PDA

View Full Version : Why is being GAY an issue?


06-03-1999, 03:45 AM
I have never understood why this has been singled out as such a big deal by people. Can someone explain?

------------------
>^,,^<
"Cluemobile? You've got a pickup..."
OpalCat's site: http://fathom.org/opalcat
The Teeming Millions Homepage: fathom.org/teemingmillions (http://fathom.org/teemingmillions)

06-03-1999, 07:54 AM
I'm not gay, so I can't claim to be an authority on the subject, but I'll give my opinion anyway.

Any minority group often feels the need to strengthen its position by being 'louder' about who/what they are, and this obviously includes the gay population. It must be very annoying to go through life with everone assuming that you are heterosexual when you're not, and then people claim that you're
making a 'big deal' about it when you do mention that you're homosexual.

People think that I'm militant about being Welsh just because I get annoyed when people assume that I'm English. I'm not at all militant, I just don't want people thining that I'm something I'm not.

06-03-1999, 08:33 AM
Because of the segment of the religious that believe gay=evil. It's pretty hard to try to live a quiet life when you've got a group of people calling you "evil" and "perverted."

06-03-1999, 09:48 AM
I'm pretty sure that those religious people think that lying=evil too, but you don't see them picketing the funerals of someone who lied. Why is the religious right so obsessed with what people are doing in bed?

BTW, I was not asking why *GAY* people were open about being "out" but why *NON GAY* people were so hateful, discriminatory, etc about it. No gays in the military, etc. What about no nose-pickers in the military?

------------------
>^,,^<
"Cluemobile? You've got a pickup..."
OpalCat's site: http://fathom.org/opalcat
The Teeming Millions Homepage: fathom.org/teemingmillions (http://fathom.org/teemingmillions)

06-03-1999, 10:24 AM
Somewhere in the bible it says that "man shalt not lie with another man" or something like that. But last time I checked the bible says you shouldn't eat pork or cheeseburgers... yet we don't see anyone crusading against McDonald's or Denney's

Other anti-gay people seem concerned that gay people are on a mission to convert/corrupt America's impressionable youth or something like that. The few gay people I've met seemed pretty harmless, however.

06-03-1999, 10:28 AM
A couple of reasons, Opal.

1) Sex roles. (Or gender roles, if you prefer.) A certain segment of the population feels very strongly that sex roles are inviolable. Just look at the reaction of some men if you suggest that it's OK for a little boy to play with dolls.

Being gay is the ultimate violation of sex roles-- at least in the heterosexual perception.

2) This has a lot to do with the gays-in-military issue: most men objectify women, even sensitive New Age guys-- they're just ashamed when they do.

Most men are horrified of the idea of a man looking at a man, and thinking of him in the terms in which men usually think of women.

There have been periods and places where homosexual rape was the ultimate way of humiliating the fallen enemy after a battle. (This is what the story of Lot is about in Genesis.)

In fact, believe it or not, many gay men who are "gay-bashed" are raped, by men who define themselves as heterosexual, and whose intent is not pleasure but power. Nearly all male/male rape takes this form, BTW; it's pretty rare for a gay man to rape another man.

3) Being gay is about sex. A lesbian friend of mine once joked that she would come out to her parents when she could figure out a way to do it without admitting at the same time that she wasn't a virgin.

Some people are just so uncomfortable with sex in general, that any time they meet a gay person-- someone whose gayness is spelled out in so many letters-- all they can think of is "He's had sex."

Check out John Boswell's books for more info.



------------------
------------
--Rowan
Shopping is still cheaper than therapy. --my Aunt Franny

06-03-1999, 10:33 AM
Simple enough answer: the Bible says it's wrong, and it's one of the precepts of the Bible that Christianity still considers a binding obligation.

Amongst Orthodox Jews, who believe that gay sex is forbidden by G-d but also that mixed meat and milk is forbidden and that pork is forbidden, it's much less of an issue. Sex is just one more area of life in which one's choices are limited by the Bible. Christians, though, apparantly abandoned almost all Biblical prohibitions except those about sex, so it stands out.

------------------
Chaim Mattis Keller
ckeller@schicktech.com

"Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks."
-- Douglas Adams's Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective

06-03-1999, 10:38 AM
People think that I'm militant about being Welsh just because I get annoyed when
people assume that I'm English

Reminds me of an incident that happened years ago when I taught preschool. Two Japanese four year olds were arguing (in Japanese). Then one kid said something to the other kid that horrified him so much that he slapped his friend across the face. I broke them up and asked the kid why he struck his friend.
Indignant, he pointed to the other kid and said "He... he called me ENGLISH!!!"

06-03-1999, 11:36 AM
Quotes from CM Keller

>>Amongst Orthodox Jews, who believe that gay sex is forbidden by G-d but also that mixed meat and milk is forbidden and that pork
is forbidden, it's much less of an issue. Sex is just one more area of life in which one's choices are limited by the Bible.<<

While Orthodox Jews have interpreted Leviticus 18:22 as forbidding gay relationships, the truth is that what Orthodoxy really wants is for Jews to marry and produce children.

There is actually a Lubavitch rebbe who has gone on record as saying lesbian affairs involving married women are acceptable as long as they do not interfere with the marriage-- and he's probably on good historical footing: what do you think every concubine did when it wasn't "her night" with the husband?

However, there's an argument, and not necessarily a specious one, that because the "mishkevei ishah" of Leviticus 18:22 LITERALLY means "the lying of woman," men are forbidden merely from lying (down) in the manner of women with other men.

In other words, the authors of the Torah couldn't imagine a gay relationship where one man isn't taking the female role-- there's those sex roles again.

Obviously whoever wrote this isn't familiar with consensual gay relationship-- he (or she, I suppose) is thinking in terms of the sex roles games and reversals that were part of Molech worship.

Lev 18:21 forbids child sacrifice TO MOLECH, Lev. 18:23 forbids bestiality, and 18:24 says "don't do this; the Canaanites did it, and you see that I'm now casting them out and giving you their land."

So the argument goes that Lev. is addressing orgies as a religious offering, and not consensual gay relationships.

