Catholic Bigotry?

[Mr. Sausages]

Out of context, eh? The only point I can see you making (with regard to what I've quoted) is that, while you might not agree that homosexuality is a sin (well, you couldn't really, what with not being religious and all that, but hey) you do feel that it's a choice. While my point is it plainly isn't a choice. A lot of homosexuals in fact fight their desires.

 

So, do feel free to elaborate on exactly how I've quoted you out of context.

[Miss Take]

On the first issue, although I totally reject any accusations of homophobia [the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals], I am perfectly willing to accept charges of heterosexism [a belief or argument that male-female sexuality is the only natural, normal, or moral mode of sexual behaviour].

 

Could be interpreted to be a bit like being pro-white rather than racist - semantics.

[Lonan3]

Out of context, eh? The only point I can see you making (with regard to what I've quoted) is that, while you might not agree that homosexuality is a sin (well, you couldn't really, what with not being religious and all that, but hey) you do feel that it's a choice. While my point is it plainly isn't a choice. A lot of homosexuals in fact fight their desires.

 

So, do feel free to elaborate on exactly how I've quoted you out of context.

 

"People become homosexuals because of their environments. Particularly critical is the environment during puberty. Suggestions, ideas & strange dreams are symptoms of confused attempts to understand new and blunt sexual desires and are rashly interpreted as defining someone as being one sexuality or another. If these conclusions are accompanied by actual homosexual acts they are even more strongly reinforced,"

That was the view I embraced as being a foundation of my belief that homosexuality is a lifestyle 'choice.'

I added the 'rightly or wrongly' because I have no absolute proof that it is right - just as you have no absolute proof that it is wrong.

To say that it 'plainly isn't a choice' is an extremely blinkered attitude.

[Lonan3]

On the first issue, although I totally reject any accusations of homophobia [the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals], I am perfectly willing to accept charges of heterosexism [a belief or argument that male-female sexuality is the only natural, normal, or moral mode of sexual behaviour].

 

Could be interpreted to be a bit like being pro-white rather than racist - semantics.

Yes, it could be... but only if you were absolutely determined to regard it in a negative light i.e. "I disagree with this poster's views but I can't find suitable arguments that haven't already been done to death in this thread - therefore, I'll pick up on this bit and accuse him of semantics.

[ans]

"People become homosexuals because of their environments. Particularly critical is the environment during puberty. Suggestions, ideas & strange dreams are symptoms of confused attempts to understand new and blunt sexual desires and are rashly interpreted as defining someone as being one sexuality or another. If these conclusions are accompanied by actual homosexual acts they are even more strongly reinforced,"

 

Wait, you're quoting text from an Islamic wesbite to back up your argument?

 

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:jpRr0...;cd=2&gl=uk

[ans]

To say that it 'plainly isn't a choice' is an extremely blinkered attitude.

 

Au contraire. mon capitán. To suggest that is is a choice is a ludicrous position to defend yourself from. In much the same way that I don't choose which foods I like the taste of, which music I like the sound of or what my favourite colour is, nobody can really choose who they are attracted to.

 

Perhaps you would prefer it if we hung homosexuals up by the ankles and beat the gay out of them?

[Lonan3]

"People become homosexuals because of their environments. Particularly critical is the environment during puberty. Suggestions, ideas & strange dreams are symptoms of confused attempts to understand new and blunt sexual desires and are rashly interpreted as defining someone as being one sexuality or another. If these conclusions are accompanied by actual homosexual acts they are even more strongly reinforced,"

 

Wait, you're quoting text from an Islamic wesbite to back up your argument?

 

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:jpRr0...;cd=2&gl=uk

I think you'll find that I introduced that passage with:

Whilst the Islamic view that same sex relationships are ‘sinful’ is a nonsense, to someone like me who is without religious belief, the view that.....

So the answer is 'yes.' Why? Is that a problem (for anyone other than P.K., that is)?

[ans]

I think you'll find that I introduced that passage with:

 

I think you'll find I haven't read the last few pages if you already quoted it earlier in this thread as well as above.

[Mr. Sausages]

So I wasn't quoting out context at all.

 

The foundation of my belief is (a) being pretty in touch with my own sexual desires, and realising that I don't control them - they control me (more or less), and (B) I know lots of gay people. Some very well indeed. They all have the same story. It wasn't something they wanted, they spent a lot of time trying not to be gay, and eventually gave in. E.g. identical twin brothers I know who live in London. One gay, one not. Both had an 'identical' upbringing, so why is only one of them gay?

 

The foundation of your belief is a religious viewpoint which you've latched onto. You added 'rightly or wrongly' because you don't care if it's right or wrong, it suits your needs so you'll use it regardless. You use it as the justification behind your belief that homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals, because they choose to be gay. A bit like drug addicts choosing to use drugs - maybe if they cleaned up their act and changed their ways they'd be 'equal'. You have no problem with homosexual friends, so long as they don't think they're your equal.

 

But, of course, you're not homophobic. And it's me who's blinkered.

[Lonan3]

The foundation of your belief is a religious viewpoint which you've latched onto.

 

Incorrect. The foundation of my belief has no religious connotations at all.

 

You added 'rightly or wrongly' because you don't care if it's right or wrong, it suits your needs so you'll use it regardless.

 

Also incorrect. I added that because I accept that I can not prove the point - just as you can not prove yours.

I am not so arrogant as to believe that I am invariably right.

 

You use it as the justification behind your belief that homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals, because they choose to be gay. A bit like drug addicts choosing to use drugs - maybe if they cleaned up their act and changed their ways they'd be 'equal'. You have no problem with homosexual friends, so long as they don't think they're your equal.

