Is homosexuality a bad thing?

In a nut shell what rights should gay people not be allowed to have?

They should have the same obligations and the same rights that heterosexual community´s would have, which translates to, that both "cultures" would be obliged to respect the differences and acknowledge the similarity´s with mutual respect...

Does this mean that they should have all the same legal rights as heterosexuals such as adoption marriage and so forth or should we limit there rights to be less than ours?

In practice the rights would be very similar concerning marriage...as for adoption I still have doubts...neither in favour nor totally against...but truly in doubt.
I guess adoption is a complex issue.

Thank you for your honesty!

I think that we should question all heterosexual marriages and homosexual marriages when it comes to adoption as we all have compassion for babies. At least I hope that we all do!

You welcome !
I fully agree that far beyond Gay or Heterosexual adoptions children must have our entire devotion and care.

Get specific.

What obligations? Specifically.
What differences would have to be respected? Specifically.

I'm not a part of straight "culture" so why draw such an unnecessary division? I think you're using coded language here. Perhaps we could install some "heterosexual only" drinking fountains?

A
R
T

He does seem to have a play on words that make it hard to know for sure his standing, and it does seem that he has said some hateful things but he also seems to be shifting his opinion from one who was not very gay friendly to one who is becoming more gay friendly.

When one is not gay or does not have a love one who is gay it can be extremely difficult for them to see a gay person's point of view clearly.

When one is taught that gay is not normal it is many times harder for their minds to switch and except, "that gays should have all the same rights as us. It is like a religion or any other ideology, just because a person can be completely wrong about their ideology does not mean that they can not be extremely smart about many other things.

You would think that everyone should know that they should love one another and not try to take anything from them or make it so that they can not have the same rights as themselves. I can only guess that ideolgies can at times distort our mirror neurons.

I find myself saying things like this also [Perhaps we could install some "heterosexual only" drinking fountains?] but I think it is counter perductive sometimes as it may just add emotional flooding to the one I am trying to relay my thoughts to.

I'll agree about the emotional flooding, but for some, they won't be offered the luxury of choice. I think people need to be aware of the impact of these mentalities, and that shallow indifference to other's adversity is more cause for emotional flooding than rhetorical jabs about drinking fountains.

A
R
T

i think we should all have individual drinking fountains, i can't remember the last time i used one, and can't imagine ever doing so again

Hi reasoning !
I am hardly debating the specificity of Gay rights here, my concern goes far beyond that, and whether you believe it or not is much more about maintaining cultural specificity which is something that is falling apart everywhere due to this paradigmatic new global network structure that is forming up and that is homogenising our differences by levelling up, rules and concept limitations on the guise of equality, a modern fever that goes well above having juridical protection...that of course on one side has its own advantages, namely in terms of a better communication and less conflicting situations but on the other hand it just kills diversity, creativity and throws an appalling look to what is different and wants not to be assimilated...
I will give you a typical example here in Coimbra:
We have a specific type of Fado that only exists in this city, more elaborated then the usual one, singed specifically by male students in the romantic tradition of the "Serenata" in which someone who is in love would go at night with a group of musicians up to the front window of the loved one to sing he´s love...of course nowadays´s its not like that any more (it still happens for fun) but its more a cultural mark of the region very much appreciated for its specificity and particular context...so guess what ?...Obviously more recently Women felt they were being discriminated and wanted to extend to them the possibility of singing "Fado de Coimbra" which intrinsically would without a doubt destroy its very own definition and Nature...it does n´t make sense not because there is a discrimination going on, or a diabolic plan to exclude anyone, is just the way it is, this type of Fado is directly linked with male romantic attitude...this is the problem with a miss interpretation of what Democracy is all about, and that goes on in every issue, everywhere in the world, always under the banner of discrimination which is obviously an abuse and faults to focus the real question adjacent to it...HOMOGENEITY in place of DIVERSITY !

My problem is not about juridical rights but simply about Cultural rights and the entitlement to Cultural diversity...simple !

For someone that argued the rest of us need to be open minded, you sure are set in your ways and refuse to see anything outside your narrow viewpoint.

I guess is a question of opinion...as what I find narrow minded is exactly not accepting or admitting others the right to disagree with your cosmogony paradigm...note that I don´t oppose Legal Rights, I AGREE WITH THEM...
My concern goes entirely to the dilution of Cultural specificity...unfortunately you had exactly the response I was expecting, not understanding the confusion there seams to be between Democracy and participation with the right to protect conceptual structures and the groups who are behind them...

Get specific.

Like what?
Define "cultural specificity." What does this have to do with homosexuals?

(also, if you'd be so kind to reply to the questions on specificity I posted earlier, it would be most helpful in understanding what you're trying to say)

A
R
T

but things change, in your example, the fact that women want to do this Fado thing, how does it diminish the men doing it really

i guess i'm lucky, or not depending on your position, that i don't hold anything sacred enough to worry bout others doing it, or how them doing it might influence me

I did answer them even before you asked...
I was very specific !

1 - Legal Gay Rights concerning Marriage would be more or less the same as Heterosexual couples have...excluding the conceptual definition and the name of the Institution as a symbolic mean of conserving the specificity of each interpretation, given as a Social contract each group is democratically entitled to have its own cultural understanding on Marriage !
There you have it...

think of marriage just like music, i might not like death metal, but i support it's right to be called music

Its not about not letting Women participate ! (that´s the wrong perception)
There are things that are not Gender dependent (most of them agreed)
but this Fado of Coimbra specifically is very much about the display of MALE ROMANTIC AFFECTION by its own definition therefore the perfect example of the Idea I am trying to convey !
If it was the case of being a female conception I would say exactly the same thing...so its not about me being male, but rather about being reasonable...there are things in this world that will loose identity because most people confuse Democracy with Homogeneity !
Thankfully the tradition still maintains precisely because some Women found it appalling that something which represents how men express their affection for women was about to be disintegrated due to a linear conception of what participation is all about...

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHRwprRN4UQ

But I never in my life disagree that Gay couples are entitled to have a protected relation in Legal terms...what they want its not just that !

This is quite the opposite of specific.

In your own words "more or less" is so undefined, it could literally mean anything. What specifically is a "conceptual definition" that would be required to conserve the specificity of each "interpretation?"

Saying that cultures have different cultural understandings on marriage is fine. However, drawing an artificial cultural boundary between what homosexuals and heterosexuals understand marriage to be about is simply false. I don't think homosexual's understanding of marriage is any different than my own. Your social model does not account for this.

You are NOT being specific.

A
R
T