Homosexuality

[d.a.s.h]

Further evidence, if any were needed, of our society heading downhill ever faster.

We need a graph for this one.

 

[Roadkill]

Sex outside marriage is wrong and generally harmful to the individuals concerned, other people close to them and to the wider society. That said, it would be preferable for various social structures to inhibit this behaviour rather than to use the weight of the law.

'Sex outside marriage is wrong' is a silly cop-out of an argument. It's usually IME a way of saying 'I don't approve of gay sex but I'm too cowardly to make that explicit, so I shall lump it in with a variety of other things I disapprove of.'

And the idea that anyone could even contemplate - whether or not you favour it - using the law to regulate others' sex lives in this day and age makes my blood run cold.

 

[Roadkill]

I've reading quite a bit about Kinsey recently and I find it interesting how deeply some of his ideas have permeated the popular conciousness. At the end of the day Kinsey's work was a taxonomy of sexual practices rather than an inquiry into the meanings those sexual practices hold for people or the realities (e.g. a biologically determined sexuality) that do/don't underpin those meanings. Likewise the categories he fits people into are basically completely arbitrary. Beyond reporting on people's reports of their sexual behaviour, it's unclear what Kinsey is actually saying about anything.

Not really. Kinsey was just making the point that not everyone's sex lives consist of missionary position with the spouse, usually with the lights off. That might seem obvious now, but it was far less widely acknowledged in 1948 when his first report was published. As you say, it was primarily a taxonomy, but that was all it was ever intended to be and it was a very valuable exercise in itself.

 

[stdPikachu]

It's usually IME a way of saying 'I don't approve of XYZ but I'm too cowardly to make that explicit, so I shall lump it in with a variety of other things I disapprove of.'

Ask most people what they dislike about pornography and they'll say much the same thing. There's no concrete definitions of what is homosexual, or pornographic, or any of those million other concepts that exist solely in the mind. Porn, and its evil twin homosexuality, are the biggest and best aunt sallies ever dreamt of.

And the idea that anyone could even contemplate - whether or not you favour it - using the law to regulate others' sex lives in this day and age makes my blood run cold.

Using the law to legislate against base human nature has usually ended up turning pretty damned ugly at some point down the line. War on drugs, war on underage drinking, war on tits, war on drinking in general, war on war, war on "hate speech", fuck it, this is stuff we've all been doing since before we had civilisation. If anything I'd say civilisation arose because of our naturally self-destructive actions rather than in spite of it.

Untethered just seems to believe that we're somehow just now treading a fine line between chaos and order - hate to break it to everyone, but this is pretty much true the universe over. If you can't change human nature over countless millenia, what makes you think the Daily Mail is going to somehow change the laws of thermodynamics?

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Using the law to legislate against base human nature has usually ended up turning pretty damned ugly at some point down the line.

I suspect that those who are afraid of other people's sexuality are usually the ones most afraid of their own. Anything someone fears is something they usually want to regulate.

 

[Roadkill]

Untethered just seems to believe that we're somehow just now treading a fine line between chaos and order ...

Well, in fairness untethered is trolling but it can be entertaining to dangle the odd hook in return on occasion. Who knows what absurdities you may haul up from the depths...

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Well, in fairness untethered is trolling but it can be entertaining to dangle the odd hook in return on occasion. Who knows what absurdities you may haul up from the depths...

True. He is trolling.

Sadly, I do know people who really believe it. Its useful to practice arguing the other side.

 

[kyser_soze]

There was a great line in Sex and the City, where Charlotte (the repressed brunette WASP) decided that she was a lesbian, went to a party at the 'most powerful lesbian in NYs house', was introduced and the MPL said to her 'Until you've feasted on pussy you're nothing but a tourist'...

FWIW...I agree with Roadie on this, that there's a genetic pre-disposition that societal or physiological factors, or most likely a combination of both (e.g. the 40 yr old father of 2 who *suddenly* discovers his 'true' sexuality) - hell, maybe there's even a time release factor or something, who knows.

