Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

[Psychic]

This is where the confusion comes, if the man is married and lets say for this example that he is entirely faithful and has had no sexual relations with another man but has a very strong sexual attraction to men, how can he be considered gay?

From all outwards appearance he is not gay and I would bet money that if he brought it up that he was people would have a very difficult time believing him.

My main argument: Your sexual orientation is not determined entirely by who/what you are attracted to, i cant understand how it could be (i am trying though)

Firstly, let's make this clear: sexual orientation is not defined by the perceptions/ideas/emotions of anyone but the individual. There have been many cases of people who hid their true orientation from others the same way one might hide one's religious beliefs from others (for example, both homosexuals and Jews in Nazi German). The fact that you don't think I'm Jewish doesn't affect the fact that I am Jewish. Whether or not you believe someone who says they identify a certain way does not remove the truth or value of that identity. It's a ridiculous argument.

I'm not sure how else to say yes, sexual orientation is entirely defined by attraction. That is the literal definition of sexual orientation by professionals, unless you can present another definition by a reputable source.

But at it's core, orientation is defined by what gender/s you are attracted to. Whether or not you act on those desires is up to you, but that does not affect those attractions and thus, does not affect your orientation. That's why girls can kiss other girls and still be straight. That's why same-sex participants in a threesome can still be straight. That's why pornography actors can perform in homosexual scenes and still be straight. That's why prostitutes can take same-sex clients and still be straight. Because despite the acts they performed, those acts are separate from their identity. For these people, sexual acts do not define them. You have a choice of either respecting that, or assuming that you know them better than they know themselves.

Or, if you spent the next 20 years of your life now never having sex with the sex you are attracted to, even though you still want to and it's killing you that you can't, does that mean your orientation has actually changed? It's not like you want to abstain from it, but due to the circumstances, you just aren't. Maybe you have a disease, maybe you'll be killed if you were caught. If your desires have not changed, how could your orientation change?

good example and i get where you are coming from

Since we have discussed who you are attracted to determines orientation, what about pedophilia?

I am not referring to someone that has committed such an atrocity but instead to someone who recognizes what he is feeling and seeks help. There is an episode of the show Private Practice where this exact thing occurs.

Is that man still considered a pedophile even though he has not acted on the urges and instead has sought help and treatment?

Actually, we had this discussion in a thread on pedophilia, and it was unanimous that attraction to children = pedophilia. There was never any question of it, because that is literally the definition of pedophilia. Consequently, it was also unanimous that pedophiles who act on that attraction are bad, and those who don't aren't as bad.

As far as the transsexual/transgender goes, I can't say that I have met or been well acquainted with hardly any both personally and professionally, but I would imagine it would depend on whether or not they identified as gay or straight after their transformation -- as there are instances where a man who becomes a woman could easily identify themselves as a lesbian, and vise versa, and the other being if a man becomes a woman and then identifies as a straight woman even after first being a gay male, etc...

I just don't happen to know of any of the amusing nicknames they are called, or even if they have any. xD;;;

Transsexuals are a part of the LGBT community (that's what the "T" stands for, after all), though from my understanding there is little distinction between heterosexual and homosexual trans individuals, mainly because that isn't where their focus lies. The trans community is incredibly small, and as I understand it, trans heterosexuals and homosexuals identify far more with one another than say transsexual homosexuals and cisgendered homosexual. For good reason, of course - the experiences of trans individuals are unlike any that cisgendered individuals will ever face. The same way heterosexual people and homosexual people are different, so too are cisgendered people and transsexual people, regardless of whether or not they share the same sexual orientation.

The main definitions regarding transsexuals are much less lighthearted. Some basic example are "pre-op" (transsexuals who have not had undergone gender reassignment surgery) "post-op" (transsexuals who have undergone gender reassignment surgery) "M2F/MTF" (male-to-female transsexual) "F2M/FTM" (female-to-male) "passing" (others identifying individuals as the gender they identify as being cisgender). Not really sure if that's what you meant, but there are many resources with glossaries of terms, such as here.

Hope that helps!

But that is very interesting. I've never heard of that hierarchy before, but it must add some very much needed perspective to the whole scene.

Some people take it more seriously than others, from my understanding. I think most communities don't really care about it and it's more or less a joke, but there are individuals who take some degree of pride, jokingly or not, in being a "gold star lesbian" or what have you.


