Homosexaul Rights

Whats Your Views On Homosexual Rights?

  • They have the same rights as everyone else (Marrige, Socialy Accepted, Church Jobs ect.)

    Votes: 20 66.7%
  • I dont care what they do, but they dont have the right to get married or work at my chruch

    Votes: 4 13.3%
  • It should be illegal

    Votes: 1 3.3%
  • I believe marrige is between a man and a women, but I dont care if they get 'joined in union'

    Votes: 5 16.7%

  • Total voters
    30
Degrees of gayness?

S.A.M. said:

It means the concept of being "gay" is not an identity in Pakistan. Men who screw men are not "gay", they are just experimenting. Most of them will marry and have kids.

Is it among the Afghani farmers where the saying was/is, "Men are for pleasure, women are for marrying," or something approximately like that?

I mean, it's hard to picture a nation of any ethnicity or creed in which males don't get around to the occasional circle jerk, late-night blowjob, or whatever.

Or, according to one English outlook:

... [A]ccording to the statistics, one in twelve people are gay. But even this figure of one in twelve, where does that come from? Now, I come from a place called Swanlea. If you went up to High Street with a clipboard, "Uh, excuse me sir, I'm doing a survey--"

"What--?"

And even people who seem to be straight down the line, hundred percent heterosexuals, you go for a pint with them one night, and suddenly they'll say, "Well, there was this one time, right, when me and this other bloke--me mate, we used to play stucco--and one night all the tables were booked, so instead we went to bed together."

And even blokes who say they can't stand gays, it usually turns out they've had some homosexual experience or other. So they try to make out that what they did doesn't really count:

(Three blokes are sitting in a pub.)

FIRST: Check out the new barmaid, eh?

(All three leer, bark approvingly.)

SECOND: Hey, uh, seen that Lovethorne bloke's dead?

THIRD: Yeah. Well he had it coming.

FIRST: Yeah, it's disgusting what they get up to.

SECOND: I mean, how can you do that with another bloke? You know, I mean, it's not like when you were seventeen and larking about, like, you know?

THIRD: Oh, yeah, yeah, you mean play about with each other in the showers after football? I mean, well, everybody does that!

FIRST: Yeah, well, that's just a laugh, i'nnit?

SECOND: Yeah, yeah. I mean, you know, like when we was on the building site. Remember Alf?

FIRST: What, Alfred Shipford?

SECOND: Yeah. You know, me and him used to have it off together on the scaffolding after work. You know. It was just mucking about, wa'nnit?

THIRD: Yeah, I mean, we all did that with Alf.

FIRST: But we were picking up birds while we were doing it.

THIRD: Hey, I'll tell you what I done, just for a laugh. I picked this bloke up, in a pub. We was both pissed.

FIRST: Oh, I've done that. You know, for a lark.

SECOND: What pub was that in?

THIRD: The Leather Cap 'n' Tash.

SECOND: Yeah, the one with the drag queens?

FIRST: Oh, yeah. Well, who hasn't gone down there on a Thursday, stripped naked, chained themselves up in the back room and gone, "Come on, big boys, I'll take the lot of ya!"

SECOND: That's just for a laugh, i'nnit? You know, it's like me. I've been with Stan for thirty years, living as man and wife.

THIRD: You what?

SECOND: Well, for a laugh.

FIRST AND THIRD: (together) Right. Yeah. Oh, right.

THIRD: Thought you was a poofter, for a minute.

SECOND: You want a smack in the mouth?​

(Steel)
____________________


Steel, Mark. "Sexuality". The Mark Steel Solution. British Broadcasting Corporation. London, BBC Radio 4. August 4, 1995.
 
My opinion is that any sort of code that seeks to deny homosexuals these kinds of rights is immoral.

Based on your morals.

This is splitting hairs, but I'm trying to point out that you can't make blanket statements like ``anyone who denies homosexuals their rights is immoral'', in the same way that I can't make statements along the lines of ``homosexuality is immoral''.
 
It means the concept of being "gay" is not an identity in Pakistan. Men who screw men are not "gay", they are just experimenting. Most of them will marry and have kids.

That's what I was thinking you meant. Not that I understand why that is.
Not that I understand the "gay" label, either.
"Oh, you find your own gender attractive? Great, that means you're GAY! You can go over here in this corner with your own kind. This is the GAY corner, where GAY people can do what GAYS do!";)
 
Really? I know an Iranian former-Muslim who said that there is a sizable underground gay movement in Iran, the vestige of a once prominent gay society in Tehran during the Shah.

~String

Hmm which has what to do with Pakistan?

Note that Pakistanis exposed to western society may also adopt the notion of being gay.

tiassa said:
Is it among the Afghani farmers where the saying was/is, "Men are for pleasure, women are for marrying," or something approximately like that?

Possible, could also be the Turks though
 
I mean, it's hard to picture a nation of any ethnicity or creed in which males don't get around to the occasional circle jerk, late-night blowjob, or whatever.

Err....speak for yourself there West Coast.
 
