Gay Marriage and other problems homosexuals face

[Slick_rick]

Originally Posted by Autumn Demon

This is a horrible notion that only serves to divide people. People have no choice over their ethnicity, so when a person says they're proud to be an Italian-American, what the hell have they been done to be proud of? They cherish their ancestral home land... Does this mean non-Italians can't like Italy in the same way as Italian-Americans?

The same argument can be extended to sexual orientation if you believe it isn't a choice. If a person is proud to be gay they must think that there's something wrong with being straight.

White pride. Do those two words make you cringe? If so, then why shouldn't gay pride as well?

You should not be proud of who/what you are. You should only be proud of your actions. Fighting for your rights is something to be proud. Riding a bus through the South with the threat of being beaten to death and marching through the streets with the threat of being fire hosed are things to be proud of. Being born a black person in the 80's... I fail to see the source of pride in that.

Going to a gay pride parade wearing a silly costume... something to be proud of maybe if you're promoting the right to wear silly clothes. But I also fail to see how silly clothes tie into gay rights.

Whether you yourself find pride in such things is irrelevant you're choosing to ignore that many others do find pride in their heritage and who they are. White pride might not be used but certainly white Americans certainly take pride in their heritage and who they are. You don't go to the south with out seeing old Confederate Flags and hearing some Texan going on and on for days about the god damn Alamo. Most everyone takes some pride in their forefathers. It is your values here which don't conform to the "norm" but that's fine you can chose not to participate in such things if you don't want to. I find Kilts pretty silly clothing that I myself wouldn't not wear but I don't know if I believe that the St. Patrick Day Parade is an event to promote where those silly clothes same for any cultural parade. And, lets be honest most of the participants wear relatively normal attire its only those with most flamboyant clothing that are singled and then cast as the standard. It is relatively easy to see for most people who have interacted with Gays and Lesbians that this is far from the truth.

[npcomplete]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

That article does mention human homosexuality.
"A common assumption is that homosexuality means not having children, but this is not necessarily true, especially in cultures other than our own. Until it became acceptable for same-sex couples to live together in western countries, many homosexual people had partners of the opposite sex. In some traditional societies, various forms of non-exclusive homosexuality were common."

I posted several examples of this in pre-Meiji Japan with links on another thread here at a time (a very long time) where such liberties were deemed entirely natural..

Spoiler:

During the Edo period, for instance, male-female sexual relations were important to secure offspring and social status; however, male-male sexual relations, particularly amongst the Samurai, were viewed as an intricate part of male socialization... Such relationships established an unquestionable acceptance of same-sex practices and were not restricted to men.

Women also engaged in bisexual practices although these practices are not as well documented as those of men. During the 16th century, medieval women gained new-found security as wives within virilocal systems, in contrast to the insecurity of Heian-period wives in uxorilocal and wifevisiting arrangements where women were easily abandoned by their spouses. This change was significant because it allowed women to establish more prominent positions within the household through which they were able to exert more influence. In turn, this allowed a kind of sexual liberation for many women.

Women are sometimes depicted pleasuring themselves with a dildo or pleasuring both themselves and their female partner with a double-headed dildo.

Nanshoku (male homosexuality) was not considered incompatible with heterosexuality; books of erotic prints dedicated to nanshoku often presented erotic images of both young women (concubines, mekake, or prostitutes, jōrō) as well as attractive adolescent boys (wakashū) and cross-dressing youths (onnagata). Indeed, several works suggest that the most "envious" situation would be to have both many jōrō and many wakashū.

Interestingly we see the archetypes for all forms of modern eroticism including those popularized in anime/manga today present without any taboo more than a millennium ago right up to the late 19th century. Even the most important Japanese classic, Genji Monogatari written in 1021 by Lady Murasaki, targeting women, contained scenes of homo- and bi-sexuality. Perhaps the earliest instance of fujoshi?

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by npcomplete

Interestingly we see the archetypes for all forms of modern eroticism including those popularized in anime/manga today present without any taboo more than a millennium ago right up to the late 19th century. Even the most important Japanese classic, Genji Monogatari written in 1021 by Lady Murasaki, targeting women, contained scenes of homo- and bi-sexuality. Perhaps the earliest instance of fujoshi?

