What is closer to your view of homosexuality?

[UdoKier]

What is closer to your view of homosexuality?

[Fenris]

1. Both A & B

[UdoKier]

2. B negates A.

The minute you try to plead with fundies to approve of homosexuality, you validate their busybody bullcrap, which they never had any right imposing on anybody outside their sect in the first place. Or at least that's my take.

[hfojvt]

14. many homosexuals belong to some of those sects

So that is another battle. Also with the privacy issue, there is the matter of public displays of affection or homosexual partnerships. A same sex pair which is kissing, hugging, holding hands or even having dinner do not fall under this bedroom/privacy exclusion although homosexuals should have as much right to do that as any hetero couple.

[Dr.Phool]

4. I agree, both A and B

We have no business telling people who they happen to fall in love with and it is becoming increasingly apparent that sexual orientation is biologically based at birth.

[sui generis]

3. I think too many people are obsessed with it

I swear, I'm queer and I don't even think about it as much as those fundie nutjobs do.

I really think that there are more colors in the spectrum than just black or white. I also think that "gay" is not whether or not you occasionally get your rocks off with someone of the same sex - it's really bigger than just sex and more of a cultural and community thing.

If you throw away the labels, you're left with humans.

[Bouncy Ball]

12. You're on fire today.

Exactly how I feel.

Which is why, when my daughter asked me what gay meant when she was five, I said "Well, most men fall in love with women and most women fall in love with men, but some men fall in love with men and some women fall in love with women." (I kept it simple for the case of a five year old and didn't go into varying degrees of bisexuality, etc.)

BUT I thought it was important to say "fall in love with." I think it's insulting how, for a lot of heteros, being gay is all about SEX. Being hetero isn't all about sex, so why should being gay be all about sex?

Also, to one guy who was arguing that gays could just "go straight," I asked him if he could just "go gay." Of course he bristled and said no. A woman with us said to him "that's not true, you could MAKE yourself have sex with a man!"

And I asked her "but would that MAKE him GAY? Would he FALL IN LOVE with him? Or any other man?" That's when a light bulb finally went off for both of them, as they realized it wouldn't.

[Ian David]

21. That reminds me of my idea to hold a "Homosexual Recruitment Drive."

We could get clipboards and approach people on the street and ask them if they want to sign-up to become homosexuals.

We could even borrow an idea from Landover Baptist Church and offer them a free cellular phone for becoming gay!

The idea, of course, is that if we can't convince them to become gay, then nobody can convince gay people to become straight.

And we would also give them pro-equality literature and ask them to sign petitions in favor of gay rights and marriage equality.

[hfojvt]

29. actually it might, in theory

as Stephen King wrote in "The Stand" - "give me two people and they will fall in love". In Arthur Hailey's book "The Moneychangers" one of the characters is an accountant or banker who gets sent to prison. He is gang raped, then given a choice - be vulnerable to more raping, or move in with this particular guy who would then protect him from the others. After he gets out, he admits that in some ways he misses his former cell mate. He is confused/conflicted by his own feelings.
In the real world we often have friends and other peers telling us how we are supposed to feel and enforcing all sorts of unspoken codes, all of which makes it hard to figure out how you really feel.
I believe that there are some men who I love, but that does not mean there is any sexual desire involved in that. The same is true with some of the women who I love. There is also alot of sex taking place on this planet which does not really involve love. Before I deleted the program people were contacting me through windows messenger trying to set up a tryst, 3 males and one female who knew I was registered as a male. At least one of them said he was married too.
I subscribe (it costs only $2 a month) to the perhaps unromantic notion that love is an action rather than a force. People love, they do not fall into love. Maybe that is just me. Who can say what is true about all six billion of us?

[jobycom]

19. Exactly. Damn well said!

My standard answer is "what the hell does it matter?" I don't get why it's even a topic for discussion. No government and no person has one damn bit of business worrying about who anyone loves, sleeps with, eats with, gets tax breaks with, raises children with or makes out with in public. Every time we get caught up answering Republican bullshit on the subject we just legitimize THEIR categories, THEIR views and THEIR stupidity.

As for all the political niceties of what should be legal and illegal, it's simple. Our charter document says that everyone is created equal, so any law or government position which says "You can only do this or have this benefit with the opposite gender" is unconstitutional, and worthless. And no law should interfere with an individual and his or her own body. The only thing a human being truly owns is his body, and government should not be allowed to control that in any way.

