Why do people still not accept homosexuality today ?
09 Oct 2020, 3:57 am
Nades wrote:
Bradleigh wrote:
On the topic of accusing LGBT people of announcing their sexuality, are some of you forgetting the type of guys that have to go "no homo" over anything that might be the teeniest affectionate to another man. That is pretty much the same thing. I would say that a lot of problems that straight people have with ideas like gay marriage is they actually feel like it is an attack on being able to subtly display their heterosexuality by saying they are married. And why straight men can especially feel the need to project masculinity as they prescribe gay men as sissies, and get super angry if challenged that their super manly thing might be a little gay.
There is like a whole subculture thing called "Are The Straights Okay", that kind of pokes fun at some ridiculous straight culture.
Also, on the topic of hyper sexuality that you might find among people with same sex attraction or trans, I had actually heard an interesting explanation for this. Apparently a lot of people work through being so sexual when they are teenagers and accepted for it, teenage girl being flirty with boys or teenage boy being so with girls, and displaying the sexuality. But when a homosexual trans person was somewhat forced to repress that side when they were a teenager, it can make them live it out more when they do come out. Perhaps more so from frustration from being pent up and adults can have higher level of expectations of sexuality in general over teenagers that hardly know what they are talking about
So when people are saying that they have a problem with more sexuality in these groups, it is because they are being lagged behind in development, such as not getting healthy examples of relatable relationships when they were young (tv shows or movies that can have straight couples but not gay), or let a trans person feel like they can be attractive in parts of their development.
There is like a whole subculture thing called "Are The Straights Okay", that kind of pokes fun at some ridiculous straight culture.
Also, on the topic of hyper sexuality that you might find among people with same sex attraction or trans, I had actually heard an interesting explanation for this. Apparently a lot of people work through being so sexual when they are teenagers and accepted for it, teenage girl being flirty with boys or teenage boy being so with girls, and displaying the sexuality. But when a homosexual trans person was somewhat forced to repress that side when they were a teenager, it can make them live it out more when they do come out. Perhaps more so from frustration from being pent up and adults can have higher level of expectations of sexuality in general over teenagers that hardly know what they are talking about
So when people are saying that they have a problem with more sexuality in these groups, it is because they are being lagged behind in development, such as not getting healthy examples of relatable relationships when they were young (tv shows or movies that can have straight couples but not gay), or let a trans person feel like they can be attractive in parts of their development.
A lot of repression against homosexuality certainly happened in the past. Indeed I think you're right that a lot of the reason for many in the gay community being very overtry sexual is becauae of past repression but I belive it's not really the case anymore.
As for gay marriage, I think it's just religious. I'm actually against gay marriage but not becauase I'm against homosexuality. The way I see it is that the church and government needs to be separate and obligating churches to marry gay couples goes against that principle and muddies the water. If the government starts to dictate what the church does then the church is within their rights to a mutual retort in my eyes.
I'm fully in support of a legal equivalent of gay marriage where they enjoy the same legal rights as a fully married couple and can have the equivalent of a wedding ceremony.
Weddings can be held anywhere. I got married at a mansion.
_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed and ASD lv 1.
Daughter: NT, no diagnoses. Possibly OCD. Is very private about herself.
09 Oct 2020, 4:11 am
XFilesGeek wrote:
Nades wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
No churches are being forced to perform gay weddings.
Claiming such is just ignorant.
Claiming such is just ignorant.
I said "if", not that they are. It's in my eyes a realistic hypothetical of religous groups being forced to carry our marriages they dont aprove of that could do more harm than good and will start to cause issues with mantaining a secular society.
Except that they're not, and ridiculous hypotheticals aren't a good basis for denying a group of people their rights.
I said "If the government starts to dictate what the church does then the church is within their rights to a mutual retort in my eyes" emphasis on he word "If". I'm well aware that no church is obliged to marry someone.
I find your stance contradictory too. You seem unhappy about me assuming I think the churches are forced to marry same sex couples (despite the fact I'm not) but simultaneously that denying same sex couples the right to marry is discrimination.
Unless I read it wrong (which I do a lot of anyway) they appear to be incompatible.
Unless by group of people you mean Christians denying same sex marriages to take place in particular churches?
