SF, sadly you're wrong - YES, there's certainly a very large *minority* worldwide who hate the homosexual behaviour, but the rest of the world came to grips with it a long time ago...and that's what they're trying to tell you here.

Wow, that's actually quite a surprising image to be honest, especially at just how homophobic many African governments are. Also for some reason I thought Itali might be more laid back about it, despite the Vatican and all that, though maybe I'm just an idiot.

Anywho, I can't remember if I posted in here before, but a quick flick through didn't see anything so...my opinions on homosexuality...

Well, quite frankly, I don't see why anyone has a problem in this day and age. Seriously, it's none of my damned business who sleeps with who, who marries who or how many, regardless of anything. And so long as all participants are consenting adults then it's no one's business but though participants.

I personally don't care for the nurture V nature arguments or brain wiring or what have you, it's irrelivent. Choice or not it's their lives to do as they please, and considering it doesn't have any negative effects on me at all, I have no reason to complain.

And on a more peaceful hippyish point of view, love between same sex couples is still love. Same as that between straight couples.

I think that covers it. Though part of me feels I'm just preaching to the quior here. <.

homosexuals havent got a prayer in the 3rd world.

... in that part of the world, it's not like heterosexuals are much better off. o.o

Wow, that's actually quite a surprising image to be honest, especially at just how homophobic many African governments are. 

that actually doesnt surprise me, 3rd world countries govern their people tightly, lots of simple "freedoms" arent easy to obtain.

even if countries do agree or give rights doesnt mean the people will accept it or will recieve it, there's still problems with homosexuality being accepted. there was this topic where being "openly gay" in the US military was something to be discussed. i dont get why its even mentioned, there's an over sensitivity about gays, or at least the media makes it seem so.

There's still some problems with women being accepted and treated like equals, and this is in powerful first-world countries - a far cry away from Middle Eastern women being stoned to death for showing a bit of skin, but the same underlying "logic" still applies. Two hundred years from now we're still going to have irrational bigots that feel that women, ethnic folk, gays, or whoever the hot topic minority at the time is, don't deserve equality. If people refuse to accept it, tolerate it, or actively work to undermine it, then they're the ones at fault - and those of us who tick that demographic box, or support/don't care about those that do, shouldn't be constrainted by the fear-mongering prejudice of idiots.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a big issue at the moment because Obama is trying to get it revoked, as well he should. Apparently a lot of people seem to think that it's impossible for a man to want to join Bush's Holy Crusade For Oil and like other men at the same time.

I personally don't care for the nurture V nature arguments or brain wiring or what have you, it's irrelivent.  

In and of itself it's not particularly relevant, but expressed perspectives on it can be. If some individuals are to claim that being attracted to the same sex is a choice, they are clearly making a statement that, as far as I'm aware, is in contradiction to what scientists tend to say on the matter, and this would seem to reflect poorly on their understanding of the subject.

Of course, not all arguments against gay marriage or gay adoption or whatever necessarily revolve around this assumption... there is always the idea that being attracted to the same sex isn't a choice but what you do about it IS... but this can be used to gauge who, among opponents of gay marriage/adoption/whatever, would be the more or less rational. Well, generally speaking, that is. (Obviously we shouldn't assume every individual who accepts that it's genetic to be smarter than every individual who doesn't.)

gay adoption issues is an interesting topic.
there's lots of kids living in orphanages and regardless of how "nice" those orphan homes seem, for a kid to share a room with so many kids isnt good for them they need to get attention, care and love, to be the center of someone's attention. adults can give that to kids and kids dont care who that person is or what race religion or orintation the adult is. as long as its a loving parent.
straight couples rarely need to adopt to have kids, but gay couples will need to adopt if they wish to raise kids. the problem though that lots of people link the idea that gays will sexually abuse kids. and that's why lots of kids arent getting homes and parents.

The issues I hear people giving about homosexuals adopting are either religion-based, to do with bullying, or a fear of the couple "turning" the kid gay. Which I think's unlikely as it'll only make a kid who is gay more likely to come out earlier. The bullying thing is a pretty real probability though unfortunately 🙁

I've never heard of the sexually abusing one though where did you get that from o.o

in my part of the world that's the common idea, its a reasonable assumption that lots of people would think the same regardless of what is publically said. though the bullying and turning them gay are strong reasons they could use as well.

its funny but you can be as perfect as can be and still get bullied. its just mean people know how to hurt others, there's no way to avoide it. its funny they'd think of that reason.

The issues I hear people giving about homosexuals adopting are either religion-based, to do with bullying, or a fear of the couple "turning" the kid gay. Which I think's unlikely as it'll only make a kid who is gay more likely to come out earlier. The bullying thing is a pretty real probability though unfortunately

I've never heard of the sexually abusing one though where did you get that from o.o

I swear I've seen the stereotype about gay people being pedophiles expressed on this very site before. It feels ironic to see people on the Internet talking about gays tending to be pedophiles, when the same is often said about people on the Internet. o.o

The belief that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked makes me furious because proportionately there are more straight child abusers than gay. It's a very unfortunate stereotype that gay men have had to deal with for decades when it's actually less of an issue for them.