The reason I think this argument isn't merely specious, is that "mishkevei ishah" is an unusual word choice. It comes after a long list of forbidden (incestuous) sexual acts, for which a different euphemism is used. The whole verse 18:22 is rather convoluted:

"And for a young man: don't lie the 'lying of women'; it is distasteful."

This verse opens with a direct object, the verb of which is not apparent. Thus the translation "And for a young man...."

>>Christians, though, apparantly abandoned almost all Biblical prohibitions except those about sex, so it stands out.<<

Quite true. Interestingly, Christians don't cite Lev. 18:22, nor the "New" Testament anti-gay passages; most commonly they cite the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which Orthodox and liberal Jews all agree says nothing about consensual homosexuality.


------------------
------------
--Rowan
Shopping is still cheaper than therapy. --my Aunt Franny

06-03-1999, 02:28 PM
Opal, that's a very interesting question! I think that most Christians have a tendancy to "rate" sins on how bad they are. You know, a little white lie isn't that bad but, oooh, being homosexual is terrible. I don't exactly feel that God thinks along those lines and I don't recall anywhere in the Bible where any one sin is worse than others (except worshipping a god other than God) Anyone out there? I don't have my Bible at work to reference anything. Anyway, back to the subject: I think homosexuality is an area of difference that's easily focused on and the people who practice it are more easily segregated vs. those who, say, lie, or embezzle from their company. I think it's just a way for people to say "you're different in a way that makes me uncomfortable so down with you!" I don't think that it's entirely a religious issue, even though it gets made out to be most of the time. I have to agree with Mike who felt that some people have difficulty dealing with repressed homosexual thoughts/feelings themselves so they rail (sp?) against those openly homosexual. Thought provoking question!

------------------
Carpe Diem!

06-03-1999, 02:36 PM
I was right there with Rowan on the 'men objectify women' as a reason for homophobia, but then I started thinking about some of my experiences in the East (India, Nepal, Thailand). I really can't speak to their overall views on male homosexuality, but there certainly is no sign of overt homophobia. Men often hold hands or walk arm in arm and no one finds this the least bit disturbing. In all of these countries, women are objectified far more than they are in the Western world. Does anyone have any insight on why Easterners are less homophobic than Westerners? Perhpas it will lead us to a better understanding of the original question.

------------------
"I think it would be a great idea" Mohandas Ghandi's answer when asked what he thought of Western civilization

06-03-1999, 03:38 PM
In contrast to those less homophobic countries, there are still countries where it is a crime against the state & people are often convicted, tortured & excecuted on accusations alone.

A friend of mine (fresh off the boat from Vietnam) and his brother were walking hand-in-hand through a shopping mall when their uncle (who had been here a few years and hence understood the implications) forcibly separated and scolded them. They were quite disturbed at being told to break a bond they had held all their lives, so that foreign onlookers wouldn't be made uncomfortable.

Our propensity for leaping to absurd conclusions is hard to understand sometimes: If they're holding hands, then maybe they also... gasp.

06-03-1999, 03:50 PM
Why is being gay an issue, you ask? Two words... "The Bible." I am not one to take any faith in that document, but with it you basically get Paul's interpretation of what someone else (meaning Jesus) said or did. I know that many of you will point out that Sodom and Gamorah (sorry about the spelling of the latter word) was in the Old Testament, but the real "sin" committed their was inhospitality. (That was according to a Rabbi I once knew in Texas, and no, he was not gay.) As far as the Jesus and his sexuality go, the Romans who were in power at the time thought he was gay too. I personally don't have an opinion either way, but if Jesus was vocal about his sexuality, I doubt that he would have had many followers considering the majority of the population is heterosexual. (Well IMHO, the majority of the people are really naturally bisexual and just lean more towards one end of the spectrum) I myself am gay, <big shocker, huh?> and I have not only lost friends from coming out, I have also gained lifelong friends. To me, personally, the only people that being gay really is an issue to are those people with small minds. As was proven by Masters and Johnson in their studies on human behaviour(in the seventies, I believe) the more education one has, the more likely that person will be liberal. Perhaps that is because the people realize that their are so many different flavors of people that there is no point in harassing them because they are different.

I have digressed, so back on topic, the other main reason that being gay is an issue is cultural, I know that this still relates to the Bible in US culture. Because the USA was basically founded on Puritanical prinicples (not bad for an alliterative device) anything dealing with sex became taboo. Did you know in many states (Texas, Virginia, and Kentucky to name a few) oral sex is considered sodomy and a felony? Anyway, if one compares this to European culture after WWII, the laws involving consensual crimes were essentially abolished. Even with that said, it still took a long time for that to come about. And in places such as Amsterdam, Paris, and other capitals (they tend to be more liberal) have become gay Meccas. Another bit of trivia collected from the National Holocaust museum in Washington DC, after all of the Jews and Gypsies were released from the concentration camps, only the gays were left to stay to either die, or finish out their sentances. Perhaps this is becuase Americans in our Puritanical sense did not want gay people to go around and propogate. <Foolish Mortals, gay sex does not produce children>

I know that I have digressed, but to summarize, the main reasons that I have found that being gay is an issue all stem from the most puritanical side of the Bible and its influence on modern culture. If one could travel back in time, the people were in one view either extremely hedonistic or very open about who and what they were. (Or do I have to mention the Greeks to anyone?) Well enough of that. I hope this brought some enlightnment.

Sqrlcub

>Biggles, Sut dych chi heddiw? Os dych chi eisiau, ysgrifenwch mi, os gwela'ch yn dda.

06-03-1999, 04:49 PM
Sqrlcub, also note in the Sodom and Gomorrah story that the men of the city demanded that Lot send out his visitors (the angels come to warn Lot to get out of the city) so they could have their way with them. I guess that would qualify as a lack of hospitality. ;) Lot offered them his daughters instead ('gee, thanks, dad').

------------------
Carpe Diem!

06-03-1999, 05:03 PM
Rowan:

While Orthodox Jews have interpreted Leviticus 18:22 as forbidding gay relationships, the truth is that what Orthodoxy really wants is for Jews to marry and produce children.

