my idea of happiness comes in here:

What would have made you feel happiest?

1 Going surfing everyday, although this would mean that eventually that you would lose your home and everything that you have there.

2 Living your daily life and keeping a balance on your desire for surfing because you know that while surfing is important to you, having a roof over your head when it's raining is also important.

Certainly, to begin with option 1 sounds good, but deep-down most people would say that option 2, the life of balance, is the most appealing. It's not for everyone, but the fact that you chose it today means that consciously you think that it is what will make you happiest.

Now... It could be that you are repressing your true feelings, and that deep-down you really feel that living homeless, surfing, and sleeping on a beach everyday is your ideal way of living. If this is the case then I suspect that eventually it will win through. For some people it does, and that's fine if they are naturally inclined to want to live like that.

My point is, that happiness has to be the guide, because it is an indicator of psychological health. If you really are miserable living your life and not going surfing everyday, then what kind of life is that? That's 'death' rather than 'cake'; if it is a choice between living a miserable life of ease or a happy one of hardship then for the sake of psychological security the sensible choose the happy life. If you can be happy living a life of ease rather than struggling on the beach then you have made the choice already about which makes you more happy.


I find this interesting. Why should it be important for it to be a choice?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. Maybe you believe that the 'cake or death' choice is actually a really difficult one for people to make.

If a man is gay, but in a functioning marriage to a woman then he is in denial of his sexuality. Again, it's about the strict definitions of words. It's all labels, they can be useful but often they are also misleading. Earlier you posted saying that your friends have 'switched sexualities' happily several times and say that they have not been repressing anything at any point, which is another way of saying that they did not feel uneasy about the relationships that they were in. What is more likely to be the circumstance:

that their entire sexuality changed between one relationship and the next, and back again

or

they have only changed the label that they choose to describe themselves with?

I have been dating a woman for five years. I could easily claim that I am straight, and in the past I could have claimed that I am gay, but I am not. I'm bisexual, so I am not suppressing any bisexual urges while dating a woman because I my sexuality means that I can happily be in a relationship with a woman. If I were dating a man, I would not be suppressing any bisexual urges because I can happily do that too. I could take the appropriate label for every relationship, but they would not actually be accurate to who I am inside.

But what if I only felt sexual urges towards men; if I were gay? If I were to be in a relationship and thinking that I was happy (such as often happens in teenage years to gay people, as demonstrated by Aphronic's story) then I would be repressing those homosexual feelings. Repression, being a negative thing, would mean that this would cause psychological problems, such as depression and feelings of isolation (I am not implying in any way that repressed homosexuality is the only cause of these, that would be daft!). The psyche of the individual then has a choice, and it is often one that happens on a subconscious level: either face up to the homosexual desires and change their world, or to continue living with the trauma of repression (trauma again being a psychological term most famously defined in the work of Freud).

Or, to put it another way: cake or death.

Gay people say that they have no choice because they can either face the challenges and prejudice of society for the chance of finding love, accept their sexuality and remain lonely and celibate (which is what the mainstream Christian churches propose), or they can live in denial with all the psychological problems that this causes.

For some people celibacy can be an immensely rewarding lifestyle, but most others find that true happiness is found in a relationship, and so for the vast majority of gay people, the only way that they can stand a chance of finding happiness is to seek out a partner of the same sex. They do not see misery and loneliness as a choice, just as most people would not really see 'cake or death' as a question. What would you rather be, happy or sad? Of course people would always rather be happy, it's a silly question. So if gay people want to be happy there is no other choice but to be gay. That is why they say they have 'no choice'.


But surfing is not the only way that you can ever be happy. For gay people their only chance of finding a loving relationship is to be gay. You could be happy surfing, playing chess, reading a book, going to gigs... being gay Anything! I've met people who do only ever seem to be happy when surfing or thinking/talking about surfing, and they do whine on about the restriction of beaches. Frankly, they have a good point, although yes, sometimes they do sound whiney!


I think I see what you mean by this. Unfortunately, gay culture has a lot (an increasing seems to be) in common with the world's perception of US culture. Around the world, we often only see the people in the US who are the loudest, or the most stupid, and so it is difficult sometimes to separate that impression out from what people in the US are really like.

I've written this on these forums before, but I'm going to write it again, because to me is summarises so much about the reality of gay life.