Then there's the view in some societies (and amoung some straight gay porn stars) that you're only gay if you're the receiver - a view based on the sex-as-power perspective and for someone like Jeff Stryker (or whomever is big (ho ho) in gay porn these days but has a wife and kids) whose self image is maybe similar to Peter Griffin in the ep of Family Guy when his Dr tries to give him a prostate exam and he instantly thinks 'ARGHHH BENDERISM!!!!'

Or something. Altho I think conscious celibates shouldn't describe themselves as whatever sexual as I think intent and action are as much a part of your sexuality as anything else...

 

[Roadkill]

Then there's the view in some societies (and amoung some straight gay porn stars) that you're only gay if you're the receiver ...

This is what I was driving at when I asked bluestreak about the doing things to/with someone distinction. Historically, the distinction has often been very important, at least in the context of male homosexuality, because being penetrated has often been seen as a unmanly, a deviation from the norm and so on, whereas penetration hasn't usually had the same stigma attached to it.

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

Look at the amount of pre-marital homosexual activity in a lot of Muslim countries. Yet these men would steadfastly deny being gay.

 

[d.a.s.h]

Look at the amount of pre-marital homosexual activity in a lot of Muslim countries. Yet these men would steadfastly deny being gay.

That's sort of 'prison rules' sexuality though isn't it? i.e. it's OK if you're the shagger but not if you're the shaggee.

 

[toggle]

I think you have some odd ideas about the "good old days." Even when sexual relationships were heavily policed and sanctioned those harms occurred. People still fucked like bunnies. Often the innocent children produced by such unions were the ones who were subject to the highest penalities. A woman who was "ruined" became unmarriable and an economic burden to her family and society. It was at its core harmful and rife for exploitation.

I think there's a lot of 'it wouldn't harm me, so it doesn't count' in people who support policing morality. They want the rules set up so their choice of lifestyle is seen as perfect, and anyone else should really want what they have, or be punished for stepping outside imposed boundaries.

Personally, I see this as a sign of insecurity. if someone is truly comfortable with their choices, if they really believed that their choices would be best for everyone, they wouldn't feel the need to try and enforce it on everyone else. there wouldn't be any need to because it would be the default option, even without enforcement.

 

[inflatable jesus]

It seems to me like arousal should figure in there somewhere. I've always kind of assumed that where you are on the gay-straight continuum is really just a question of what gets you aroused, regardless of what acts you engage in.

 

[ovaltina]

As Toggle says, I think the difference there is self-identification, although that isn't absolute since there are plenty of people out there who won't say, 'I am gay' but judged by behaviour could be classed as such. IMO, though, it's more than a little rude to say to someone 'I don't care how you choose to describe yourself: as far as I'm concerned you're gay!' I was gay long before I cared to admit that to myself or anyone else. Therefore, self-identification is important but it isn't everything.

The analogy with left-handedness is an interesting one, since that clearly is an inborn trait. My belief is that a predisposition to homosexuality is also inborn and might or might not be activated by societal factors, but that is far from proven.

Good post.

 

[ovaltina]

Sex outside marriage is wrong and generally harmful to the individuals concerned, other people close to them and to the wider society. That said, it would be preferable for various social structures to inhibit this behaviour rather than to use the weight of the law.

Bad post.

 

[Boycey]

Sex outside marriage is wrong and generally harmful to the individuals concerned, other people close to them and to the wider society. That said, it would be preferable for various social structures to inhibit this behaviour rather than to use the weight of the law.

what the actual fuck are you on about? are you suggesting that a sexually repressive society is preferable to a tolerant one?

have you had sex outside of marriage? if not then quite frankly your not talking from experience, just speculation based on a very skewed and outdated viewpoint. if you have i'll assume you feel damaged by it, poor tethered

 

[untethered]

what the actual f- are you on about? are you suggesting that a sexually repressive society is preferable to a tolerant one?

Of course it is. Just look at the mess around you. 50% of marriages ending in divorce. Huge numbers of people not even bothering with the marriage bit in the first place. Millions of children without two parents living with them, and a whole host of subsequent boyfriends/step-fathers passing through while their real fathers evade their responsibilities (and I don't just mean financial ones).

