Homosexuality - what is your view?

[Kajah995]

I do not mind if a gay couple were to hold hands or kiss in public. Since I don't mind homosexuality, it's the same to me as a straight couple kissing!

I'll repeat what I said before. What makes me upset is at the gay parade's everyone is running around almost completely naked or dressed in strange outfits still showing the majority of their skin. I know they are showing their pride, but I do not want to see people like that! I find it completely unnecessary and I think there are much better ways to go about holding a parade such as rainbow flags and signs!! I know some people like to see that as a sign of happiness and pride, but in my opinion I do not enjoy it.

And no, a gay pride parade is not saying "we're just like you." I don't see straight people walking around with only their underwear on throwing a parade. Their parades seem like they're trying to separate themselves from heterosexuals by saying "look at us we're super colourful and half naked!!"

Please don't get me wrong, I love everyone including homosexuals but I just think sometimes,(yes sometimes because no everyone participates in the parades in that sort of manner!!) they take it a little too far!! This is my own opinion and you may not agree but please don't try to prove me wrong because this is just what I think!!

Okay, I agree that it's going a bit overboard with the whole nakedness thing (._.) but many anti-homosexual people need to be reminded that homosexuals are people too. Especially the Westboro baptist church.

Gay pride parades could use a makeover... but the gist of it is to tell straight people that we have a chance and can make a change for the better.

 

[Amat Gotchi]

Just wanna say: You're super amazing, 'cause you called me by the correct name.

I'm not quite understanding what you're saying here... What rebellions are you referring to? If anything, the straight people have been the ones leading anti-gay crusades for the last few centuries. None, they're hypothetical.

What's wrong with gay pride parades? It's OK to parade for demanding gay rights, but, not simply for being gay (with acknowledgement to the hardships homosexuals face everyday in this country)? Why? If there is acknowledgement to the troubles homosexuals face, of course it's a good idea to parade for it. If there was no discrimination, they'd just be parading for their traits, which admittedly is a bit odd.

I don't mean to come off as demanding or rude, but, I'm simply putting myself in their position - I'd be offended if you told me, after all that African Americans have gone through, that Black Pride parades are "not OK". After all homosexuals have gone through, after there finally being a time in history where it's at least semi-acceptable for them to publicly embrace what they are and have pride in that, why is it wrong? It's not wrong, since there is still a reason for the parades.

Do you find it wrong or nonsensical? I feel like there's a difference. Neither. I would find it nonsensical if gays (and blacks) hadn't been discriminated against since they would be parading to show off their traits.

Above I have answered your questions in emblazoned script to make sure all you ask is answered.

The rebellions are hypothetical. I really don't have a problem with gay parades in general unless, hypothetically speaking, they showed violence toward non-gays, or tried to force heterosexuals to become gay. Of course it's more often the other way around, gays really and truly being discriminated against, with violent results, and people trying to convert them to become straight.

I guess the thing is, IF there was no discrimination against gays the parades would be pointless. I don't find gay parades wrong at all, they are usually necessary.

Look at it this way: (hypothetically, if there is no discrimination against people who are different) Why go on a parade to show off your traits? Do we have people-with-blue-eyes pride parades? Do we have people-with-large-feet pride parades?

As I see homosexuality as a trait, I don't see a reason for the parades unless there is discrimination against the party that is parading.

Which, currently, there is, so I guess gay parades, or any parades really, are fine as long as there is a reason for it.

And in this case, there is.

So all I meant initially was, without discrimination, what's the point of a gay parade?

The answer is easy: there is discrimination, and there probably will be for a long time, so that hypothetical question is void.

 

[Nyaasu]

Only a few years back it was thought odd or strange for women to vote or become a mechanic, or vice versa for a man to become an elementary school teacher or nurse. Society has always had weird ideas about how and what a woman and man should be. Gradually people broke out of those stereotypes and anyone can do whatever they set their heart to.

The side that religion says that homosexuality is wrong will change too - I'm catholic and the church has changed as popular views and needs of society have changed. WAY WAY in the past marriage was set up at some point and adultery became a bad thing - the real reason for this WASN'T because marriage was seen in the bible as only between ONE man and ONE woman (many fmailies in the bible are actually polygamous), it was because STD ran rampant with people who slept around. The church thought it could help by limited the amount of people you transmitted things to. Less people (not a ton less cause there will always be cheaters and those in the worlds oldest profession....) died from things like syphilis.