I used to live in a third floor flat above a road through the middle of my very tiny city. Just below my flat window was a bed-shop and next to the bed-shop was a building that juts out into the road, obscuring the shop front from anyone further up the road. It was a Sunday afternoon and the road was deserted. There was hardly ever any cars on the road. It was summer and I was sitting on my window ledge, enjoying the sun. I saw two guys walking along on the opposite side of the road about two hundred metres away. They were just walking along chatting like any two men would, but my gaydar picked up that they were probably an item. I don't know why, they weren't touching at all and in all respects looked like anyone else. Having nothing else to do on such a nice afternoon, I watched them walk up the road. When they were near my flat they crossed over and walked towards the bed-shop window. They looked both ways up and down the road, and looked in a joined hands. For a moment they stood there, then they began to walk up the road. When they were rounding the corner of the building that jutted out into the street their hands went back to their sides and they once again looked like anyone else.

And that, to me, is what gay life is like.

It is hiding your love because you don't want to get in a fight with someone on the road. It's living in Jamaica and not wanting to get killed because you dare to admit that you are gay. It's driving for four hours in Texas to get to the closest gay bar because it's the only place that it is safe enough for you to express how you feel. Most of the time you will never see the gay people because their hands have gone back to their sides before they turned around the corner.

And so, the public representation of gay culture is mostly left to the loud and the stupid, such as Jack in 'Will & Grace', the preening queens of Queer Eye, or the gay friend in 'Sex And The City' ('Isn't it funny! He's gay! And likes attractive men! But he's camp and not very attractive so is always rejected!' Oh the comedy. ).


Interesting that you pick this parallel. Yes, those Doctor King's equality movement had no choice because of their physical characteristics, but are you so ingrained in Enlightenment thinking that you cannot see that being gay is for many equally immutable as the colour of their skin? Just because you cannot measure it with a ruler it does not mean it isn't real.

I could choose to never act on an attraction towards a man again in my life, and if I stay with Sues then that will be the case and I would be perfectly happy, but I would also not cease to be bisexual. A gay person does not have this choice. Ignoring the minority who can be satisfied with celibacy, gay people cannot be happy unless they are in a relationship with a person of the same sex.

Would you ask them to deny what they are? Do you ask that gay people not have relationships with each other? Because by saying that they have a choice about being gay, that is what you are doing! No, you cannot measure 'gayness' with a precision instrument, and you might not be able to tell it by looking at a person, but that does not mean that internally that is the true nature of their sexuality.


Would this be because you see the public representation of gay culture as undignified? Well, I don't blame you there. I agree with you. Television programs like the ones that I mentioned really do not give a good image of gay people, and they are truly a case of the loudest and most stupid being heard above everything else. Unfortunately leadership is associated with masculinity, and in modern times the most public gay figures are often not very masculine. If they are gay, famous, and masculine then they will usually conceal this as much as possible. Non-heterosexuality has never had it's own Doctor King, and I suspect that the paradigms of leadership mean that those who were in the position of intelligence and fame (such as Quentin Crisp) were never going to be able to take that role.

In the UK, a person's sexuality is only commented on if they are gay. A couple of years ago a TV presenter unexpectedly died from a brain haemorrhage and the newspaper article I read about this described him as 'the gay presenter of...' despite his sexuality having nothing to do with his work or his death (I wrote to the newspaper saying that I looked forward to their coverage of stories regarding heterosexual prime minister Tony Blair. They didn't print it ). You would never see an article mention a person's skin colour unless it was relevant to the context.

Returning this to the source of this discussion:

I think that this is why laws need to change. We are a long way in the civilised world from times where there were laws against black people, and attitudes are changing (slower than we might hope, but it is happening). Xeno, you state that the people should lead and the laws will follow, I believe it is the other way around. I suspect that when Doctor King was speaking that there were more people against black equality in the US than for it, but the laws changed and people realised that inequality was a problem.

The law makers should be sensible enough to see that prejudice is a problem, and lead the way to rectifying it, not making it worse by banning texts dealing with anything other than heterosexuality. I think the reason that your idea of homosexuality being a choice has annoyed people so much is due to this. Allen, the man suggesting this law, seems to be of the belief that being gay is something that you choose to do because it appeals, or someone has talked you into it. No-one would ever say that a person has chosen to be black, but for many people being gay is just as much a natural part of their being as their skin-colour. It is not a choice, it is simply who they are. Laws which suggest that being gay is something that people can be talked into only reinforce a stereotype in the populous that homosexuality is something that can be cured, avoided, or treated as if it were a mental illness. Sadly, this opinion comes to us directly from Freud, who in respects to the female psychology and homosexuality really was a complete twat, the trouble is, Freud is now treated like the Bible. People chose the parts that they want, and ignore anything that they disagree with, is inconsistent, or that is clearly not applicable to the modern world.