 

[Boycey]

that's what contraception's for silly

i have no intention of having children. my girlfriend feels the same way. we make each other happy. life's great

are you single/married/engaged/between?

 

[Socket]

Of course it is. Just look at the mess around you. 50% of marriages ending in divorce. Huge numbers of people not even bothering with the marriage bit in the first place. Millions of children without two parents living with them, and a whole host of subsequent boyfriends/step-fathers passing through while their real fathers evade their responsibilities (and I don't just mean financial ones).

There you go: there'd be none of this if everyone were gay and only shagged the opposite sex for procreative reasons.

 

[Roadkill]

Of course it is. Just look at the mess around you. 50% of marriages ending in divorce. Huge numbers of people not even bothering with the marriage bit in the first place. Millions of children without two parents living with them, and a whole host of subsequent boyfriends/step-fathers passing through while their real fathers evade their responsibilities (and I don't just mean financial ones).

And the relevance of this to a thread on homosexuality is ... ?

 

[untethered]

And the relevance of this to a thread on homosexuality is ... ?

Well it's a tangent, but some homosexuals have children, natural or adopted, so it applies to them too.

 

[aylee]

Well it's a tangent, but some homosexuals have children, natural or adopted, so it applies to them too.

So presumably you're in favour of gay and lesbian sex, provided that they've entered into a civil partnership?

Incidentally, I think you're a candidate for the most inappropriately-named poster on this forum. "Untethered" suggests someone who is free in thought and action. Your preposterous Victorian moralising suggests that you're severely hidebound by the brain and genitals.

 

[Roadkill]

Well it's a tangent, but some homosexuals have children, natural or adopted, so it applies to them too.

It does, to that small minority of gay people who have children. But like your previous rant about sex outside marriage, it's a way of making vague generalisations about 'immoral' behaviour rather than addressing the specific issues raised in the thread. I wonder why you're doing this...

 

[aylee]

What's the relationship between a homosexual person and homosexual acts? Can a person be a homosexual and not perform homosexual acts? Can a person perform homosexual acts and yet not be a homosexual?

This is just a debate about language, isn't it?

"Homosexual acts" are simply sexual acts occurring between members of the same sex. So of course anyone can perform "homosexual acts", whatever their sexual orientation.

This use of language tends to suggest that there is a distinct line between "heterosexual acts" and "homosexual acts" which in my view is entirely wrong.

 

[untethered]

So presumably you're in favour of gay and lesbian sex, provided that they've entered into a civil partnership?

It's adultery, whether they're in a "civil partnership" or not.

Incidentally, I think you're a candidate for the most inappropriately-named poster on this forum. "Untethered" suggests someone who is free in thought and action. Your preposterous Victorian moralising suggests that you're severely hidebound by the brain and genitals.

And I presume you are hidebound by the mores of the contemporary world, where "do as thou wilt" is the whole of the law.

 

[Roadkill]

Incidentally, I think you're a candidate for the most inappropriately-named poster on this forum. "Untethered" suggests someone who is free in thought and action. Your preposterous Victorian moralising suggests that you're severely hidebound by the brain and genitals.

'Untethered' could also be taken as being close to 'unhinged,' which is rather nearer the mark.

 

[Roadkill]

It's adultery, whether they're in a "civil partnership" or not.

Eh? That doesn't even make sense. How can sex between two people in a civil partnership be adulterous? How can gay sex be adulterous at all, unless one (or more) of the participants is married?

 

[untethered]

'Untethered' could also be taken as being close to 'unhinged,' which is rather nearer the mark.

Oh ho ho ho.

And you're the first person to make that remark, too.

No really, you are.

 

[untethered]

Eh? That doesn't even make sense. How can sex between two people in a civil partnership be adulterous? How can gay sex be adulterous at all, unless one (or more) of the participants is married?

Apologies, it's fornication unless, as you say, one (or more) of the participants is married.

Either way, it's not something we should be encouraging.

 

[Fruitloop]

Of course it's still fornication even if you are married if you're doing it for the wrong reasons, or in the wrong position.