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. Both are true. "Be fruitful and multiply" is the positive commandment to marry and produce children. Leviticus 18:22 is a negative commandment which forbids gay sexual activity.

There is actually a Lubavitch rebbe who has gone on record as saying lesbian affairs involving married women are acceptable as long as they do not interfere with the marriage-- and he's probably on good historical footing: what do you think every concubine did when it wasn't "her night" with the husband?

Acceptable? While I don't know the specific Rabbi or quote you're referring to, it's more likely he said it's not Biblically prohibited, which is a far cry from saying it's religiously acceptable. For one thing, it would be considered a gross violation of the Jewish codes of modesty.

In other words, the authors of the Torah couldn't imagine a gay relationship where one man isn't taking the female role-- there's those sex roles again.

Obviously whoever wrote this isn't familiar with consensual gay relationship--

Are you trying to tell me that the usual gay male sex act doesn't involve one man taking on the female (i.e., receiving a penis into an available bodily orifice) role? I won't claim to be an expert on homosexuality, but I'd certainly thought this was the case.

he (or she, I suppose) is thinking in terms of the sex roles games and reversals that were part of Molech worship.

Lev 18:21 forbids child sacrifice TO MOLECH, Lev. 18:23 forbids bestiality, and 18:24 says "don't do this; the Canaanites did it, and you see that I'm now casting them out and giving you their land."

So the argument goes that Lev. is addressing orgies as a religious offering, and not consensual gay relationships.

Interesting theory. It comes after a huge listing of forbidden sexual relationships, including incest, adultery and sex with a woman during her menstrual period, but the one item you think defines this sexual prohibition is the non-sexual item that follows two verses later. In addition...

The reason I think this argument isn't merely specious, is that "mishkevei ishah" is an unusual word choice. It comes after a long list of forbidden (incestuous) sexual acts, for which a different euphemism is used. The whole verse 18:22 is rather convoluted:

"And for a young man: don't lie the 'lying of women'; it is distasteful."

This verse opens with a direct object, the verb of which is not apparent. Thus the translation "And for a young man...."

You're mistranslating. It doesn't say "And for a young man: don't lie...", it says "And a male you shall not lie with the way of lying with a woman."

This is not a convoluted sentence, it is a simple commandment forbidding a man to do the sexual act (most) men do with women to another man.

In addition, the mention of "the way of lying with a woman" could be the author's (I personally believe it was G-d) way of saying "In any way comparative to women"...in other words, even if it's consensual and loving and not part of an idolatrous orgy (as with the standard male/female relationship), don't lie with another man.

I'm not one of those who feels that due to the Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality, that discrimination against homosexuals should persist in American society, which is supposed to be religion-neutral. But to try to claim the Bible (whatever your beliefs about its authorship and/or veracity) doesn't explicitly prohibit male homosexual sex is as ludicrous as claiming it didn't say G-d created the heavens and Earth.

------------------
Chaim Mattis Keller
ckeller@schicktech.com

"Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks."
-- Douglas Adams's Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective

06-03-1999, 08:59 PM
"Being gay is the ultimate violation of sex roles-- at least in the heterosexual perception."
---Rowan
-----------------------------------

Main Entry: 1het∑ero∑sex∑u∑al
Pronunciation: "he-t&-rO-'sek-sh(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary
Date: 1892
1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward the opposite sex b : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of opposite sex
2 : of or relating to different sexes
----------------------------------------

The definition fits me, but the generalization sure doesn't.
From reading the rest of your posts I'm convinced you didn't mean it that way, but perception is everything.

I honestly believe that homosexuality somehow scares the shit out of a lot of men.
Why? I don't know. Not for sure.
Peace,
mangeorge


------------------
Work like you don't need the money.....
Love like you've never been hurt.....
Dance like nobody's watching! Source???

06-03-1999, 11:57 PM
>>I'm not one of those who feels that due to the Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality, that discrimination against homosexuals should persist in American society, which is supposed to be religion-neutral. But to try to claim the Bible (whatever your beliefs about its authorship and/or veracity) doesn't explicitly prohibit male homosexual sex is as ludicrous as claiming it didn't say G-d
created the heavens and Earth.<<


Well. We can get a room, and argue Torah, if you want.

Actually, I wasn't trying to argue that the Torah doesn't prohibit homosexuality: of course it does. But for men, not women, and in a specific context.

And more particularily, for Jewish men.

I thought you were trying to say that it's ridiculous for Christians to ignore so many commandments, while being so immovable on this one; I think it's ridiculous too.

Also, it's worth adding-- although I'm learning not to touch superlatives without rubber gloves-- that Orthodox Jews of my acquaintance do not consider a homosexual encounter by a Jew to be somehow more abhorrant or less forgivable than say, eating pork.

And the Orthodox Jews of my acquaintance (and I had first night seder at the Lubavitcher rebbe's house) are not interested in the sexual lives of gentiles, and would never dream of trying to make some sexual act illegal by secular law. Or beating up men as they come out of a gay bar.


------------------
------------
--Rowan
Shopping is still cheaper than therapy. --my Aunt Franny

06-04-1999, 12:19 AM
In the days of my [rather prolonged] virginity, it was alleged not only that I was too sissified to function as a heterosexual male (not "man enough") but also that I either was or would become gay because "that's what happens to guys like you", presumably due to it being our only available alternative. So if you think of male sexuality as a masculinity tournament, in which the losers get stuck with guys instead of girls, you can see how a guy accepting and embracing gay sexuality could be revolting; and I think this IS how many males think of male sexuality.



------------------
Designated Optional Signature at Bottom of Post

06-04-1999, 01:31 AM
My own two cents on the subject is that a lot of the most virulent homophobes have some repressed homosexual feelings of their own. They reject these desires within themselves and project them unto others. That's why you often hear homophobes talking about their fears that homosexuals have the ability to "convert" heterosexuals. They attack homosexuals to "prove" their heterosexuality. This is also the reason that so many homophobes focus their anger on male homosexuals and are generally indifferent to lesbians.

