387 réponses à ce sujet

[Volus Warlord]

Hannibal218 wrote...


I've seen this statement on every post that is complaining about the presence of gay characters so folks, why keep on fronting?

To keep up the illusion of tolerance. Comes up in every subject in which one may be viewed as "intolerant" for having an opinion.

[Clover Rider]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Hannibal218 wrote...


I've seen this statement on every post that is complaining about the presence of gay characters so folks, why keep on fronting?

To keep up the illusion of tolerance. Comes up in every subject in which one may be viewed as "intolerant" for having an opinion.

Now I don't hate Volus or anything but I want them out of Mass Effect sure they are "nice" but all they want is our jobs!

[Volus Warlord]

Some Geth wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

Hannibal218 wrote...


I've seen this statement on every post that is complaining about the presence of gay characters so folks, why keep on fronting?

To keep up the illusion of tolerance. Comes up in every subject in which one may be viewed as "intolerant" for having an opinion.

Now I don't hate Volus or anything but I want them out of Mass Effect sure they are "nice" but all they want is our jobs!

I don't want your jobs, I wantz your MONNEH!

[Hannibal218]

I already knew the answer to the question. It's just that I can only choke down so much doublespeak and thinly veiled bigotry before I feel the need to say something.

Be tolerant or intolerant or go and eat a damned sandwich but please, for the love of all that's dark and wicked, don't insult all of our intelligences by saying "I'm totally not against homosexuality but I think it's wrong because seeing it in my perverted little sex-obsessed minds-eye makes me feel icky."

Meh...

P.S.: After reading that post I came to the conclusion that it makes it seem like I'm a gay man lashing out. I'm not. I am straight, I just can't stand intolerance, it's just so stupid and... wasteful. I have gay friends and co-workers, they're good people like anyone else, they just happen to have a thing for people of the same gender.

Modifié par Hannibal218, 01 avril 2011 - 11:23 .

[Clover Rider]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Some Geth wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

Hannibal218 wrote...


I've seen this statement on every post that is complaining about the presence of gay characters so folks, why keep on fronting?

To keep up the illusion of tolerance. Comes up in every subject in which one may be viewed as "intolerant" for having an opinion.

Now I don't hate Volus or anything but I want them out of Mass Effect sure they are "nice" but all they want is our jobs!

I don't want your jobs, I wantz your MONNEH!

[Zandilar]

Carfax wrote...

I understand what you were getting at, truly I do.  I was just trying to say that I think applying words like "homosexuality" to animals is pointless, seeing as there is no practically no discrimination in their actions.

They are ruled by their instinct and their lust, where as we have a choice.

There are those who would say that because we have a choice, anyone who is same sex attracted can choose not to act on it. Which is true, I suppose, but they contend that because we can, we should live a life of celibacy. Their reasons why are usually very flimsy, based on personal revulsion or religion.

Yes, but humans being more consciously aware than other species, have the ability to completely refute their instincts if they so choose.  Thats what separates us from them..

Horses (especially working horses) are often trained not to be flighty around traffic, even though their natural instincts would put them to flight. Animals can be trained to ignore their instincts too, though it's not perfect. Humanity's ability to chose to act against their instincts is not perfect, either, which is why many humans suffer from phobias.

My point was, that as a result of being a sexually reproductive species, heterosexuality is imbedded deep in to our biological mechanism by default, regardless of whether you are straight, gay or bi..  This is true of practically every human being on the planet, because the number one purpose of sex has always been procreation, from a biological and evolutionary perspective. 

It would be more accuracte to say that reproduction is imbedded deep into our biological mechanism. While I made a joke about the "pregnant lesbian" storyline in MSM, it is true that many (most?)* women, regardless of their sexuality, go through a phase (somewhere between their late teens and late 30s) where they want to settle down and have kids. Heterosexual sex is the mechanism by which we procreate, but we also have brains to go along with our hands, and we have the ability (as you said) to act outside of our instincts. This means we have a number of ways of reproducing - het sex, het sex for expedience (say a lesbian has sex with a man for the explicit purpose of getting pregnant), surogacy, and IVF among other means. Raising a child can also be accomplished by adoption.

*(I say many/most women, because I've never gone through that myself. I knew from a very young age that I didn't want to have children. I'd even go as far as to say that I have no maternal instinct at all.)

Thats why we are what we are.  If humans used something other than
sexual reproduction for procreation, we would have a completely
different physiology and there wouldn't even be two sexes.

