Gay Marriages

[silky]

2) I'm not homophobic...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, that is exactly what you are.

[Gladys]

Given Rog's list of perversions and abnormal behaviour (I mean the bit about using bits of your body that wouldn't otherwise be used, e.g. oral sex, even a finger/hand, without wanting to be too graphic, and other things that are really quite normal foreplay) how many has everyone indulged in? I suspect the response will be quite overwhelming, in which case these practices are no longer abnormal or perverse, if they ever were!

[ThieBane]

And when I opened my eyes, I was in the deep South. Seriously - you can't quote Freud to justify your own horror of homosexuality. Freud's cognitive theories on sexuality have long since been discredited. No-one can deny Freud's place in the history of modern psycho-analysis, but even the most hard core Freudian cannot deny that most of Freud's theories (ironically) come from his own insecurities about sex.

 

You say that homosexuality (or is it the homosexual 'act' you really have a problem with?) is abnormal. Abnormal compared to what exactly. Abnormal compared to a man and a woman? Does this mean that everything a man and a woman do is considered completely normal then? Or is there a point in which you would also say the man and the woman's relationship is abnormal. And at what point does the hetrosexual relationship become abnormal? Oral? Anal? Toys? Coprophilia?

 

There is no excuse for labelling someone as abnormal because their sexuality differs from yours, and I'm afraid it does smack of deep south scripture mongering whatever you say. Perhaps we should have a discussion on creationism as well?

[Gladys]

I can hear duelling banjoes!

[cheesemonster2005]

2) I'm not homophobic, I'm hetrophiliac aka normal.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've not heard that one before!

 

I don't want to work with black people but I'm not racist.

Only society's best should get special health care but I'm not elitist.

Women should know their place but I'm not sexist.....

[Rog]

Given that the primary purpose of sex in nature is for procreation it follows that normal sex is that activity that takes place between male and female of the same species.

 

That being so the activities that can be considered as being normal can be contained within a normal or Gaussian distribution which is a continuous symmetric distribution that follows the familiar bell-shaped curve so that what we call foreplay can also fall within such a curve of normality.

 

The sex act is also an act that in human and a small number of other species is engaged in for the pleasure that it brings it also follows that to engage in a sex act that does not align with normal sex is a perversion of the act hence those who engage in such acts are by definition perverts.

 

For two people to share a common perversion is far from unusual and even if that runs to homosexuality then the relationship, though both abnormal and perverted, to them will be both normal and non-perverted as far as they are concerned.

 

Nonetheless homosexuality is NOT as valid a sexual congress as proper heterosexual sex and should most emphatically NOT be presented as being so and especially not to children learning of such things.

 

I accept and even applaud that homosexuality is now no longer illegal and is even to some degree socially acceptable, at least in the West, however it remains a permitted deviation from normality in the strictest sense but a deviation from proper sex and normality nonetheless.

 

Just because a thing is permitted does not make it right, normal, or especially in the case of homosexuality, the equal of the real thing.

 

To regularise such a relationship where two people have decided that they want the security and benefits of a stable and permanent relationship to my mind is a good thing but to go the extra step and call it a marriage is to me wrong.

 

Above all else a homosexual relationship should NEVER be taken as being a relationship of the same legitimacy as proper marriage and should NEVER be used as such in the case of making decisions regarding the fostering or adoption of kids.

[simon]

"First, by disregarding the barrier of species (the gulf between men and animals),

 

Jack Russels are particularly naughty in this respect IMO. A randy Jack Russel will even try it on with the furniture. And may sometimes score as much as 5 on the Rog test.

[Rog]

"First, by disregarding the barrier of species (the gulf between men and animals),

 

Jack Russels are particularly naughty in this respect IMO. A randy Jack Russel will even try it on with the furniture. And may sometimes score as much as 5 on the Rog test.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

LOL! Proves my point!

 

'orrible things, Jack Russels!

[joeyconcrete]

There was an article in New Scientist magazine not so long which was discussing the "gay" gene(s). Basically they were trying to explain that if the gay gene existed, how come homosexuals survive given they don't have children.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6612

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6519

 

I've also read other articles that put forward the hypothesis that the trait is carried through the mother's (female) side of the family.

 

This isn't my view on things - but thought it'd be relevent. Even if it were true, that being gay is because of your genetic makeup - its exactly the same as being tall, small, fast, slow - its genetic and thats life.

[cheesemonster2005]

Nonetheless homosexuality is NOT as valid a sexual congress as proper heterosexual  sex and should most emphatically NOT be presented as being so and especially not to children learning of such things.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Margaret Thatcher went one step further with Section 22 by forcing schools (in effect) not to even mention the existence of homosexuality. The Tory party claim the idea was to stop the encouragement of it (whatever they mean by that) but most LEAs took the decision to completely eradicate it from any school curriculum. Thankfully Tony Blair has reversed this act.