 

But, of course, you're not homophobic. And it's me who's blinkered.

 

I don't believe that I've tried to suggest that homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals. I accept people as people, without regard for their sexual orientation, race, colour, religious beliefs, age, political views, physique... or anything else. I either like a person or I don't - it depends on their character and personality.

Equality is universal.

[ans]

Equality is universal.

 

Except for adoption, right?

[Lonan3]

Back to the thread! Congratulations, ans!

 

The debate about whether there is a choice involved in homosexuality is one that was discussed at considerable length some time ago (although I've failed to find that thread despite searching for it). It was, as I recall, unresolved. How could it be otherwise when there are views and prejudices visible - on both sides of the argument?

 

However, I've already stated my opinion. Unlike some of the contributors to the debate, who appear to believe that anyone who does not hold with the same articles of faith that they do must be wrong/bigoted/homophobic, I accept that it is just an opinion, no more than that.

I have not, however, read any contributions so far that have persuaded me that a child would be happier and better cared for, or even as happy and well cared for, after being adopted by a same-sex partnership than by a male-female partnership, or by a single, natural parent.

[Miss Take]

On the first issue, although I totally reject any accusations of homophobia [the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals], I am perfectly willing to accept charges of heterosexism [a belief or argument that male-female sexuality is the only natural, normal, or moral mode of sexual behaviour].

 

Could be interpreted to be a bit like being pro-white rather than racist - semantics.

Yes, it could be... but only if you were absolutely determined to regard it in a negative light i.e. "I disagree with this poster's views but I can't find suitable arguments that haven't already been done to death in this thread - therefore, I'll pick up on this bit and accuse him of semantics.

 

Well, I'm sorry but that's the very first image that came into my head when I read your sentence - determination had nothing to do with it.

 

Semantics is also a valid argument, not a fall back - your last sentence there could just as easily have read 'anything other than male-female sexuality is unnatural, not normal and immoral' with no change of meaning - to my mind you just dressed it up in better clothes.

 

 

Edited to add: As you're the most coherent 'anti gay adoption' poster on here, do you have a response for the most coherent 'opposing' view given by Vinniek on page 9 of the thread? I'd be genuinely interested to see your responses.

[Lonan3]

Well, I'm sorry but that's the very first image that came into my head when I read your sentence - determination had nothing to do with it.

 

Semantics is also a valid argument, not a fall back - your last sentence there could just as easily have read 'anything other than male-female sexuality is unnatural, not normal and immoral' with no change of meaning - to my mind you just dressed it up in better clothes.

 

 

Edited to add: As you're the most coherent 'anti gay adoption' poster on here, do you have a response for the most coherent 'opposing' view given by Vinniek on page 9 of the thread? I'd be genuinely interested to see your responses.

 

The definitions were taken from Wikipedia. I didn't 'dress it up.'

Dictionary.com defines homophobia as unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.[Origin: 1955–60; homo(sexual) + -phobia] which is what I took it to mean, and plead not guilty to.

 

It defines heterosexism as a prejudiced attitude or discriminatory practices against homosexuals by heterosexuals. which is not at all what I intended to claim for myself.

 

Therefore, I apologise. Your indulgence in semantics was perfectly justified.

 

Unfortunately, I cannot find another word to describe someone who believes that heterosexuality is normal that isn't considered pejorative or discriminatory to anyone who does not!

 

Semantics? Or Orwell's Newspeak?

[Mr. Sausages]

Also incorrect. I added that because I accept that I can not prove the point - just as you can not prove yours.

I am not so arrogant as to believe that I am invariably right.

 

There's considerable evidence that sexuality isn't a choice. As I've already tried to get you to ask yourself, was your sexuality a choice? If the answer's no, why do you assume gay people got to choose? The only way to gather evidence of people's feelings and emotions is to ask them. Most gay people fight their feelings before accepting them. That's evidence that it's not a choice. Granted, people ARE influenced by the outside world in all manner of things, but I guarantee you will not find one single person living a gay 'lifestyle' who'll say "well, really I fancy girls, but this way I get more sex, and I don't have to worry about pregnancy" or "I was straight until I saw Broke Back Mountain, and then I started fancying blokes"

 

If you're going to dismiss that evidence, maybe humans aren't meant to have sex at all and the only reason we do is because invisible pixies hypnotise us in our sleep because watching people having sex makes them laugh. You can't prove that's not true, can you?

 

I don't believe that I've tried to suggest that homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals. I accept people as people, without regard for their sexual orientation, race, colour, religious beliefs, age, political views, physique... or anything else. I either like a person or I don't - it depends on their character and personality.

Equality is universal.

A noble viewpoint, but earlier in the thread you said you objected to gay friends promoting their lifestyle as equal (or better). Lifestyle meaning sexuality. If their sexuality isn't equal, they're not equal. I'm not sure you can promote sexuality at all, but 99.99999999999% of all our media is geared around heterosexuality. There are even women in bikinis advertising things like exhaust pipes. Even if sexuality was a choice, how anyone can be worred about gay propoganda getting through all that I'll never know.

 

I have not, however, read any contributions so far that have persuaded me that a child would be happier and better cared for, or even as happy and well cared for, after being adopted by a same-sex partnership than by a male-female partnership, or by a single, natural parent.

 

If I ever have kids and something happens to me and their mother, second on my list of people I'd want to take care of them is a man who happens to be gay. That's above some straight couples I know, because I know he'd be a better role model, and provide a more stable environment. It's all very well providing hypothetical ideal scenarios, but real life's not like that. It's about real people, who shouldn't be defined by their sexuality.