~Psychic

 

[Kaiserin]

I'd like to add in, now that the comparison between acting on homosexual urges and acting on pedophilic urges has come up, that the two are apples and oranges. Pedophilia is not an orientation; orientations define what gender(s) you have a sexual interest in. Pedophilia is not limited by gender or orientation, and is more comparable to a fetish, which falls beneath sexuality in the hierarchy of your preferences.

...So to speak. You could probably still find points of comparison if you really tried, but keep in mind they are definitely not the same concept, especially since fetishes are all over the place across all genders and sexualities. Gay guys can and do sometimes dislike the idea of anal penetration, whereas some straight guys love it, for example.

 

[BJPalmer85]

Firstly, let's make this clear: sexual orientation is not defined by the perceptions/ideas/emotions of anyone but the individual. There have been many cases of people who hid their true orientation from others the same way one might hide one's religious beliefs from others (for example, both homosexuals and Jews in Nazi German). The fact that you don't think I'm Jewish doesn't affect the fact that I am Jewish. Whether or not you believe someone who says they identify a certain way does not remove the truth or value of that identity. It's a ridiculous argument.

I'm not sure how else to say yes, sexual orientation is entirely defined by attraction. That is the literal definition of sexual orientation by professionals, unless you can present another definition by a reputable source.

I agree with this and you are right it is a ridiculous argument. As for sexual orientation, a 5 second search on wikipedia (not the most credible) backs up what you say in the first few words on that page.

But at it's core, orientation is defined by what gender/s you are attracted to. Whether or not you act on those desires is up to you, but that does not affect those attractions and thus, does not affect your orientation. That's why girls can kiss other girls and still be straight. That's why same-sex participants in a threesome can still be straight. That's why pornography actors can perform in homosexual scenes and still be straight. That's why prostitutes can take same-sex clients and still be straight. Because despite the acts they performed, those acts are separate from their identity. For these people, sexual acts do not define them. You have a choice of either respecting that, or assuming that you know them better than they know themselves.

Or, if you spent the next 20 years of your life now never having sex with the sex you are attracted to, even though you still want to and it's killing you that you can't, does that mean your orientation has actually changed? It's not like you want to abstain from it, but due to the circumstances, you just aren't. Maybe you have a disease, maybe you'll be killed if you were caught. If your desires have not changed, how could your orientation change?

I understand your argument and it makes sense. It is just the dynamic of learning that one feels/thinks describes them more than what one does is more important when it comes to this issue, though that is the case with many things...

Actually, we had this discussion in a thread on pedophilia, and it was unanimous that attraction to children = pedophilia. There was never any question of it, because that is literally the definition of pedophilia. Consequently, it was also unanimous that pedophiles who act on that attraction are bad, and those who don't aren't as bad.

fair enough and I agree, based one what you have stated previous it seems that there is no argument to this. Only thing i slightly disagree with is that the people who dont act on those urges "aren't as bad". It is sickening that they think of children in that way but if they don't and never do act on it than I can't label them as bad. I can view them as sick, in the sense that they need to seek help.

Transsexuals are a part of the LGBT community (that's what the "T" stands for, after all), though from my understanding there is little distinction between heterosexual and homosexual trans individuals, mainly because that isn't where their focus lies. The trans community is incredibly small, and as I understand it, trans heterosexuals and homosexuals identify far more with one another than say transsexual homosexuals and cisgendered homosexual. For good reason, of course - the experiences of trans individuals are unlike any that cisgendered individuals will ever face. The same way heterosexual people and homosexual people are different, so too are cisgendered people and transsexual people, regardless of whether or not they share the same sexual orientation.

The main definitions regarding transsexuals are much less lighthearted. Some basic example are "pre-op" (transsexuals who have not had undergone gender reassignment surgery) "post-op" (transsexuals who have undergone gender reassignment surgery) "M2F/MTF" (male-to-female transsexual) "F2M/FTM" (female-to-male) "passing" (others identifying individuals as the gender they identify as being cisgender). Not really sure if that's what you meant, but there are many resources with glossaries of terms, such as here.

Hope that helps!



