Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It's something that I've been pondering for a while now...
    Why do some people have a problem with homosexuals? Surely if two people are in a loving relationship it shouldn't matter whether they are of a different sex or not... Some may say they like lesbians... I know a fair few males that do... So what's the problem with gay men? :confused:

    Any thoughts on this welcome!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Fear of what is different, fear of what is not supported by the majority of society. I have no problems with peoples choices regarding sexuality but as the saying goes "a person is rational and intelligent, people are irrational and uneducated"
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajoruna)
    Fear of what is different, fear of what is not supported by the majority of society. I have no problems with peoples choices regarding sexuality but as the saying goes "a person is rational and intelligent, people are irrational and uneducated"
    Tell that to Maximusmak who told me to "keep my distance" because I have a gay friend... I'm not meaning to have a personal dig at him, although since he called me obnoxious and illogical I have to say I feel a wee bit annoyed to say the least.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    it goes against the teachings of the bible, being homosexual will not lead to children, "homosexuals carry diseases", etc

    these aren't my thoughts btw
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry, but homosexual oreientation does NOT go against the teaching of the bible. Only the act of same gender sex is forbidden. There is a huge difference.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Uncledougsie)
    Sorry, but homosexual oreientation does NOT go against the teaching of the bible. Only the act of same gender sex is forbidden. There is a huge difference.
    I think it requires some quite conservative reading of the bible to suggest that the bible is against same gender sex. However if it is read in this way then it can led to the forementioned view in your post. It is all about intrepetation and the bible can be interrepted pretty much anyway you want if you think about it hard enough. However i personnaly would suggest that the Church in the past has been a major reason for the persecution of homosexuals.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Unfotunately I have to agree with you. Although I believe that the bible doesnt teach persecution and is fairly up front with the whole ideal of loving people regardless of their activities I cant help but see some real homophobia in some christians.

    Thats not neccesarily because they are christians though.........
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Uncledougsie)
    Unfotunately I have to agree with you. Although I believe that the bible doesnt teach persecution and is fairly up front with the whole ideal of loving people regardless of their activities I cant help but see some real homophobia in some christians.

    Thats not neccesarily because they are christians though.........
    one only has to look at the objections put up accross america to a gay being a bishop. However it think its declining but certainly in the past the church was very homophobic
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Am I wrong, or is my understanding of homophobic wrong here? Homophobic means having a fear that leads to persecution, yes? I dont think that its right to say that homophobia was the reason for teh controversy, although I will concede that many pew bound homophobes got stuck in when things got underway.

    As far as I can see - and Im a fairly conservative evangeical christian - would be if he was having sex, because its 1) Outside of marriage, and 2) A large proportion of the Anglican communion believe what I was talking about in my previous post.

    His orientation wasnt viewed as a problem. His continued practice of same gender sex was. I dont see this as homopbobia. Homophobia would be not giving him the job because of his orientation, wouldnt it?
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by operato)
    it goes against the teachings of the bible, being homosexual will not lead to children, "homosexuals carry diseases", etc

    these aren't my thoughts btw
    Yup

    Leviticus 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them."

    Of course it's worth bearing in mind that the same section of the bible states:

    "Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times" Leviticus 19:26 (all of us watch wearers and black pudding eaters are damned then)

    "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard." Leviticus 19:27 (evil hairdressers)

    "And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people." Leviticus 20:18 (sleep with a woman who's menstruating and be ostracised from society)

    and of course good old:
    "And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you." Leviticus 11:7 - no bacon butties
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    LOL! Thats funny!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    Yup

    Leviticus 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them."

    Of course it's worth bearing in mind that the same section of the bible states:

    "Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times" Leviticus 19:26 (all of us watch wearers and black pudding eaters are damned then)

    "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard." Leviticus 19:27 (evil hairdressers)

    "And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people." Leviticus 20:18 (sleep with a woman who's menstruating and be ostracised from society)

    and of course good old:
    "And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you." Leviticus 11:7 - no bacon butties
    Perfect evidence that religion is merely a tool, used by people to achieve their own ends. People choose to ignore certain bits and interpret other bits in their own way to coincide with their own beliefs, not as part of their belief in some omnipotent god.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    Yup

    Leviticus 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them."