06-04-1999, 02:03 AM
In my experience, men tend to think about sex most of the time whether they are straight or gay. I think this bothers a lot of straight guys - when the meet a gay man they think, "I bet he's thinking about having sex with me! Eeewwwwww."

06-04-1999, 03:31 AM
Live and let live, I say. I do have an observation though, having been a clerk at an "adult bookstore". Generally speaking, heterosexual guys who just can't stand the notion of two men getting it on sure do LOOOVE to rent videos featuring two women together.

?????????????????????

06-04-1999, 05:17 AM
I think it all has to do with violating gender roles. To a homophobic male, being male and receiving a penis in any orifice means you are acting the role of the woman, a clearly unacceptable thing in his eyes. Thus, his world perception about gender roles are blown away and he gets fearful. I have noticed that most of the vocal christians that talk about homosexuality as being a sin and homosexuals being evil are protestants who generally have problems with sex in general. One interesting side note: The pope himself said that homosexuality itself isn't a sin, but that doing a homosexual sex act was....go figure.

06-04-1999, 08:36 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Opalcat says:
I have never understood why this has been singled out as such a big deal by people. Can someone explain?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Opal clarifies: BTW, I was not asking why *GAY* people were open about being "out" but why *NON GAY* people were so hateful, discriminatory, etc about it. No gays in the military, etc.<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
CM Keller adds:Sex is just one more area of life in which one's choices are limited by the Bible. Christians, though, apparantly abandoned almost all Biblical prohibitions except those about sex, so it stands out.<<<<<<<<<<<

Tha Voice:
And, you'll please pardon me, I am in a hurry...If my response is redundant, forgive a thousand times.
I am a 40 year old Lesbian. Ergo, I was brought-up to fall in love & get married (to a man). I knew when I was 3 or 4 (truly) and I believe my mother sensed it. I was, and am, a sissy-girl. The women I have been involved with are extremely feminine as well."You wouldn't know"...if I may use a dreadful phrase. I have dated men, quite a few. I was in lve with one. I didn't know a single Gay person until I was about 20 years old. I was a precocious child, and once (when I was about 8 or 9) I realized that this was not something to be honest about, I lived inside my head, as to that part of my life. When I was a bit older, I read up on it and was certain that it was a normal part of discovery sexuality and that I would get over it. When I was about 20, I started to realize that hmmm, it's not a phase. Oddly, I didn't suffer the incredible angst that seems to go with it -- it was simply no different to me than having brown eyes or a big bust or ...being short.My best-friend was a Gay man...we were very close. Husband & wife without having sex. We cared for each other, deeply. We both wanted children and discussed it. (Yuppies or Guppies, at the time, we were planning it until the 5k sq. ft. house, the boat, cars, vacation homes were paid for...how's that for arrogance?) As all friends do, we had deep philosophical discussions, all the time. We both agreed that anyone can fall in love with anyone else. (Straight or Gay...under the right circumstances, one could love someone and want to be with them forever.)
I don't believe that EVERYONE who hates Gays, or bashes Gays, etc., is a closet case or afraid of their own feelings. we really (all of us) have to face the fact that there are some plain old EVIL folks out there. There is also bitterness. As Hitler made the Jews a scapegoat..and let's not forget that the German people went right along with him...We make many "groups' scapegoats. this appeals to people who have had a lot of hard-knocks in life, are troubled or bitter over disappointments in there own lives...and this gives them a way to vent.
If a hetero man was close friends with a Gay man, they may become physically intimate. Same for women.The problem arises from people who insist on using the Bible as a tool of Hatred, rather than a Sacred, but ancient & translated book that must be studied carefully. As a Christian, (Congregationalist Protestant) this doesn't come new to me as so many BORN-AGAIN faddists who pick and choose among God's rules.As to Jesus, He doesn't condemn Gays...just promiscuity. The only mention of His temper was when He threw the money changers out of the Temple.
I think that the Reverend Billy Graham stated it best, during the '70's when Anita Bryant was being used : "There are literally hundreds of sins mentioned in the Bible. I am not going to march down the street over one particular one."
Also;in the Bible, a sin is a sin is a sin...it is humans (most notably Catholics) who assign degrees of guilt to them.
We will be judged, individually, and on our entire life. Not what we do in bed.
Peace and...remember: People have ehelped strangers and entertained Angels, unaware.
AIDS may have been sent by God. But not to punish Homosexuals. Rather to see how the most reviled group (currently) would be treated by their fellow man, Jew & Christian alike. Well, He has his answer: because of the stigma, shame and retribution toward PWA, now, it is indeed everyone's problem.
The Voice

06-04-1999, 09:20 AM
Rowan:

Actually, I wasn't trying to argue that the Torah doesn't prohibit homosexuality: of course it does. But for men, not women,

And on that point I concede

and in a specific context.

I.E. (from your previous post) the context of an idolatrous orgy. On this point I disagree; it seems to me that the prohibition is a blanket prohibition on the (usual) gay male sex act, just as the prohibitions of sex with close relatives, with women married to other men or to menstruous women are.

And more particularily, for Jewish men.

Well, to the best of my knowledge there's debate on whether homosexuality is included amongst the "seven Noachide commandments." But certainly the verses in Leviticus are an injunction specifically to Jews.

I thought you were trying to say that it's ridiculous for Christians to ignore so many commandments, while being so immovable on this one; I think it's ridiculous too.

I wouldn't go that far, personally. What I was saying was that the reason predominantly-Christian nations, such as the U.S., make such an issue of homosexuality is because it (and other sexual prohibitions) is a Biblical thing they consider binding. I'm sure they have their reasons, not ridiculous, for which things they choose to apply and which they don't; I'm not aware of them. I assume a priest or a Christian theologian would be able to answer that question. When dealing with a mixed crowd, I avoid ridiculing other people's beliefs. I'm simply saying it stands out to them in a way that it doesn't to Orthodox Jews, who also consider it Biblically forbidden.

