[Trust no manager]

I am gay friendly and support gay people having the same human rights as all others. I've seen many people try to come up with arguments as to why homosexuality is unnatural, immoral and shouldn't be accorded equal rights. I've seen most arguments well refuted. I don't want to ask about objections on religious grounds. For those who don't have a genuine religious objection, is their objection based on the "ickiness" factor as in "yuck," there goes two guys/girls doing it?

User Detail :  

Name : Trust no manager, Gender : F, Sexual Orientation : Straight, Race : White/Caucasian, Religion : Agnostic, Age : 35, City : Wellington, State : NA Country : New Zealand, Occupation : Librarian, Education level : Technical School, Social class : Lower middle class, 

[Ben S.]

I think it's the 'yuck' factor, and it's fine that people have that feeling, as long as they realize we're not all the same and can take a more accepting view when necessary. I think all the other objections, religious or otherwise, are really motivated by the 'yuck' factor. This factor arises from deep-seated prejudices about the anus, feces and masculinity. You don't find religious people carrying on about usury or other sins to the extent they do about male homosexuality. Funny, though: I don't really have a 'yuck' factor concerning heterosexual sex. The concept just leaves me a bit cold, except on those odd occasions when I have dreams involving heterosexual sex.

User Detail :  

Name : Ben S., Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Gay, Race : White/Caucasian, Religion : Catholic, Age : 31, City : sydney, State : NA Country : Australia, Occupation : Public servant, Education level : 4 Years of College, Social class : Lower middle class, 

[Srinivas]

I agree with you that the objection/fear of homosexuality is ridiculous, but it is actually based on more than the 'yuck' factor. I am a law student, and in today's requirement for substantive due process, homosexual sex is not protected under a right to privacy but heterosexual sex is. The Supreme Court, i.e. a bunch of old guys and a granny, is of the opinion that only acts that promote the growth of the family are, in essence, protected. Procreation is deemed such an act. Since heterosexual couples/activity can lead to natural procreation, while homosexual couples/activity cannot lead to natural procreation, heterosexuality is encouraged while homosexuality is frowned upon. The old foggies in Supreme Court, and unfortunately others as well, believe that promoting/protecting/accepting homosexuality would result in less reproduction, and therefore, be disadvantageous to the human species. Yet, in this day and age, with the advent of the test tube baby and artificial insemination along with the decline in the desire of heterosexual women to reproduce anyway, I strongly feel that the Court's justifications are terribly outdated.

User Detail :  

Name : Srinivas, Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Straight, Race : East Indian, Religion : Humanist, Age : 26, City : Tucson, State : AZ Country : United States, Occupation : Law Student, Education level : Over 4 Years of College, Social class : Middle class, 

[Author]

Posts