Show post
SIr quaffler #homophobia

Being an Eagle Scout myself, I will vouch for the BSA. They are an organization that does their part to influence the lives of young males in a constructive manner and to teach them moral and ethical values that they will take with them to the rest of their lives. Holding true to their moral convictions and shielding them from the influence of homosexuality is part of that. They are a private organization heavily influenced by the teachings of Christianity, and they have the right to act however they please. You may not like it, you may think it's hatred and bigotry, but the fact of the matter is they have been at this for WAY longer than you have, and I think the results speak for themselves.

As Inflexus above has pointed out, there' an actual reason behind this prohibition. It's for the protection of the Scouts themselves against sexual predators. When we go out on our campings we are out there for several days or even weeks, away from the protection society at large provides, with the organization & its leaders being pretty much the only source of protection we have. If there is one among their ranks who secretly has sexual wantings for the young males, who else is going to stop him? They're out in the middle of the woods, far away from the rest of civilization, and they are at greater risk there. This is a safety measure put in place to prevent that scenario from happening, and it swings both ways; adult heterosexual males wanting a position in the leadership must pass training in protection as well as personal screening. I will admit upon reflection that it is a bit of a generalization, but the reasons are well-intentioned.

Show post
A link in time #homophobia

Also, I've grown weary of the people who claim those who support the traditional family are on the wrong side of history comparing them to the civil rights movement. Civil rights was an issue which produced violent outbursts and tension. Whites shouted at and beat blacks who integrated their schools, restaurants, and public facilities. The recent Supreme Court case returning to California's Proposition 8 has shown those who support marriage between a man and a woman to be respectful but firm in what they believe in.

Only a man can impregnate a woman. It's biologically impossible for it to be any other way. Men and women also serve important complementary purposes in a family. Men reinforce discipline whereas women act as the caretakers of young children teaching them important lessons into adolescence and adulthood.

Show post
koosholts #fundie

So I was watching Law & Order SVU (one of my favorite shows) and it was a really intriguing episdoe that I hadn't seen in a while. I think it would be a good idea to spark a discussion over this topic that was introduced in this episode.

The Scenario: A man knows that he is HIV positive. He understands the risks and how it could harm his other sexual partners. He proceeds to ignore this disease, knowing that it could potentially kill others, and decides to join a online sex chatroom where he has sex with multiple partners a week. We can assume that he has had over 50 sexual partners. One of his partners contracted HIV through contact with this particular man and then dies from its symptoms.

Here are the questions.
1. Do you think that special laws should be in place that require people who have STI's to be restricted from sexual acts?
2. Do you think that there should be a registered STI contracted persons website? (I had no clue how to word that lol) This is similar to how sex - offenders are registered on a sex offenders website.
3. Do you think that the man, who knew he had HIV, should be charged with any sort of crime?
4. If you answered yes to question #3, what crime and why do you think that crime fits the punishment?

My answers!

1. Absoloutley not. It completley infringes on a persons rights and freedoms. Would it be courteous to let your partner know that you have an STI and share with her the consequences of having sex with you? Yes. Should it be required in the form of a law? No. The women doesn't have to have sex with the man because this is not rape. She has every bit of awareness and logic to ask about the consequences of having sex. If he lies, then I still don't think it's the womens fault because she still chose to encounter in sexual actions with another person knowing the consequences and reprucssions it could cause.

2. This is a good idea, but I don't think it should be required, more so an optional thing. If it was required then I'm rooting back to my defence of it infringing on another persons personal privacy. However, if this was optional I don't find any harm in letting the community know who has what and where it's at. It could only do good, in my opinion, if it was optional.

3. No the man who had HIV should not be charged with any sort of crime. As I've said before, it's not his fault enirely. There were two people having sex, not just one. The women had multiple oppurtinities to ask questions about wheter or not he had any dieseases, what are the harms and consequences of having sex, etc. This isn't rape so she had the option to do it or not. If the women knew the consequences of having sex, and did it anyways, she should have to live with those consequences because it's her own fault. If she didn't know the consequences then it's still her fault because she chose to have sex before she actually knew what she was doing which is cimpletley immature. The man shouldn't be at fault just because society wants to make the women seem like the victim 9/10. (made up number)

4. I can't answer this because I don't think that the man should be at fault.

Show post
Axle The Beast #fundie

[My question is simple: Why on EARTH is homosexuality even controversial? At all?]