Well they do say the more things change the more they remain the same.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by npcomplete

I posted several examples of this in pre-Meiji Japan with links on another thread here at a time (a very long time) where such liberties were deemed entirely natural..

Spoiler:

During the Edo period, for instance, male-female sexual relations were important to secure offspring and social status; however, male-male sexual relations, particularly amongst the Samurai, were viewed as an intricate part of male socialization... Such relationships established an unquestionable acceptance of same-sex practices and were not restricted to men.

Women also engaged in bisexual practices although these practices are not as well documented as those of men. During the 16th century, medieval women gained new-found security as wives within virilocal systems, in contrast to the insecurity of Heian-period wives in uxorilocal and wifevisiting arrangements where women were easily abandoned by their spouses. This change was significant because it allowed women to establish more prominent positions within the household through which they were able to exert more influence. In turn, this allowed a kind of sexual liberation for many women.

Women are sometimes depicted pleasuring themselves with a dildo or pleasuring both themselves and their female partner with a double-headed dildo.

Nanshoku (male homosexuality) was not considered incompatible with heterosexuality; books of erotic prints dedicated to nanshoku often presented erotic images of both young women (concubines, mekake, or prostitutes, jōrō) as well as attractive adolescent boys (wakashū) and cross-dressing youths (onnagata). Indeed, several works suggest that the most "envious" situation would be to have both many jōrō and many wakashū.

Interestingly we see the archetypes for all forms of modern eroticism including those popularized in anime/manga today present without any taboo more than a millennium ago right up to the late 19th century. Even the most important Japanese classic, Genji Monogatari written in 1021 by Lady Murasaki, targeting women, contained scenes of homo- and bi-sexuality. Perhaps the earliest instance of fujoshi?

Not only then, but in ancient China and even modern warfare. There is a saying that went (w.r.t Three Kingdoms period) :

夫妻如衣服, 兄弟如手足 - The relationship between husband and wife is like clothing, whereas the relationship between brothers is like a limb. Clothes are easier repaired than a broken limb.

Often people see it as gay relationship, but actually it is just a friendship that is strong as kinship.

Regardless of what ship it is, perceptions will differ from one two another. So it is pretty much a nice boat on that.

[Zu Ra]

I really dont think masculinity is lost with a queer culture . History's bravest warriors encouraged and practiced same sex relationships


* Samurais encouraged and practiced homosexuality . The practice was called Shudo (wakashudo) .

Shudo (wakushudo)


* Spartans were bisexual, there coming of age ceremonies encourages same sex unions for girls and boys .Even there marriage ritual bride had to pretend to be male act male for a good month until she could act her original gender

Spartan Pederasty

[Nogitsune]

Actually, I can see where Autumn Demon is coming from.
A sexual orientation is (usually) not something you choose - it's nothing you can be praised or reprimanded for. I have never understood how people can be proud of something that is pretty much coincidence, like their heritage.
I'm not proud to be asexual. I'm proud to be me, and my asexuality is simply one of the many things that shaped me into the person I am today.
But on the other hand, I won't tell people what they can or can't feel proud of. As long as they don't go around killing each other over it or thinking they are inherently better than others, that's fine with me. Feeling proud is good, and the object of pride is up to the individual. I mean, even me being me could be considered pure coincidence. xD

[Throne Invader]

It's a wonderful feeling to be proud of your achievements especially those which you've always believed you were incapable of doing. To be proud of one's self is an okay thing but just don't go too overboard otherwise people might misinterpret that you're bragging or you're conceited.

My stand on the gay parade thing is that I'm fine with gay/lesbians marching around being proud of themselves. I just see it as any other kind of parade where people hold a celebration for whatever they wanna celebrate. I've never held anything against homosexuals just against their agenda.

[synaesthetic]

What Autumn Demon said is the same thing I was basically trying to say. There are no reason for gay pride parades the way they're held. The direction is misguided. If the LGBT community wants to emulate the civil rights movement of the fifties and sixties, they need to go about it differently.

If you're fighting for civil rights (which I think most of the LGBT community would agree is true) then you should take it more seriously, I think. You should definitely not chance violating local obscenity laws. *wince*

As the internets would say: UR DOING IT RONG.

And besides, these days it's okay to be proud of everything and anything, except being American.

