What makes some people absolutely disquieted, even deeply phobic about

1. 84

   gmwilliamsposted 10 years ago

   
   the LBGT community?  People in the LBGT community are human beings.  Furthermore, they are contributing members of society.  They are HERE so get used to it.  There ARE those among us who view LBGT people as some sort of imagined threat.  What has an LBGT person done to them really?  As long as relationships are being consenting adults and are supportive, nurturing, and respectful, one's sexual orientation is really a nonissue.   Do you agree with this premise or not? Why?  Why not?

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You know we agree with this premise, gmwilliams. Why did you ask?

      replyreport
   2. 67

      Travis Wakemanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I take no issue with people being homosexual if that is their freely chosen decision, the problem comes in when people advocate redefining marriage and changing its essentially ordered meaning.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Zelkiiroposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Well, that didn't take long. Thought we'd get at least a couple of posts before this nonsense was brought in.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah, Z; that is another "thing." Marriage is between a husband and his wife, all these years... now???
            She's my husband sounds a bit...
            Still no offense intended on my end. We are discussing WHY people feel a certain way about it.

            replyreport
         2. 67

            Travis Wakemanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Would you like to explain why it is "nonsense" if you think it is?
            
            Otherwise all you are doing is handwaving my objection away without actually addressing it.

            replyreport
   3. 61

      Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Though I have no problem with LGBTQ populations; I do understand the upset.
      Though that population contributes to society, they cannot contribute children. Some seem to worry about a population reduction. That lowers defense and industry is affected.
      Now that it is acceptable in society to be gay, many will turn to the lifestyle for the fun of it. Experimenting can now blossom into full fledged with no fear of what people will think. (Which to me is one of the main reasons it stayed in the closet for so long; people used to care about what others thought of them; now self is one's only concern)
      It (gay sex) is toally rejected by the God of Abraham. And many people in this country at least, are Christian people and they feel that this country was built upon Godly principle.
      Also, some gay people really overdo the flamboyance and that may make acceptance hard for some. That dang "gay pride parade" gets really nasty. I worked in a major Atlanta hotel years ago when "Pride" came through and the goings-on were simply...can't think of a word to describe it.
      AIDS is assumed a gift from the gay population no matter what any book or television program says. The 80's gave many gays death. Seemed like the only population for a while once it hit the cameras. Then bits of clarification as time went on.
      Please let me ask you... Does it matter that people are not happy with a decision two consenting and loving adults have made? In other words, if all gays were pushed right back into the closet; would it make any gay person to deny their gayness more readily?
      This society never really embraced me either. Still black and female doe.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         "many will turn to the lifestyle for the fun of it."
         
         Will they really? Guess you don't understand sex too well. Those few who "turn to the lifestyle for the fun of it" will do so whether or not gay marriage is legal.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I wasn't referring to marriage at that time. Just the concerns of some afraid for their children introduced to the lifestyle. No biggie for me. Kids are impressionable. There are and ever will be increasingly so, those who are this way; but are NOT "born this way."
            Toddlers immulate.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               It is normal for children to sexually experiment with members of their own sex whether it is approved or not. The vast majority grow to be attracted to the opposite sex with or without outside influence.

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  It's nice to see you John on this thread. Continue the discussion.  Unfortunately, there are still undercurrents of prejudice towards the LBGT community and same-sex marriage.  This is the 21st century; however, there ARE those with premodern mindsets and consciousness regarding the issue at hand.

                  replyreport
                  1. 67

                     Travis Wakemanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     You seem to just be dismissing offhand any dissenting opinions from your own rather than trying to address them. I would recommend educating yourself in the secular basis for a traditional definition of marriage: http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage- … 1594036225

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        We know your definition of marriage Travis, we don't agree with it though. Your attitude to women debases them-they can only marry for the purposes of procreation any other reason is wrong!

                        replyreport
                        1. 67

                           Travis Wakemanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           I would absolutely love to know how you think maintaining the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman is somehow degrading or debasing towards women. You seem to be building yourself a nice little straw man argument. I would encourage you to examine the secular book that I provided above which lobbies an excellent non-religious case for the maintenance of the traditional definition of marriage.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              If marriage is purely for the purpose of procreation then it does debase women, in fact it debases both parties.
                              If you say marriage is deeper than that then why not allow everybody to partake of it.