-Why WAS it controversial? Because people used to be intolerant and hugely violent monsters who would punish things they couldn't understand.
-Why does it continue to be controversial? Because some people still don't understand or agree with it, gay people and gay proponents don't like that and remember how horrible this used to be in the past, and neither side can see things from the other's perspective.

And no, I'm not implying there aren't still people who will do horribly mean or even violent things to homosexuals, like ostracize or beat them. But that is a medieval and cruel way of acting -- I'm not sure if I've ever met someone personally who didn't think it was cruel an inappropriate -- but it doesn't change the fact that in some case homosexual proponents will respond to criticism or even just plain old disagreement with them by treating the person like they're one of these monsters. That's projection, and as someone who has multiple homosexual friends and is pretty damn respectful of their way of life despite disagreeing with it, I don't much care to be lumped in with that sort.

Homophobe is used as a slur in a number of conversations I've been in, so I don't care to be identified by it. Most use of the term indicates fear or hatred of homosexuals, not just plain disagreement. Some uses do just mean disagreement, but considering that it has two distinct uses you might be cautious about using the word without clarifying your intended use, or else you will offend people who simply disagree with homosexuality because they can easily interpret it as you accusing them of hatred, fear, and the like. Bottom line is I don't care if people don't like it that I don't agree with their lifestyle; I don't agree with it, but I'm perfectly pleasant with every homosexual and bisexual I know. I don't see why I don't deserve the same respect they deserve for... having my own thoughts and way of life... without hurting anyone. I don't particularly think it's cool to call someone a name for that, and I do frankly liken it to using homosexual slurs; I don't see why we have to call people names when they're being plenty pleasant with people. Calling the monstrous people who do try to hurt homosexuals is a-okay by me, but I think it's a little silly to invent a new slur for it. Why not just call them what they are? Hateful jerks and/or monsters.

Anyway, enough of that. Back to the topic question...

What is my problem with homosexuality? It's not something that makes sense to me. I don't mean that I'm just like "but, wuh-wuh-why would someone like the same sex, durrr", I mean that it functionally doesn't have any place that I can see. The more common phrasing you'll hear people say is something like "I don't believe homosexuality is natural", and then that gets quickly rebutted by citations of examples of homosexuality in nature among animals. Yes, some animals -- not all -- engage in homosexual relations. That doesn't do anything to change the fact that it doesn't make sense to me. Animals doing it is NOT a good argument in favor of homosexuality since animals engage in certain other practices humans generally universally consider taboo: Cannibalism, necrophilia, murder, rape, torture, etc., and not all of these are even out of necessity; dolphins murder and rape the corpses of porpoises for fun. Throwing aside the animal example entirely and going with things like "it feels good so how can it be wrong", absolutely everything that "feels good" can kill you in excess, and other things that feel good can damage you outright like a number of drugs. Impulse and desire are not universal tools for determining right and wrong; this cannot be argued. Like anyone, I have angry and destructive impulses that I have to control to be a decent person.

So since I cannot see a reason for homosexuality to exist -- the distinctive traits between the genders pretty visibly only exist for the sake of breeding and I don't really see the point of sexual love unless it's driven by the breeding impulse (not saying you can only have sex to have kids either; don't misunderstand me) -- I find it unnatural, and therefore I disagree with it. To be clear: I don't think it's immoral or hurtful, I think it just plain doesn't make sense, I don't like to see people do things to themselves that I feel are illogical. Sure, plenty of people argue that they were born that way, but I have my doubts, and either way that can also be argued against in the same way animal behavior can; not every pre-existing psychological state people are born with is a good thing either. I'll say this: Human beings are exceptional at deluding themselves; it's seen best in the general human disdain for being wrong. I can't know for sure if that's the case with homosexuals -- I'm not one -- but I wouldn't write it off, at least in some cases. It's also because of this that I worry about overarching appreciation -- not acceptance, but an almost eagerness that I see from time to time -- towards homosexuality, because I've seen cases of people who I believe more or less deluded themselves into acting as homosexuals. Cases where they had a string of bad relationships, declared they hated the opposite sex, and then sought same-sex relationships as some kind of solution to this, which is an absolutely poisonous reason. Maybe this was a case of "the right thing in the wrong way" for some of them and they really were born homosexual, but I really don't believe it was the case for all of them.

