Homosexuality ? Where do you stand...

Francis wrote:

You are hypothesizing the future.

Homophobia will go away with education, not only of the heterosexual but also the homosexual. It happens in Europe.

They should stop to pretend having a special status.

For example, it happens to me to deal with homosexual people.

As long as they don't try to convince me that they are special because of that, everything is ok, some are even my friends.

But when they use their way of life as a plateform for claims, then I've no sympathy..

Very well stated. I fully agree.

0 Replies

6Yuri9 wrote:

Obviously. Homosexuals can't force Churches to accept them.
But we shouldn't be prevented from getting married if we want to.
it is not right to force soemone to accept you for who you are. So i agree that churches dont need to accept us.

If by "getting married" you mean getting the social and economic benefits established by government for the protection of child-rearing families, then I strongly disagree. However, I wouldn't object at all to some other governmental sanction of the unions of homosexual couples.

If you were to object to that, asserting that such a position is indicative of homophobia, I would disagree.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Francis wrote:
You are hypothesizing the future.

Homophobia will go away with education, not only of the heterosexual but also the homosexual. It happens in Europe.

They should stop to pretend having a special status.

For example, it happens to me to deal with homosexual people.

As long as they don't try to convince me that they are special because of that, everything is ok, some are even my friends.

But when they use their way of life as a plateform for claims, then I've no sympathy..

Very well stated. I fully agree.

Don't generalize. You are offending me by saying that "they use their way of life as a platform for claims". You are stereotyping.

I do not think im SPECIAL. I am Normal. like u both. I have never ever used my sexuality as an excuse for anything or a platform for claims.

Watch what you say and agree to.

0 Replies

Maybe it's the language barrier but I'm feeling you need to improve your reading skills...

Where have you seen I said that you were using your way of life as a platform for claims?

0 Replies

Let homosexuals do what ever they want, within the same legal and expected boundaries that us strait people do. Thats all, I dont wanna hear about how we shouldn't be able to do things because they cant, theyre human too right? then let them do what ever they want, just make us equal.

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

The issue here is one of competing rights. Group A has a right to believe as they wish and the right to peacefully gather and share their thoughts. Group B has a right not to be discriminated against. Group B doesn't have any right to force Group A to to accept them as a part of their group in violation of their own beliefs.

Government can't enforce one human right (or law) here without violating a competing right (or law) of another group at the same time. The Courts (at least those here in the U.S.) have to weigh the "compelling state interests" on both sides in determining which side's rights are going to end up being infringed upon.

...unless the practices of group A discriminate against Group B. Yours and mine interpretation differ. Such is the nature of human beings. I hear you, I see your logic, I just see it differently, that's all.

0 Replies

Johnmg wrote:

Let homosexuals do what ever they want,
within the same legal and expected boundaries that us strait people do.
Thats all, I dont wanna hear about how we shouldn't be able to do things
because they cant, theyre human too right? then let them do what ever
they want, just make us equal.

Not even identical twins are equal.

By what reasoning
have u reached the conclusion
that homosexuals have a duty to make us equal ???????

0 Replies

Johnmg, I hope you mean equal in rights, as opposed to identical. I also hope that Francis would also reject heterosexual claims to superiority.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Johnmg, I hope you mean equal in rights, as opposed to identical. I also hope that Francis would also reject heterosexual claims to superiority.

The concept of superiority is meaningless
without reference to designated criteria;
in other words, better at WHAT ?

0 Replies

Of course, ODavid--and that also applies to "inferiority"--but how does that apply to my comment?

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Of course, ODavid--and that also applies to "inferiority"--
but how does that apply to my comment?

U wrote of claims of superiority.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

I also hope that Francis would also reject heterosexual claims to superiority.

I'm usually against any claims to superiority, wherever they come from.

0 Replies

Does that mean that usually, no one is superior to anyone else ?

0 Replies

Who is qualified to determine that someone is superior to someone else?

People are different, have different skills that can be said superior to other people.

But on the average, on what basis a person is superior to another person?

0 Replies

Francis wrote:

Quote:
Who is qualified to determine that someone is superior to someone else?