Some people take it more seriously than others, from my understanding. I think most communities don't really care about it and it's more or less a joke, but there are individuals who take some degree of pride, jokingly or not, in being a "gold star lesbian" or what have you.


~Psychic

The whole aspect of transsexual/transgender's and how they classify themselves and how other in the LGBT community classifies them seems overwhelmingly complex. Ill leave it at that...LOL!

Thanks!

I'd like to add in, now that the comparison between acting on homosexual urges and acting on pedophilic urges has come up, that the two are apples and oranges. Pedophilia is not an orientation; orientations define what gender(s) you have a sexual interest in. Pedophilia is not limited by gender or orientation, and is more comparable to a fetish, which falls beneath sexuality in the hierarchy of your preferences.

...So to speak. You could probably still find points of comparison if you really tried, but keep in mind they are definitely not the same concept, especially since fetishes are all over the place across all genders and sexualities. Gay guys can and do sometimes dislike the idea of anal penetration, whereas some straight guys love it, for example.

It is apples to oranges for the most part. The reason I brought it up was during my debate and subsequent understanding of what deems someone gay/straight/lesbian...etc. My argument/belief was that to be gay you not only had to feel a certain way but you had to act on those feels as well, so my argument was that one could not be homosexual if one did not act on those urges. So I asked the question whether someone was still considered a pedophile if they never acted on their urges.

Thanks to the knowledge and boundless wisdom of members like Psychic and many others I was able to learn what the distinctions were and gain a little insight on the LGBT community

So you are right, there is no real comparison that can be made, my argument was only made based on what I thought at the time.

For the record, in case whatever I said is unclear in anyway, I am by no means making a comparison between LGBT and pedophiles, or holding them in the same light, some how saying they are related. That is not how I feel at all, pedophiles are sick people who need help. Just want to make that clear knowing that what is typed on the interwebs can be grossly misinterpreted

B

 

[Thomas Elliot]

I see all this discussion about this and all I see are labels, which is exactly how human beings work. Personally I think that in our most barest essence we are just creatures who are dictated by certain desires and feelings. These feelings I think exist in every single human, but certain feelings are stronger than others in certain individuals.
But as human beings we have a need to explain things and label them as such. A door shuts suddenly in your house, it was the wind. Things didn't work out between you and your ex, well that is because you were two different people and wanted different things. So on and so forth. Everything has an explanation, everything has a label.

In reference to the laws about bestiality and pedophilia, consent is but a part of the reason it is outlawed. The main reason is because the victims of these type of behavior have little or no concept of right and wrong, thus the law must protect those who cannot protect themselves. Which is why you can be found guilty of engaging in consensual sex with a person who is 16 or 17 when you are 18 or 19. It is also why in most states you would need parents permission to engage in such activities with that borderline under age individual. In the eyes of the law they are seen as individuals whose concepts and understanding are still being formed.
You see this distinction of knowing right and wrong in cases where children have murdered or assaulted someone, especially in 2nd and 3rd degree cases, since there is no pre-meditation behind these actions.

 

[Eterna]

Homosexuality may not be genetic, instead it may be Epigenetic.

http://sourcefednews.com/theres-no-gay-gene-says-scientists/

 

[Silver Soul]

The SCOTUS is hearing the cases concerning DOMA and Prop 8. Last week, Justice Scalia was at Princeton University and he defended his legal writings about comparing homosexuality to murder and bestiality against a gay student.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...ok-tour-legal-writings-antigay_n_2274413.html

PRINCETON, N.J. -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday found himself defending his legal writings that some find offensive and anti-gay.

Speaking at Princeton University, Scalia was asked by a gay student why he equates laws banning sodomy with those barring bestiality and murder.

"I don't think it's necessary, but I think it's effective," Scalia said, adding that legislative bodies can ban what they believe to be immoral.

Scalia has been giving speeches around the country to promote his new book, "Reading Law," and his lecture at Princeton comes just days after the court agreed to take on two cases that challenge the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Some in the audience who had come to hear Scalia speak about his book applauded but more of those who attended the lecture clapped at freshman Duncan Hosie's question.

"It's a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the `reduction to the absurd,'" Scalia told Hosie of San Francisco during the question-and-answer period. "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?"

Scalia said he is not equating sodomy with murder but drawing a parallel between the bans on both.

Then he deadpanned: "I'm surprised you aren't persuaded."