------------------
Chaim Mattis Keller
ckeller@schicktech.com

"Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks."
-- Douglas Adams's Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective

06-04-1999, 02:32 PM
Rowan made an interesting point regarding Lev. 18:22 --The reason I think this argument isn't merely specious, is that "mishkevei ishah" is an unusual word choice. It comes after a long list of forbidden (incestuous) sexual acts, for which a different euphemism is used.My understanding of this point is that the other sexual sins are (forbidden but) not subject to punishment unless the intercourse was consummated with an ejaculation. Male-male acts, however, are punishable for penetration alone, even without ejaculation. Exactly why this act is singled out is a philosophical point which can be discussed, but I believe that the change of wording is what signalled to the rabbis that it is indeed different.

06-04-1999, 02:47 PM
Here's my 2 cents...

This is for the "Bible says gay people are bad" people. Quote the Bible all you want... it's a great book. However, after the first half or so, there's a section of it called the NEW TESTAMENT. Remember that guy Jesus? Yeah, he loved everyone. Even ate dinner with prostitutes. Whoa... you see, if you're Christian, you believe that we are ALL God's children and he loves each one of us greatly... no one person or group more than the other.

------------------
You want to go one on one with The Great One?

06-04-1999, 04:04 PM
AIDS may have been sent by God. But not to punish Homosexuals. Rather to see how the most reviled group (currently) would be treated by their fellow man, Jew & Christian alike. Well, He has his answer: because of the stigma, shame and retribution toward PWA, now, it is indeed everyone's problem.

To say "AIDS was sent by God" to punish homosexuals, see how we'd treat homosexuals, or any other reason is rather silly. AIDS spread within the homosexual population because it's a blood-borne pathogen, and when gay guys make whoopee it can enter the bloodstream through the resulting anal fissures. Period. The details of how it was initially transferred from the simian to the human population is a bit unclear. However this was accomplished (I can imagine a couple unsavory scenarios, the details of which I will spare you) rest assured that it was done by a human, and that God had nothing to do with it!
To say that "God introduced AIDS to punish homosexuals" is like saying "God brought kudzu here from Japan to punish the South for slavery." There is really no need for a deity to enter the picture in either of these cases.

06-04-1999, 04:21 PM
I have a paradox in my thinking. I certainly believe that society has no right to prohibit consual acts between adults, at least if they are not dangerous. That category would include homosexuality and also heterosexual "sodomy". However, it would also include incest wouldn't it? At least, it would if the participants were both adults and took steps to eliminate procreation. Certainly, we have the right to prohibit incestual marriages and even incestual relationships, don't we? Yet I don't believe we have the right to prohibit homosexual marriages or homosexual relationships. I find that an interesting conflict in my own opinions.

06-04-1999, 05:27 PM
Greg Charles, conflicts like that are the hard part of living morally. If you believe that sexual freedom is good, but incest is bad, which is more important to you?

I don't believe we have the right to tell any adults who they can or should sleep with. Homosexuality, incest, bestiality, whatever-- it's none of my business. I may not like the mental picture, but if someone wants to do it at home, I'm not about to tell them no. (Things that harm others-- like pedophilia-- are the only exception I can think of.)

I'm told that New York still has anti-sodomy laws on the books, worded in such a way that they could be used to prosecute anyone engaging in oral sex. And you thought the prisons were overcrowded now...

06-04-1999, 05:46 PM
[[Some people are just so uncomfortable with sex in general, that any time they meet a gay person-- someone whose gayness is spelled out in so many letters-- all they can think of is "He's had sex."]]

I think this hits the nail on the head. There is much sex phobia in our society, and many people are in denial about the sexual nature of their kids, their neighbors, even their married or pregnant friends.

When a person is identified as being "gay" they are being defined by their sexual nature and activity, and this makes people uncomfortable. People don't necessarily look at a hetero. married couple and wonder who's the top and who's the bottom. But it's often the first thing a person will wonder, upon hearing that someone is gay.

This is also partly why some people are uncomfortable allowing gay men to work with kids. They are, of course, no more likely to sexually abuse kids than straight guys are, but - by admitting that they are sexual at all - some people get nervous. Of course being gay has many more implications than just the sexual ones. It also means that you can't be legally married, so you don't get the acceptance (or the family health insurance) that heterosexual married couples do. It also means that you will face subtle and not-so-subtle discrimination, but - again - I think some of that derives from the discomfort people have with admitting that people have sex at all.. especially sex that doesn't produce kids.
Jill

06-04-1999, 06:34 PM
>>I have a paradox in my thinking. I certainly believe that society has no right to prohibit consual acts between adults, at least if they are not dangerous. That category would include homosexuality and also heterosexual "sodomy". However, it would also include incest wouldn't it? At least, it would if the participants were both adults and took steps to eliminate procreation. Certainly, we have the right to prohibit incestual marriages and even incestual relationships, don't we? Yet I don't believe we have the right to prohibit homosexual marriages or homosexual relationships. I find that an interesting conflict in my own opinions.<<

Homeosexuality and incest are different. The best evidence says that some people are gay, and this is an immutable part of the person's biology.

I don't think anyone is biologically disposed to incestuous relationships.

However, that said, I happen to think that there's not actually anything wrong with consensual incestuous relationships between adults.

Well-- I wouldn't do it. I mean, I am a little grossed out by the idea, if the truth be told. But I'm not about to tell other people what to do. Really.

However, I draw the line at bestiality; I have a hard time believing the collie gave informed consent.


------------------
------------
--Rowan
Shopping is still cheaper than therapy. --my Aunt Franny

06-04-1999, 06:44 PM
Oh for crying out loud...Gayness is only a big deal in a straight society.

In a gay society its no big deal. But then being straight sure is. Boy, you otta hear what they call straight people. lol.

