User Tag List

View Poll Results: Well, do you think it is bad/anything that isn't good?

Voters
83. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, for religious reasons

    4 4.82%
  • Yes, other

    4 4.82%
  • No

    71 85.54%
  • Unsure

    4 4.82%
First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 69

  1. #11
    Head Pigeon Mad Hatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    -1w sp/sx
    Socionics
    IOU Ni
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antimony View Post
    Well, I too agree that it is not really a good or a bad thing (now, everyone being homo is completely not good for our race. Well, never mind. It is fine still, ignore that. That would create even more awkward divides, I imagine).
    If you think that it's desireable (i.e. good) for humanity to procreate, then yes. Whether or not it actually is - that's a totally different question

    A lot of societies that don't approve of homosexuality (at least in men) usually have also a deep divide between men and women, together with a different statues for each, and a reason for homophobia could be that if men have intercourse with other men, one of them would become sort of a "woman" in the sense of a sexual object for the other man. The divide between men and women also usually implies the inferiority of the latter, so homosexuality can be frowned upon because one man actually "degrades" himself to the status of a woman (a lot of clichs about male homosexuality see it as a form of effeminate behavior, and not particularly "manly"). And since in such a society women are regarded "inferior", it's less problematic for them to be homosexual since they already "nothing to lose", or at least less then men.
    Sexuality can be an issue of power.

    With differences between genders generally disappearing in western societies, views on sexuality - and homosexuality in particular - have undergone changes.

    Feel free to contradict. I know this is controversial, and I'd like to state that the things I've written are just some explanation which I think is more or less correct.

    Sexual orientation isn't a moral issue to me.
    IN SERIO FATVITAS.

    -τὸ γὰρ γράμμα ἀποκτέννει, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζῳοποιεῖ-

  2. #12
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    I selected "yes, other", the reason being that I dont believe the explanations for religious condemnation of homosexuality are that good. What is being condemned, and rightly so, in the bible is the practice of male rape, there is no depiction of the acts in Sodom being those between conscenting adults. To be honest I've always found it a curious argument, born of ignorance, to suppose that Leviticous (spelling) is anti-homosexual or homophobic.

    Anyway, I would also say that I'm pretty averse to generalisations on this topic too. In some people its not a case of "good" or "bad" it simply is.

    HOWEVER I would say that in others complex trauma, attachment disorders, myriad other maladjustment, vulnerabilities or character problems can be pretty quickly labelled as homosexuality and I do indeed consider this "bad".

    In fact I find it really shocking that homosexuality promoters dont find it a bad thing too. I tend to, in my more hopeful or optimistic moments, to some kind of perceived weakness in acknowledging anything short of or different to a kind of queer theory informed all out assault on "heteronormativity". That is, everyone being a closeted bigot, there is an ever pressing need to avoid any betrayal or treachery with regard to "first principles" that everyone is infact either bisexual or homosexual.

    Then again this is in some way to do with homosexuality, strictly speaking, not simply as an orientation in private life but as a cultural identity. How that has played out has been a very bad thing but it's not the same thing as orientation per se.

    I'd critique the promotion of homosexuality at present in the same way that I would some of the other liberationist ideas, such as black liberation, womens liberation, paternalistic welfare regimes, they can and do foster victim mentalities, unrealistic and unreasonable expectations of approval from strangers or act as weak psychological compensations for individuals whose deep seated needs for parental or peer approval have been frustrated.

    Besides I dont generally think that orienations, much like personality typology, are bad per se, its the behaviour that results consequently which can be harmful to the individual and others. There are also much less healthy orientations than homosexuality and I doubt that any of the fantasies of homosexuals involving consentual adult relationships will result in temptations to commit sex offences anymore than their equivalent in heterosexuals.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Diversity is good. There's plenty of room for everyone.

  4. #14
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Avis View Post
    Feel free to contradict. I know this is controversial, and I'd like to state that the things I've written are just some explanation which I think is more or less correct.
    Ironically, ancient Greece was an extremely sexist society, and male homosexual relationships were often viewed as a special type of bonding that was superior to any bonding possible with a mere female. Of course, its possible for sexism to have different effects in different societies regarding this issue, I just couldn't resist pointing that detail out.

    As for the question, there is no objective moral relevance to homosexuality (either as a condition or an action), and it occurs too infrequently to raise any major utilitarian concerns, so my answer is "no".