=(

[ChainLegacy]

I might be misinformed/underinformed but I also get the feeling the gay community lacks the strong leadership that propelled the civil rights movement of the sixties. From strong leadership there is more organization and uniform, synchronized efforts (with a decidedly more serious or focused tone, as gay pride parades seem vaguely civil-rights related, but not enough).

[Cinocard]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

That's just an appeal to tradition fallacy. Just because something has "always" been done in a certain way doesn't mean that way is right.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

It is alienating and discriminating against gays. Suppose someone said they had no problem with blacks owning property, as long as they called their house something else? Would that be ok? Names for things do matter.

Then let me ask you why is it bad to give them another title, when most homo admit that they are different from normal people?

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Why change it? It's a word. Its meaning is not right or wrong. Marriage has a feeling of tradition behind it. Gay marriage is totally out of the box. Therefore I don't want to give them that tradition. We will give you another word. And 100 years from now, that word may feel just as nice as "marriage." Build that tradition by yourself.

Are you claiming homosexuality is something gay people should be ashamed of?
Bad traits according to who's definition?

No, I said the SENTENCE is bull, universally. As Reckoner said, you don't have to be ashamed of your sexual orientation, but why proud of it either?

Actually that's one of the main reasons behind gay pride parades.

Though I see they shouting it out loud less and less, no? I don't know, not like I've ever watched their parade.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

That article does mention human homosexuality.
"A common assumption is that homosexuality means not having children, but this is not necessarily true, especially in cultures other than our own...
Also some of what it talks about with homosexuality in animals can relate to homosexuality in humans too.

No it doesn't. If you want to pursue further, we can do it via pm And tell me how refusing to have sex with the other sex can give you children?

Originally Posted by james0246

Actually, the article specifically mentions theories such as kin selection, which act as proper explanations why homosexuality can naturally exists and be beneficial.

That being said, marriage (legally) has nothing to do with reproduction. So, your highlighting the lack of reproductive capabilities isn't really important to the discussion of the sociological issue of marriage.

But James, I replied to your post, and yours was about evolution and biology...

As I said, the nature of homo in animals that article gave is that they have sexual contact with the same sex. But the real problem is not to have sex with the same sex or not, but to refuse to have sex with the opposite sex. What they gave is more like: animal becomes bi when they can't find an opposite sex partner.

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by Cinocard

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

Actually... no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

If it was all about the name, than the ancient Romans never married, because obviously, they had another word for it. But we say thay married - and since those unions weren't always between a man and a woman, it follows that there also were same-sex marriages.

No, I said the SENTENCE is bull, universally. As Reckoner said, you don't have to be ashamed of your sexual orientation, but why proud of it either?

That's a point I'll take.
However, it's not just minorities who are proud of things that aren't achievements. People also tend to be proud of their heritage.

And tell me how refusing to have sex with the other sex can give you children?

Ah, the wonders of modern medicine.
And it's not like there aren't enough children around already who simply need a home.

As I said, the nature of homo in animals that article gave is that they have sexual contact with the same sex. But the real problem is not to have sex with the same sex or not, but to refuse to have sex with the opposite sex. What they gave is more like: animal becomes bi when they can't find an opposite sex partner.

Are you sure about this bi thing?
Because if people say "homosexual" animals, I tend to take them literally.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cinocard

Then let me ask you why is it bad to give them another title, when most homo admit that they are different from normal people?

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Why change it? It's a word. Its meaning is not right or wrong. Marriage has a feeling of tradition behind it. Gay marriage is totally out of the box. Therefore I don't want to give them that tradition. We will give you another word. And 100 years from now, that word may feel just as nice as "marriage." Build that tradition by yourself.

You might wanna be careful with that assertion, man. It's starting to sound suspiciously close to a particular controversial phrase.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I might be misinformed/underinformed but I also get the feeling the gay community lacks the strong leadership that propelled the civil rights movement of the sixties. From strong leadership there is more organization and uniform, synchronized efforts (with a decidedly more serious or focused tone, as gay pride parades seem vaguely civil-rights related, but not enough).

You are exactly correct. The movement is scattered, disorganized and has no real leadership.

On the opposing side, the conservative religious anti-gay movement has incredible organization and very strong leadership. That's how Prop. 8 was passed in California. The LGBT community just couldn't keep up with the religious right's well-executed counterattack.