06-04-1999, 07:10 PM
I think one reason for the focus of Christian groups on homosexuality more than other sins might be that if you're straight, homosexuality represents a sin that you will never have to worry about committing. So it becomes really easy to condemn those who DO break it, and you get a smug feeling of superiority to boot. See http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/1998/07/09boll.html

06-04-1999, 07:14 PM
I think one reason for the focus of Christian groups on homosexuality more than other sins might be that if you're straight, homosexuality represents a sin that you will never have to worry about committing. So it becomes really easy to condemn those who DO break it, and you get a smug feeling of superiority to boot. See http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/1998/07/09boll.html

06-06-1999, 01:31 AM
Lipochrome says :AIDS may have been sent by God. But not to punish Homosexuals. Rather to see how the most reviled group (cur- rently) would be treated by their fellow man, Jew & Christian alike. Well, He has his answer: because of the stigma, shame and retribution toward PWA, now, it is indeed everyone's problem.
---------------------------------------------
To say "AIDS was sent by God" to punish homosexuals, see how we'd treat homosexuals, or any other reason is rather silly. AIDS spread within the homosexual population because it's a blood-borne pathogen, and when gay guys make whoopee it can enter the bloodstream through the resulting anal fissures. Period. The details of how it was initially transferred from the simian to the human population is a bit unclear. However this was accomplished (I can imagine a couple unsavory scenarios, the details of which I will spare you) rest assured that it was done by a human, and that God had nothing to do with it!
To say that "God introduced AIDS to punish homosexuals" is like saying "God brought kudzu here from Japan to punish the South for slavery." There is really no need for a deity to enter the picture in either of these cases. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<< <<< <<<< A-Hem. Once again my cynicism/sarcasm was misinterpreted.This was (and, BTW) still a Fave of those who will use God as an Agent of HATRED. That was why I mentioned it. And, if you read carefully, I did state I was rushed. What I adore is, in addition to the Pretend Christians, That old Ronny Ray-Gun & his gang went right along with the NUTS. A disease, (not all that new--there were cases in the '50's...another time) a virus to be precise, proliferated beginning in '79/80. It was first referred to as GRIDS (Gay Related Immune deficiency Syndrome) because Gays were the first US group where it was obvious. (Perhaps they donate blood more frequently?)When Haitians and Hets began getting it, the name was changed. Anyway, notice how nobody mentions how it passed from a 'Gay disease' (We, of course, were THE only country that treated it as such. All other modernized countries treated it for what it was: a communicable virus, fatal and incurable.) Thanks to Ronald "Al" Ray-gun, it was dismissed here. Then all those conservative million & billionaires who live in, Oh let's say Fairfield County, for one, who stop in the village to pick up little boy prostitutes, before they hit Grand Central to go home, started giving it to their wives. Who in turn were giving it to their tennis-pro lover at 'their Club', who gave it to every woman he slept with...etc. Then of course, we have your IV Drug users...(I don't think sexuality has anything to do with injecting Heroin, but I am sure a few Fundy's & Right-wing radicals will disagree)...who spread it more. Then your Prostitutes (female) who sleep with married men, who sometimes sleep with boys and, well, there you have it. Not to mention the fact Elizabeth Glaser, her daughter & son and Arthur Ashe, among the 1000's of folks we don't know, contracted AIDS through transfusion AFTER THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION INSISTED THAT THE BLOOD SUPPLY WAS COMLETELY SAFE.
Anyway...my point was simply that nearly anyone can use the Bible to support their side. 'Cause if we take the ANTI-Christians at their word, wouldn't we then have to believe that incompetent ex-Presidents, (who cause 10's of 1,000's unnecessary deaths, fail to even SAY the word AIDS in 8 years as Moron-in-Chief, trade arms for hostages, circumvent the constitution etc.)are given Alzheimer's as God's revenge?

Now, please back to Opal's question...I don't believe it was about the Bible, but why people react so oddly in the secular world.

Opal, Itís because they are stupid.

06-06-1999, 03:20 AM
I do not think that the people that make a big deal about being gay even know why they think it is a big deal. I think what they really do not like is that who in their right mind would want to say they are gay and wish all the hassles it creates ? Why ? Because people are what they are and should be accepted as they are not as others perceive them to be.

06-06-1999, 04:05 AM
Just new at this so wanted to see if my signature appeared.

Cheers

------------------
Please feel free to visit my webpage....
http://members.aol.com/dandmb50/1.html
or feel free to email me
Dandmb50@aol.com

06-06-1999, 04:15 AM
It appears that my hyperlink to my webpage is not blue in my signature address. Anyone know how I can correct that ?

------------------
Please feel free to visit my webpage....
members.aol.com/dandmb50/1.html (http://members.aol.com/dandmb50/1.html)
or feel free to email me
Dandmb50@aol.com

06-06-1999, 10:44 PM
It appears that my hyperlink to my webpage is not blue in my signature address. Anyone know how I can correct that?
---Dandmb50

Most likely you visited your webpage. Visited links are black and in my web browser the link looks normal.

06-07-1999, 11:16 AM
Keeves:

My understanding of this point is that the other sexual sins are (forbidden but) not subject to punishment unless the intercourse was consummated with an ejaculation. Male-male acts, however, are punishable for penetration alone, even without ejaculation.

Not true. I look in my "Torah Temimah", on that phrase in Leviticus 18:22, and it refers me to the Talmud, Sanhedrin, page 55. What it says is that we learn from the phrase "the lyings of a woman" that male-male acts have the same standard that male-female ones do.

In Talmudic law, there are two legal threshholds regarding sexual sins: Initial penetration (i.e., first contact between organs) and full penetration (i.e., salami entirely hidden). (Ejaculation is not necessary for the transgression of any sexual sin, except, of course, Onanism.) The rabbis said that without that phrase, we might have thought that full penetration wouls be necessary to officially violate the male-male prohibition (unlike male-female prohibitions, which only require initial penetration), but that phrase tels us that the same standard applies for both sins.

------------------
Chaim Mattis Keller
ckeller@schicktech.com

"Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks."
-- Douglas Adams's Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective

06-11-1999, 07:59 PM
BTW, I was not asking why *GAY* people were open about being "out" but why *NON GAY* people were so hateful, discriminatory, etc about it.

If you find out, 500 million gay people would like to know. (sigh)

There are three kinds of homophobes.