That does not mean people shouldn't do what they feel is right; if someone's thought something through and decided the way they're going to be -- where that's a decision of how to act moving forward or a decision to embrace certain pre-existing impulses they already had, it doesn't matter -- then they should embrace it, live by it fully, and do it in the face of anyone who thinks they shouldn't. I'm free to question their decisions the same as they're free to question mine, but in the end I respect that they made their decision and decided who they're going to be, and it's their decision, not mine. I just can't justify it -- that's probably why I'm not gay or bi. :P

Finally to end off on the point of just letting people love... well, I think I've made it plenty clear that I do let people love, and advocate that others do as well. :bleh: As for how it affects my personal view of homosexuality, I still factor it into how I don't see why. Again, I see sexual relations as something evolved as an incentive to breed -- whether or not it's used for that exclusively -- so I don't really understand why someone would express their love sexually for the same sex. I "love" both males and females in my life, but the only ones I have sexual (or, romantic, if you prefer; they're the same thing) feelings for are some of the females... and I don't see how anything else makes sense. *shrug*

[I'm happy to see that you are reasonable and let people love. I just don't understand why people think sex has to involve reproduction anymore, we aren't going to go extinct due to lack of population anytime soon. I guess that they naturally feel the same way about the same sex and you and I feel about the opposite. We don't need to disagree with things just because we don't understand.

Why should a homosexual have to abstain from marriage and sex? Sure, maybe not everything that feels natural is "right", please respond relevantly and specifically for why homosexuality is wrong?]

I disagree with anything that is unnatural, significant and important, and that is either harmful to others (which homosexuality isn't) or harmful to oneself; I do feel homosexually is somewhat self-harmful, and the reason for that is because I don't think it logically makes sense -- I consider it a strange fallacy -- and therefore I think people who engage in it are deluding themselves with that fallacy. The fallacy is this: Sexual relations exist for reproduction, therefore two individuals who have can't and would never be able to reproduce have zero reason to get involved sexually in the first place.

And I said I don't think sex has to involve reproduction. I guess that's confusing so I'll explain: Sex only existed in the first place for reproduction; I don't think there's any disagreement on that. Every animal has their mating habits, from penguins who leave their partners after a year, to wolf packs who usually stay together in a big family all their life. As near as I can see, on a primal level human mating habits are to form families around their sexual relations and form links that way. This started for reproduction, but of course it has other facets and it's obvious that not every heterosexual marriage leads to kids or can even have kids considering things like sterility, but that doesn't mean the relationship doesn't have merit; people still engage in every other facet of the relation because humans are built to connect that way. I don't believe people are purely primal -- we're well beyond that -- so of course people can make their own decisions about how to live, but this is why I see homosexual relations as a fallacy. Yes people hook up and marry for reasons other than reproduction -- because we're hardwired to -- but that doesn't mean that the reproductive urge wasn't a part of why we do it in the first place. Not following the reproductive urge to its eventual purpose? I get it. Having sexual relations with people you can't reproduce with in the first place? It doesn't make sense as a concept.

Since I know you'll ask me what is wrong with homosexuals not following that urge through completely either, I'll simply say: Because there's no reason for them to have the urge towards one another in the first place.

The reason I think homosexuals or people who identify as homosexual in part or in full should resist their urges is because I think indulging in them is the same as indulging in a fallacy, and I never think that's the best thing for someone to do.