[Autumn Demon]

The vast majority of people in this discussion support same-sex marriage, so here's another question:

Is it better for same-sex marriage to be legalized through the courts or through legislatures?

Both have their pros and cons. The judicial branch of government is years ahead of public opinion when it comes to equality issues, and stands to be the quickest path to legalizing gay marriage in all of America. Indeed, Massachusetts became the first state to recognize same-sex marriage due to an order from the state's Supreme Court. But if change comes through the courts then there will be accusations of judicial activism undermining democracy, as has happened in Iowa.

Legalization of gay marriage through the legislative branch, as has been done in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, gives the sense of popular support and is much less controversial. But legislative action may not be a realistic hope outside the Northeast. Quite the opposite, most states (30) have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. I doubt even a generation will be long enough to change the majority opinion in some Southern states.

Unfortunately, a generation is about what it takes for the composition of the US Supreme Court to change. The Court of three justices ago declined to even hear Defense of Marriage Act challenges.

[Tsuyoshi]

I don't know how it would work in the US, but such a law would have to pass by legislation before anything can be done in Italy. Unlike France, we don't even have Pacs.

[Cinocard]

Considering the purpose of Gay movement, I would say let it be done through legislatures. Only when the majority agrees to same-sex marriage, can the gay be said to have achieved victory. Anything so controversial be done through the court is ultimately very unstable, and it will become more of a political play than a civil right movement. The original purpose will be lost.

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

You might wanna be careful with that assertion, man. It's starting to sound suspiciously close to a particular controversial phrase

It's controversial, man...Cmon, there's a huge debate for it out there. What do you expect?

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

However, it's not just minorities who are proud of things that aren't achievements.

Majority doesn't make it right. It's an useful lie that makes people feel better of themselves, so most use it once in a while.

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

People also tend to be proud of their heritage

Their heritage has something worthy being proud of. Or at least, when you ask people why they are proud, they can often answer.

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

Ah, the wonders of modern medicine.
And it's not like there aren't enough children around already who simply need a home.

Are you sure about this bi thing?
Because if people say "homosexual" animals, I tend to take them literally.

We are talking about the evolutionary aspect...Not the social aspect of mankind...And the article that James posted, I assume you haven't read it?

[VVayfarer]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

You might wanna be careful with that assertion, man. It's starting to sound suspiciously close to a particular controversial phrase.

You might want to be careful yourself - that's an association fallacy, and fairly close to an appeal to ridicule.

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by Cinocard

Majority doesn't make it right. It's an useful lie that makes people feel better of themselves, so most use it once in a while.

Don't disagree.
Even though I don't think it's a "lie", exactly.

Their heritage has something worthy being proud of. Or at least, when you ask people why they are proud, they can often answer.

But their answers usually don't make sense to me any more than a bisexual saying "I am proud to be bisexual because *insert random Roman poet here* was also bisexual!"

We are talking about the evolutionary aspect...Not the social aspect of mankind...

Ah, I think I'm getting confused by all these mixing topics. What is the point concerning gay marriage here, exactly?

And the article that James posted, I assume you haven't read it?

Oh, just saw it.
Will probably read it later.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Cinocard

Then let me ask you why is it bad to give them another title, when most homo admit that they are different from normal people?

Because it's saying to them they're not good enough to have that title, that they're second class citizens. For them it'll be a mark that they carry with them.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Why change it? It's a word. Its meaning is not right or wrong. Marriage has a feeling of tradition behind it. Gay marriage is totally out of the box. Therefore I don't want to give them that tradition. We will give you another word. And 100 years from now, that word may feel just as nice as "marriage." Build that tradition by yourself.

As was pointed out, no marriage has not always been between a man and a woman. Also, you say you don't want to give them that tradition. Are you afraid that allowing gay marriage will suddenly make heterosexual marriage meaningless?

No, I said the SENTENCE is bull, universally. As Reckoner said, you don't have to be ashamed of your sexual orientation, but why proud of it either?

Why not be proud of who you are if you're a good person? Taking pride in oneself is essential to a person's emotional well being.

Though I see they shouting it out loud less and less, no? I don't know, not like I've ever watched their parade.