Given advances in science recently, we may well end up with a society where physical intercourse is optional where reproduction is concerned (I'm all for the separation of reproduction from pleasure, but I'm a hedonist!). A few more advances in science (like how to combine the genetic material from two eggs or from two sperm - the former is doable, I think, or very close to), and... Am I being optimistic? Possibly. It might not occur during my life time (my life is almost halfway over, unless misfortune befalls me or they develop an immortality pill), but it will happen. (Unless the fundamentalists hold us back by buring all the books and plunging us into back another dark ages, which also might happen given the way things are going right now with regards to religion getting its tentacles into politics.)

Whether this will end up having an impact on our physiology in the long term, is another matter.

And equating thumbs and fingers with actual sexual organs (that have a clearly defined purpose) is a bit silly now come on ../../../images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png

No, while fingers may not be able to provde sperm, they can certianly stimulate our pleasure centers - and that is what I was talking about. I was not talking about reproduction at all. Not every human being wants kids!

I personally don't believe gays contradict the natural order.  I'm just saying that that was the justification used for enacting extreme prejudice against them over the centuries..

Among other things, of course. Times change, thankfully, and most of us realize that the natural order argument is simply wrong.

After much research, it's clear to me that homosexuality (the orientation) is rooted in our biological makeup, and not something that you decide to do voluntarily. 

The prevailing theory now says that homosexuality is caused by imbalanced hormone exposure (namely testosterone) in the womb while the fetus is developing, which makes sense because while homosexuality appears to be innate, it doesn't appear to be genetic and isn't inheritable.

Also, males are about twice as likely as females to be gay, and since males require additional hormone exposure in the womb to become masculinized, then it makes sense that the chances of exposure to imbalanced hormones would be higher than that for females.

I had a lesbian great aunt, and a gay cousin on my mother's side. No other gay relatives that I know of. That's probably not evidence of an inheritable component... But I like to think there is some connection there, especially given that my lesbian great aunt felt a special bond with me. (And we hardly knew each other. In fact, I sadly don't even remember her.)

Also, what if they work out what causes the hormonal imbalance? Do you think they'd treat/cure it? It's a frightening thought.

I suppose they could, but having sex with yourself isn't nearly as exciting as having it with a partner wouldn't you say? 

*laughs* I'd say "isn't nearly as exciting as having it with a partner you're attracted to". Honestly, given my experiences, I'd rank things like this -

1) Sex with someone I'm attracted to AND care for
2) Sex with someone I'm attracted to OR care for
3) Sex by myself
4) Sex with someone I'm not attracted to.

4 being a very long way behind 3. (I have experienced all 4.)

But I suppose that's personal taste, no?

Perhaps I should have mentioned that the school I went to was a boarding school located in another country.  There were no female students whatsoever, but we did have female teachers; most of whom were very old and very unattractive I should say.

No access to magazines, the internet (well that'd depend on the dates you were at the boarding school, of course, but I don't want to make assumptions about your age!), television? *is curious*

Anyway, homosexual behaviour is fairly common in these single sex environments.  I remember catching two boys kissing each other in the locker room once, and they made me promise not to tell anyone LOL!

BTW, here is a very interesting (but disturbing) video you might be interested in watching.  The video demonstrates how environment can have a tremendous impact on our sexual behaviour:



Now keep in mind that Afghanistan is a country with extreme segregation between the sexes.  Women are practically invisible in that country (think burkhas), and a man attempting to have sex with a woman (vice versa as well) he isn't married to is subject to the death penalty.

So what you end up with is a culture in which boys have usurped womens' position as the most sexually desired partners for men.

I think there's part of the Koran where boys are referred to as beautiful. But I must admit, I don't really know much about Islam, outside of my general dismay at the treatement of women, particularly fundamentalist countries. Will watch the video when I get a chance.

[FlintlockJazz]

Captain Cornhole wrote...
Bottom line Islam treats women and homosexuals differently then other religions, they are oppressed and murdered every day in Iran.

It's not that Islam treats them differently than other religions, it's that there are places where they STILL treat them like that.  The bible has some incredibly homophobic sections and preaches that women were responsible for original sin, the major religions just gloss over them now as it's no longer possible to discriminate against people without suffering a public backlash.  The Church used to preach intolerance of Jews, as the killers of Christ, and claimed that homosexuals would go to hell, something that many branches still teach today, they just instead of promoting killing them claim to be 'benevolent' and try to 'correct' them instead and 'cure' them. 

The problem is that it only occurs in Iran because the Iranian government allows and supports it, and the general populace accepts it either out of indoctrination or fear.  Claiming it's only Islam runs the risk that it ignores the fact that it's actually human nature that promotes killing that which is different from us and enforcing our will on others and is actually a universal issue.

