ClumsyMonkey.net

Your views?

How would you guys say your community treats those of differing sexual orientation? Are there any here who believe that sexual orientation is a choice?

I myself believe in the Kinsey Scale explanation. All human beings are rated on a scale of 1-10, 1 being completely utterly straight, and 10 being completly and utterly homosexual. Interestingly enough he believed that most people are not 1's or 10's. But rather somehwere closer to the middle. Once the ball gets rolling i could get into historic cultural evidence as well as religious evidence.


Feel free to lock this Mods

Oh god. I don't like this thread, but I'll let it go for now.

As far as how my community treats gays... we're known as the gay friendly town in New Jersey, it's wonderful.

I love Collingswood.

think there's to much potential for a debate getting out of hand?

I don't care if someone is gay or bi or whatever. I have straight friends, bi friends and gay friends. They all rock! I'd like to say my comminity is pretty accepting. Of course there are probably those who would strongly disagree with me.

I AM ME wrote:think there's to much potential for a debate getting out of hand?

Ya think?

possibly. there are people of differing views on the subject on this board, and it's easy for things to get personal on this topic.

I don't think sexuality is a choice we make. in fact, i think that labelling sexuality is to place ourselves in confinement, where we won't acknowledge possible relationships because of a percieved violation of who we think we are.

people are people - and who we are attracted to is not always determined by gender. in fact, oftentimes gender isn't a factor at all. when you fall in love, do you go "i love this person because he/she is a man/woman"? In my experience, when describing WHY they love someone, gender isn't one of the priorities. Of course, this is not always the case.

Like you mentioned, most people lie in the middle. I recently read a statistic from a British survey in 1940 where 1/5 of people reported having a homosexual encounter. The majority of those people were, in fact, "straight." That was in 1940's Britain, where sex was a taboo subject, and homosexuality both illegal and socially unacceptable.

Accepting sexuality in all of its contexts is important, to both the individual and society. Society is...improving. Many individuals won't. Where I am, homosexuality is acceptable, however transexuality is ridiculed, and misunderstood. Apparently people are okay with people attracted to members of their own gender, but gender-bending is something people aren't quite ready to wrap their heads around.

Yeah basically the same thing Kinsey believed.

I don't see why people see a debate as something that needs to be shut down and locked. If it is civil and not meant to have hurtful intents it should be allowed to continue, progress can't be made without debate.

I think hypersensitivity is nearly as harmful to equality as bigotry, and i think many handicaped persons, and racial groups would agree with me.

Anyways, did you know that basically every ancient, and many non-ancient cultures and religions accepted and in some cases even venerated homosexual behavior. Greek and Roman culture we all know about, but Asian culture also held the same beliefs, and several cultures even held the idea of a third gender, such as Indians, and the Lakota and most other North American Tribes. Among the Lakota, not only were gays accepted, but they were considered holy persons bridging the gender gap, they were believed to have powers, and enhanced intelligence, and wisdom, and often acted as healers or advisors to the shamans and chiefs. They were known as "Winkte". Well honored warriors such as Sitting Bull would even have sexual relations with Winkte to gain power before battles. It was also the Winkte that gave "Secret Names" to children as a source of power.

i did know that actually. i practice a kind of native spirituality - we could learn a lot if we only looked back and dug what the aboriginals knew.

and yes, hypersensitivity is harmful. i concur there. at the same time, it is a topic to be handled with delicacy and awareness of the feelings of others.

debates generally don't get shut down and locked until they get out of hand, or until someone takes offence. hopefully we can roll here without ruffling anyone.

it's interesting how sexuality in general became taboo somewhere down the line, and when that happened, any percieved "deviation" became completely forbidden - not just looked down on but outright illegal. it was a power game, i think. controlling people through sex, on a large scale. if you can get people to deny their very natures, you can coerce them into conforming to just about anything.

The problem isn't the debate, it's the possibility of truly offending or hurting someone's feelings.

See many cultures other then Western did not even see any "deviation" though. Because that was part of sexuality it could not be a deviation. East Indians, and Natives, believed in a third gender, therefore, there wasn't just men and women, so what "winkte" did was not a deviation.

I agree there needs to be sensitivity as well, like i said i have gay friends and work for an awesome gay boss, and understand that there are certain things you do not say. Making a joke about guys giving up on women because they cry about them all the time, doesn't seem all that offensive to gay men. And if joking that someone should date the opposite sex instead is incredibly offensive i think they are the bigot not me.

True i suppose, i wouldn't want someone to get hurt

no, that wasn't offensive to gay men, it was offensive to the guys who cry about women.

regardless, my point wasn't that there was a devation percieved in those cultures (i understand that it was a normal state within those societies), i was pondering how, and when, western culture came to view sexuality in such a choppy fashion, creating the mindset of 'deviant' behaviour. my apologies for being inconcise.

it's an offpring of the Christian church, and Jewish religion i believe.....but it wasn't actually really addressed that clearly in the scriptures.....hmmm intresting..esspecially when you look at the Roman culture both were connected to. Perhaps it has something to do with the Demonization of everything pagan that the church used to convert over early Christians. Or maybe it was just because the rejection of the rampant excess that Roman culture was guilty of, and homosexuality was somehow tied to it.

or perhaps homosexuality was a taboo among the barbarian tribes and it was adopted by the church to help in the conversion.


see that's what i'm talking about, why is it insulting for a person to joke about a straight person to be gay?

I'm not familiar with the term Two-Spirited. What does that mean?

I AM ME wrote:or perhaps homosexuality was a taboo among the barbarian tribes and it was adopted by the church to help in the conversion.


see that's what i'm talking about, why is it insulting for a person to joke about a straight person to be gay?

Adopted by the church? The church didn't need to adopt anything. The Bible is clearly againts engaging in homosexual activity. Secondly why on earth would the church have to adopt such a viewpoint to "convert." The issue of homosexuality wasn't even talked about in those days. Either I'm misinterpreting what your saying or you're trying to connect dots that don't exist.

I think this thread has potential for heated debate only if someone disagrees with you. If I stated my beliefs again, we'd just argue. And once again I would come off as the religious, unaccepting zealot. I don't see myself this way at all. It's just crazy what could happen in here if some people who won't speak up say what they actually thought.

nikki4982 wrote:The problem isn't the debate, it's the possibility of truly offending or hurting someone's feelings.

right, im completly worried about hurting someones feelings on a computer
if someone gets hurt by whats said on the internet then there a loser