I have two daughters. My spouse and I don't agree on much at all, but we both agree on this: whenever they ask a question about sex, love, romance, or couples, we never assume heterosexuality, and we don't make gender an issue.

THAT's what I think about homosexuality: it's a word created by people to find a reason to discriminate. It's a fairly recent word, too. The Greeks and Romans never had a word nor a concept such as "homosexual," even though same-gender relationships were quite the norm. Read Plato and Sappho.

[blondeatlast]

28. Indeed. If we make it okay, no one has to think about it anymore.

I doubt you dwell on what my hubby and I might be doing when I'm not enjoying your witty DU banter!

I would love to go back to the blissful time when sex happened behind closed doors. I don't care who or what's involved, as long as anything legally, morally, and technically capable of giving consent consents.

[Zorra]

5. IMO, the first choice needs a qualifier.

"as long as what they do is not harmful to anyone".

[UdoKier]

8. That's awfully subjective.

Some people may get off on hot wax. Others may think it harmful...

Fundies would argue that "sodomy" is harmful. I'll leave choice 1 as is.

[blondeatlast]

30. Um, can straight people harm each other? Okayz by you?

Sheesh.

[SalmonChantedEvening]

6. Frankly

It just isn't any of my business who anyone loves.* What is my business is that people should not be shut out of society based on who they love.




*Standard Consenting Adults Disclaimer. :)

[Ladyhawk]

18. I agree. People have blamed AIDS on homosexual activity.

That argument is spurious because more people get sick from eating too much red meat and not washing their hands after they go to the bathroom. But fundies still use it.

[Ian David]

23. God Hates Shrimp! Shell-fish eaters will BURN IN HELL!

God Hates Shrimp

Shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all these are an abomination before the Lord, just as gays are an abomination. Why stop at protesting gay marriage? Bring all of God's law unto the heathens and the sodomites. We call upon all Christians to join the crusade against Long John Silver's and Red Lobster. Yea, even Popeye's shall be cleansed. The name of Bubba shall be anathema. We must stop the unbelievers from destroying the sanctity of our restaurants.

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.



T-SHIRTS and REFRIGERATOR MAGNETS NOW AVAILABLE
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/tshirts.html
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/magnets.html

[eyesroll]

7. Both A and B.

Basically, to me, "A" is an argument against sodomy laws and the like.

"B" is an argument in favor of same-sex marraige and similar.

I think it's none of the government's business if people *choose* to engage in same-sex activity, regardless of their actual sexual orientation. I don't think anyone chooses to be gay (which makes "B" an absolute must), but plenty of heterosexual people choose to engage in same-sex activity, just as plenty of gay people choose to engage in opposite-sex activity, which makes "A" a must too.

[UdoKier]

11. To me, "A", is the only one that matters.

As for B, it doesn't matter what science says, more right-wing churches will never accept it since they are BASED ON hate and keeping down the "other"

Everyone should be free to live as they please, and if your church doesn't accept you as you are, DUMP IT! There are plenty of churches that do accept GLBT people.

Or maybe you could even try life without religion. A lot of us find it quite nice...

[libertypirate]

9. Wake up! Why have a view about something that really doesn't

have anything to do with me? It makes me choose sides which is the same as GOP group think; I don't want to have my views pigeon holed into 1 of 3 answers.

With regards to homosexuals does what they do in their own lives effect my constitutional rights? NO so effectively I support what ever the hell they want; that is until they cross my own rights.

Just like every other conservative position they create the policy before they have a good reason. We don't have to have a counter to every violation of constitution the republicans want to impose on the people of this country. We just have to say it until the fundies hear nothing else, why do republicans in government desire to role back the rights of individuals while doling out new ones to corporations?

[readmoreoften]

10. I'm queer and I don't agree with any of the choices.

'What two adults do in their bedroom' is none of the government's business, but neither is two adults raising a child together, one adult female dressing masculine, or two adults holding hands at the grocery store.

I'm pretty sick of this issue being cast in terms of private sex. The RW is trying to control more than my bedroom behavior.

[UdoKier]

13. Fair point.

But hand-holding is not illegal anywhere in the US as far as I know. The battle there is with society's bigotry, not codified discrimination.

Isn't the battle you're talking about one that can only be won person-to-person, little by little? How can that be fixed by legislation? Even if you teach "tolerance" in schools, fundie parents will still teach their kids the exact opposite.

[readmoreoften]

15. Sure, but if I were to get fired for being gay...

would they have to know my private sexual repetoire? Or would they be firing me because I was open with my partner in public... usually the latter. Closeted homosex is fairly acceptable in fundy communities so long as it was THE DEVIL making you do it and you swear to Jesus you'll never do it again.

[jobycom]

22. Not adequate, really

While we wait for society to come around, we still have laws against same-gender couples adopting children, for instance. Those laws aren't taken care of by the "privacy of their own bedroom" clause. We need to do away with ALL legal discrimination, and then, as we saw with desegregation, society will begin to change more quickly than we expect.

[UdoKier]

25. I would agree. But genetic predisposition has nothing to do with that.

Establishing genetic predisposition is all about trying to get approval from hateful fundie groups. Why our society still lets religious cults influence our laws, when we are supposed to have separation of church and state, is totally beyond me.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation or any other factor irrelevant to the intrinsic worth of a person is completely unjustified, whether it's genetic or not.

[jobycom]

31. The thing I don't like about genetic predisposition

Aside from thinking that genetics in general is a bit flaky, at best, is: what if science gets to where they can pinpoint with perfect accuracy the genetic makeup of a person, and they either a) discover there is no genetic predisposition, or b) discover a "cure?" In either case, GP as a means of winning acceptance collapses.

In addition, just being genetical predisposed to something isn't going to mean that fundies will accept it. They will simply treat it as a birth defect--something the infected person has to try to overcome.

Fundies won't be converted. They don't understand that they are broken. Which brings up an interesting question: What if we discover someone is genetically predisposed towards being a fundie? Will that change out minds about fundies? See what I mean?

[murray hill farm]

16. I agree..i voted A, but thought the same thing!

How can there be only one approved way to love another anyway..this makes no sense. It is not about what one does in private, it is about consenting adults being free to love another without qualifiers.

[Zodiak]

17. A and B are both true, in my opinion

I would go for both A and B, and I would keep the God out of the reference.

In fact...to accurately reflect the population of DU's opinion on such a matter, might I suggest wording the poll in a more even-handed manner? I really would like to know the diversity of opinion here, and I consider myself too new a newbie to start a thread dedicated to such a thing.

One must pay their dues.

[Ian David]

20. Whether you are born gay or not, it's nobody's business what you do

Personally, I think people are born somewhere along the "spectrum" of orientation.

But choice or birth is irrelevant. Everyone deserves the right to be who they are and love who they want and to do it in any imaginative position they can execute.

For what it's worth, people who believe that gay people are "born that way" are statistically more accepting of gay rights.

That is why the religious-right use terms like "homosexual lifestyle" and say things like, "There are no gay people, there are only people with homosexual problems."

We need to make sure that those people know that nobody "chooses" to be gay.

That would be like "choosing" to paint a big red target on your back and run naked through Fundietown.

[Hosnon]

24. Both B and A - and their not mutually exclusive (saw a post implying that)

[ComerPerro]

26. I agree with A and the first part of B

I accept the idea of a "gay gene", and believe that people are born gay or straight.

But I don't think the fundies will accept it, so I believe that reaching out to the hardcore ones (the Phelps crowd) is a waste of time.

Its not like they have ever let science get in the way before. Just look at the creationists.

[UdoKier]

33. So is there a "bi gene",or are the huge percentage of people who are bi...

... just liars?

Why is there this desperate urge even among ostensible supporters of GLBT rights and 'progressives' to pigeonhole everyone as strictly one or the other?

[Maine-ah]

27. kick

good poll..

[arcos]

32. Other...

For my enjoyment, everyone SHOULD be gay... at least all men! :D

[Solly Mack]

34. where's the "none of my fucking business" option?

I don't care what a persons sexuality is nor do I care what people think about other people's sexuality...I only care that people have equal rights.

[dsc]

35. I get your point about the two edged sword that a genetic cause

of homosexuality would be, but I think you are wrong about the intended target of that line of reasoning. Virtually no one thinks that any amount of evidence is going to convince Fundamentalists that gays are not evil, but there is a vast middle ground populated by what is likely still a majority of people, for whom the jury is out on how gays should be treated. A good deal of those people might well be swayed by a genetic argument (putting us closer to race in regards to protection). I think those people are the target. People who don't necessarily buy the notion that government should prevent discrimination against people for voluntary activities but who do favor those protections for race.