Do you dislike gay people, or do you have no problem with th

Moxie · Post by **Moxie** » 19 Sep 2005 08:00

Allan, that was a good article.

I really disliked that they were only writing about the boys' sexuality instead of their gender. (Although, I didn't read the entire article, just what I saw on the two twin boys.) It seems like the "feminine" boy was born into a male body with a female brain, which is often referred to as being transgendered or transsexual. How scary of an idea is that? Imagine you're you, a male, but being born into a female body. Would that really mean you're gay if you still liked women, or would that mean that you were straight but born with the wrong body? I know a woman who had surgery to make her male body match her mind. It was a little weird feeling when I first started talking with her, because she was clearly a man dressed as a woman. But after talking with her, it's very clear that she is female.

So anyway... I'm not sure why the article didn't discuss the boy's gender issues instead of sexuality issues because gender and sexuality are not the same thing.

Edit: Maybe it wasn't clear from that post but I have "no problem with" gay people. From what I've read, a lot of the reason that straight guys have a fear of being hit on by men is that they are worried that their sexuality is being challenged. If a gay guy hits on you, it doesn't mean you're any less straight. It just means you are attractive to another human being.

carl winslow · Post by **carl winslow** » 19 Sep 2005 11:46

gender is a culturally defined term.
people who are really really against gays are usually gay themselves. self loathing gay people who over compensate for it by bashing gays.

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 19 Sep 2005 12:39

AMEN!!!!!!

Its like being "in the closet" with a baseball bat waiting to beat on anyone who was brave enough to leave it.

Does that any make sense???......i'm just trying to bash homophobes.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 19 Sep 2005 13:15

and I've known people with whom I've discontinued or distanced my relationships with them because of their homophobic beliefs and attitudes.

Why?

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 19 Sep 2005 17:07

Oxford American dictionary 1980:

gender: 1. the class in which a noun or pronoun is placed in grammatical grouping(in English these are masculine, feminine, and neuter)

2. (informal) a person's sex.

Looks like gender, and a person's sex are the same thing.

p.s.

Notice that 3rd option is neuter, NOT neutral. Ouch.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 19 Sep 2005 17:14

Oh yeah, they had the South Park " NAMBLA poster child" episode the other day. Wow those South PArk writers guys are pretty sick (NAMBLA to).

-

Moxie · Post by **Moxie** » 19 Sep 2005 17:15

Moxie wrote:... because gender and sexuality are not the same thing.

HighDemonslayer wrote:Looks like gender, and a person's sex are the same thing.

I guess it's my bad, what I meant by "sexuality" was sexual preference. What I was trying to say what to know if someone is gay or not you have to know what sex the person is to begin with. I'm all off topic now, but what-ay.

crazylegs32 · Post by **crazylegs32** » 19 Sep 2005 22:29

I dont like it if I feel like gay people are trying to use their gaydar on me and test to see if Im gay. I think its the way some of them use eye contact.

Blackend · Post by **Blackend** » 20 Sep 2005 10:31

crazylegs32 wrote:I dont like it if I feel like gay people are trying to use their gaydar on me and test to see if Im gay. I think its the way some of them use eye contact.

Now what in the hell does that have to do with the topic? That was a pretty insipid post demeaning homosexuals.

About what Nathan said about NAMBLA and South Park:
If you take a look at it, South Park is just a later version of Beavis and Butt-Head with four kids in elementary school. While the show probably comes off to most people as insipid, demeaning, and doesn't have a lot to do with today's problems, they take a lot of issues today and throw them in an episode that suits it and they subliminally speak about it, a lot like Mike Judge did with Beavis and Butt-Head.

South Park may be "sick," but those NAMBLA-ers are even more sick; I mean come on, they like to have sex with little boys. Sexual preferences put aside, that having sex with children is morally wrong.

professor · Post by **professor** » 20 Sep 2005 17:13

AllanHaggett wrote:I've known people with whom I've discontinued or distanced my relationships with them because of their homophobic beliefs and attitudes.

AllanHaggett wrote:I think you people who have a "problem" with homosexuality need to have your heads examined. It's a bad as being racist...

Ok, so people who have a "problem" with homosexuality are as bad as racists, but you've actually distanced yourself from people just because they have opposing opinions as you? So what does that make you as bad as?

It'll be a sad day when you distance yourself from everyone because they don't share the exact same opinion as you do.

Also the connection between believing homosexuality is wrong and being racist is totally rediculous. There is no debate that race and color are hereditary, meaning you can't choose them. Whether you think so or not, there is still a debate about whether sexuality is a choice. So as long as some people think sexuality is a choice, some people will think that some choices are wrong.

Blackend wrote:Sexual preferences put aside, that having sex with children is morally wrong.

Who decides what's morally wrong? Just because a majority of people think something is morally wrong doesn't make it wrong, does it? Why do you think having sex with children is wrong? Is it because most of the time children don't have a choice in the matter? Well then that's rape. So you think rape is wrong.

Let's try a different scenario, what about older women having sex with boys, is that wrong? In most cases, when a woman teacher has sexual relations with a boy student, the boy wants to have sex with the teacher as well. So is it morally wrong for the teacher and/or the kid? It's their sexual preference, right?

I just want to know how people can think gay consensual sex is ok (because it's their choice), but think consensual sex between a minor/child and an adult is morally wrong? It's their choice as well. Seems inconsistent to me.

wolfpac444 · Post by **wolfpac444** » 20 Sep 2005 17:25

I think I covered this one before.

wolfpac444 wrote:
professor wrote:If sexual preference is not a choice (gay, straight, whatever), then what about older men who are sexually attracted to young girls? Like a 40 year old thinking a 9 year old girl is hot? What if that man is, to quote Matt, "attracted to and lusting after" girls "and sex with" girls? Is that a choice, or is it genetic? Is it right?
Whether it is genetic or not, I think most people would say that it is wrong to take action on those feelings since the young girl is unable to consent.

professor · Post by **professor** » 20 Sep 2005 18:12

Why would a young person not be able to consent? Since when does what most people think decide what is morally right and wrong?

brian relly · Post by **brian relly** » 20 Sep 2005 18:13

Their (Our) brain is still developing and they (we) are gullible and stupid.

