| Author | Message |
|---|
Person0001
Always Born a Crime
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 5099 | January 6th, 2009 at 12:03am
I don't think that anyone "becomes" homosexual, nor do I think that any gay person is going to be able to give you a single reason why they are gay, they just are. And yes, the term "homo" in America is extremely offensive.
ChildVision:In my opinion....i think a person falls in love with a soul..and that soul doesn't need to have a specific gender. I so agree with you. |
snow at christmas.
Crash Queen
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 31690 | January 7th, 2009 at 09:11pm "homo" is offensive, but not extremely, I'd say.
not as much as "fag" or "faggot".
and, well, I don't believe in souls, so I can't relate there, but I'm asexual, so I don't care about body parts.
but I do care about gender, and honestly, about appearance.
I find both guys and girls hot, though, but I just generally tend to be more attracted to other guys overall. it's something besides physically being guys, it's just how they behave and whatnot.
and I think while it's true that some people completely disregard sex and gender and fall for whoever, I don't think you can just say that's true for all of us. |
Mindfuck
Always Born a Crime
Age: -
Gender: Female
Posts: 5614 | January 8th, 2009 at 08:31am dog man star.:and I think while it's true that some people completely disregard sex and gender and fall for whoever, I don't think you can just say that's true for all of us. I agree with that. Gender / sex matters to me. I don't want to date females because I'm straight. I'm attracted to men and only men. I'm attracted to the physiology of men and their behaviour.
I've always thought that pansexuality was all about disregarding gender and falling for the person. Not all of us are pansexual. |
Person0001
Always Born a Crime
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 5099 | January 8th, 2009 at 09:21am I don't think anyone was generalizing in here - just offering things up as possibilities. I do believe that we are capable of falling in love with a person irregardless of our supposed "preferred" gender; it does happen. I would also like to state that the degree of offensiveness of any given label isn't really the point. I dislike labels - can't we all just be people judged only by how we treat others and our differences celebrated? |
Tallulah
Admin
Age: -
Gender: Female
Posts: 16777215 | January 8th, 2009 at 10:49am dog man star.:"homo" is offensive, but not extremely, I'd say.
not as much as "fag" or "faggot".
I find it just as offfensive. |
idk. my bff jill?
Demolition Lover
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 18372 | January 10th, 2009 at 08:12pm Gay people are just as much human as straight people are,and I don't see why they shouldn't get the same rights as straight people. Sexual preference shouldn't play a factor in rights.
And as far as gay couples adopting children goes,if they are loving and treat the child well,then I don't see the problem. They can do as good of a job or as crappy of a job at raising them as a straight couple. |
Sid
Salute You in Your Grave
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 2065 | January 10th, 2009 at 10:55pm I do believe people are born gay. One of my closest friends is gay and he told me that he started noticing boys around the same age as straight kids start noticing girls. He said it's just something that's always been there. Maybe it's a gradual thing for someone who's been denying it to themselves but judging from gay/bisexual people I've spoken to, it was just apart of the puberty for them -except instead of them beginning to notice the opposite sex, it was the same sex.
I also knew a guy who was raised with two mums and he was cool. It didn't make him particularly feminine or anything, he was just a 'normal' kid so when he told me, it was a bit of a surprise.
So, to me, that's proof that same sex couples can raise kids just like any other couple, despite sexual preference. I think as long the kid understands what's going on and is treated the same as any other, then what's the problem?
I also think homosexuals should be allowed to marry. The only reason why homosexuality is such a big issue is because for millions of years there's just been this huge stigma attached to it, especially since throughout history, religious elements have had a big part play in society. And because being gay means you can't procreate (which is apparently bad?) that makes it terrible for reason.
At the end of that day, to put it primitively, it's just sex in a different way. I honestly can't understand homophobes because I just don't get what's wrong with it. If we had no homophobia, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now. |
snow at christmas.