Gays were persecuted through most of the modern times as the people who were dying from AIDS - they called it the gay cancer. In the town over from where I used to live the largest population of those with AIDS were young girls in their teens being promiscuous and shooting up drugs. Anyone can get STDs no matter what gender and orientation they are, but they tried for a time to make gays the criminals in the fight again STDs.

It's true that animals in nature have homosexual relationships and most of the time animals only have *** for the sake of reproduction. Humans funny enough don't. We are very capable of loving and showing affection in many ways. Some religions teach that *** without reproducing is a sin, but we don't look down on people walking down the street in straight relationships who can't/don't want children, but still have a loving sexual relationship with their partners. And the point of fact is that straight people do some of the same things that gay couples do in bed, we just don't think about it as often when with straight couples. Honestly, the private bedroom life of people should stay in the bedroom and we shouldn't think about it cause it's not our business to know.

And isn't it better to see people hugging, kissing, and holding hands looking at each other with so much love out in the streets and public than fighting and hurting one another? It's not just homosexuals that have this issue of people not being able to see eye to eye. People with disabilities and other problems are also still discriminated against because people tend to have the well, i'm not that now so I don't need to support it point of view till something happens to them. It's hard to step into shoes that you don't own....

-Purn

I just have to say, this post is absolutely beautiful. Well said, Purpurn!

 

[Nyaasu]

Ouch. I just stated my opinion and now the whole thread is going against me. X_X

I have nothing against gay people. It's not as if I think they're bad or anything - It's homosexuality ITSELF that bothers me, not the peoplle. There is a reason why there are two genders, is there not? Otherwise everyone could be gender-neutral and that's that. It is okay for someone to love and have a special bond with someone of the same gender, but I do not see the point in being IN love with them. There's a difference between loving someone and being in love with them.

I just don't like it because... Well, it just seems so... off... and I just have terrible memories from when I was younger. I just turned on the TV and it had two guys kissing and I was like "O______________O" and ever since then... Ugh.

But I never usually mention my disliking of this issue, and I certainly wouldn't treat gay people less equally than anyone else.

Honestly, EMF, I had a similar experience when I was younger, and had a similar reaction.

I can assure you, eventually the confusion/phobia will subside, and you'll realize it's no big deal. x3 And I'm actually impressed at how honest you are about it! I don't see you as hateful or homophobic at all, you've just had a bad experience, and we can all, I think, understand that.

And again, I promise you, that feeling of fear/disturbance will subside with time.

 

[Stefan Bauwens]

Knowing that EMF is still under the 18 maybe that feeling of fear and disturbance is her true morals inside of her, which of course can be erased by time. >.>

I have always found it wrong, and it has never "subsided" by me, since I truly realised what it is.

 

[Nyaasu]

Knowing that EMF is still under the 18 maybe that feeling of fear and disturbance is her true morals inside of her, which of course can be erased by time. >.>

I have always found it wrong, and it has never "subsided" by me, since I truly realised what it is.

I guess you have every right to say you find it wrong, and I suppose I'm opening a can of worms here, but can I ask why you find it 'immoral'...? I guess to me, things are 'immoral' when they hurt someone. I can understand being grossed out by homosexuality, or feeling uncomfortable, but immoral is a strange word for it.

Unless of course, you're in a religion that frowns upon it - then it makes sense. But when you're in a religion, it's important to remember that those rules in your religion will only apply to those IN that religion. What is against the rules of religion may not be 'immoral', just against the rules - like eating certain foods. I think the Bible also says that you are never to eat shrimp, but unless you're vegetarian, eating shrimp is not 'immoral', it's just against the rules. You know what I mean?

And I'm not saying you should change your opinion or anything, if something is wrong by your religion, certainly follow the rules! Its just the idea that you think it is immoral that confuses me.

And what do you mean you 'truly realized what it is'? I'm not trying to be mean here, I really don't understand what you're saying here. You mean you found out what is involved in it or something...?

 

[TamaMum]

I guess you have every right to say you find it wrong, and I suppose I'm opening a can of worms here, but can I ask why you find it 'immoral'...? I guess to me, things are 'immoral' when they hurt someone. I can understand being grossed out by homosexuality, or feeling uncomfortable, but immoral is a strange word for it.

Unless of course, you're in a religion that frowns upon it - then it makes sense. But when you're in a religion, it's important to remember that those rules in your religion will only apply to those IN that religion. What is against the rules of religion may not be 'immoral', just against the rules - like eating certain foods. I think the Bible also says that you are never to eat shrimp, but unless you're vegetarian, eating shrimp is not 'immoral', it's just against the rules. You know what I mean?