Bradleigh
Veteran
Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia
09 Oct 2020, 7:22 am
Nades wrote:
I said "If the government starts to dictate what the church does then the church is within their rights to a mutual retort in my eyes" emphasis on he word "If". I'm well aware that no church is obliged to marry someone.
I find your stance contradictory too. You seem unhappy about me assuming I think the churches are forced to marry same sex couples (despite the fact I'm not) but simultaneously that denying same sex couples the right to marry is discrimination.
I find your stance contradictory too. You seem unhappy about me assuming I think the churches are forced to marry same sex couples (despite the fact I'm not) but simultaneously that denying same sex couples the right to marry is discrimination.
If you recognise that churches are not forced to marry gay couples, then why are you against gay marriage? You said earlier that you are against it on the concept that you don't like churches being made to do things by the government, it kind of seems like a little bit of a contradiction that you said that you are against the concept, while now acknowledging that gay marriage can exist without churches being forced.
I think that you are having a little bit of a narrow view of what could count as a church, and who gets to decide that they get to be married. As a random hypothetical, what if the Satanic Church without the law saying so decided that gay people can get married, would you recognise that church's right to do so, and thus at least the government should allow them the right to choose to marry same sex couples? I would think that there would be some kind of discrimination in this example if the Christian faith worked through the government to deny it to them.
_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall
09 Oct 2020, 7:41 am
Bradleigh wrote:
Nades wrote:
I said "If the government starts to dictate what the church does then the church is within their rights to a mutual retort in my eyes" emphasis on he word "If". I'm well aware that no church is obliged to marry someone.
I find your stance contradictory too. You seem unhappy about me assuming I think the churches are forced to marry same sex couples (despite the fact I'm not) but simultaneously that denying same sex couples the right to marry is discrimination.
I find your stance contradictory too. You seem unhappy about me assuming I think the churches are forced to marry same sex couples (despite the fact I'm not) but simultaneously that denying same sex couples the right to marry is discrimination.
If you recognise that churches are not forced to marry gay couples, then why are you against gay marriage? You said earlier that you are against it on the concept that you don't like churches being made to do things by the government, it kind of seems like a little bit of a contradiction that you said that you are against the concept, while now acknowledging that gay marriage can exist without churches being forced.
I think that you are having a little bit of a narrow view of what could count as a church, and who gets to decide that they get to be married. As a random hypothetical, what if the Satanic Church without the law saying so decided that gay people can get married, would you recognise that church's right to do so, and thus at least the government should allow them the right to choose to marry same sex couples? I would think that there would be some kind of discrimination in this example if the Christian faith worked through the government to deny it to them.
I always had the belief that secularism works both ways. If we don't want the church to intrude on government and their policies then we can't intruded on the church. If the church decides that gay marriage is fine without any pressure from society or government then that's fine by me but at the moment that isn't the case.
Instead, until the day comes that homosexuality is openly tolerated amoung Christians, when or if I don't know, I would prefer to see a type of government wedding between gay couples that has all the same legal rights and protections as regular married couples. In any respect, the government same sex wedding can be just as grand as any church wedding and perhaps if enough couples were to do so then religous institutions might warm to the idea and openly allow Christian gay marriages (or any other religion for that matter).
As for your Satanic Church example, I'm not really very savy when it comes to marriage. What is recognised as an official marriage by law is out of field of knowledge. If by denying it to them you mean gay couples, then I would ideally say no its not discrimination. The reason being that if it is discrimination then it becomes a legal right for a gay couple to be married and that would make it illegal for the church to deny gay marriage again interfering with keeping the church and government separate.
Last edited by Nades on 09 Oct 2020, 8:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
09 Oct 2020, 7:50 am
Marriage isn't a solely Christian/religious thing.
Even then, it's not a thing solely for homophobic churches.
Why not just allow gay marriage but disallow gay marriage in Catholic churches?
For centuries, remarriage after a divorce where the former spouse is still alive has been legal - but it's not allowed in Catholic churches. Catholic churches would consider that adultery and not allow it in their own buildings. Fine - make them go elsewhere as they're breaking the rules of the church.
Catholic church is just an example because the divorce thing sets a precedent there. What I mean is, allow gay marriage but also allow venues to not host it.