I agree with you that the most public representations of homosexuality are demeaning, but the majority of gay people live their lives quietly, just like anyone else. Just because gay people cannot be identified by their skin colour it does not mean that they do not deserve the same rights that everyone else has. I believe that the politicians have to lead the way.

You could have been read as sounding like that at first, but I did not believe that that was the correct understanding of what you were saying, hence why I have been interested to discuss the way you see things.

So, to summarise, if gay people want to be happy there is no other choice but to be gay, and society should be encouraged to accept this by preventing backwards steps in legislation such as the one proposed by Allen. I do find the idea of homosexuality being a choice to be very insulting because I know that it is as much a part of people as their skin colour, and you would never ask a person to hide that, so why ask them to hide their homosexuality? Allen's bill supports the stereotype of homosexuality as a choice that people choose to make, rather than as being something that they discover as they grow up. While the leaders of a country persist in such views it is not surprising that the country also follows. The leaders need to lead towards progressive equality, not try to take culture back in time to a mythical golden age where homosexuality 'didn't exist'. It has always been with us, it just has not been so open in recent times. Now that it is coming out of the closet that does not mean that it wasn't always there. The only choice being made is for people to pursue what makes them happy rather than live in misery, and many feel that that is no choice at all.

(Oh bugger, that was over three thousand words long. Sorry!)

I concede the point Mata and Commie. Based on responses, I have to accept that to most people the belief that they are making a choice doesn't seem to give them more dignity or more believability to most people. It does to me but it seems I'm the minority and the way to win is through the majority (I'm basing that both on this and another board where we've had an even more long-winded discussion of this ). That board is also much more politically conservative than this board. The religous people there (not fanatics) conceded that if homosexuality is an inborn and irrevocable desire (which most of them do not concede) then their cause has greater merit. I think my experiences shape this viewpoint and make my understanding somewhat unique and therefore not especially helpful when talking about changing society.

I apologize if I've offended anyone. I assumed I didn't stand alone in my view. Oh well, it's not the first time I've been wrong and it probably won't be the last.

*laughs* Well, maybe it'll be my turn next time

I really do believe the nature of a person's sexuality to be beyond their control. In the case of bisxuals we do have the option, if we choose to do so, of passing for heterosexuals, but gay people do not have this. As people grow I do think that it is possible that people's sexuality might grow too, but those changes are more likely, in my opinion, to be towards a greater expression of what was always inside them rather than towards something new.

Once again, thaks for an interesting discussion, it's helped me delineate my own ideas more clearly.

One final point that I would like to make:



I don't think that whether homosexuality is a choice confers more dignity or plausibility than homosexuality is unchangeable is relevant. One is true and the other is false, and that is all there is to it.

and may I just say for the record; Yay cake!
[/spam}

Yeah Commie, but which is which? I see it as a gray zone. It may be ingrained in some people but the choice to act.......I don't know. Maybe it's just the way my brain has to see it. I don't know.

I guess that must just be the way your brain is wired!

I really do think it is as simple as this:

Act on desires in an accepting society with consensual partners and be happy
or
Don't act and be depressed and lonely.

Once you accept that for whatever reason some people really are gay, with no interest in the opposite sex, then the only 'choice' is whether they try to pursue a happy life or whether they are miserable, and as I've said before, that's not really a choice. Anyone given the option of being happy or sad will go for happy.

The idea of 'choice' about sexuality is entirely based on religious teachings, that lead people to believe that homosexuality is a temptation of the devil. It's worth remembering that the two guys who started the Christian movement for 'converting' gay Christians into straight Christians eventually ran away together. How you view this depends on your point of view. You could say that the temptation of the devil was too strong, or you could say that two people have found love and acceptance of themselves where previously they had none. If God is love then those two guys have found that God has blessed them with eachother.

I'm guessing that you come from a religious background Xeno? That would probably explain your fixation on the idea of sexuality as a choice. Did you ever choose to be heterosexual? Of course you didn't, so why on earth would you think that other people would choose to be homosexual, especially considering the anger, mistrust, and danger that this provokes from many in society?

I'm not debunking your theory, Mata, but I think that I at least started heterosexual was the fact that the kids around me were, because their parents and their friends were as well. I didn't have much of an interest in either sex until I actually went through the motions and pursued a woman. In time I found that I was attracted to women and never thought twice about it.

I don't want to assume that this would work in reverse, but what if? What if I happeend to meet my best friend before I pursued women? He is bisexual and has admitted to being extremely attracted to me physically. What if I went through the motions with him instead of with Christina? Would I have become a homosexual?

I guess this is where the issue really is focused. If you can answer without a doubt that at that point in my life there was no chance of me being homosexual, then the motives of this particular bill are counterintuitive. If there was even a chance that I would have become a flaming homosexual, then I can at least accept their motives witout agreeing to their ends. After all, the ends don't ALWAYS justify the means, and vice versa.

As I have stated prior, I agree with some of the reforms, but not their extents. I also agree with some of the actions, but not completely with the motives. If this bill had been constructed for other reasons and had a broader scope, myself and I'm sure a larger portion of this board would agree more with it.

Kisah, your appology touches me, but does not completely make up for what you said. I forgive you, but still feel the effects continuing to affect me albeit lesser in extent. I honestly felt like not even coming back to the forums for a time. I never intended to say that I thought their lives would be blissful and perfect, and quite honestly I did not realize some of the particulars of the situation. I still believe that progress can be made, and that every 'privilage' of hetero married couples can be enjoyed even today by homo couples, just with a little more work. Rome wasn't built in a day, and in fact didn't even have running water for a long long time, and even then had lead pipes. Use that as a landmark to set your bearings on how it could be viewed.

I'm from a highly religious background and still am highly religous. I teach an hour Adult Sunday School class every Sunday so I guess you could say I still am.

And while I may not be the norm, yes, I think I did make a choice which is possibly why I feel so strongly. I don't think I fit in the term bisexual but I could be wrong. I was heterosexual and then through choices I made switched to homosexuality to where heterosexuality (not the concept, just the idea of me being involved in it) was repugnant than I reversed again (same repugnance, not general but specific to me). The weird thing is there was no real trauma involved or anything Freud would love to discuss. It wasn't what I'd call a religous experience to change either way (and I've had experience with those) or some profound trauma (also experienced). I can pinpoint the moment I came to accept God exists in the same way I can pinpoint the moment those changes took place. The thing is the former had a reason for happening the latter did not. I don't get it but it feels like a choice. Rationally that means nothing as feelings are all but impossible to quantify.

Whatever the cause was (brain chemicals, divine intervention, what I ate, repressed desires, deep-seated fears, some hidden psychological trauma or some form of genetic abnormality built into me) I don't know and will probably never know.

Evening all,

Back from a christmaswith the entire family and inlaws on the south coast
This homosexuality thing:-

I worked in so many places over the years and was in one of the one where it was fortunate that the work came in bursts so you had, much like this forum, time to philosophise with people of varying life experience and education, very argumentative but civilised.

One guy I had issues with was also a school governor and this was at a time when it was being debated as to whether a homosexual (male) should be allowed to be a teacher. I was of the anti them group because I had friends who had been groped by these sort of people in their school years. This guy pointed out that what I was describing was child molesting not being a homosexual and that a heterosexual perv could be groping your daughter. I had not thought of that and for the first time in years had to do a serious rethink.

My attitude now is live and let live.

I also think that human beings and the urges they have and the inner lives they live are so mysterious and that we are so remote from each other, most of us that is, that we are all beyond description or comment.

Soon we will go away with two other couples and spend 7 days in a lovely house in beautiful country with people who irritate puzzle and entrance me, all in the same week. The wine flows of course.

At these times I wonder, should we be amazed at people who are celbate/tetotal rather than what used to be called queers?

NOTE - I have avoided the expression "In my day"


Misty Rain
Who might have missed some of the stuff people said while I was away.

Hmm, I'm not sure how they arrived at this conclusion. Looking at this from a Christian perspective:

1) Homosexuality is a choice. Ergo, homosexuals are deliberately going against the will of God (who wants us to marry and have children), and homosexuality is a sin.

2) Homosexuality is not a choice, but inborn. Ergo, it is God's will, for whatever reason, that certain members of the species are attracted not to the opposite gender but to their own, and far from being a sin, homosexuality is all part of the ineffable Plan.

I think that ReligiousTolerance.org deals with this debate excellently. It explains very thoroughly why we keep returning to this part of the debate. Thoughts?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/homagree.htm