Probably because there's less media coverage now. Though there's also less of a need. For the most part things are a lot better for homosexuals today than in the past. The fight for gay rights has come a long way. That gay marriage is even being discussed is proof of that. At one time gays wouldn't be concerned about having the same rights a heterosexual couple could get through marriage. They'd be too worried about being arrested under sodemy laws or sent to a mental institute.

No it doesn't. If you want to pursue further, we can do it via pm And tell me how refusing to have sex with the other sex can give you children?

It's on topic so I see no need to take it to pms. The article did mention humans too. Here's a hint. The part of the article I quoted before? They weren't talking about bonobo society there. Also the point that you seem to not get is that homosexuals are quite capable of having children. The key with homosexuality is that the person is attracted to people of the same sex rather than the opposite sex. That doesn't mean they can't have sex with someone they aren't attracted to. Many gays are in the closet for most of their lives, get married, have kids, then later in life finally come out of the closet. As was pointed out to you in another post, being homosexual doesn't necessarily mean they don't have kids, especially in a society with great pressure to do so.

Further, it's possible homosexuality isn't a genetic thing at all. There's a theory that it's caused by a hormone imbalance in the mother during pregnency. Too much estrogen for a boy and he's gay, too much testosterone for a girl and she's gay. It could very well be that there's no "gay gene" at all. more research needs to be done to figure out exactly what causes homosexuality.

But James, I replied to your post, and yours was about evolution and biology...

As I said, the nature of homo in animals that article gave is that they have sexual contact with the same sex. But the real problem is not to have sex with the same sex or not, but to refuse to have sex with the opposite sex. What they gave is more like: animal becomes bi when they can't find an opposite sex partner.

Once again homosexuality does not mean they refuse to have sex with the opposite sex but that they're not attracted to the opposite sex. They can still have kids if they want.

[Cinocard]

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

But their answers usually don't make sense to me any more than a bisexual saying "I am proud to be bisexual because *insert random Roman poet here* was also bisexual!"

Yeah, that's the point. The reason doesn't make sense. So most of the time it doesn't make sense to be proud of those things either.

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

Ah, I think I'm getting confused by all these mixing topics. What is the point concerning gay marriage here, exactly?

It was all about: does homo have a purpose in our evolution.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Because it's saying to them they're not good enough to have that title, that they're second class citizens. For them it'll be a mark that they carry with them.

It's like assuming the title that we will give them is second class, and worse than "marriage." As I said, the only valid difference between marriage and a new word I can see here is the tradition that marriage has and gay marriage doesn't. It makes sense to me.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

As was pointed out, no marriage has not always been between a man and a woman.

Yeah, no, it cannot absolute be. What can? But there's a general trait that most of what we agree "marriage" fall into.

Also, you say you don't want to give them that tradition. Are you afraid that allowing gay marriage will suddenly make heterosexual marriage meaningless?

No, I don't. It's just simple that: if its a different thing, give it a different name.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Why not be proud of who you are if you're a good person?

Yeah, why not? Did I ever say you should not? If you are good, you proud. The sentence was about: being proud no matter being good or bad.

Further, it's possible homosexuality isn't a genetic thing at all. There's a theory that it's caused by a hormone imbalance in the mother during pregnency. Too much estrogen for a boy and he's gay, too much testosterone for a girl and she's gay. It could very well be that there's no "gay gene" at all. more research needs to be done to figure out exactly what causes homosexuality.

It need not always directly involve gene to be evolutionary. The argument is about whether homo is positive for the survival of the specie or not. How can refusing to have sex with the opposite sex improve our specie survival chance?

Also the point that you seem to not get is that homosexuals are quite capable of having children. The key with homosexuality is that the person is attracted to people of the same sex rather than the opposite sex. That doesn't mean they can't have sex with someone they aren't attracted to.

The point you seem to not get is that even though they are capable of having children, they instinctively refuse to engage in the process of making children. That is an unnecessary instinct. Now tell me how it is necessary.

Once again homosexuality does not mean they refuse to have sex with the opposite sex but that they're not attracted to the opposite sex. They can still have kids if they want.

That is all the same. We are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex to have sex. Now imagine a specie without human intelligence, like cat. If all cat in the world become homo. Without human intervention, cat would be extinct in 30 years.

Just admit it. Our specie is better off if no one is homo. But some out there are indeed homo, so we as an intelligent and humane specie accept them.