And I'm not saying you should change your opinion or anything, if something is wrong by your religion, certainly follow the rules! Its just the idea that you think it is immoral that confuses me.

And what do you mean you 'truly realized what it is'? I'm not trying to be mean here, I really don't understand what you're saying here. You mean you found out what is involved in it or something...?

Uh... I really think you need to read through the topic - you will see that Stefan has answered those kinds of questions in various ways, and many times over

He has explained why he personally thinks it is immoral, and that he is in a religion that states it is a sin and abomination (something for which Sodom & Gomorrah was destroyed by God - according to the Bible). He also explained which parts of the Bible he believes are not "rules" but ancient statues which are relevant to the Old Testament - principally founded on the Judaic bible and as such are different - such as dietry / clothing requirements. It is all in this topic, if you care to read through it - although I do accept that it might take some time as there are quite a few pages and quite a few outbursts from people accusing him of things like homophobia.

As for the last question, I guess Stefan hasn't been asked that before

I understand him to mean that your suggestion these feelings will subside with time is not necessarily true and that from his own experience, he has always found homosexuality wrong and his view has not changed from the age of 13yrs to the present day - when presumably he is over 18yrs - in other words his own feelings about homosexuality have not subsided with age even though he does understand much more about homosexuality.

But I may be wrong - I am just saying what I think Stefan is trying to express.

Personally, I think that "Immoral" is not a strange word to apply to something that a person believes is ethically wrong.

I totally accept that you may not believe it is ethically wrong. However, he does. It's a difference in belief / opinion - and despite the fact that I do not agree with Stefan's personal beliefs as regards homosexuality, I do think he has used this word correctly in the context of his own personal beliefs / practices / principles.

 

[Nyaasu]

Ahh, you know, after I posted this, I thought about that, and I did realize that some people who are religious say things are 'immoral' when they are against their religion, even when these things do not cause harm to others. Things like eating certain foods. So you're right, that IS the right word.

I guess since I am not religious, my morality is different, and the things I consider to be immoral are those things which cause damage or harm to others. (Killing, hurting, stealing, etc). I understand following certain rules if you are in a religion, but I guess I always thought that those rules would apply to you and your group, and when others do these things, you wouldn't mind. I guess that's because of my experience with a Muslim friend of mine, who wasn't allowed to do a LOT of things, but didn't consider it 'immoral' when I did them. So I guess I'm not used to seeing people who extend their views of what is or is not moral past the boundaries of their religion, you know? Of COURSE its immoral to do it if its against your religion, but when someone is not in that religion, their personal rules are different. I think the thing is, all the religious people that I personally know have always made it clear that what is against the rules for them is not against the rules for me, and they passed no judgement on me for it.

Also, I did not know he had made other replies, since he replied directly to me, I only saw what he had written to me, not to others. But I'll save him some time then, and read through his other thoughts. x3

 

[Stefan Bauwens]

Thank you TamaMum! I would probably have started explaining once again, but your post really says it all right.

(However, I'm not over 18 yet).

Thank you very much for the great effort you put in that post!

 

[Nyaasu]

Thank you TamaMum! I would probably have started explaining once again, but your post really says it all right.

(However, I'm not over 18 yet).

Thank you very much for the great effort you put in that post!

Hey Stefan! I went back and read your other replies, as suggested by TamaMama, and I'd like to say that I now understand why you consider it to be "immoral". I don't agree with you, but I understand where you're coming from. And since you are religious, and therefore all your morality is based on the fact that you believe in God, there is no point in debating this with you - so I say, in this case, we must agree to disagree. I also understand, from your comments, that you feel it is your duty to convince others that it is immoral, and I also can see that it is bothering people, however, unfortunately, if you believe that is your duty, then of course you have to do it.

I saw comments that said you do this out of love for those who are gay, to protect them from the harm they can possibly cause themselves, and if that is the TRUE motive behind your opinions, that's very noble of you.

But while I'd LIKE to just leave this as it is, and not bother you any more about this, there are a few things that I saw you say that I just have to discuss.

You said: "I'm convinced that it won't take long anymore before pedophiles will be excepted(or at least much less punished), since it's "natural". "

...So you're saying, pretty much, that you don't see a difference between consensual *** between two adults, and the **** of a child? One is clearly harmful, both physically and mentally, to a CHILD, the other is an act agreed upon by two adults.