_________________
Not actually a girl
He/him
Bradleigh
Veteran
Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia
09 Oct 2020, 8:48 am
Nades wrote:
I always had the belief that secularism works both ways. If we don't want the church to intrude on government and their policies then we can't intruded on the church. If the church decides that gay marriage is fine without any pressure from society or government then that's fine by me but at the moment that isn't the case.
Instead, until the day comes that homosexuality is openly tolerated amoung Christians, when or if I don't know, I would prefer to see a type of government wedding between gay couples that has all the same legal rights and protections as regular married couples. In any respect, the government same sex wedding can be just as grand as any church wedding and perhaps if enough couples were to do so then religous institutions might warm to the idea and openly allow Christian gay marriages (or any other religion for that matter).
Instead, until the day comes that homosexuality is openly tolerated amoung Christians, when or if I don't know, I would prefer to see a type of government wedding between gay couples that has all the same legal rights and protections as regular married couples. In any respect, the government same sex wedding can be just as grand as any church wedding and perhaps if enough couples were to do so then religous institutions might warm to the idea and openly allow Christian gay marriages (or any other religion for that matter).
Again, what church?
Why would a nebulous Christian authority get to be the one to choose whether people who may or may not be Christian be allowed to get married? Especially since you have already seen that gay marriage can happen without being pressured to by the government. How does it effect people who might be part of a religion that don't want gay and lesbian marriage to have other groups to allow other groups to get married.
I don't want to put any words into your mouth or do some sort of value judgement of you, but I think that you are kind of using a fairly common belief among Christians as a smokescreen for your own thoughts, and use it to control others because you want to believe that your faith is the one true faith and gets to own marriage. You don't want to believe that a homosexual marriage can be the same thing as a heterosexual marriage, maybe you are willing to tolerate the existence of gay people, but you don't want to think that it is equal.
The thing is that this is discriminatory, it would still be considered homophobic. I say this with my earlier statement that I don't think that people can be inherently homophobic, rather than do a homophobia, you are not branded just because you have pushed beliefs that are anti-gay. And also adds up to what I was calling a "yer dad", you are most of the way in not thinking that homosexual people are some deep evil, but you are holding onto a little bit of bigotry.
_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall
09 Oct 2020, 9:16 am
Bradleigh wrote:
Nades wrote:
I always had the belief that secularism works both ways. If we don't want the church to intrude on government and their policies then we can't intruded on the church. If the church decides that gay marriage is fine without any pressure from society or government then that's fine by me but at the moment that isn't the case.
Instead, until the day comes that homosexuality is openly tolerated amoung Christians, when or if I don't know, I would prefer to see a type of government wedding between gay couples that has all the same legal rights and protections as regular married couples. In any respect, the government same sex wedding can be just as grand as any church wedding and perhaps if enough couples were to do so then religous institutions might warm to the idea and openly allow Christian gay marriages (or any other religion for that matter).
Instead, until the day comes that homosexuality is openly tolerated amoung Christians, when or if I don't know, I would prefer to see a type of government wedding between gay couples that has all the same legal rights and protections as regular married couples. In any respect, the government same sex wedding can be just as grand as any church wedding and perhaps if enough couples were to do so then religous institutions might warm to the idea and openly allow Christian gay marriages (or any other religion for that matter).
Again, what church?
Why would a nebulous Christian authority get to be the one to choose whether people who may or may not be Christian be allowed to get married? Especially since you have already seen that gay marriage can happen without being pressured to by the government. How does it effect people who might be part of a religion that don't want gay and lesbian marriage to have other groups to allow other groups to get married.
I don't want to put any words into your mouth or do some sort of value judgement of you, but I think that you are kind of using a fairly common belief among Christians as a smokescreen for your own thoughts, and use it to control others because you want to believe that your faith is the one true faith and gets to own marriage. You don't want to believe that a homosexual marriage can be the same thing as a heterosexual marriage, maybe you are willing to tolerate the existence of gay people, but you don't want to think that it is equal.
The thing is that this is discriminatory, it would still be considered homophobic. I say this with my earlier statement that I don't think that people can be inherently homophobic, rather than do a homophobia, you are not branded just because you have pushed beliefs that are anti-gay. And also adds up to what I was calling a "yer dad", you are most of the way in not thinking that homosexual people are some deep evil, but you are holding onto a little bit of bigotry.
I'm an atheist, hence why I want to protect secularism.