Hosie said afterward that he was not persuaded by Scalia's answer. He said he believes Scalia's writings tend to "dehumanize" gays.

As Scalia often does in public speaking, he cracked wise, taking aim mostly at those who view the Constitution as a "living document" that changes with the times.

"It isn't a living document," Scalia said. "It's dead, dead, dead, dead."

He said that people who see the Constitution as changing often argue they are taking the more flexible approach. But their true goal is to set policy permanently, he said.

"My Constitution is a very flexible one," he said. "There's nothing in there about abortion. It's up to the citizens. ... The same with the death penalty."

Scalia said that interpreting laws requires adherence to the words used and to their meanings at the time they were written.

 

[Lolsgod]

Homosexuality should be allowed, it will not harm anyone and is a way people wish to live there lives, most people who argue against it are either religious or just scared of the idea of homosexuality

 

[Sadib]

The Boy Scouts may lift their ban on gays. What does this mean?

 

[Eterna]

The Boy Scouts may lift their ban on gays. What does this mean?

That they will finally become a rational organization that actually follows the doctrine they've toted since creation.

 

[Sadib]

That they will finally become a rational organization that actually follows the doctrine they've toted since creation.

I think the Boy Scouts also have a ban on atheists, so they're still not a rational organization.

 

[Steampunk]

That they will finally become a rational organization that actually follows the doctrine they've toted since creation.

um, just as a refresher, how old is the age range that boy scouts usually are?
I believe it is usually pre-pubescent, and i thought we established that typically, you cant tell until puberty anyways....So a ban like that makes no sense in the first place. (i was never interested in the boy scouts so i have no clue as to the age range, but most of them that came selling.......whatever, were usually 8-10 ish range.)

 

[Sadib]

um, just as a refresher, how old is the age range that boy scouts usually are?
I believe it is usually pre-pubescent, and i thought we established that typically, you cant tell until puberty anyways....So a ban like that makes no sense in the first place. (i was never interested in the boy scouts so i have no clue as to the age range, but most of them that came selling.......whatever, were usually 8-10 ish range.)

Boy Scouts go until high school. There are also adult scout leaders.

 

[BJPalmer85]

um, just as a refresher, how old is the age range that boy scouts usually are?
I believe it is usually pre-pubescent, and i thought we established that typically, you cant tell until puberty anyways....So a ban like that makes no sense in the first place. (i was never interested in the boy scouts so i have no clue as to the age range, but most of them that came selling.......whatever, were usually 8-10 ish range.)

The Boy Scouts are for life. Many of the Eagle Scouts out there don't reach that level until late High School / Early College.

What is everyone's opinion on the man in Florida that wanted to change his last name to his wife's and Florida's ruling that it only applies to when a woman changes her last name to her husbands?

B

 

[Emrys]

Hurray for homosexuals! We're the best!

The boy scout thing is good news as is the movements of states towards equal marriage. Hopefully the UK can follow suit soon, we have a discussion about it in parliament on Tuesday.

 

[Psychic]

:/ Guys, unless I'm seriously missing something, a guy wanting to change his last name to his wife's has nothing to do with homosexuality and politics, so either make a new thread or take it to the tangent thread.

Also, please post links to news articles when referring to events so as to provide a little more background information. Thanks.

~Psychic

 

[lollygag]

I don't have a problem with gay men per se, but I do have a problem with them embracing gay stereotypes. Maybe I'd be more tolerant if more gay men didn't buy into the effeminate lifestyle. I mean, you can be gay and not look and dress like a pretty boy. You don't have to like only female pop divas. You don't need to dance to their songs while wearing a speedo during a gay pride parade. And they are the reason why way too many straight men have the need to act like macho meatheads. Seriously, straight men who don't want to do macho things (like football or soccer) are set back from doing more sensitive things (like art or theater) because they are afraid of being called gay. They're also afraid to wear pink or shorts that aren't long. Some men won't even grow their hair long because of it, even though we all know that the only people who think men with long hair are gay are elderly far-right nuts like Mitt Romney (I used to support this guy until it was revealed that he thinks men with long hair are gay). What's worse is that some of the effeminate ones don't mind being called fags. (Hey, I'll call em that if they really don't mind.) I give credit to the gay men who don't buy into being effeminate primadonnas and dress and act like straight men.