I know that child **** is not always punished by the Catholic church, in fact, it is often covered up, and the priest who has done the act is actually protected by the higher-ups. However, that does not mean that this act is as harmless as consensual gay *** between adults - I'm disturbed by the fact that you think these two acts are the same (or that you think people who are OK with gay *** are therefore OK with child **** - This makes no sense.)

You said: "I still can change to gay, if I really want, so you people can too."

This is just not true. Does the idea of gay ***, *** with another man, turn you on? Do you desire to have *** with another man? Or does this idea disgust you? If you desire to have *** with another man, if you think that you COULD have *** with another man, that means that you are already gay, to some extent. I'm assuming you would never want a man to have *** with you, and that seeing other men does not "turn you on", which means that you are STRAIGHT. You can't just flip a switch in your brain and suddenly be turned on by other men. Just like a GAY MAN can't flip a switch and suddenly be attracted to FEMALES. Some males simply CAN NOT GET AN ERECTION while thinking about or seeing a female. Females DISGUST some males, and this is what makes them gay.

And don't get me wrong, I think certain people can slowly, over time, change in their sexual preference. So SOME PEOPLE who wish to be "right" by their religion can be "changed" through therapy. But some others simply are hardwired to love only those of their same ***. And if you do not know this to be true, you simply haven't been exposed to truly gay people - you know only what your religion has taught you about gay people, which you may consider fact, but science disagrees.

...I just needed to comment on those two things.

I'm glad to see that the majority of the people who commented here are tolerant of homosexuality though - even those who are religious! This makes me hopeful for a less judgmental future.

Again, if something is against your religion, by all means, do not do it!

But you can't use YOUR religion as a basis to make laws for ALL people.

 

[Ashley Montanae]

Above I have answered your questions in emblazoned script to make sure all you ask is answered.

The rebellions are hypothetical. I really don't have a problem with gay parades in general unless, hypothetically speaking, they showed violence toward non-gays, or tried to force heterosexuals to become gay. Of course it's more often the other way around, gays really and truly being discriminated against, with violent results, and people trying to convert them to become straight.

I guess the thing is, IF there was no discrimination against gays the parades would be pointless. I don't find gay parades wrong at all, they are usually necessary.

Look at it this way: (hypothetically, if there is no discrimination against people who are different) Why go on a parade to show off your traits? Do we have people-with-blue-eyes pride parades? Do we have people-with-large-feet pride parades?

As I see homosexuality as a trait, I don't see a reason for the parades unless there is discrimination against the party that is parading.

Which, currently, there is, so I guess gay parades, or any parades really, are fine as long as there is a reason for it.

And in this case, there is.

So all I meant initially was, without discrimination, what's the point of a gay parade?

The answer is easy: there is discrimination, and there probably will be for a long time, so that hypothetical question is void.

There was a lot of hypothetical occurrences, but, I understand. We were on the same page, just with different wording.

 

[Amat Gotchi]

There was a lot of hypothetical occurrences, but, I understand. We were on the same page, just with different wording.

Yes, I get a bit too philosophical sometimes.

 

[Stefan Bauwens]

Nyaasu,

The thing is, not so very long ago, the majority of the people found homosexuality immoral and just wrong.

But somehow the majority today doesn't. They have made a complete 180 degree turn. So for that reason I think that while we now still may be against pedophiles, it may not be that way anymore in the future.

I ofcourse do see a clear difference between homosexuality and ****. I'm just saying, people made quite a big step in the "wrong"(based on their previous views, or at least of the people who lived before them), so perhaps when a new generation of people come out they too might think totally different about pedophiles and take another step.

That's just my idea of it, and I can be wrong ofcourse, but this is the feeling I get. :/

About the other thing: Some people choose to try out being gay, they like it and become it.

For me there's a very big line to cross before I'll try it. But I think that it wouldn't surprise me (if I would even get that far) that I probably would enjoy it. But many things that are wrong are enjoyable.

That's what I meant. But I CHOSE to draw a big line there, which I don't think is there by a lot of people.

 

[Kuribotchi]

I see a lot of posts saying we should just stop arguing and just accept that different people have different views.

If this topic was about slavery, ****, religious extremist terrorism, Nazism and or racism, I'm sure there would not be any of these posts.

I do not see acceptance in these posts, I see avoidance...

My human nature allows me to distinguish the good and bad, and I will stand by what I believe, even if it means arguing with someone of the opposition with the exact same thoughts but against homosexuality.

Everyone is trying to create their own perfect world, however there will always be good and bad. Even if in the bad's eyes I am bad, I will still try my best to disable the evil.

You may see this post as somewhat primitive or even stupid. I see it as real.