                              replyreport
               2. 61

                  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Ok. But now they are presented with it as a "normal" type of thing.  I think there is a reason why gay people have also close family members who are gay. I personally know two whole families. Many boys become gay (so they say) as a result of sexual abuse.
                  To me, it's like these are taught (for the lack of a better term) to be gay.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     But we weren't talking about abused children were we!
                     If you want to go down that route there are plenty of under-aged heterosexually active young girls who are that way because they have been abused.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        What we were discussing is my statement about people turning to the lifestyle who are not saying "born this way."
                        And yes. Many girls get promiscuous after abuse. May be a close similarity in mindset. But also, some girls do girls because they consider it "fun" I know a few... They like men and love sex with men, but girls are fun to them.
                        Honestly I somewhat cringe at the thought because I was just never interested in girls. But some are. Actually,  I can think of many of my friends and family who do indulge, but again, it's just for fun.
                        Abuse was just another instance of gay without being born gay.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           And how do you know that your girl friends chose to have fun with other girls off their own volition or because it was learnt behaviour?

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              None of the ladies I speak of have had the opportunity for having learned it first hand. Surprisingly I don't know many gay people.  Those that I know come in clusters though. Two boys and two girls in one family (a good illustration of what i mean and the others come from gay backgrounds too.

                              replyreport
2. 73

   Aime Fposted 10 years ago

   I don't think that any of what's been brought up is really 'bad'. People feeling comfortable enough to marry their same sex partner? Great! Sure, they won't procreate, but human beings are using up the planet's resources at alarming rate, so I don't think having less kids on the whole is a bad thing. You can also blame women's ever increasing presence in professional settings as a reason for not having children (or at least not as many as they might once have), and surely you wouldn't say women being treated as equals in the workplace is a bad thing...? Not to mention the children in foster care who would love nothing more than a loving family. Same sex couples could decide they want children and give those kids the life they deserve. They're not procreating but they're becoming parents and raising kids who might not've had a chance otherwise. Again, not a bad thing...
   
   I also fail to see what's wrong with people experimenting. If a girl tries to fool around with another girl and has fun, then what's the issue? Regardless of if she is mirroring behaviour or comes up with the idea entirely on her own, if she enjoys herself, then I don't see why it matters. We're not talking about shooting heroin or murdering kittens; it's sex!
   
   I'm heterosexual and the extent of my experimentation has been kissing another girl, and it did nothing for me. I had no interest in taking it further. I am quite aware of my own heterosexuality and the fact that it's not something I turned on; it's just who I am. Likewise, I don't think gays or bisexuals have any more control over their sexuality than heterosexuals do.
   
   I think a case of a boy becoming gay because of abuse actually has very little, if not nothing at all, to do with their sexuality. It would in that case be a response to trauma and not necessarily indicative of an actual attraction.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Totally agree.  Sex is no longer primarily for procreation as a result of advanced contraceptive technologies in concurrence with the liberalization and broadening of human sexuality.  People are having small families because they know the benefits of such families to the father and especially mothers and children in general.  Large families are atavistic and antediluvian in this postmodern society.  It is also a thoughtless action.   Large families were appropriate in more agrarian times when people were needed to work the land and there were very few social networks. 
      
      With the rise and further advancement of urbanization, large families began to be viewed as a liability.  In urban centers, large families created poverty since in urban areas, children were not needed to work the load and were more dependent upon parents for support.  With the rise of urbanization, there was a need for birth control technologies to control familly size.  Also with more education, parents realized that having a lot of children was burdensome emotionally, mentally, and especially financially.   In large families, the onus of financial support was placed on the father while the mother's body was affected by the successive births of children.   
      
      As people became more educated, they realized the inanity of having large families.  Couipled with birth control and broadening female roles, women realized that there was life beyond kitchen and motherhood.   Furthermore, with the increase in population, people opted to decrease the size of their families for environmental reasons.     The idea that sex is designated for marriage and children is becoming antiquated in the 21st century.    Only a few traditionalists and fundamentalistis subscribe to such an idea.  Even though families are becoming smaller, there is STILL an undercurrent of prejudice not only against the LBGT population but also towards childree and 1-child families.  Even though families are becoming smaller, a family is still thought of as a couple with 2 children.    LBGT people, childfree, and 1-child families are considered to be the other by this pronatalist culture.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Perhaps those women with large families aren't so thoughtless and stupid, after all.
         
         The fertility rate for women in the US is barely over 2 - just enough to replace themselves and spouse IF they survive to menopause (and some won't).  As most large families are poor, and family size decreases with income and education, it seems inevitable that unless the population level is maintained by immigration it will eventually fall in the US to levels that make society unsustainable.
         
         And if we ever get the world to our standard of living and wealth, the population of the human race will decrease to nothing, given time.

         replyreport