WiGeek · Post by **WiGeek** » 20 Sep 2005 18:52

Never... Ending... Fight...

Torch · Post by **Torch** » 20 Sep 2005 19:59

When I was 20 I moved here to San Francisco because the town in Washington I was from was pretty much a shithole. I kept in touch with a few friends but for the most part didn't see most my family (just my mother) for the first few years I was here. So after I finally contacted a few people I started hearing a rumor that I was gay. I could care less what they thought anyway, but for the most part I thought it was funny as shit. SOOOOOO temted to bring a male friend home and introduce him as a boyfriend. Never did, but that would have been a great joke. Anyway, I'm not gay, but I live and work in SF and get hit on all the time by guys and I could care less. It's flattering, whatever. And guess what? I like flowers, poetry, chick flicks, the colors pink and purple, sunsets, all that girly shit. And I DON'T like football, big trucks or big fake tits (keep it real girls). So there.

WiGeek · Post by **WiGeek** » 20 Sep 2005 20:25

Pink & Purple isn't gay, it's punk.

davidwreschnig · Post by **davidwreschnig** » 20 Sep 2005 22:06

I just want to know how people can think gay consensual sex is ok (because it's their choice), but think consensual sex between a minor/child and an adult is morally wrong? It's their choice as well.

There is a difference between forbidding something for someone's own good (ie, well-being), and "just because."

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 21 Sep 2005 01:13

The obvious difference and imorality in sex with a minor is that an adult has the potential to manipulate a child - so while it may be consensul - it's still very possible that the adult to take advantage of a child - who is obviously younger and probably less mature. Probably also has some trust in the adult and the mentality that what the adult says is right and and should be believed etc.

There's obviously a lot of gray area though - especially when both people are young. For that reason in Australia and probably around the world there are defence laws. For example as a 21 year old it is a crime for me to have sex in this state with anybody aged 16 or below. However were I to have had sex with a 15 year old at party last Friday night then it would be a "defence" that I am within 8 years of her age. So unless I committed another crime such as rape - I would not get in any trouble. If I raped the girl then I'd be charged with rape and with sex with a minor. The defence difference reduces based on the age of the minor. So if a 15 year old has sex with a 12 year old that is a crime that would be followed up but if a 14 year old has sex with a 12 year old - although it's still a crime, - the defence could (and would) win the case with the defence that the age difference is only 2 years - providing no other crime was committed. Sex between people under 12 has no defence (ie. a 12 year old having sex with an 11 year old would be charged with sex with a minor and statutoary rape regardless of consensul sex or not - however it's unlikely that the state would prosecute in that instance - but certainly a 20 year old having sex with a 14 year old is sure to get prosecuted).

It's obvious that what really matters is the maturity and mentality of the people involved but it's hard to legislate for that. If I had sex with the 15 year old as mentioned but the prosection thought that she was misled or too immature (especially likely if she was mentally handicapped or if I was in a position of power over her - such has her manager at work) - then they would have a strong case and my defence of age difference may not hold.

hmm - I suddenly realised how dodgy it looks with my knowledge about child sex laws in Australia. This knowledge actually comes from debating this very issue for about 3 hours in the 2002 Tasmanian Youth Parliament (because the stupid people couldn't understand what "defence" meant) and not because I want to have sex with the youngest people possible without getting in trouble...

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 21 Sep 2005 01:43

BainbridgeShred wrote:
and I've known people with whom I've discontinued or distanced my relationships with them because of their homophobic beliefs and attitudes.

Why?

Of course it wasn't my statement, but I'd venture to guess that it's because many a homophobic person breeds anger, hate, and absolute intolerance for people based solely on their sexual orientation.

Does it help that the realtionship was totally severed? Well probably not, but at the same time I personally choose not to have those kinds of people as close friends.

Blackend · Post by **Blackend** » 21 Sep 2005 11:38

professor wrote:Who decides what's morally wrong? Just because a majority of people think something is morally wrong doesn't make it wrong, does it? Why do you think having sex with children is wrong? Is it because most of the time children don't have a choice in the matter? Well then that's rape. So you think rape is wrong.

Let's try a different scenario, what about older women having sex with boys, is that wrong? In most cases, when a woman teacher has sexual relations with a boy student, the boy wants to have sex with the teacher as well. So is it morally wrong for the teacher and/or the kid? It's their sexual preference, right?

I just want to know how people can think gay consensual sex is ok (because it's their choice), but think consensual sex between a minor/child and an adult is morally wrong? It's their choice as well. Seems inconsistent to me.

Dude...THEY LIKE TO HAVE SEX WITH CHILDREN! What isn't wrong about that? Children don't have a good sense of right or wrong; they are easily manipulated. It doesn't matter if it's a man or a woman trying to have sex with a child; it is still wrong. Your reference of the woman and boy having sex is like comparing apples and oranges; they might be fruits, but they're both different fruits.

Ben, RAPE IS WRONG. Forcing someone to have sex is wrong. Statutory is wrong, also, in my opinion, but I know a few persons who have been involved in said activities, but a 15 year old girl or boy doesn't need to have sex with a 25 year old man or woman. Just because they thought it was right to have sex with children back in the olden days doesn't mean it's right now.

Would you like to be a boy molested by a 30 year old, 250 lb. bald man? I know I wouldn't, but if you would, that's fine by me.