Crash Queen
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 31690 | January 11th, 2009 at 07:01pm Deb: I dislike labels - can't we all just be people judged only by how we treat others and our differences celebrated? I think labels are useful, though.
they allow us to find people like ourselves more quickly, and while an "us" and a "them" alienates someone, it also allows us to HAVE an "us", which I think is really important.
but like, having the label "gay" or "homosexual" (dunno, I'm a bit hazy on specifics now), and "lesbian" was a huge thing for people. it made them feel like they weren't just something weird and messed up, they realized that there was someone out there like them, and that maybe it wasn't something wrong.
it allowed them to unite and fight for their common cause.
so I'd argue that labels can't be that easily dismissed, they've played an important part on both sides of this situation. |
Person0001
Always Born a Crime
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 5099 | January 11th, 2009 at 07:19pm I understand what you are trying to say, but I think there is a difference between a label that someone else puts upon you and a way that you might identify yourself. I am very sure that we can all find people with common interests to our own without the use of labelling, which is negative. In other words, a newly out person seeking a gay club to attend by posting an ad is hardly the same thing as a homophobic person calling someone else a derogatory name. Does that makes sense? |
Mindfuck
Always Born a Crime
Age: -
Gender: Female
Posts: 5614 | January 11th, 2009 at 08:08pm Deb:I understand what you are trying to say, but I think there is a difference between a label that someone else puts upon you and a way that you might identify yourself. I am very sure that we can all find people with common interests to our own without the use of labelling, which is negative. So are you essentially saying we shouldn't call people 'gay' or 'lesbian' or 'bi' or even 'homosexual' because it could have negative implications? If that's what you're saying, I don't really understand that. I'm not talking about going around calling random people 'gay' or 'lesbo' or 'homo'; I'm talking about just identifying someone by they sexuality in a certain context. |
Person0001
Always Born a Crime
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 5099 | January 11th, 2009 at 08:16pm Mindfuck:So are you essentially saying we shouldn't call people 'gay' or 'lesbian' or 'bi' or even 'homosexual' because it could have negative implications? If that's what you're saying, I don't really understand that. I'm not talking about going around calling random people 'gay' or 'lesbo' or 'homo'; I'm talking about just identifying someone by they sexuality in a certain context.
I am pretty sure that the context of this conversation was derogatory labeling, and actually, unless there is a really good reason for it - like it is part of an important discussion you are having - I really don't see a reason to constantly refer to someone in a labeling manner.
Case in point: Very young Deb's Dad: "So-and-so says hello." Very young Deb: "Who is So-and-so?" Dad: "The lady you saw me talking to the other day." Deb: "Oh, the black lady, right?" Dad: "No, the lady. Why does she have to be identified as the black lady? We're all just people." I'm proud of my Dad for teaching me that, and I still agree with him to this day. This doesn't mean that the lady can't identify herself as black, and proudly, or that we are unaware that she is proudly black, it just means that she's not being placed into her own separate box for that reason - does that make sense now?
I mean, straight people don't run around identifying themselves that way to the world, and the world doesn't do so for them, either. Same thing with white people. Just food for thought. |
Sid
Salute You in Your Grave
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 2065 | January 12th, 2009 at 01:23pm ^^ I agree with that point. I've always noticed that with my family. They'll say something like 'Did you see John at the party last night?' I'd say 'Who's John?' and they'd respond 'You know John. The gay guy,' This would make me frown and say 'Oh you mean the guy in the Van Halen t-shirt' or whatever.
People shouldn't be defined by their sexuality, but by their personality. |
Person0001
Always Born a Crime
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 5099 | January 12th, 2009 at 01:42pm Crystal Castles: I've always noticed that with my family. They'll say something like 'Did you see John at the party last night?' I'd say 'Who's John?' and they'd respond 'You know John. The gay guy,' This would make me frown and say 'Oh you mean the guy in the Van Halen t-shirt' or whatever. People shouldn't be defined by their sexuality, but by their personality. Exactly!  |
HarleyHostility
Killjoy
Age: -
Gender: Female
Posts: 13 | January 15th, 2009 at 03:53pm I think that the politics have banned so much due to religion. Like how they've taken things out of schools and books and whatnot because it had to do with religion and people got offended. And then you come to this topic and its all of a sudden okay to talk about religion. Don't get me wrong i am religious. But it's not fair to use that as an excuse because religion has been banned in so many other things. So besides it being a religious no no what else is there for an excuse? It bothers some people? Everything bothers someone. Do we get rid of everything that bothers someone? If we can't use religion to argue in any other cause, then why is it okay to use it in this one? I am for gay rights. And I don't think that religion should be an excuse not to have it. |
John St. John
Shotgun Sinner
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 7145 | January 16th, 2009 at 12:49pm Deb:Crystal Castles: I've always noticed that with my family. They'll say something like 'Did you see John at the party last night?' I'd say 'Who's John?' and they'd respond 'You know John. The gay guy,' This would make me frown and say 'Oh you mean the guy in the Van Halen t-shirt' or whatever. People shouldn't be defined by their sexuality, but by their personality. Exactly!