[Rog]

Nonetheless homosexuality is NOT as valid a sexual congress as proper heterosexual  sex and should most emphatically NOT be presented as being so and especially not to children learning of such things.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Margaret Thatcher went one step further with Section 22 by forcing schools (in effect) not to even mention the existence of homosexuality. The Tory party claim the idea was to stop the encouragement of it (whatever they mean by that) but most LEAs took the decision to completely eradicate it from any school curriculum. Thankfully Tony Blair has reversed this act.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not so. The act prohibited the PROMOTION of homosexuality as an equally valid relationship to proper sexual relationships.

 

Here is the wording in which the amendment stated that a local authority

 

"shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.”

 

(http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880009_en_5.htm#mdiv28).

 

The subsequent response was intended to scupper that entirely reasonable and entirely correct status. Hopefully when a sensible and proper government is returned and NuLabour and their disgusting crypto-socialist philosophies are kicked into touch that situation will be reversed.

[Mr. Sausages]

they don't have children.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, really?

[Chinahand]

I do find the western judeo christain bias of this thread frustrating.

 

Homosexuality is rare in our current society, I've never seen a study that puts it above 10% many say around 5% and I've seen a few that say its as low as 0.5%.

 

If the rarity of homosexuality is what rog is going on about when he says its abnormal I'll sort of accept his statements. I am reminded of the article in Encyclopedia Britannica on Human Sexuality I read many years ago.

 

"In both solitary- and socio-sexual behaviour there may be activities that are sufficiently unusual to warrant the label deviant behaviour."

 

Maybe that is what rog is going on about, however the article goes further and adds:

 

"The term deviant should not be used as a moral judgment but simply as indicating that such activity is not common in a particular society. Since human societies differ in their sexual practices, what is deviant in one society may be normal in another."

 

I do sense a moral outrage in rog's postings which disturbs me. Yes, in our present society homosexuality has been supressed and discouraged and is consequently rare. Rog seems to approve of this and sees some reason to save us from being exposed to homosexuality

 

I note that rog adds to what the statute says, he's changed: "prohibiting the promotion of homosexuality" to "promotion of homosexuality as an equally valid relationship to proper sexual relationships"

 

That's not what the law says at all. What about teaching the reality of homosexuality in this society where the sexual behaviour of a minority has been cruelly persecuted with a persons sexual orientation being used until very recently as a reason for criminalizing their behaviour, denying their access to many professions and resulting in the isolation and condemnation of gay people. Is rog really saying he's proud to be associated with this?

 

Homosexuality may be rare in our society but that is by no means true of other societies. A form of gay marriage was practiced by the Spartans and the Greeks. Gay behaviour was a normal part of life in Rome. Nowadays if you head off to parts of Papua New Guinea you'll discover that its the norm for the male youth of certain tribes to give the elder warriors bl*w j*bs to get the essence of their strength. If this seems odd, realise thats only the biases of our society ... its normal for them!

 

The level of homosexuality in human society has altered greatly across time and geography. So what is the so called natural level? Its impossible to say ... one thing that drives me mad is the claim homosexuality isn't natural.

 

Dolphins, sperm whales, chimps, rats .... the list goes on and on ... all animals where homosexual behaviour is a well observed and normal part of their sexual behaviour. You could almost reverse the normal homophobe's argument ... as homosexuality is so common in nature why shouldn't it occur amongst humans.

 

Marriage isn't solely a christain event; buddism, islam etc etc have marriage forms that are vastly different from christain marriage: multiple marriages, vastly different rules on divorce etc.

 

The church has always acknowledged the state's definition of marriage is different from the church's: the common law marriage was an acknowledgement by the Church Courts that society accepted a form of marriage different from that accepted in ecclesiastical law.

 

Why can't the church render unto Cesear and leave this debate. The state has acknowledged that to live in a stable long standing supportive relationship is helpful. People who do this are healthier, less likely to commit crime, longer lived, less likely to need state support etc etc.

 

I see no reason why the benefits bestowed on hetrosexual couples should be excluded from homosexual couples and if all we are really arguing about is semanitcs call them civil unions and ensure the benefits are identical to marriage.

[Tugger]

I'm with Cheesemonster. Why it would concern anyone else how two consenting adults wish to formalise their relationship is beyond me.

 

Whatever tripe Rog is using to try to justify his prejudice, it's perfectly obvious that the real reason is sheer bigotry.

[loaf]

Marriage has always meant one thing, particularly to Christians. A certain section of Christians (and others) do not agree with homosexuality.

 

Modern western life has lessened the emphasis on the religious and also the permanent aspect of marriage, and for a great deal of people it has evolved into simply the next logical step a couple should take, an official declaration of 'togetherness' and a cermonial continuation of family tradition.

 

With this modern interpretation of marriage being considered more and more the norm, sections of the gay community reason that this could and should also apply to same-sex couples, along with the legal rights afforded to married couples that are otherwise unavailable.

 

However the traditionalists, the Church, and others who held the more old-fashioned view of what marriage is about, dislike any such change that is made to it, perhaps since in their view it further erodes the institution to which their parents or they belong. (It's like how people used to be proud of having A-levels, I guess.)

 

So that is the problem with gay marriages.