1) Religious freaks (Bibliothumpus jehovae). My religion and interpretation thereof is better than yours, and we don't like queers. Therefore, I shalt bash thee, as the Lord spake thusly that thou shalt hate all those who art different from thee.

2) Fear of one's own inherent homosexuality (Screamingqueenus repressus). I'm not gay! I'm really not gay! Look, I'll prove it by beating up a fag! That means I'm really straight!

3) Fear of being hit on (Paranoia sexualitas). Possibly the most obnoxious. Not only do homophobes of this type have an exaggerated opinion of their own sexual attractiveness, but they also use a thought process which, if women used it, would cause the streets to be strewn with the bodies of straight men.

If I think of more, I'll let you know.

06-12-1999, 06:20 PM
Because of the segment of the religious that believe gay=evil. It's pretty hard to try to live a quiet life when you've got a group of people calling you "evil" and "perverted."

Heh...I'm straight and I have people that call me both of those.
I don't believe that it's that, because there are manny other things that are considered perverted and evil, yet you don't see people with signs proclaiming the sin, whatever it may be.

------------------
Welfy

I wonder what the king is doing tonight?

06-13-1999, 07:10 PM
My own two cents on the subject is that a lot of the most virulent homophobes have some repressed homosexual feelings of their own.

I recently saw a rather amusing study quoted on a psychology web page on this. The researchers took a bunch of heterosexual men, some homophobic and some not, and played a variety of videotapes for them, some straight porno, some gay porno, some other stuff. Level of arousal was measured by a combination of questionaires and some sort of erection-measuring device. More than 50% of homophobes were 'fully aroused' during the gay porno, as opposed to less than 20% of the non-homophobes. No-one has tried yet to replicate the study, however.

06-16-1999, 02:22 PM
<font size=+1 color=red>WARNING - The following is pretty explicit, in an educational sort of way.</font>
<hr>

Just in case anyone reads down this far, here's my 2 cents.
Yeah, gays bend gender roles. So do lesbians, but lesbians usually aren't hated the same way.
Yeah, it's forbidden in the bible. So is a woman speaking in church.
Yeah, it isn't reproductively advantageous. Neither is infertility, but it doesn't carry quite the same stigma.
None of these explain the deep rooted psychological aversion that most heterosexual men have for homosexual men.

Someone in the Celluloid Closet (I wish I remembered who) touched on a theory that I'm beginning to take seriously. For straight men, often, sex is about penetration. Being penetrated opens oneself up for vulnerability in a way that being a penetrator does not. Mutual masturbation between new lovers is likely to involve similar levels of stress in both parties. But in typical intercourse, it is the inserted party who is exposing herself more, who is accepting the greater risk, and who is making the bigger psychological commitment.
For many men, in some deep subconcious recess of their minds, penetrating is the victory. Being penetrated is the ultimate defeat. This obviously is not something people are conscious of, but if any of you men doubt it, try this experiment:
Imagine you're with a sexy woman who doesn't particularly like intercourse, but she's willing to because it pleases you. She only enjoys direct clitoral stimulation, which is pretty-much irrelevant to intercourse. She prefers mutual masturbation, but will let you have normal intercourse - if you let her penetrate you. This isn't about being straight or gay. You're with a woman, full of hetero desires, so that's not the issue. She just wants to be able to analy penetrate you (with toys or fingers or whatnot) if you get to vaginally penetrate her. Most men would be repulsed. See? It's a penetration issue.
So in short, when het men think of homosexuality, they think of anal sex. And specifically, they think of anal sex happeneing to them. And they react violently.

Just my pet theory.
-Quadell

06-19-1999, 02:53 AM
As it happens, there was a TV documentary on tonight about men who have killed gay men, and I was struck by how many of them said they were molested as children. The word of a convicted murderer is not completely trustworthy, of course, but it is not difficult to see how this could happen.

Before everyone jumps all over me, yes, I know that homosexuals and pedophiles are completely different. But trauma can give people visceral, irrational, and overgeneralized fears. It's tough to get reliable statistics on child molestation, but there may be a large minority of people walking around with this particular scar--enough, perhaps, to shape the public debate on homosexuality.

06-20-1999, 02:18 PM
I have to side with the "Narrow Minded" theory. This is more a social theory than a behavioral one, but they interact at some level.

We all like to think that we have a good bead on things; the sun rises in the morning, sets in the evening, men and women make babies, dogs chase cats and so forth. Basic assumptions about the nature of existence that help us define ourselves in relation to other people, society and the "natural" way-of-things.

Now along comes a homosexual. This person upsets the perceived natural order, plays havoc with the safe assumptions that people live by, and lessens their grip on "reality".
The "normal" person then has to re-evaluate their beliefs, and the general nature of existence. They may have to not only actually think(!GASP!), but to change the way they think(!OH MY GOD!)!

If men start desiring men, then, heaven forfend, what next? Will the sun rise tomorrow? Will gravity still work the same way? The earth is round!?

And then respond in the negative; not only are these people unnatural, they are trying to change the natural order of things.
And as we all know ;), change is bad.

<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="RED">"...dogs and cats, living together, in the streets! Total chaos!"</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="BLUE">"We fear change."</FONT>

06-20-1999, 05:04 PM
>>For many men, in some deep subconcious recess of their minds, penetrating is the victory. Being penetrated is the ultimate defeat.

So in short, when het men think of homosexuality, they think of anal sex. And specifically, they think of anal sex happeneing to them. And they react violently.

Just my pet theory.<<
-Quadell

Actually, there's probably a lot to this, and it makes me want to be a lesbian.

Did I mention this on this thread, or on one the other three hundred thousand threads we've had on similar topics? Once upon a time, the winners in a battle used to rape the living remnants of the losers. Just to make a well, point.

For a lot of people, being penetrated is being gay. I can think of no better example than a study published in Science about eight years ago, in which a group of researchers announced thet they'd made gay rats. They made them by exposing them to estrogens when they (the rate) were in utero, but nevermind-- the point is, that the rats were gay because they allowed other boy rats to mount them and when the other rat managed, penetrate them anally.

