User: Dark_Child
) |
| 2003-09-13 | |
| 3 | |
| 16 | |
| 0 |
Polls Created
- Sexuality in Relation to Astrology
- 2003-12-03 01:08:23
- Bisexuality and Biphobia
- 2003-09-19 06:24:12
- Bisexual Poll
- 2003-09-13 08:33:24
Click through to message forum for reply and admin options.
Posted in
Bisexuality and Biphobia
on 2004-09-12 23:41:10
Rosa Wrote:
I've never heard the word 'homophobia' used to refer to fear of homosexuals, or indeed fear of things that are the same before either. It is always used to refer to prejudice against homosexuals (which may or may not be motivated by fear). I think everyone knows it doesn't technically mean that but that's the way it is used. Perhaps it would be better to have a different word for prejudice against homosexuals but I've never heard one. If someone can tell me a better word that people will understand, I'll start using it.
Nick Wrote:
As will I!
Rosa Wrote:
I've never heard the word biphobia before but in the context of this poll it was pretty clear that it was being used like the word homophobia.
I do think it's going a bit far to suggest that assuming a couple is heterosexual or homosexual is biphobic though. I suppose it depends a bit on how you define bisexual, but bisexuals are a minority, so if you see a straight couple they are probably both straight. Unless you secretly fancy one of them or they're likely to split up anytime now, it doesn't make any difference to you whether they are bisexual or not, so you may as well assume they're both straight. If their relationship is permanent, they will keep behaving in a straight way for the rest of their lives, so there isn't any point in considering all the possibilities of their sexualities. They fancy each other. That's all you need to know.
Nick Wrote:
I both agree and disagree. To not take into consideration a couple's sexual orientation is not biphobic in the vein of the aggressive homophobic usage of the term. Rather, it is personally discriminative for bisexuals and is used quite differently from homophobia in that respect. To expound on this, when a bisexual is in a relationship (regardless of the sex of their partner), they are still bisexual. If a bisexual woman dated a man and married him as well, that does not define her as heterosexual, as she remains bisexual in spite of the sex of her partner. Just as when a heterosexual decides not to date this does not mean they have no sexual orientation or somehow "lost" attraction for the opposite sex. A lot of people simply cannot comprehend this, and when I make mention of assuming someone's sexuality solely on the basis of their partner, I am referring to this tendency. You are correct in that it is no one else's business, but being a bisexual, I know how difficult it is to have to "come out" every time someone assumes your sexuality based on your attractions to a particular person.
Also, you wrote bisexuals are a minority. You are both correct and incorrect. By Kinsey's definition, nearly ninety percent of people are bisexual in some degree. However, the number of people whom identify as bisexual is far less. As such, bisexuals are almost disregarded simply for not being very well represented by both media and the general publics' inclination to presume someone's sexual orientation based on their partner. As you wrote, terms matters not if someone loves someone else, but for the purpose of this poll I concluded with inclusion of this issue.
Rosa Wrote:
On that point though, how would you define bisexuality? I think most of us are normally attracted to one sex but have occasionally had feelings for the other, or been curious as to what a relationship with the other sex would be like i.e. about 3-5% or 95-97% gay. I wouldn't class these people as bisexual, because although they may have a brief fling with a member of the sex they're not normally attracted to, it's highly unlikely they'll have a proper relationship, so to all intents and purposes they are straight or gay.
I would probably define bisexual as 25-75% gay, with the gender indifferent group falling at 50%. I'm not sure how I'd classify those who are 10-25% or 75-90% gay, though I suspect that's pretty rare. Maybe it's best not to try and classify at all.
Nick Wrote:
I concur! Let labels perish!
To answer your question: I consider someone bisexual if they identify as that. Personally, I am bothered when someone who is not capable of forming a relationship with a certain gender continues to call themselves bisexual. However, it is in an individual's right to call themselves as they wish.