The church (in the UK where I come from at least), is a catch all phrase for the higher ups in the Christian faith who makes the decisions. The Archbishop, priests, vicars, they're pretty much called "the church" here.
The concept of marriage came from various religious sects and branches so they still have the right to decide as far as I'm aware.
I think gay people are exactly the same as heterosexual people too.
The reason why discrimination in the church is tolerated is because they to have rights to freedom to practice their faith and homosexuality goes against their faith. They are indeed two opposing rights but they're equally weighted and rights to freedom of religion will have to be eroded to fully allow gay marriage as it currently stands at present. Christians, Muslims, Jewish, and all other sects have to decide on their own time to fully allow gay marriage otherwise their rights will be trampled and then who knows what other rights after?
09 Oct 2020, 10:15 am
'I thought I was going to die' in homophobic attack (BBC)
BTW, I know many LGBTQ people. Never once did they introduce themselves using their sexual identity. And certainly it was never a topic in our first conversations. I usually found out later by meeting or hearing about their partner. The stereotype of the radical gay is really offensive. Sure, there are people that do hold out their sexuality overtly, but I have also found that is such a small minority.
09 Oct 2020, 10:19 am
Jiheisho wrote:
... I know many LGBTQ people. Never once did they introduce themselves using their sexual identity. And certainly it was never a topic in our first conversations. I usually found out later by meeting or hearing about their partner. The stereotype of the radical gay is really offensive. Sure, there are people that do hold out their sexuality overtly, but I have also found that is such a small minority.
You don't live in California, do you?
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.
09 Oct 2020, 10:27 am
Fnord wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
... I know many LGBTQ people. Never once did they introduce themselves using their sexual identity. And certainly it was never a topic in our first conversations. I usually found out later by meeting or hearing about their partner. The stereotype of the radical gay is really offensive. Sure, there are people that do hold out their sexuality overtly, but I have also found that is such a small minority.
You don't live in California, do you?He says without a hint of irony...
09 Oct 2020, 10:31 am
Jiheisho wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
... I know many LGBTQ people. Never once did they introduce themselves using their sexual identity. And certainly it was never a topic in our first conversations. I usually found out later by meeting or hearing about their partner. The stereotype of the radical gay is really offensive. Sure, there are people that do hold out their sexuality overtly, but I have also found that is such a small minority.
You don't live in California, do you?_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.
09 Oct 2020, 10:52 am
Nades wrote:
The concept of marriage came from various religious sects and branches so they still have the right to decide as far as I'm aware.
1 No it didn't
2 No they don't
They don't have the right to decide in secular society. They get to decide how their marriage is. That's all.
OK, marriage is a religious concept. But it comes out of dead religions. Even the concept of a wedding ring came from the same Roman society that was putting Christians to the death. Homer wrote in ancient Greece - pre-Christianity - about a man coming home to his wife.
Society changes what marriage means. And I prefer the 19th century concept of marriage which gets more and more extended as we progress more and more as a society. The notion that most marriages are for love. Doing that means that it should include gay people.
If you stick with traditional Christian marriages from the 18th century and before, parents would be deciding who was a 'good match' for their children.
You're basically espousing a nostalgic version of marriage from the 20th century. Something older people without a sense of real history tend to do.
"The church" here means the Anglican church. Vicars, not priests. The Anglican church doesn't have that much actual power - and it shouldn't, either. If Prince William was to come out and divorce Kate, it would get a say in whether he married a man or not. But it doesn't, and shouldn't, have a say in what commoners do. Not unless they happen to be Anglican.
_________________
Not actually a girl
He/him
09 Oct 2020, 11:17 am
KT67 wrote:
Nades wrote:
The concept of marriage came from various religious sects and branches so they still have the right to decide as far as I'm aware.
1 No it didn't
2 No they don't
They don't have the right to decide in secular society. They get to decide how their marriage is. That's all.
OK, marriage is a religious concept. But it comes out of dead religions. Even the concept of a wedding ring came from the same Roman society that was putting Christians to the death. Homer wrote in ancient Greece - pre-Christianity - about a man coming home to his wife.
Society changes what marriage means. And I prefer the 19th century concept of marriage which gets more and more extended as we progress more and more as a society. The notion that most marriages are for love. Doing that means that it should include gay people.
If you stick with traditional Christian marriages from the 18th century and before, parents would be deciding who was a 'good match' for their children.