The United States, Western Europe, Australia, and especially the UK are too tolerant of gay men (the latter thanks to Elton John), which is ironic since less than 50 years ago British people were the biggest enemies of homosexuality in the world. We should be more like Poland or Russia - they allow men to be gay, but they don't buy into that whole camp gay diva garbage. And their men are far from macho meatheads.

Lesbians can be guilty of it too with butchness, though at least there are many more lesbians who don't conform to that image, so I don't worry as much. And people usually don't take as much offense to a woman acting like a man as they do to a man acting like a woman.

Sorry if I sound homophobic, but I'm just being honest.

On the topic of Boy Scouts: screw them. They're only for good ol' boys from Midwestern states. At least the Girl Scouts can appeal to any socioeconomic background.

 

[THRILLHO]

I don't have a problem with gay men per se, but I do have a problem with them embracing gay stereotypes. Maybe I'd be more tolerant if more gay men didn't buy into the effeminate lifestyle. I mean, you can be gay and not look and dress like a pretty boy. You don't have to like only female pop divas. You don't need to dance to their songs while wearing a speedo during a gay pride parade. And they are the reason why way too many straight men have the need to act like macho meatheads. Seriously, straight men who don't want to do macho things (like football or soccer) are set back from doing more sensitive things (like art or theater) because they are afraid of being called gay. They're also afraid to wear pink or shorts that aren't long. Some men won't even grow their hair long because of it, even though we all know that the only people who think men with long hair are gay are elderly far-right nuts like Mitt Romney (I used to support this guy until it was revealed that he thinks men with long hair are gay). What's worse is that some of the effeminate ones don't mind being called fags. (Hey, I'll call em that if they really don't mind.) I give credit to the gay men who don't buy into being effeminate primadonnas and dress and act like straight men.

The United States, Western Europe, Australia, and especially the UK are too tolerant of gay men (the latter thanks to Elton John), which is ironic since less than 50 years ago British people were the biggest enemies of homosexuality in the world. We should be more like Poland or Russia - they allow men to be gay, but they don't buy into that whole camp gay diva garbage. And their men are far from macho meatheads.

Lesbians can be guilty of it too with butchness, though at least there are many more lesbians who don't conform to that image, so I don't worry as much. And people usually don't take as much offense to a woman acting like a man as they do to a man acting like a woman.

Sorry if I sound homophobic, but I'm just being honest.

people can live however they like. if you don't like how a person or group of people live, you can withdraw back in to your shelter and avoid them. no one should have to conform to your worldview because "them filthy gays are too flamboyant!!!"
how are these countries "too tolerant"? tolerance is a good thing and the more the better. there is no such thing as too much tolerance (unless you are tolerant of like, pedophiles or rapists i guess).
also, don't call any gay people "fags". when someone who is in a majority (say, a straight male) uses a slur it is offensive because it is coming from someone who has no idea what it's like to be part of that minority group. it's offensive and ignorant and you shouldn't do it.

you say you're not homophobic, but from your post all i can gather is you are like thsoe people that say "i'm not racist, but all black people commit crimes and love watermelons"

 

[lollygag]

I didn't say that I think all gays are like that. I just said that I don't like them taking pride in stereotypes. I'm Italian-American; does that mean that I have to take pride in organized crime and eating nothing but pizza and spaghetti? (I do like pizza and spaghetti, but I hate the Mafia.)

What I mean is, I sympathize with gays who hate people thinking that they're all flamboyant. It's like how not all Asians want to be associated with going to Ivy League schools or how not all Muslims want to be associated with the ones who want Sharia law in the US and UK.

 

[bobjr]

What I mean is, I sympathize with gays who hate people thinking that they're all flamboyant. It's like how not all Asians want to be associated with going to Ivy League schools or how not all Muslims want to be associated with the ones who want Sharia law in the US and UK.

Well if that's how they naturally act what's wrong with it? I'm being serious, how is them acting outgoing affecting you? At this point in time it's almost an outdated stereotype, used by those who fear and hate gay people.

 

[Sadib]

Can we also talk about transgender people here? They're closely related. That's what the 'T' in LGBT stands for. I thought the story of Jazz, the 11 year old transgender girl, was pretty inspiring.

Here are two videos: 1 and 2