Surprisingly, a lot of "gay" people are bisexual but choose to identify as gay due to the overwhelming issues a bisexual faces from both sides of the fence. I am sure there are an equal amount of heterosexuals whom are similar as well. In fact, I think bisexuals remain such a minority because of ignorance in society. It's okay to like one or the other but both? Now you're confused! Nay! You're just plain crazy! That's the mind-set of a lot of people today and unfortunately that makes it harder for people to fully explore their sexuality. Regardless, people should love as they please.
Posted in
Homosexuality, Marriage, and the Bible (US residents only)
on 2004-03-27 14:41:08
In regards to Old Geezer's message, I respect your opinion and can understand you stance, but I disagree with you on most.
America is a FREE country, and therefore should allow ALL religious beliefs, yet it promotes Christianity in every aspect of daily life. From the pledge of allegiance, to an everyday dollar bill, one is forced to deal with Christianity in one form or another. Now America is proposing to base it's laws on a religious text? What America needs to do to progress as a country, in my opinion, is separate law from religion.
I am a Buddhist, and nowhere does it state that homosexuality is a sin nor that a relationship can only be between a man and a woman. You made the assumption that all religions support that idea, but there are exceptions.
Also, as a free country, a couple should be able to make there own decision regarding whom and how they marry. If a couple choose to divorce after fifty years of marriage, that is their right. If a man chooses to marry another man, that is his right.
To have a government that does not allow basic human rights to someone based on a preference is inconceivable to me. It is oppressing and immoral, in my eyes, to not allow someone free will based on a mere preference.
Marriage should be a right given to all people, but unfortunately America chooses to hide behind the facade of a free country while dictating it's people.
As far as divorce is concerned, there are circumstances were one is forced to leave a spouse. For instance: you could have a father molesting his daughter. I know of no mother who would want to maintain a marriage to someone of that nature -- period. Not everyone can compromise themselves for the sake of a marriage, and thus personal choice should be a right, not an exception.
For you to also claim that couples who choose to divorce pay no mind to their children is absurd. Divorced parents love their children just as much as any other parents would. Yes, it may affect a child, but it is not an intentional attempt at ruining that child's life. Times are changing, and I know of divorced families who remain happy.
You also, again, do not allow other religious views. Not all religions state that divorce is a sin, and thus a person should have the right to choose how long they stay married to someone. Not have the government decide for them.
Also -- to bring up another issue -- many Christians protested the removal of the Ten Commandments statue. And are now protesting the removal of the line, "one nation under God" from the pledge of allegiance.
I have no idea why people protest these type of advancements. If a Christian's child was asked to pledge, "one nation under Satan" I am sure they would not want that repeated by their child on a daly basis in their schools.
People argue that the removal of the statue defied freedom of choice, but it was a public facility. If one chooses to have a ten-foot crucifix built onto the roof of their home, that is fine. That is their right. To have a religious symbol in a public facility is not, and I find it offensive.
America being a "free" country, should respect other views and allow room for other religions -- yet as of now, this does not seem to be the case.
I just cannot stress enough how crucial it is that America separates law from religion.
Just my two cents.
_nick
Posted in
Eminem!
on 2003-12-03 01:54:50
I don't take him as seriously as others do. To me, he's like a little boy jumping up an down, screaming for attention.
When he first arrived on the music scene, he was okay. His music was fresh, but corny. Now, his music is just plain corny. I mean, he has so much to complain about. He's white, a male, and rich.
He's nothing but a gimmick. Subsequent controversy is one thing, trying hard to attain it is another.
At least his music helps the economy by boosting asprin sales from all of the headaches his (c)rap has caused.
By the way, instead of cleaning out his closet, perhaps he should come out of it. It's completely obvious that he's gay. Why doesn't he just admit to it?
Posted in
Is Britney Spears Hot?
on 2003-12-03 01:40:23
I honestly used to believe Britney Spears was hot. Now I see her as fake, annoying, and just plain ugly. She does have her moments though.
Posted in
Liberals
on 2003-10-03 11:09:20
What kind of biased, moronic poll is this?