You're comparing a physical, readily identifiable, and heritable trait with a type of behavior. Race is what you are, genetically. Which gender you choose to have sex with is rather what you like to do.
And my question to you, giam, is why is that important? In either situation, being gay or being black is what you are and except for a few remote and unverifiable cases, as far as we know you can't change either of them. If it's wrong in one situation, then it's wrong in all situations. You either stick to your values or you don't.
I'm not saying I agree with that reasoning 100%. I'm perfectly fine with boys loving other boys.;) See here But that is the argument used to justify discrimination against homosexually-oriented relationships. And frankly, until (or IF) homosexuality can be found to have a readily-identified genetic component and this is verified, then the behavior/identity argument does have merit.
For what reason? Why is a genetic component important at all?
But beyond that theory, in the real world, sexual attraction is as deep or deeper a preference or predisposition as any other personality trait, so saying that it's acceptable to ask people to deny such a deeply-seated trait is , in a practical sense, unacceptable.
No argument here.
 
Is it among the Afghani farmers where the saying was/is, "Men are for pleasure, women are for marrying," or something approximately like that?

Afghanis make all the women cover up so to satisfy their G-d given urges they rape little boys. It's a common phenomenon that's been around forever. Not men, by the way --- boys. And the boys don't resist because they think it's normal... so you could argue it's not really "rape". But it certainly is pedophilia.

"Oh, but the Greek philosophers used to do it too!!!..." well, then it's alright.
 
Hmm which has what to do with Pakistan?

Note that Pakistanis exposed to western society may also adopt the notion of being gay.

Just a side note. I shoulda' put that in there to explain the point. Both are typically intolerant of open displays of homosexuality, speak (or have speakers) of languages in the same family (Urdu and Farsi) and both are next door neighbors--borrowing cups of sugar, and all that--so I thought that there would be similar cultural undercurrents upon which you could expound.

~String
 
And even blokes who say they can't stand gays, it usually turns out they've had some homosexual experience or other. So they try to make out that what they did doesn't really count:
(Three blokes are sitting in a pub.)
....

Read that one before. It's hilarious. Reminds of the phenomenon known as EMO BOYS KISSING.
 
That's what I was thinking you meant. Not that I understand why that is.
Not that I understand the "gay" label, either.
"Oh, you find your own gender attractive? Great, that means you're GAY! You can go over here in this corner with your own kind. This is the GAY corner, where GAY people can do what GAYS do!";)

Yup thats how it goes. The only men who don't reproduce would be the ones who were impotent or sterile. Or castrated.

Might be quite a few platonic marriages there.
 
Based on your morals.
Some morals are better than others. :cool:
This is splitting hairs, but I'm trying to point out that you can't make blanket statements like ``anyone who denies homosexuals their rights is immoral'', in the same way that I can't make statements along the lines of ``homosexuality is immoral''.
I don't agree. In this thread, we are expressing opinions on what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior. There is only one right behavior in this case, however.
 
Afghanis make all the women cover up so to satisfy their G-d given urges they rape little boys. It's a common phenomenon that's been around forever. Not men, by the way --- boys. And the boys don't resist because they think it's normal... so you could argue it's not really "rape". But it certainly is pedophilia.

"Oh, but the Greek philosophers used to do it too!!!..." well, then it's alright.

Rabbis do it with boys too you know. Afghanis have been screwing boys for ages, probably since before they were Buddhists.

You might want to read the Talmud a bit closely:
http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_2.html

Pederasty only became unfashionable with post Nicean Christianity I think.
 
Individual or culture?

BenTheMan said:

Err....speak for yourself there West Coast.

Ever seen Book of Love, Robert Shaye's 1990 cinematic adaptation of William Kotzwinkle's novel Jack in the Box?

I'm not talking about the bit with the candle, but rather the "contest" scene when the guys are drunk. It's a very common homoerotic occasion among American youth.
 
And my question to you, giam, is why is that important?...
Why is a genetic component important at all?

I'll have you know, that as a member of the Sciforums High Society, we are known collectively as being open-minded and unconventional and... oh, HIGH there, founder! :eek:

Because it is the difference between a physical trait you can't change, and a behavior that you CAN abstain from.

No argument here.

I wasn't really trying to make an argument. Well, sort of. I was saying that it is wrong to ask someone to suppress their homosexuality because others find it distasteful. Why? Are you disagreeing with me???
 
I'll have you know, that as a member of the Sciforums High Society, we are known collectively as being open-minded and unconventional and... oh, HIGH there, founder! :eek:
I have been all of those so far. Surely there's no harm in my questions. :cool:
Because it is the difference between a physical trait you can't change, and a behavior that you CAN abstain from.
You can abstain from gay sexual ACTS, but not from being gay anymore than you can from being black. Or do you think you can abstain from being attracted to the same sex..? Are you one of the people who view sexual orientation as a choice..?
 
Cleveland gays are very "quiet", blue collar types. Many of them are married. Which is odd, 'cause Cleveland is really quite liberal (hell, we're hosting the "Gay Games").

~String

i totally agree string.

gay people are some of the nicest people you will ever meet.. they are great company too. not being sarcastic im being serious.
 
Back
Top