  5. #15
    You're fired. Lol. Antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    8w7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ????
    Posts
    3,437

    Default

    Lark: I wasn't saying what can come from being homosexual (such as male rape, etc), it was a question of the orientation, the preference, itself.
    Excuse me, but does this smell like chloroform to you?

    Always reserve the right to become smarter at a future point in time, for only a fool limits themselves to all they knew in the past. -Alex

  6. #16
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    [...]
    HOWEVER I would say that in others complex trauma, attachment disorders, myriad other maladjustment, vulnerabilities or character problems can be pretty quickly labelled as homosexuality and I do indeed consider this "bad".
    I'm kind of curious what aspects you have in mind here? I thought homosexuality was relatively narrowly defined, really.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    In fact I find it really shocking that homosexuality promoters dont find it a bad thing too. I tend to, in my more hopeful or optimistic moments, to some kind of perceived weakness in acknowledging anything short of or different to a kind of queer theory informed all out assault on "heteronormativity". That is, everyone being a closeted bigot, there is an ever pressing need to avoid any betrayal or treachery with regard to "first principles" that everyone is infact either bisexual or homosexual.
    First of all, you've talked about "homosexuality promoters" several times before, and I'm curious about what you mean. Promote in what sense? I've seen it promoted as a healthy if atypical option, but I don't think I've ever seen it promoted in the sense of "you should be gay" or "gay is better." Granted, I probably don't hang out with the queer academic theorists on the weekends, so I might just be ignorant. I do have sympathy for people wanting homosexual to be relatively stigma free... people like me feel like it was the hand we were dealt, and would prefer not to see the younger LGBT generation go through the same turmoil we did over something they can't change.

    Secondly, I agree that a victim mentality is awfully tempting for a lot of people. You can see this in all walks of life. Fundamentalists feel victimized by the world or the liberals. Gay people feel victimized by others. Muslims feel victimized. Atheists feel victimized. Just about everyone can find some reason to feel victimized on some level.

    And truly, I can understand why feeling like a victim is seductive. It's so easy, as a gay person, to feel horrible and responsible for the ensuing upset and condemnation. Having a period of feeling angry and hurt and justified in that is understandable. It's freeing to be able to say "yes, my family treated me shabbily" (regardless of their motivations).

    However, that view is only part of the story. None of us are entirely powerless victims, nor are we all-powerful invulnerable aggressors. We all have some of both victim and aggressor within us. I think we are much healthier with we can acknowledge our shadow selves, claim them, and channel them constructively.

    Otherwise, we project those darker aspects onto others, and then treat them accordingly.

    Anyway, I agree that not everyone is bisexual or homosexual. I know that I can't function as a heterosexual (Lord knows I spent enough time and energy trying), so I think it would be just as obscene to force a heterosexual to act against his or her nature. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Trust me, it's not pleasant.

    However, I don't see a problem allowing people who are somewhere in the middle to act accordingly. I certainly don't see how condemning people who are gay helps anyone. I hope people wouldn't want their straight daughters marrying gay men, and don't want LGBT teens committing suicide.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Then again this is in some way to do with homosexuality, strictly speaking, not simply as an orientation in private life but as a cultural identity. How that has played out has been a very bad thing but it's not the same thing as orientation per se.
    What do you mean here by "cultural identity?" I think on a daily basis my life is at least as boring as the average straight person's. I'm settled and living with my partner of 17 years. I'm not going out to bars every night. I don't think I walk around with a big gay chip on my shoulder, either, nor do I assume that anytime I get negative feedback it's because the other person is a homophobe.

    I don't think I demand any more recognition than a straight person would in an equivalent situation, and I do live with less (in some cases). If anything, I tend to let minor things slide just because I don't like causing upset.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I'd critique the promotion of homosexuality at present in the same way that I would some of the other liberationist ideas, such as black liberation, womens liberation, paternalistic welfare regimes, they can and do foster victim mentalities, unrealistic and unreasonable expectations of approval from strangers or act as weak psychological compensations for individuals whose deep seated needs for parental or peer approval have been frustrated.
    Generally fine with that, although, once again, I'm curious how you define "unreasonable expectations of approval." What's the line between reasonable and unreasonable? Is equivalent treatment unreasonable? Should I be fine if my brother invites me over, but explicitly disinvites my partner? Do you think homosexuals should keep the fact that they are in a relationship private? What's the line there?