You're basically espousing a nostalgic version of marriage from the 20th century. Something older people without a sense of real history tend to do.
"The church" here means the Anglican church. Vicars, not priests. The Anglican church doesn't have that much actual power - and it shouldn't, either. If Prince William was to come out and divorce Kate, it would get a say in whether he married a man or not. But it doesn't, and shouldn't, have a say in what commoners do. Not unless they happen to be Anglican.
Yeah but it still came from some sort of religion, when or what one is up for debate but it seems inappropriate to say a church or mosque doesn't have the right to decide over whether to marry a same sex couple if it goes against their faith which by law they have the right to practice. The faiths of today are now the ones who carry out marrage ceremonies and it's up to them. Shoehorning oneself in such a building via social pressure or even law is against what I think society should do given freedom to practice religion has been a legal right for a very long time.
As an athiest I don't even like religion. I've had my conflicts with Christians in particular. I don't get along with them and I don't think they should deny gay people the opportunity to get married but just because I disagree with pretty much everything they stand for doesn't mean I won't defend their right to practice their faith.
Bradleigh
Veteran
Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia
09 Oct 2020, 11:31 am
Nades wrote:
I'm an atheist, hence why I want to protect secularism.
The church (in the UK where I come from at least), is a catch all phrase for the higher ups in the Christian faith who makes the decisions. The Archbishop, priests, vicars, they're pretty much called "the church" here.
The concept of marriage came from various religious sects and branches so they still have the right to decide as far as I'm aware.
I think gay people are exactly the same as heterosexual people too.
The reason why discrimination in the church is tolerated is because they to have rights to freedom to practice their faith and homosexuality goes against their faith. They are indeed two opposing rights but they're equally weighted and rights to freedom of religion will have to be eroded to fully allow gay marriage as it currently stands at present. Christians, Muslims, Jewish, and all other sects have to decide on their own time to fully allow gay marriage otherwise their rights will be trampled and then who knows what other rights after?
The church (in the UK where I come from at least), is a catch all phrase for the higher ups in the Christian faith who makes the decisions. The Archbishop, priests, vicars, they're pretty much called "the church" here.
The concept of marriage came from various religious sects and branches so they still have the right to decide as far as I'm aware.
I think gay people are exactly the same as heterosexual people too.
The reason why discrimination in the church is tolerated is because they to have rights to freedom to practice their faith and homosexuality goes against their faith. They are indeed two opposing rights but they're equally weighted and rights to freedom of religion will have to be eroded to fully allow gay marriage as it currently stands at present. Christians, Muslims, Jewish, and all other sects have to decide on their own time to fully allow gay marriage otherwise their rights will be trampled and then who knows what other rights after?
I apologise for assuming that you were religious.
but your reasoning still does not explain why the "Archbishop, priests, vicars" get to decide if any particular person can get legally married. Would the Christian church recognise a Shinto marriage? Would it have the right to say that no atheists can get married? That Church is free to say that they don't recognise same sex couples, it would be sh***y but they can do it, but they don't get to makeup a whole knew kind of union so they stick the icky gay people into. That is plain bigotry that is only lip service in saying that same sex couples are the same as straight.
The argument might have some space to stand if there were not already special privileges under the law for being married. That you would not sign a marriage to send into the government, and that people can have the right to marry people via power given by the government rather than the church. In aiming for a secular society marriage already became a secular issue, the government can choose to legally recognise a non-straight marriage, and even do so without forcing a church to do it themselves.
_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall
09 Oct 2020, 11:32 am
That's why my solution is best.
Allow gay marriage.
Allow churches to say they won't perform ceremonies.
Seriously - have you never been to a registry office wedding? Or one in another venue?
And up for debate... yes in a way it's up for debate but that's between historical scholars and it's certainly not post Christianity. Even literature scholars can tell you that one.
_________________
Not actually a girl
He/him
09 Oct 2020, 11:35 am
Bradleigh wrote:
... your reasoning still does not explain why the "Archbishop, priests, vicars" get to decide if any particular person can get legally married...
They can't. What they CAN decide, however, is whether or not they will perform the ceremony. No one can force them.
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Postapocalypse and people with ASD |
Today, 3:38 pm |
| Are there a lot of crazy people in this world? |
21 Jul 2026, 7:31 am |
