Recently I acted upon my untapped relationship urges and pursued a relationship with another male. Coming out to my family was the only hard part about the whole endeavour. Everything so far has been amazing and a walk in the park, except for one little detail.
Recently he and I were on Spring Break in southern Florida. We had a blast.
Given my relationship history, which up until 5 weeks ago had been strictly heterosexual in practice, I still have residual habits and behaviours typical with guys who are with a girl. Like hugging, holding hands, and maybe even light kisses in public. While I was out in public with him I got my first taste of what it feels like to be afraid to be gay in public. I wanted to hold his hand, hug him, and all that, but I couldn’t shake the fear and insecurity.
I know there’s probably a lot of you who are thinking “Yeah yeah, welcome to gaydom in America.” Well I’m still learning the ropes. I’m getting better, and learning a lot along the way.
It seems to me when homosexuals first come out they seem stand offish, abrasive, insecure and defensive. Perhaps they feel the need to defend whatever flak someone will potentially throw at them. For instance, a good friend of mine from high school turned out to be gay and I didn’t know this until after we graduated. I found out two years ago when I came across his myspace and saw pictures of him kissing other men and saying he belonged to the LGBT alliance, or something. Anyways, when I asked him about it he seemed angry and told me to “fuck off”
Maybe this doesn’t apply to every homosexual, but why the insecurity?
Congrats on coming out, and, as you said, welcome to gaydom in America, land of the free. If you find the right places, you can be out and it isn’t a big deal, there are gaybourhoods everywhere . . . but outside of those, discretion is generally the best policy.
People are getting more accepting of homosexuality. Don’t force yourself, just follow your heart. The right partner will help you feel comfortable about being who you are. Just remember idiots know no gender, ethnic, sexuality, etc. In other words idiots are everywhere. Ignore them and live your life.
Is it any randomly selected homosexual person that grosses you out? Or is it simply the sexual endeavors they choose to undertake?
The only distinction that can be made between homosexual and heterosexual in-bed-behind-closed-doors behaviors is the combination of various types of genitalia. Sure there’s also p.d.a., but if you don’t like it, don’t do it.
My favorite part about the anti-gay marriage movement is the apparent fear that if gays are allowed to marry, that the heteros will some how convert. Hmmm…
all homosexuals, as soon as they show it, gets me sick to the stomach. I can talk to a person, but once i find out he or she is gay, it just disgusts me; i personally have never met someone who i thought was straight and turned out to be gay…so, I won’t be able to answer some questions
As long as you recognize the irrationality of being grossed out by a person due to their sexual preference/attraction/orientation, as opposed to being grossed out by the individual sexual acts which you are by no means required to partake in.
Where is the line drawn at what is acceptable or not?
Should one accept paedophilia/necrophilia/beastiality (y’know, all the “edgey” ones ) as perfectly normal and acceptable, given that these are also sexual inclinations? How is the inclination distinguished from the action? A x-sexual is not x-sexual until he/she/it acts?
It is “irrational” to watch a dead 3-yr old being raped by a dog and feel revulsion? It is irrational to think it and feel revulsion? To see it acted out or as, say, a cartoon and to feel revulsion? And yet there are some who would not find this revolting; should we permit such behaviour for their sake?
They use the same justifications your kind do: “lifestyle-choice”, “Consent”, “no harm done”.
Sexual preferences are no more or less than the expression of mental states in the individual, and reflect these. Revulsion towards them indicates an antithesis between the one feeling the revulsion and the act itself; an expression of ones standards.
Lust serves one function in my mind: as the biological imperative towards procreation. Non-heterosexual activity seems to me superfluous and to hold no intrinsic purpose beyond (in decadent Western society) social bonding or degradation-fantasy. How do you justify it to youself?
I have contempt for (male) homosexuals as I feel them to be unmanly failures who couldn’t make it with a woman and so compromised.
I do not disagree that they (and yourself) are natural, in the same way that paedophilia/necrophilia/beastiality are natural expressions of an individuals psychosis.
The difference between homosexuality and those is the “consent of two independent adults to the given act”. Children are too dependent and too easy to manipulate, in comparison to a mentally healthy adult, for us to give them the power of consent. Necrophilia, I don’t really know what to say about this one. Sure there’s consent between an object and a person, but it’s still desecration of a body that may’ve refused if it was alive. This one’s tricky though. Bestiality, well again, an animal cannot really consent to anything. It can never communicate, therefore no consent can ever be given. Is the dog getting a boner and moving to the other side of the room to hump the woman proof for consent? It could be, but the dog still doesn’t have the power of logic and reason, therefore its ‘consent’ still isn’t enough.
The most common defense that I’ve heard, I used this reasoning once and this is the response I got, that even heterosexuality isn’t about procreation as soon as you slip on a condom. They’re both about pleasure. Both are diversions of an instinct. Think it makes sense.