    I generally live with far less approval than my brothers do, but I'm actually really happy to be back in steady contact with half my family. It feels like a great gift since I had resigned myself to pretty much nothing. I don't feel like a victim, but I do feel like it's kind of a tragedy that both my twin brother and I feel hurt but unable to change our stances. I do understand his mindset, even though it is no longer my own.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Besides I dont generally think that orienations, much like personality typology, are bad per se, its the behaviour that results consequently which can be harmful to the individual and others. There are also much less healthy orientations than homosexuality and I doubt that any of the fantasies of homosexuals involving consentual adult relationships will result in temptations to commit sex offences anymore than their equivalent in heterosexuals.
    Generally agreed (although again a little curious on what you see as the harmful associated behaviors). I wish it were true that gay people were LESS likely to be pedophiles, but studies show they are merely equally likely. Ho-hum.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Ironically, ancient Greece was an extremely sexist society, and male homosexual relationships were often viewed as a special type of bonding that was superior to any bonding possible with a mere female. Of course, its possible for sexism to have different effects in different societies regarding this issue, I just couldn't resist pointing that detail out.

    As for the question, there is no objective moral relevance to homosexuality (either as a condition or an action), and it occurs too infrequently to raise any major utilitarian concerns, so my answer is "no".
    Meanwhile, in Rome, being too focused on sex, even with a woman, was considered effeminate, because it was believed to make men grow soft, emotional and less capable of being ruthless warriors. Even great generals were accused, damagingly, of being effeminate when they lingered in their homes having sex with their wives.

  8. #18
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Heh.. I think that's transferred a little to modern day Mafia culture.. ???

    Not sure what the basis for it was, but I remember a funny Sopranos episode where Uncle Junior was caught going down on a woman, and he wanted it hush hush. He was considered weak for it.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Sounds quite probable!

  10. #20
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    I still have the odd viewpoint that I consider homosexuality as bad as hetrosexuality, or at least almost as bad.

    Yeu basically are saying flat out that if yeu found someone of a particular gender, that yeu wouldn't love them. Such is technically a form of sexism.

    Sure yeu may have certain PREFERENCES, which I'm all for honestly. We all have our preferences, regardless of whot they are. But yeu shouldn't condemn yeurself to only ever fitting within those strict guidelines.

    True love isn't about the physical, it's about the heart and soul, not the body. Sure the body HELPS, and is really nice... but it's seriously not the forefront of importance either.

    While homosexuals do have some social stigma to go through, and it generally means that if they're willing to be openly homosexual, that they generally do love that person truly to be willing to care for them despite objections, I've known at least one who just used it to jump on the bandwagon for instant 'fame' of sorts... she'd brag constantly about how she was a lesbian, like literally, EVERY SINGLE CONVERSATION no matter how irrelevant!

    Considering how annoying she was in general, I can only assume she just couldn't find anyone who would put up with her normally and had to make some 'special case' of herself to get privileged.

    But anyways, generally I figure that yeu love who yeu love, and true love is blind. Yeu don't 'choose' who yeu love really, so much as it 'just is'.

    If my true love happens to be the same gender as me, so be it. I'll just go along with that. If they're the opposite gender, then same thing, yay anyways.

    I considered myself bisexual for a long time, though now I honestly realize that, although I think I see more inherent beauty in the female form than the male one, I'm pretty much straight and really only find much attraction long term in males. However... if I just happened to come across a female who just happened to be 'perfect' for me... I wouldn't argue the point.

    I dunno I just find the gay/straight thing to be silly on both sides because they're just actively denying themselves the chance for love because of the gender of their prospective partner. Yeu can have whichever physical preferences yeu want, but yeu really should be thinking about more than that when choosing a long term mate.

    Or maybe gay/straight is just about short term relationships and nothing more? I dunno, I don't care for short term, so maybe that's where my problem lies there...

Similar Threads

  1. Can we learn to ask the Big Questions?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-20-2009, 06:04 AM
  2. The Ayers Question: Sucker Move?
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 10-18-2008, 11:56 PM
  3. The INTPCentral Question
    By MerkW in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 11-30-2007, 03:11 PM
  4. The Ultimate Question
    By RansomedbyFire in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 09-22-2007, 05:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO