homosexuality.

[wildwood]

I want to become more tolerant to gay's private lives. Can you help?

We have over the years become fairly friendly with a gay male couple who used to live next door, they make us laugh and are such a caring pair. We also have a gay niece so we are no strangers to it.

I am well aware that homosexuality is first and foremost an attraction to the same sex for companionship and comfort. Eventually though, it comes to sexual activity which is where my understanding falls down.

Although I don't make a song'n'dance about it, I honestly can't accept what a male couple get up to in the bedroom is normal. With females it seems to me to be different because of a lack of certain body parts!

I have heard all the 'live and let live' and 'none of your business' stuff but my discomfort with my feeling over this worry me somewhat.

Could we please not have any name calling or nasty remarks as this is how I feel and am baring my soul, hoping I can learn to understand better.

[naomi24]

Ratter, neither do I - and I don't like seeing women kiss either - but I'm not in a situation where I have to 'tolerate' either, so I just don't think about it. What people do in their private lives is their business. I presume Wildwood isn't made to feel uncomfortable by his friends, so I don't understand his use of the word 'tolerate'. What's to tolerate?

[ummmm]

*sigh*

[ummmm]

I'm not sighing at you Naomi :-)

[DTCwordfan]

what's cryptic, MT?

[hc4361]

Sometimes a large screen plasma tv with full HD is not ideal for watching tv - especially close ups of snogging, whoever's doing it.

[Khandro]

Before 'liberalisation' of the law, consenting homosexual adults did what ever they wanted in private and no one else was either involved or had to consider them. The problem for many now is that with relaxation of the law, homosexuality is so much 'in your face' - demands for full rights in all areas of life, gay marriages, and even adoption of children, that it is hard not to be forced into having to consider homosexuality on a near daily basis. Pandora's box is open, and personally I wish it wasn't. I think the change in the law was intended to remove the 'criminal' element but it has opened a floodgate in which we are all drowning, and personally I'd rather not be.

[hc4361]

khandro, how naive and blinkered you are.

[ludwig]

// Pandora's box is open, and personally I wish it wasn't. //

Well really, there's no need to lower the tone of the thread.

[ummmm]

Being attracted to someone of the same sex does not make anyone a lesser human being.

Mick - DT's post, I think, is something to do with me saying that I thought his ode to BarMaids cat was a bit odd.

[Kromovaracun]

"Before 'liberalisation' of the law, consenting homosexual adults did what ever they wanted in private and no one else was either involved or had to consider them."

What about the all the prosecutions for 'sodomy' that preceded legalisation? What about the well-documented cases of blackmail?
Why exactly should laws barring consensual sex between adults even be on the statute books in the first place?

"homosexuality is so much 'in your face' - demands for full rights in all areas of life, gay marriages, and even adoption of children, that it is hard not to be forced into having to consider homosexuality on a near daily basis."


You seem to define 'in-your-face' as 'existing.'

And surely living in a democratic society means that you're obliged to put up with campaigns or demands that you dislike? Personally, I find anti-immigration campaigns badly informed and extremely untrustworthy - that doesn't mean I resent their entitlement to campaign about things that concern them.

I wouldn't ask you to agree automatically with campaigns for gay marriage and adoption (I'm happy to have that debate elsewhere) - but I don't think it's unfair to say that you're obliged to put up with the fact that for some people, these are issues that matter. People should not be second-class citizens just because of their sexual preference - if you accept that, then it follows that as citizens they have the same right to engage in politics and social issues as you do.

[Kromovaracun]

(and I quite like seeing people kiss in public....)

[naomi24]

Khandro, //gay marriages, and even adoption of children,…… but it has opened a floodgate in which we are all drowning, and personally I'd rather not be.//

No, we are not all drowning. I know a gay couple (male) who are married and have been together in excess of ten years. They now have two adopted children, brother and sister, age 2 and 3, who were rescued from a miserable, abusive life, with a drug-soaked wreck of a mother. They certainly aren’t drowning. They are loved, they are happy, and they are thriving - just as children should be. There’s more to life than sex, but for some people, it seems, that is the limit of their vision.

[baza]

having worked on many London stations I have seen lots of people kissing, hello, goodbye etc and do not have any problem with the participants whatever their age or sex, I do however detest the noisy slurping snogs on the telly.

[Sir Alec]

I find Percypineapples mentioning 'mongols' more offensive than anything a gay person could do or say.

[Khandro]

//Why exactly should laws barring consensual sex between adults even be on the statute books in the first place?//
Because the laws of society are largely based on the religion of that society and;

Christianity - against
Islam - against
Judaism - against
Buddhism - against
Sikh- Against
Hinduism - Against, but it's alright in some circumstances.
Bahai- Against
Druze - against
Zoroastrianism- against
Jedi- against (celibate)
FSM- For!
Secular Humanism- For!

[hc4361]

Gay people aren't immune from making such comments, sir alec.

I suspect percy is at least 55 and grew up at a time when 'mongol' was widely used and acceptable.

[jno]

Because the laws of society are largely based on the religion of that society

Eh? No they aren't. Religious law's always been separate. The ordinary criminal law has always been based on keeping the king's peace, and kings have spent centuries trying not to come under the thumb of archbishops and popes. Sodomy used to be dealt with by church courts until the 1500s, but it was taken over into criminal law, and has now been done away with. The bishops may have opposed this, as they oppose gay marriage now, I don't know; but their opinions didn't count.

[Baldric]

Naomi, I don't often disagree with you, but I was under the impression the subject of same sex marriage was still under discusssion?

[naomi24]

Baldric, it is, but these two people are joined in a Civil Partnership, and consider themselves ‘married’, which I think is fair enough.

Khandro, so because all those religious groups disagree with it, everyone else should toe their line. Is that what you’re saying? Why?

jno, whichever way you look at it, religion has an enormous influence on civil law.

[Khandro]

jno; I paint on a broad canvas here, covering word-wide religions and societies, but restricting it to the United kingdom where the Sovereign holds the title 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England' which was the last one to overturn the laws decreed by the church?