But that'd be like saying "oh the blonde girl" or something of the like.
I don't define myself by my sexuality. Yet it is part of who i am. If someone described me as being 'The gay one' to get someone to remember me i wouldnt take offence. Because it's not a sarcastic retort towards homosexuals, its not a skit or an insult or anything |
Person0001
Always Born a Crime
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 5099 | January 16th, 2009 at 01:17pm MILLIONAIRES!:But that'd be like saying "oh the blonde girl" or something of the like. If someone described me as being 'The gay one' to get someone to remember me i wouldnt take offence. I don't know, Man. I mean, if you don't feel insulted, that's awesome, but I would be on your behalf. There is just a difference to me between the "blonde" Jim and the "gay" Jim, you know? The second phrasing is like a separatist statement, and unless there is a really good reason for using the description, I can't imagine why it'd be necessary |
blow
Bleeding on the Floor
Age: -
Gender: Female
Posts: 1137 | January 16th, 2009 at 03:10pm Deb:I don't know, Man. I mean, if you don't feel insulted, that's awesome, but I would be on your behalf. There is just a difference to me between the "blonde" Jim and the "gay" Jim, you know? The second phrasing is like a separatist statement, and unless there is a really good reason for using the description, I can't imagine why it'd be necessary
I think it would be weird to refer to someone as 'the gay one', because you can't tell if someone is gay just by looking at them. There are flamboyant strait guys, and macho gay guys. It's saying that all gays look a certain way or act a certain way. |
snow at christmas.
Crash Queen
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 31690 | January 22nd, 2009 at 05:48pm Deb:Case in point: Very young Deb's Dad: "So-and-so says hello." Very young Deb: "Who is So-and-so?" Dad: "The lady you saw me talking to the other day." Deb: "Oh, the black lady, right?" Dad: "No, the lady. Why does she have to be identified as the black lady? We're all just people." I'm proud of my Dad for teaching me that, and I still agree with him to this day. This doesn't mean that the lady can't identify herself as black, and proudly, or that we are unaware that she is proudly black, it just means that she's not being placed into her own separate box for that reason - does that make sense now? I don't really get why that's bad.
if I'm trying to describe someone to you, and I say, "oh, the kid with the red hair," is that bad?
in that case, black lady is just a description, right?
I mean, you wouldn't want to have to go up to everyone and ask them what they identify as before you can talk about them...
edit:
oh, well, it's been brought up.
but still, I think your example uses it as descriptive.
pretty much, my opinion is that it's not the labels that are good or bad, it's intentions that change them at all.
words are what we make them.
and I haven't really heard anyone identify someone as "the gay one", since generally that's not a visual trait.
I could see "the camp one" or "the flamboyant one", though I suppose if someone's walking around with his boyfriend and everyone else in the room is obviously straight, you could use that, but normally it just doesn't seem like a useful description in that sort of situation. |
Person0001
Always Born a Crime
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 5099 | January 23rd, 2009 at 09:29am dog man star:I don't really get why that's bad. if I'm trying to describe someone to you, and I say, "oh, the kid with the red hair," is that bad? in that case, black lady is just a description, right? I mean, you wouldn't want to have to go up to everyone and ask them what they identify as before you can talk about them...pretty much, my opinion is that it's not the labels that are good or bad, it's intentions that change them at all. words are what we make them.
My Dad's point was that the description was not relevant to the conversation, and he's right. Unless you're filling out a police report, why would a "description" of the person's appearance be necessary? There should be no need to run around asking people how they prefer to be identified. My Dad prefers to think of everyone as just people, and I couldn't agree more. As to your last point, if I were to call someone the "n" word in a "friendly" manner, does that now make the word more acceptable? No, it does not. The fact of the matter is that labeling is separatist, and how a person identifies themselves does not now give others free license to slam them in the head with it.
We're off-topic again. This is the last remaining two days of Equal Marriage Week. Post a banner on your facebook, send a bulletin on your myspace, show your support! |
John St. John
Shotgun Sinner
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 7145 | January 29th, 2009 at 07:40am this is irrelevant to whats being discussed now. But what i've noticed just talking to people about gay marriage is that there main reason against it is usually sometihng to do with the bible, or the church or something religious.
Id love to actually know how many of them follow a religion. Im willing to bet half of them dont go to church, or pray or follow all christian beliefs or rules, for want of a better word.
I don't think anyone could actually cite religion as a point against, unless they are actually fully religious
|