As for bullying, I think there's a huge difference between bullying someone because they're gay (or perceived to be), and bullying because they're smaller/more vulnerable/an easy target/etc. If a white kid was routinely harassing a classmate for being black, there'd be a much bigger backlash against him than a kid who just stole another kid's lunch money. Same should be true for gay and straight students. And this is coming off a month where there's been nine highly publicized cases of gay teens committing suicide due to excessive bullying. The link between suicide, depression, and gay kids is something that's a terrifying statistic and it's been ignored for too long.

If a white kid was routinely harassing a classmate for being black, there'd be a much bigger backlash against him than a kid who just stole another kid's lunch money.  

Harassing someone routinely is probably worse than just stealing from them once or even a couple times, though. I don't think the "for being black" part is particularly relevant; even that might be an excuse (ie. kids who don't know better might think others would actually accept that excuse) and I can't help but think it's mostly political correctness that leads people to focus on that part of it in the first place. I don't consider that a reason to apply the same approach to other minorities.

You talk about gay teens who commit suicide because of bullying, but they aren't the only ones, and it would be unfair to focus on a specific subset of individuals who are driven to suicide by bullying even if statistics suggest them to be a major subset of it. What needs to be confronted is bullying as a whole, not specific (and uncertain) "reasons" for it.

Well of course bullying as a whole needs to be addressed, I'm not saying otherwise. All I'm saying is that there's a very serious subset of bullying that revolves around gay teenagers that results in suicide rates that are unfortunately higher than their straight counterparts. It's the same difference between assault and a hate crime, Matt.

Bunanigans, I'd just to point out that, while the map you shared with us is both interesting and very encouraging, it only shows us the legal status of same-sex sexual activity. In my experience, laws are sometimes a lot more progressive than the attitudes of the society they belong to. I remember when civil partnerships (note: NOT gay marriages) were legalised in the UK five years ago; there was a lot of opposition to it from certain quarters of society, and there are still violent crimes committed against gay people, even in the most civilized democracies. Obviously, social attitudes towards homosexuality are more difficult to gauge than its legal status, but I'd be very interested to see how well the two match up.

It is quite interesting (but not remotely surprising) that the worst offenders, as far as legal intolerance towards homosexuality is concerned, appear to be Africa and the Middle East, both of which are regions that are currently dominated by extremely conservative religious principles. In the Middle East and northern Africa, Islam is the dominant religion, and Islam, as practised by its more conservative followers, is no friend of the gay community. It is not remotely surprising to me to find that places like Saudi Arabia and Iran mandate execution for having gay sex. As for the rest of Africa, it has become a hotspot for Christian missionaries from the west, with Evangelicals and Catholics being the biggest denominations involved in the process. These churches make no secret of their condemnation of homosexuality and, while they may use softer language in front of western audiences, where they have less support for their outdated and out-of-touch doctrines and bigotry, they're not afraid of saying what they really think in places like Africa, where many people and impoverished and poorly educated; they haven't been taught the critical thinking skills needed to combat this kind of irrational dogma. As for the politics of Africa, it's not exactly a bastion of democracy, and dictatorships have almost always sought the help and support of the church to keep the people in line, to help create scapegoats to divert the public's attention away from the government's own failures.

I'm sure a lot of these missionaries have the best of intentions, but they're really doing a whole hell of a lot more harm to Africa than good, and I really wish they'd stop. Please, continue sending aid, but stop this religious insanity. It's not what Africa needs.

Anyways, moving on...

For myself, I offer as much respect and support for homosexuality as I do for heterosexuality, which is to say none at all. Sexuality is practically an irrelevant facet of somebody's character, and it does absolutely nothing to determine whether or not a person is good or respectable; ergo, I do not consider it when deciding whether or not I like, respect, or admire someone. Their attitude, their actions, their outlook on life, their accomplishments, and the way they treat others are all far more important than who or what they find attractive.

The only time a person's sexuality would matter to me is I if were planning on trying to start a romantic relationship with them; in which case, I'm perfectly content with anything between bisexual or heterosexual. But I doubt it would work out between me and a lesbian.

I'm a supporter of gay rights, insofar as "gay rights" means equal rights for gay people and not some special rights that straight folks don't also have access to; but I don't think that's honestly what any of the gay rights activists out there want, in spite of what conservative commentators have to say about the "homosexual agenda".

I support the right of gay people to serve their country by joining the military, because I think anyone dumb enough to want to join the military ought to be allowed to. I really do not understand any of the frankly ludicrous objections to gay people serving in the armed forces. They're, honestly, more banal than the objections to women serving in the military. If they can do the job, let them do it.