The judge.

Quote:
People are different, have different skills that can be said superior to other people.

Yeah,
but U usually deny that.

Quote:

But on the average, on what basis a person is superior to another person?

I dunno about averages.

R we talking about averages ?

0 Replies

Ok let me Restate what i was trying to imply.

People are annoyed because of the fact that we are still fighting for our rights.

We will continue to do that until we get the same rights as heterosexual people.
Theoretically we should have the same rights as the heterosexual people we live with. However that is not what is going on. Which is the reason why we are still fighting to this day.

EXAMPLE: Harrassment in the workplace. the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military, the frequent abuse gay children go through at school.

get my point or shall i continue ?

Superiorty Vs. Rights in Modern Society:

Superiority indirectly is a roadblock here because we are talking about sexuality. Not money. Sexuality doesn't judge who is more superior over the other. Authority and money do. There are some rich gay people out there, believe me and they get equal rights as heterosexual people. It is because they have money and power by which they get their equakl rights by force. Indirectly YES superiority does play a role but not as big as money and authority.

0 Replies

I agree with Francis that the notion of a general supriority between individuals is invalid. I am "superior" to some individuals with regard to SOME properties but "inferior" to the same individuals with regard to other properties. So what justifies claims to general superiority?

0 Replies

6Yuri9 wrote:

Ok let me Restate what i was trying to imply.

People are annoyed because of the fact that we are still fighting for our rights.

We will continue to do that until we get the same rights as heterosexual people.
Theoretically we should have the same rights as the heterosexual people we live with.
However that is not what is going on.
Which is the reason why we are still fighting to this day.

EXAMPLE: Harrassment in the workplace. the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military,

the frequent abuse gay children go through at school.

I hope that u were not frequently abused as a child in school, Yuri,
Did that actually happen ?

Did the other children know
that u r a homosexual ?

Did u tell them ?

Based upon either your own direct observation,
or based upon what other people have told u,
do believe that u presented yourself
in a feminine affect to the other children ?

Did u go to school with children of both sexes ?

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

6Yuri9 wrote:
Ok let me Restate what i was trying to imply.

People are annoyed because of the fact that we are still fighting for our rights.

We will continue to do that until we get the same rights as heterosexual people.
Theoretically we should have the same rights as the heterosexual people we live with.
However that is not what is going on.
Which is the reason why we are still fighting to this day.

EXAMPLE: Harrassment in the workplace. the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military,

the frequent abuse gay children go through at school.

I hope that u were not frequently abused as a child in school, Yuri,
Did that actually happen ?

Did the other children know
that u r a homosexual ?

Did u tell them ?

Based upon either your own direct observation,
or based upon what other people have told u,
do believe that u presented yourself
in a feminine affect to the other children ?

Did u go to school with children of both sexes ?

I came out of the closet when i was 13 . Yes i went to school with children of both sexes. I am flamboyant if that is what you are trying to get out of me.

0 Replies

I think it is important to be specific about the terms of reference when talking about something like "superiority".

In any objectively understood and knowable process, the right answer (i.e. the one that actually occurs) can be thought of as "superior" to a wrong one (one that doesn't occur).

Thus heterosexual intercourse is superior to its alternatives in producing offspring. That doesn't mean it is superior in all things, but the natural difference with respect to reproduction is undeniable and certainly real.

Homosexuality is undeniably inferior to heterosexuality in terms of reproducing the species. True there are modern means of getting around that in some cases, however the objective difference is real and undeniable. That, however, doesn't mean that homosexuals should be oppressed or denied equivalent rights.

It is useless and an obvious defiance of observable facts to assert that homosexuality is normal in the principal sense with which the word is used (i.e. the central tendency of the group): it is instead atypical and unnormal. That, however, doesn't mean that it is necessarily a social evil and should be repressed.

The basic principles on which our society and political systems were founded require that we treat people equally regardless of how typical or atypical they may be. That alone requires that reproductive efficiency and "normality" or its compliment should not be used as a basis for the unequal treatment of homosexuals.

0 Replies

Homosexuality ? Where do you stand...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know