iampunha, couldn’t homosexual be defined as one who practices homosexuality? If that’s the case, wouldn’t it be an act on par with pre-marital sex and polygamy?
Would you say that heterosexuals are people who practice heterosexuality?
I think no matter what, bigot covers it.
If I have black friends but I think being black is wrong, I’m a bigot.
If I have jewish friends, but I think being jewish is wrong that would also make me a bigot.
To place a value judgement on someone for something they are is bigotry.
Anal sex is an act.
Fellatio is an act.
Homosexuality is a state of being.
Now… before I have detractors screaming cite, I pose this:
Do you, as a heterosexual who has never had a gay experience, think that you could suddenly become gay because of the lack of females, or becoming disenfranchized with females?
Could you see yourself just switching casually as you might go from vanilla to chocolate ice cream depending on what’s available?
My bet of the general answer to this question is: no.
Why is this?
You as a heterosexual(say a Kinsey 0 or 1) have no desire for the same sex, and your inherent desires are for opposite sex relations as they pertain to sex and romantic attachments.
That being said, why can it not be seen in reverse about gay people?
Why do people justify their bigotry and homophobia through moralizing and misconstruing Bible passages?
Why is it acceptable to marginalize the experience and value of a segment of the population because some aren’t comfortable with it?
While we’re asking questions, why do we have such a need to label each other with derogatory terms as soon as we find out that they don’t agree with us?
While I agree with most of what you said, hasn’t this sort of situational homosexuality been found to occur in prison? I’m not talking about prison rape which is obviously rooted far more in power and violence than sexuality(as is the case with rape in general), but rather heterosexuals who turn to consensual homosexuality because of a lack of other options. from this cite:
SnoopyFan
That’s exactly the problem. Agree with what? One side thinks there’s some ideology to be debated while the other side is just trying to go on with their lives. Homosexuality exists, and that’s that. There’s nothing to agree or disagree with. Like it’s been said before, it’s like disagreeing with rain.
I could just as easily “disagree” with female orgasms. I mean, what’s the point of them (I can’t figure one out, so one musn’t exist)? A man has an orgasm to deposit sperm and end the session. A woman’s is needless. In fact, it’s against nature (despite the fact it happens naturally all the time), as sex is only supposed to be about procreation, and people can procreate without a woman’s orgasm. I say women should undergo surgery to prevent the occurance of orgasms. Sure, it might hurt (well, it won’t hurt me 'cause I’m not a woman), but everyone has to make sacrifices in order to be a moral person (meanwhile, I’ll enjoy a lifetime of having purposeful male orgasms. I’m so important).
You can dance around it all you want but the bottom line is personal sexuality is a personal thing. It’s not popularly defined.
Sure there is a such a CONCEPT as homophobia but in contrast there is also straightaphobia or any variation of “why my sexuality makes me special.” Try not to make a statement about what you do with your naughty bits and you’ll find the entire human race right behind you. Get over it!
**
Do you support gay marriage or civil unions? Gays having full access to spousal rights in terms of second-parent adoption, medical situations, power of attorney, etc? Do you support gays in the military and gays being able to adopt?
If not, then you do actively against gay people. Not, perhaps entirely actively, but its discrination nonetheless.
Anti-gay bigotry comes in many subtle forms. Homophobic bigots run the gamut from Fred Phelps to the little old lady who’s nice to her gay neighbor but would vote against allowing him to marry his partner of 20 years.
It’s all bigotry, and it needs an overarching word to encompass it. For better or worse, the generally accepted term is “homophobe,” regardless of the inaccuracy of the usage when one considers only shallow, literal meanings. Homophobic now has a colloquial meaning, and that’s just sorta the way it is.
Fine. Gay people will be sure to keep quiet about their boyfriends (or girlfriends), their relationship troubles, their personal life and all that entails…
Just as soon as heterosexuals stop going around flaunting their sexuality by chit-chatting incessently about their spouses, their children, their vacations, their weddings, their in-laws, etc…
Just as a point of fact, there is no such thing as “the gay lifestyle.” Just as there’s no such thing as “the heterosexual lifetsyle.” You imply a uniformity that does not exist.
Where do you draw the line? As far as I’m concerned, not being fully supportive of total equality for gay Americans (or whatever the reader’s nationality might be) in terms of adoption, marriage, legal protections, military service, tax exemptions, etc, is actively attempting to interfere with the lives of gay people, and is in fact seeking to force all of society to “treat gays differently” to use your words. I doubt anyone could make a case otherwise.
It could, in theory, be defined as eating squid roasted over an open fire. That doesn’t mean it consists of that, though.
Sexuality, to me and a lot of other people, consists not of what you do but what you want. It is commonly homophobes and straight supremacists who hear “gay” or “lesbian” or such words and automatically assume those people are having sex with the appropriate person (thus “alternative lifestyle” etc) and have a problem with this. Those same people often do not stop to consider the inherent statement this makes about them: that by being heterosexual they must be having sex. As many of these people are fundamentalist Christians who believe that extramarital intercourse is a sin (and, to varying degrees, extramarital sexual acts), one must therefore make the assumption that they were not heterosexual until their wedding night (or afternoon, or whatever;)). This is, of course, preposterous and leads me (among many others) to the conclusion that sexuality is not about what you do but what you desire. The carrying out of those desires is what determines your sexual activity, which need not necessarily mesh with your desires (cf. ex-gays etc., who when interviewed by phone were found to ‘still be straight’ based in part on the fact that they had sex with members of the opposite sex. Yeah, and my sexual activity with my fiancee makes me straight:rolleyes: )
Interestingly enough, japatlgt, it is precisely those who assume, based on sexuality, what those naughty bits are and are not doing that are the basic reason the human race is not behind the rest of us:)
What denotes “making a statement about naughty bits” exactly?
Is two guys holding hands a “statement?” How about just saying, “I’m gay.”
If I mention my wife and daughter am I making a statement about my (heterosexual) naughty bits?
What if someone mentions a same-sex spouse?
Should there be different standard for what GLBT people can talk about than straights?
So, we need to find a way to make the term ‘bigot’ politically correct?
If there was a Rolling on the floor, peeing your pants laughing smiley, I’d be using it.
Gee, as straight couples can get married and gay couples can’t, I see a example of “why my sexuality makes me special,” and it’s not represented in me and mine.
SnoopyFan, ask that question to the people who first felt the need to derogatorily refer to those whose sexuality differed from theirs. Less them, this entire situation might well be hypothetical.
There are obstetric studies that show that female orgasm makes pregnancy more likely. I read this in several OB articles 20+ years ago. It was in the major OB Medical journal. So, female orgasm does serve a “biological” purpose.
And that impacts this debate in what way?
Care to provide the citations for that?
I’ve heard the same thing, btw, but have yet to see anything in the realm of conclusive evidence.
The relevance of this, however, as Mockingbird so quickly pointed out, is another matter entirely.
>Just as a point of fact, there is no such thing as “the gay
>lifestyle.” Just as there’s no such thing as “the heterosexual
>lifetsyle.” You imply a uniformity that does not exist.
>Just as soon as heterosexuals stop going around flaunting their
>sexuality by chit-chatting incessently about their spouses, their
>children, their vacations, their weddings, their in-laws, etc…
Spectrum, why are you asking me if i support gay adoption and gay rights? Did you read my posts?