I support the right of gay people to adopt children, if they can offer the same kind of love, support, and security for children that any straight couple could. I reject the assertion by conservatives that children require both a mother and a father. This is simply not true; many children are raised by only one parent, by an aunt or an uncle, or by grandparents, or by practically any other conceivable arrangement you can think of, and they have no higher propensity for turning into monsters or menaces to society than any child raised in the "traditional nuclear family". That sort of thing is determined not by who raises them, but by how they do it. Bullying is also a silly objection, since bullies don't need a reason to pick on other children; they'll invent reasons out a whole-cloth to do it, and anything that's different about their victim will suffice.

I support the right of gay people to marry whomever they choose, the same way we straight folks can. Frankly, I feel somewhat guilty that my girlfriend and I have the right to get married whenever we choose to, when there are still many people in our own country who can't get more than a civil partnership--like my cousin and his boyfriend. Anything less than full blown marriage, legally recognised as such, is, in my opinion, unfair and will always be regarded as inferior, which makes it a victory, however slight, for the agents of intolerance--though, naturally, they'd prefer that gay folks have no legal recognition for their relationships, that they shut up, and that they go back into the closet and stay there, so parents don't have to explain to their children that some people are gay.

Which reminds me...

That's pretty much my attitude, in a nutshell, towards an issue that I really wish to see become a non-issue.

Oh, and before I go, I'd just like to say a few words about paedophilia. Paedophilia is not child molestation; that is pederasty. A paedophile is someone who is attracted to children, not necessarily someone who acts upon that attraction. It is unfair to characterise all paedophiles as child rapists; most of them are not and would never harm a child. It may be distasteful to us what they find to be attractive, but they can no more choose to not find children attractive than you or I can choose to not be attracted to whatever it is you or I find to be attractive. I would encourage people to consider this before using the word "paedophile" as a synonym for "child molester".

Yeah I'm aware it was only laws but I didn't think I could get any solid facts on the general ideals of the whole world in my arguement against SonicsFan. Massive hole I know and not entirely relevant but I didn't really want to start doing massive global assumtions with no evidence (yes I know i generallised with the laws and the opinions of the populace of the country shhh)!

Maybe this shows that I still have quite a lot to learn in the fact that I didn't see the difference between civil partnership and marriage other than the religious context. Personally I couldn't care less if I had a civil partnership rather than a marriage. But then again I'm non-religious. I suppose it might be hurtful to a homosexual couple who are religious, and I overlooked that =/ Oh well, I'm all for them making it actual marriage.

I agree with the hope that one day people won't care what sexuality anyone is, with everyone treated fairly.

As a side note seeing this massive wall of a post with my name as the very first word and bolded on it scared the living daylights out of me 🙁

Actually Eon, pederasty just refers to a relationship between an adult man and an adolescent boy. Granted in most countries we would legally consider that to be child abuse, but there's a huge difference between a 30-year old molesting a six-year old, and a relationship between a 15-year old and a 20-year old.

Bunanigans: The main difference is, at least to me, civil unions may hold all the same benefits as marriage, but it's still not marriage: it's a denial of something for no good reason and a substitute in its place. "You can drink the same water as us, you just can't drink from the same fountain."

Bunanigans: The main difference is, at least to me, civil unions may hold all the same benefits as marriage, but it's still not marriage: it's a denial of something for no good reason and a substitute in its place. "You can drink the same water as us, you just can't drink from the same fountain."

Precisely.

Moreover, marriage is not an exclusively religious arrangement. Marriages existed long before any of today's religions and probably long before any religions at all. And plenty of people who are not religious get married. I am not religious, but I am not averse to the idea of getting married...

I used to be, but that was before I met Aine. Just waiting for her to propose. <3

Bunanigans: The main difference is, at least to me, civil unions may hold all the same benefits as marriage, but it's still not marriage: it's a denial of something for no good reason and a substitute in its place. "You can drink the same water as us, you just can't drink from the same fountain."

Precisely.

Moreover, marriage is not an exclusively religious arrangement. Marriages existed long before any of today's religions and probably long before any religions at all. And plenty of people who are not religious get married. I am not religious, but I am not averse to the idea of getting married...

I used to be, but that was before I met Aine. Just waiting for her to propose. <3

I don't think the notion of Christianity having some sort of copyright over marriage is really all that inherent in the "civil union vs. marriage" distinction. I'd say humanity's earliest marriages, if those are to be the analogy, were probably significantly different from today's in a lot more ways than religious connotations. The idea as is often expressed is that if marriage refers to a "man and a woman" that something between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, would be something different... I don't think this difference is significant enough to justify the "you can marry but don't call it that" perspective, but still, it's not the same thing as claiming it to be about equating "marriage" with "Christian marriage."