    Of course it's worth bearing in mind that the same section of the bible states:

    "Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times" Leviticus 19:26 (all of us watch wearers and black pudding eaters are damned then)

    "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard." Leviticus 19:27 (evil hairdressers)

    "And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people." Leviticus 20:18 (sleep with a woman who's menstruating and be ostracised from society)

    and of course good old:
    "And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you." Leviticus 11:7 - no bacon butties
    Speaking of which, I suggest you read the rest of the bible to put those quotes into their whole context (start with Galations or Romans). How ironic that you're doing exactly what you're talking about. You also forgot the one about not shaving you're sideburns - my personal favourate.

    (Original post by piginapoke)
    For the same reasons as people have a problem with anything be it sexuality, fox hunting, smoking, drinking; people can dislike anything they choose. What's more pertinent is that while some dislike but live and let live just the same, others feel they must press their supposedly superior morality onto others. When will people realise that morality is a personal notion, and other's senses of morality are equally as valid as theirs? Actually promoting hatred or intolerance of something like this is just another form of fascism.
    Yes, but who decides where the line is drawn? Eventually there is going to be some infringment of personal space by others. Just how much is acceptable?
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by Uncledougsie)
    How ironic that you're doing exactly what you're talking about.
    What was I talking about (considering that this was my first post on this topic and that I didn't make any comments besides providing the specifics from the bible that people had been referring to).

    And why would providing these quotes be ironic - I made no judgements, I was simply providing quotes from the specific section of the Bible that condemns homosexual sex.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by operato)
    it goes against the teachings of the bible, being homosexual will not lead to children, "homosexuals carry diseases", etc

    these aren't my thoughts btw
    But they're all true statements aren't they?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    As long as an individual remains direcftly unaffected by the actions of others, why should they be allowed to dictate what others can and can't do? Surely anything should be acceptable as long as it does not affect others outside the ring of acceptance. Nobody decides where the line is drawn as such, its up to everyone to respect others and ensure that their actions don't adversely affect others.
    Here, here. Seems sensible enough. Is it ok to include God in the list of those affected though? I think it is.

    Also - Pencil Queen - I apologise for jumping to conclusions.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    As long as an individual remains direcftly unaffected by the actions of others, why should they be allowed to dictate what others can and can't do? Surely anything should be acceptable as long as it does not affect others outside the ring of acceptance. Nobody decides where the line is drawn as such, its up to everyone to respect others and ensure that their actions don't adversely affect others.
    I'm in a controversial mood this morning so here's something to ponder.

    Couldn't you argue that Homosexuals do affect others outside the ringpiece (ha ha - couldn't resist that one!) of acceptance?

    People often moan and groan about how smokers are clogging up the NHS by self inflicted diseases. Aren't gays, as the highest risk HIV/AIDs category, doing the same thing?

    How much government (taxpayers) money is spend on treating these diseases and researching cures? Is it morally right that a person who indulges in high risk sexual activities should have the costs of treatment paid for out of the public purse?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    HIV infection's highest rate is amongst heterosexuals at the moment.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    Well the things you mentioned evidently do affect others outside the 'ring of acceptance' so under my definition they would not be allowed per se; however it can be argued that every action no matter how isolated has an effect on every other person (butterflies flapping wings = earthquakes in China). So, the boundaries of what affects others and what doesn't is ill-defined, fuzzy. It would have to be restricted in some way, probably on a case for case basis. Which is what happens anyway. I think.
    But there is direct causation between HIV/AIDs and the dangerous sexual activities of homosexuals. The same cannot be said of butterflies flapping their wings in the Amazon causing an eathquake in China, which is an abstract theory.

    Go to a court of law and try to sue someone for negligence without showing causation (ie use the butterfly approach) and see how far you get!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    But there is direct causation between HIV/AIDs and the dangerous sexual activities of homosexuals.
    There is a direct causation between HIV transmission and sexual activities of homosexuals and heterosexuals.

    Its not just a 'gay disease'!
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.