Is homosexuality merely a sexual indulgence?

[Satya]

A certain member stated the premise that homosexuality is simply a sexual indulgence and nothing more. I reject this premise wholeheartedly, but I wish to understand the rational behind it. I've seen homosexual couples for whom sex is far from the most important aspect of their relationship. The emotional commitment they have to one another, the focus they have in raising their children, and the dedication they have towards working to preserve their own family, are all just as valid as their heterosexual counterparts. So why do some people feel entitled to reduce that down to just sex? Why ignore all the other aspects of homosexual relationships, just so it can be viewed in terms of bestial, sexual impulse, like any common fetish or paraphillia?

[youtube]_qf0puHJ-KM[/youtube]

Someone help me understand how this is simply a "sexual indulgence"?

 

[DimensionX]

Is homosexuality merely a sexual indulgence?

lol, your kidding right? lol sexual indulgence haha oh dear.

Theres all sorts of reasons people are homosexual, abusive parenting, bullying, tragic occurrences happen in life, but some people are born homosexual also, read a few articles a long while back about chemical differences in the womb tend to cause homosexual preferences.

It irritates me that a good portion of people have such a small minded view on the subject, a lot of the drive is the comfort and safety or familiarity or what have you just like in a heterosexual relationship sex isn't the only part of it (and if it is....although yes it will be a lot of fun, it's not likely to go very far....well...it's not very likely that it's going to be a life long commitment sort anyway).

Let me guess what the next one of these are going to be, "Bi-sexual's are equal opportunists"?

Ok, lets say I take a stereotypical pig headed guys view (not saying guys are pig headed i'm just saying i'm taking that viewpoint atm)

The more guys that are homosexual means better odds for heterosexual guys.
Guys can just do the stereotypical protecting whilst the homosexual guys can do the emotional comforting
The gf's and wives can go shopping with the homosexual guys instead of us.

ok....I'm not saying thats my view I'm just saying even from a stereotypical pig headed guys view how does it make sense to see homosexuals as a bad thing.

Personally I have no problem with heterosexual males or females, kinda think it's up to them if they want to be gay or bi....really don't see why I should have any say in it since it's their lives, they're human beings like everyone else and should be treated fairly without prejudice I mean....probably never going to happen but what can I say, I'm an idealist

My dad is pretty prejudice, so I guess maybe my view is clouded a little by that? but I've never seen much reason to be *shrugs*

*rolls eyes*

 

[88chaz88]

I wonder why some people still can't understand that a small amount of the population feel attraction for the same gender as they feel for the opposite gender.

Anyway the reason for the misconception that all gay couples are mad about sex and nothing else sprouts from when it was illegal. Sex was really the only thing that they could do together, any attachment and you have a higher risk of getting caught. The gay community has been doing this for so long that it's taken a while to get out of it.

It doesn't help that most people discover their sexuallity in their teens and most of us just wanna have lots of sex then. Nor does it help that the misconception exists in the first place.

 

[TinyBubbles]

no, because some homosexuals remain celibate and i think homosexuality = attraction to members of the same sex, not merely the physical sexual act itself. although i could see how people might see it as an indulgence. it really depends on how you define homosexuality - as a physical act, or as a psychological disposition?

 

[Shai Gar]

Lesbians are masochists.
Fags* are lazy.

*there is no term beyond fag which is unique to male homosexuals.

 

[88chaz88]

Lesbians are masochists.
Fags* are lazy.

*there is no term beyond fag which is unique to male homosexuals.

You could have used "shirt-lifter" or "batty-boy".

Anyway I'm going to indulge your trolling and ask you how you came to such a conclusion.

 

[Barnabas]

Chaz, this Shai, Shai this is Chaz. Now play nice

 

[enfp can be shy]

All notions of any 'sexuality' are dogmatic (hetero-, homo-, bi-, pan-, a-, etc).

 

[Barnabas]

Arn't most conceptions dogmatic. Even this one.

 

[enfp can be shy]

Arn't most conceptions dogmatic. Even this one.

Yes. We call human some set of genes. Before that phase, we just assumed human is what our neighbors looked like. So other races were seen as not human.

 

[VH]

*there is no term beyond fag which is unique to male homosexuals.

Gays, Queers, Homos, Queens, Pooftas, Nancyboys, etc. etc. The list goes on and on. Honestly, Shai, to not bother looking up more epithets against male homosexuals is far lazier than what you're accusing gays of.

 

[Barnabas]

Brahman
---------
this was to Enfp

 

[enfp can be shy]

Arn't most conceptions dogmatic. Even this one.

Yes. We call human some set of genes. Before that phase, we just assumed human is what our neighbors looked like. So other races were seen as not human. Now we have speciesism and sexism as feminism.

 

[Satya]

Gays, Queers, Homos, Queens, Pooftas, Nancyboys, etc. etc. The list goes on and on. Honestly, Shai, to not bother looking up more epithets against male homosexuals is far lazier than what you're accusing gays of.

I like Pervert. It is broad, deviant, and dehumanizing. It lumps you in with the child molesters and dog humpers, and the judgemental quality has a hint of self righteousness to it that comes from a superior feeling of sexual morality. It's a fine vintage of epithet and well aged.

 

[DimensionX]

Gays, Queers, Homos, Queens, Pooftas, Nancyboys, etc. etc. The list goes on and on. Honestly, Shai, to not bother looking up more epithets against male homosexuals is far lazier than what you're accusing gays of.

I like Pervert. It is broad, deviant, and dehumanizing. It lumps you in with the child molesters and dog humpers, and the judgemental quality has a hint of self righteousness to it that comes from a superior feeling of sexual morality. It's a fine vintage of epithet and well aged.

I think that although Von Haze threw a nice jab , Satya's nasty "take no prisoners" uppercut was the knock out blow.

 

[testing]

I like Pervert. It is broad, deviant, and dehumanizing. It lumps you in with the child molesters and dog humpers, and the judgemental quality has a hint of self righteousness to it that comes from a superior feeling of sexual morality. It's a fine vintage of epithet and well aged.

Fruity and with hints of oak and cassis too... *hic*

(After a wine tasting, it is customary to spit the sample back out. Some people rebel and swallow anyway. Feel free to take that statement in whatever way you want. I'm clearly talking about wine.)

Anyway, must we call names? It's tacky.

 

[Nik]

I think homosexuality qua homosexuality is an indulgence. Surrounding it with other acts and desires, in my opinion, does not strip it of its fundamental character, which is sexual in nature. Suppose two men, John and Sam, have known each other since childhood and eventually find it to their benefit to live together

 

[Satya]

I think that although Von Haze threw a nice jab , Satya's nasty "take no prisoners" uppercut was the knock out blow.

I was just joking. I can't imagine that Shai meant any offense by his comment. He was just using a bit of dry humor and I returned it in kind.

 

[ENTroP]

It is interesting to note that homosexuality is most likely a recessive trait, and that it is a pretty consistent demographic all across the globe, roughly 5-10% of people. A good example of genes that when not present in the right combination, don't manifest at all, but clearly are carried by many.

 

[testing]

^^ Yes, but in real life John and Sam would be subject to various forms of attack, even violence, whether or not they were actually having sex, simply because they are two men living together. Gay couples routinely get harassed and sometimes even murdered.

Therefore, a sensible approach is to publicly defend and justify their lifestyle and sex habits.

No one is going to attack or deny me and my husband rights if we start tying each other up or whatever "perverse" heterosexual manifestations we might, um, manifest. Gay couples don't have that luxury whether they are celibate or just friends; they will be attacked at some point and not have the same rights as a hetero couple trying to do the same non-harmful orphan-raising things.

Obviously.