Here's the really good part: the rats who DID THE ACTUAL PENETRATIN weren't gay, by the definition of the scientists. Why not? Apparantly because nothing was "wrong," ie, different about them that anyone knew of. THEY hadn't been exposed to any weird hormones or anything.

::sigh::


------------------
------------
--Rowan
Shopping is still cheaper than therapy. --my Aunt Franny

06-21-1999, 09:18 AM
For a lot of people, being penetrated is being gay. I can think of no better example than a study published in Science about eight years ago, in which a group of researchers announced thet they'd made gay rats. They made them by exposing them to estrogens when they (the rate) were in utero, but nevermind-- the point is, that the rats were gay because they allowed other boy rats to mount them and when the other rat managed, penetrate them anally.

Here's the really good part: the rats who DID THE ACTUAL PENETRATIN weren't gay, by the definition of the scientists. Why not? Apparantly because nothing was "wrong," ie, different about them that anyone knew of. THEY hadn't been exposed to any weird hormones or anything.

A paradox which boggles my own mind, too. I wonder how many gay-bashers end up sodomizing their victims, yet somehow figure that they themselves aren't "gay"?

My wife once asked, "Why do so many men act so disgusted by homosexuals and by anal sex, but try so hard to get their wives and girlfriends to submit to it"? I think that question has, in its own way, great bearing on what Rowan and Quadell said above.

06-21-1999, 09:41 AM
{{She just wants to be able to analy penetrate you (with toys or fingers or whatnot) if you get to vaginally penetrate her. Most men would be repulsed. See?}}

Hmm... most guys I've been with were into that though. Most of the guys I've talked to online about that kind of thing admit to liking it as well.

------------------
&gt;^,,^&lt;
"Cluemobile? You've got a pickup..."
OpalCat's site: http://fathom.org/opalcat
The Teeming Millions Homepage: fathom.org/teemingmillions (http://fathom.org/teemingmillions)

07-04-1999, 02:23 AM
[[It comes after a huge listing of forbidden sexual relationships, including ... sex with a woman during her menstrual period, ]]

Boy, you sure don't hear a lot of indignation from the Xian Coalition crowd about that one, huh?

07-04-1999, 02:28 AM
[[My own two cents on the subject is that a lot of the most virulent homophobes have some repressed homosexual feelings of their own. They reject these desires within themselves and project them unto others. That's why you often hear homophobes talking about their fears that homosexuals have the ability to "convert" heterosexuals. They attack homosexuals to "prove" their heterosexuality. This is also the reason that so many homophobes focus their anger on male homosexuals and are generally indifferent to lesbians.]] Mike King

Letter to the Manly Advisor (from "The Manly Handbook"):

Q: "Dear Manly Advisor:

I find that when I go out at night and beat up homosexuals, I get sexually aroused. Is there something wrong with me?"

A: "No."

07-05-1999, 09:55 AM
The only "legitimate" homophobia I've ever come across is that of my own father.

He was in the Navy for over twenty years and subject to frequent, unwelcome come-ons by gay men. I think, though I have no confirmation, that he may have even been assaulted by a gay man.

His reaction, when movies or tv shows portray gay men, is that of disgust and repulsion. He doesn't claim a religious high ground, he doesn't talk about gays trying to convert children. He has agreed, in the past, that his reaction is emotional and illogical.

The best parallel I can draw is that he responds with the same anger and disgust that a some women rape-survivors show towards all men. But, he's honest about it, and I've even seen him get along with gay men.

And of course, he couldn't care less about female/female homosexuality.

Pretty much, though, I agree with the theories I've seen here. Gender roles, repression of inate homosexuality, contempt of the passive partner, biblical fundamentalism, and so on.

I just wish it weren't so.

notperfectyet
03-03-2011, 09:55 PM
I am nott sure why myself....why it's such a big deal?!!!!
...I am straight and you don't see me going around shoving it down peoples throats that I am straight.......it's a 'private/sexual choice' and I just don't get it?!!!!! Really?!!!!! Like Yo USA Government......look at me I am straight.......see me here... I am straight and I am very proud of it........WHO CARES about a persons sexual preference.........I just think a GAY person could be translated to this....very very very HORNY BASTARDS.......and if this means getting a little more options out of the deal by claiming to be 'GAY' well big freaking WHOOP DEE DOO!

PaperBlob
03-03-2011, 09:59 PM
This has to be the oldest zombie thread ever!

Silophant
03-03-2011, 10:02 PM
A four-digit thread number. Wow.

Ludovic
03-03-2011, 10:08 PM
It's telling that this message board is so old that society has changed since this thread was last replied to. Nowadays, the question isn't "Why is being GAY an issue", but rather "Why would people even THINK that being gay is an issue".

etv78
03-03-2011, 10:13 PM
This has to be the oldest zombie thread ever!

Saw the year, and was like,"An 11 YEAR OLD ZOMBIE!!!" :eek:

PaperBlob
03-03-2011, 10:16 PM
There aren't even usernames for the posters. I only noticed the thread because there was no thread starter username under the thread name.

Freudian Slit
03-03-2011, 10:17 PM
How did people tell which posts were theirs in the olden days?

Musicat
03-03-2011, 10:33 PM
How did people tell which posts were theirs in the olden days?It's well known that everyone was in the closet in the gay 90's. It was thought to be gay to be hetero, so no one owned up to anything. Everyone was anonymous. No one even wore clothes, cause that would have given it away. And some gave it away by giving it away.

I miss the good ol' days, when men were men and sheep were nervous. {sob, snerk}

Almost forgot. Everyone wore boots under their socks. Yeah.

Colibri
03-03-2011, 10:34 PM
How did people tell which posts were theirs in the olden days?

In case you're not joking, they once were there. The posts somehow have become disassociated with the usernames at some point.

thelabdude
03-03-2011, 10:35 PM
If you gays really want to be accepted, quit hitting on straights. Leave our children alone too.

Colibri
03-03-2011, 10:37 PM
notperfectyet, welcome to the boards. Because most original participants aren't still around, we usually don't leave threads like this open unless significant new information has been added. Therefore I'm closing this.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator