Homosexuality

[Deano]

I think so as well; for example, it is not normal for me to leave work at noon, but it is a very good thing. 

 

[Forostar]

The definition I am using is, as a heterosexual man, I do not agree with lying down with another man. I am, by definition, heterosexual and would not "agree" with that.

According to yourself, homosexuality does not mean you. Why would you not agree with someone else laying with someone of the same sex? Why don’t you separate homosexuality from your own feelings? No one forces you to lay with a man, right?

If I personally "agreed" with homosexuality, then that would make me homosexual or at least bi-sexual.

No.

I would find it "agreeable" to be with another man. See what I mean?

No.

If you define "agree" as "tolerate" or "accept" it takes on a different context though. That would imply that I do not agree with other people being engaged with the same sex, which is not the case, nor do I believe it to be the case for some others here who have made the statement.

Well, I guess we’re getting somewhere now. I’d never thought that “I agree” could be the same as “I am.”  I find it a confusing way to formulate it like this.

 

[Deano]

Still quite the bulldog Foro, ahhh the messes we get ourselves into by trying to come to the aid of others. 

According to yourself, homosexuality does not mean you. Why would you not agree with someone else laying with someone of the same sex? Why don’t you separate homosexuality from your own feelings? No one forces you to lay with a man, right?

I didn't say that I don't agree with what others do, I said the opposite as a matter of fact. Homosexuality IS separated from my own feelings, I couldn't care less about what others do, in fact, I support the rights and freedoms of gay individuals.

No.

#1

Personally, as in if I agreed within my own mind that homosexuality was actually an option, then I would PERSONALLY feel willing to engage in such acts. Check my definitions of "agree" statements.

No.

#2

I guess you don't see what I mean.... I have no attraction to other men to put it more simply. Men that do however; more power to them.

Well, I guess we’re getting somewhere now. I’d never thought that “I agree” could be the same as “I am.”  I find it a confusing way to formulate it like this.

This is where attempting to surmise the thoughts of others comes in. I believe that, to some, "I agree" equates to "I am". I personally didn't define the statement in that way but I suspect others may have.

 

[Natalie]

Alright people, let's keep it friendly. Some of the posts are worded a little obscurely but things get clearer once the wording is explained, this still doesn't mean the wording is right. The phrasing "I don't agree with homosexuality" generally conveys the message that you don't like homosexuals and think the act of sleeping with a person of the same sex is an abomination. Just saying, that's what it sounds like, but I know that's not what you mean. From your post D&N, a phrase like "I'm not gay" might be more appropriate. I'm just saying this to spare you a huge debate or flaming discussion about this in the future because I am almost certain if you said that to a gay person, they would tear you apart for it.

I dunno about stupid posts, I think SMX has been harsh in the past but I couldn't let this comment go without making a small fuss:

P.S. i envy homos in one thing. I had so much trouble in my relationships because of man - woman differences. They're spared.

WTF? You're basically assuming that gay relationships are all happy and good because you're dealing with the same sex. Well, I'm sorry to disillusion you, but gay relationships are not all rainbows and sunshine. They have plenty of the usual issues (personality differences, age gap) to deal with, plus the extra one's of oh let's say this huge stigma, being outlawed in most societies, not being able to keep up a lasting relationship because of hypersexuality on both sides....the list goes on. And this is only for gay men that I'm thinking. Lesbians have other problems. I'm sorry but that was the most misinformed comment I've seen in a long time, from it I'm going to assume you don't have any gay friends or know anybody gay for that matter. Which is unfortunate, gay people are fun generally. The take-home message I guess is that gay relationships have their own unique problems which basically put them on the same level with heterosexuals. So no need to envy them anymore I guess.

 

[Deano]

You're right Nat, let's keep it simple: I'm not Gay. 

This was, I guess, a failed attempt at trying to help another person.

I did so because I have had almost the same conversations with some people who have made the statement "I don't agree with homosexuality." and when I have challenged them on it, they backtrack and stammer trying to clarify that they didn't mean they are against it, that they personally just don't subscribe to it. (Which is obvious). I thought this may be another case of that.

 

[Forostar]

This is where attempting to surmise the thoughts of others comes in. I believe that, to some, "I agree" equates to "I am". I personally didn't define the statement in that way but I suspect others may have.

Deano, don't worry, you helped me a lot by saying:

I believe that, to some, "I agree" equates to "I am".

Still I am interested to know what people on this forum think in order to understand them better.

Coming back to the not normal aspect.

"Homosexuality is not normal because homosexuals can't reproduce" Did I hear that right?

Is this really THE argument to call them not normal? I find it such strange reasoning. That's why I keep asking.
I don't get it why someone wants to emphasize that millions of people are not normal while the emphasizer does not want to stigmatize. For some people, reproduction seems to be the dominant factor.

Every specie's goal is to reproduce.

How important is all this compared to the main issue:
That homosexuals should be treated with the same respect as heterosexuals.
How can respect be the same when heterosexuals are called normal and homosexuals not normal?
That's not possible.

My own opinion (which I regard as fact):

Heterosexuals are normal. Homosexuals are normal. There's no science that calls homosexuality not normal because homosexuals can't reproduce.

 

[Deano]

Oh, I'm not worried Foro, you know I have always admired your tenacity.

I think it is easy for people to get into trouble in talking about topics such as this because of ambiguities in the English language. This is particularly true when you write or read on a forum as you can not get the body language a person is conveying and may miss their intended meaning. Slang and catch-phrases can mean one thing to one person and something totally different to another. Like I said, it isn't always easy to interpret exactly the meaning that someone is trying to convey and in forums like this, especially with people that are known and have never shown otherwise, I like to give them the benefit of the doubt before passing complete judgment.

 

[Forostar]

Sometimes, ambiguities in the English language are indeed my problem. Thanks for your patience. I'll try to have more as well.

 

[Deano]

Oh, it's no problem Foro. I think that the majority of native English speakers on an English language forum understand the potential issues with confusion in what is written for non-native English speakers. You do a great job of making sure that you get to the bottom of what's out there to achieve complete understanding, which is admirable.

 

[Wästed The Great]

I get what you are saying, especially the ambiguity of the english language.  'I don't agree' equates to 'that doesn't agree with me'--as in 'salsa doesn't agree with me, it gives me a stomache ache.'  But that doesn't mean you don't approve of salsa for other people.

So, meaning no offense, again, to Jordan, but I think that even if it was a 'choice', what does it matter?

 

[Forostar]

That was what I tried to find out.

But if there's no answer, it's indeed an unimportant statement.

 

[Wästed The Great]

I would agree with you there.  Opinions are fine, but it is nice to have a reason for them. 

 

[Onhell]

I do, I am not screaming (yet) for persecution.
Onhell, what is your definition of normal?

Very simple and conservative. Everything has a specific purpose and/or end. A car's purpose is to get you from point A to point B, if it breaks down it is not fulfilling it's basic function, there is something wrong with the vehicle. Our eyes' function is to see, if I'm blinded or wear glasses my sight is not "normal." There is a reason eye surgery is called "corrective surgery."

That is my basic definition of normal. Nothing to do with majorities or minorities. Given my definition I do understand few if any people are "normal"

 

[Deano]

I think "normal" in this regard may be misconstrued as "right"?

 

[Onhell]

What do you mean? There is nothing wrong in wearing glasses just because my eyesight is "wrong..."

 

[Deano]

Sociopath!   

 

[Onhell]

HAHAHAHA, for the sake of keeping this thread on track I'll refrain from comment, but that was funny

 

[Deano]

I agree, have a praise!

 

[Forostar]

Very simple and conservative. Everything has a specific purpose and/or end. A car's purpose is to get you from point A to point B, if it breaks down it is not fulfilling it's basic function, there is something wrong with the vehicle. Our eyes' function is to see, if I'm blinded or wear glasses my sight is not "normal." There is a reason eye surgery is called "corrective surgery."

That is my basic definition of normal. Nothing to do with majorities or minorities. Given my definition I do understand few if any people are "normal"

You're eyesight might not be normal, but YOU are normal.
A homosexual might not have a normal reproduction (or better: none at all), but HE or SHE is still normal.
Homosexuals are normal. They are the way they are. You can't correct or change them. So the whole comparison is wrong.

 

[Onhell]

I see your point, which is the same one I made.