Apaosha, your argument has been debunked over and over and over again. Paedophilia is illegal because one of the sexual partners is not sexually mature and usually does not give consent. Necrophilia is illegal because a body cannot give consent. Bestiality is illegal because an animal cannot give consent. Sex between two consenting human adults is perfectly okay.
Everyone here who thinks homosexuality is a choice: Almost all scientists disagree with the “homosexuality is a choice” bullshit. There is a lot of debate as to what causes homosexuality (genes like the Xq28 gene, brain wiring, hormones exposed to in the womb) but it is a general consensus in the scientific community that homosexuality is not a choice. Besides, who would choose to be gay? Honestly! In most countries, it is illegal to be gay under pain of imprisonment or death. Being gay almost universally means estrangement from their churches, families, and friends. Gay people are the brunt of more than their fair share of evil looks, catcalls, insults and literal “bashing.” Who would choose that?
I think you are setting up a straw-man or a red-herring argument here.
There is an unhealthy mixture of disagreement and disgust here and I’d like to see if i can clear this up a bit.
Here’s a list of things that I’ve seen are issues for non/anti-gays (spoken from the non-gay):
1) Homosexuality is not natural.
The only way to practically talk about “natural-ness” is in a very bare bones way, and that is to take it to mean any thing or event that occurs without conscious intervention. Saying your car has a natural color like red, is not the same thing as saying your car occurs naturally in nature. It is the latter connotation of “natural” that should be applied to mental, social and biological processes.
That being said, homosexuality is most definitely a naturally occurring phenomenon in nature. I’ll refer you here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia
2) Homosexuality is a choice.
Even if this were the case (which neither I nor most if not all prominent and worth while scientists, psychologists, and biologists think is the case), so what? What difference does that make? If you think it really is a choice, and you don’t like the choice, fine… don’t make it.
Another thing: who in their right mind would choose something like homosexuality? Estrangement from family, lost friends, bad relations at work, social pressure and discrimination… the list goes on for all the bad things that can and do happen to homosexuals. So consider yourself lucky if you are a heterosexual who has never experienced anything of the sort. Or if you just so happened to have MADE THE CHOICE TO BE HETEROSEXUAL, then good on ya mate, you made the right choice.
Seriously if homosexuality is a choice, then that implies that heterosexuality is a choice too.
3) I think homosexuality is detestable/wrong/immoral because it is counterproductive to procreation.
The second half of this argument (that homosexuality is counterproductive to procreation) is the only one that even has a remote sense of validity. Although it is not completely the case. It is still possible to contribute to the gene pool even if you are in a homosexual relationship. Artificial insemination in a consenting female is one way if you are a male, or you could even go to the sperm bank and inseminate yourself if you are a female.
The only thing homosexuality is counterproductive to is the heterosexual opportunities of those homosexuals; which i’ve already established we can’t do anything about, nor does either of them have any interest in doing anything about because they are perfectly content NOT having heterosexual intercourse.
4) I don’t like the idea being physically close with someone who has the same set of genitals that I do.
Ok, fine. You are perfectly within your boundaries as a member of society to have a preference in whom you wish to share your body with. As long as you keep do not try to convince others (either explicitly or implicitly) to agree with you that your preference is superior, then theres no problem.
5) I think homosexuality is a stance that is taken after failed attempts at masculinity and/or heterosexuality.
This assumes a few things. Mainly that homosexuality is a choice, which it isn’t. It also assumes that it might be somehow bad or wrong for homosexuality to be initiated in such a way. In fact, it is because someone is NOT a true heterosexual but lives the life of one feels confused or even trapped due to social pressures. Its the whole “trapped in the closet” kinda thing.
The failed masculinity part is completely unfounded. It is irrational to mention failure at something, and also irrational to question the lack of or presence of masculinity. There might be a correlation with masculinity and homosexuality, but there is no reason to conclude causation either way.
This also leaves out femininity. Does the same apply to women? Are gay females just a failed attempt at heterosexuality or femininity? If any of this is the case please cite your reasons and references.
6) I think homosexuality is detestable because it goes against [insert name of or part of a religion].
I don’t even feel like dignifying this with my time and energy, because the fact that a religious doctrine or book calls out homosexuality as wrong is irrelevant because you must first verify validity of that doctrine or book. And since not a single one of these texts in all of human history has been verified as being valid, I’ll leave it at that.
7) I think homosexuality is on par with pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, and other types of unorthodox, or immoral, or illegal forms of sexual conduct.
{See second paragraph of #1}
There is a HUGE difference between paraphilia and homosexuality. Homosexuality is the consensual union of 2 humans that are of the same sex. With things like pedophilia, you have an adult and a victimized child.
So, tell me: whats your problem, really, with homosexuality? Then tell me what your problem is with homosexual people. Please provide rational arguments. And if all you have to say are subjective opinions please be responsible and label them as such.
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
) as perfectly normal and acceptable, given that these are also sexual inclinations? How is the inclination distinguished from the action? A x-sexual is not x-sexual until he/she/it acts?