[Sigma Tauri]

It doesn't only occur in Iran. Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia execute homosexuals. So do some Christian societies. Homosexuality was punishable by death in Uganda, possibly influenced by American evangelicals in the country. If I recall also, Jamaica is virulently homophobic. Injustice isn't peculiar to one society.

[Zandilar]

When I mentioned the Koran talking about the beauty of boys (well male youths, anyway), I think it is more from an asthetic view point and not from any position actually promoting homosexuality.

Captain Cornhole wrote...
I'm gona have to disagree with yah there buddy. The fact is none of the (or at least very little) major religious texts around the world teach the level of violence that I just cited for you out of the Koran a few posts back. Please, if you can quote some text that definitively does preach hatred against women or homosexuals or any ethinic class I would be glad enough to retract my statement.

Well, the Koran verse you quoted talks about "driving them out from the city", which could be taken in a violent context, but it could also just be sending them away. I'm not so niave to believe it's the latter, but it has to be said.

Now when examples of people's actions are given you always have to look at what the text actually says in contrast to their actions. For example the Koran says to kill unbelivers through Jihad, yet there a plenty of muslims that do not kill unbelivers. There are plenty of verses in the Bible that tell Christians to "love your neighbor" and still there a many people who call themselves Christians that rape, pillage, murder and steal.

Don't forget that the Christian bible also contains the Old Testament, which has many examples the raping, pillaging, murdering, and stealing that you're saying it doesn't contain. It was only Jesus who exhorted people to love each other, following on through the letters of Paul, you'll find examples of teachings against women and "homosexuals" (which I put in quotes, due to the fact that the word homosexual is a relatively new word, only being coined in the late 19th centurary (that's the late 1800s for clarification).)

Leviticus 1:29 says this: " 29'For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people. "

One of the abominations it's talking about is male homosexual behaviour. (Leviticus 1:22)

Leviticus 20:13 says this "13'If
there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both
of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to
death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. "

Put to death is pretty violent, wouldn't you agree?

Do you see what I'm getting at? In some cases you have to look at people's actions in contrast to what religious texts actually teach.

Yes, and that goes for every religion in the world. The fact that some Christians still use passages from the Old Testament to justify their bigotry, means you can't just dismiss the Old Testament from consideration when looking at whether or not violence is promoted by the religion.

Going back to the Bible really quick, there is no such verses that teach violance against homosexuals, Jews or that Eve is strictly to blame for sin.  If that is the case however I would like to see your sources. What the Bible does say on Homosexuality is a set of Truthes about the nature of that sin, it says nothing on hating those who practice it. And to say that homosexuals are going to Hell is simple flat out not true. Homosexuality is a sin, everyone even belivers sin just because someone murders or commits fornication is not grounds for condemnation to hell. What the Bible teaches is that if you do not come to know the Lord then you will be sent to Hell.  ANd keep in mind what the Bible says on Hell is not black and white either, there is a lot of gray involved.

All in all you have to look at what the text says and contrast that to people's actions. Sadly, as much of an exageration people today make it, the Church did preach intollerance against Jews. But that was durning the middle ages one the most corrupt times in the history of western civilization.

Wrapping things up though, I do agree with you that it is human nature to commit violant acts and such. Yet that is no excuse for those who make it their dogma to preach hate and intollerance, and that goes for everyone.

MY understanding about sin is that those who repent and confess their sins are going to Heaven, but those who don't are going to hell. So a homosexual who engages in homosexual behaviour and never repents for it, will go to hell. That is what they mean. In order to get to heaven, a homosexual would have to, not just be sorry for their sin, but actually recant their behaviour, and become celibate or involved in a heterosexual marriage  - as well as accept Jesus as their saviour, in order to avoid hell.

In my opinion, religion is solely about holding power over the masses, controlling what they do or don't do with the threat that something worse than death will happen if you don't obey. The Bible has long been used to promote intollerance and bigotry - it was used to justify the enslavement of countless Africans, and today it's used to promote the idea that homosexuals should not be treated equally by the state in matters of marriage (forget the seperation of Church and State!).

So what I'm trying to say is - no major religion is excused from criticism. None of them are innocent - it's just the nature of religion.

Modifié par Zandilar, 02 avril 2011 - 11:47 .

[Pacifien]

Yeah, so... Site Rules. Real world sociopolitical or religious discussions can be discussed in other forums not this one. But I see you guys had a good run of it before a moderator caught on. Don't do it again.