 

[Nyaasu]

Nyaasu,

The thing is, not so very long ago, the majority of the people found homosexuality immoral and just wrong.

But somehow the majority today doesn't. They have made a complete 180 degree turn. So for that reason I think that while we now still may be against pedophiles, it may not be that way anymore in the future.

I ofcourse do see a clear difference between homosexuality and ****. I'm just saying, people made quite a big step in the "wrong"(based on their previous views, or at least of the people who lived before them), so perhaps when a new generation of people come out they too might think totally different about pedophiles and take another step.

That's just my idea of it, and I can be wrong ofcourse, but this is the feeling I get. :/

About the other thing: Some people choose to try out being gay, they like it and become it.

For me there's a very big line to cross before I'll try it. But I think that it wouldn't surprise me (if I would even get that far) that I probably would enjoy it. But many things that are wrong are enjoyable.

That's what I meant. But I CHOSE to draw a big line there, which I don't think is there by a lot of people.

I see what you are saying, Stefan, however, people of all religions and cultures understand that raping a child is immoral by HUMAN standards - homosexuality is only immoral to some because of religion or because it grosses them out. People's views on morality when it comes to things like that do change as time goes by, and in my opinion, it SHOULD. For example, at one point it was culturally unacceptable/"immoral" for women to wear pants or to get certain jobs, and as a woman, I am VERY glad that the views of the majority changed over time.

And from the looks of this poll, the view of the majority IS changing, which may upset you because you think it means that one day we will also accept **********, but you should sleep easy knowing that **********, as a harmful act upon an unconsenting child, will always be immoral to the majority, EVEN to those who do not believe in God. It does not take religious morals to know that raping a child is wrong. (And unfortunately, even religious people **** children, because there are bad people out there no matter where you look.)

 

[dazzilitchigirl]

Knowing that EMF is still under the 18 maybe that feeling of fear and disturbance is her true morals inside of her, which of course can be erased by time. >.>

I have always found it wrong, and it has never "subsided" by me, since I truly realised what it is.

I'm younger than EMF (and possibly the youngest person on this discussion; I'm 11 for those who don't know) and I never had these "true morals", and I actually mean that. I always disliked crime, and I never had a problem with things such as homosexuality, which aren't actually going to affect me. But I'm not an immoral person. I agree with most people on most subjects that everyone agrees on (e.g. stealing is wrong).

People are going to consent to more differences in the world as time goes by, which is a good thing. But nobody is going to allow **** or other awful crimes any time soon. People are allowing each other to mind their own business - all the things that have recently become accepted, womens' rights, different religions and homosexuality - they are all things that don't harm others. But really ancient laws against things like murder have stayed with us, because they actually affect others.

 

[SugaryGoesRAWR]

um hi again everyone!

alright alright! firstly, congratulation to England for passing the gay marriage bill!

now, i just wanna share something! alright, so I asked my friend the other day what she would do if she was Prime Minister of New Zealand, right? She replied, honestly, that she would immediately ban being homosexual from the country! No, I'm not meaning she would never pass a bill, I'm syaing she was willing to make homosexuality and all people of that sexual preference illegal from our country

Now, I don't know about you guys, but that sounds pretty far fetched to me!

In America, I've heard of so many cases of suicide due to bullies picking on others due to the victim being anything other than straight - now that's a very blatant form of prejudice, and things like Racism and Sexism can fall under prejudice as well - I don't really think many of us condone either of the latter, so why homosexuality? Yes yes, I've heard all the reasons from the bible - I would like a good reason. I'm not trying to get you to change my opinion, I'm merely curious! (I'm really sorry if I upset anyone with the previous statement? Not trying to compare those against gays to racist and/or sexist people!)

And just as a side note, a teacher at my school is gay! (just a bit of trivia!!)

If this makes any difference - I'm Agnostic (which Kajah meant before)! Basically, I do believe in a high spirit, the only difference however is that while I can't deny a god, I can't prove if they exist or not! So I'd sit on the fence about biblical views!

 

[Midorime]

My view is, once again, who cares? Two people love each other and happen to be the same gender... so what? Let them be happy, let them marry or join or unionize or whatever it's called nowadays. i see no problems with it.

And those who have a problem due to their religious views: it's not your place to judge others. If there is a god/deity, that's their job to judge, not yours, and it's between those people and that god only. I don't believe that we lesser beings have any say in telling others what to do--that's the job of the higher being, if there is one.

 

[Stefan Bauwens]

Midorime, but what if that God forced us Christians to be a "light on the world" by distinguishing sin from good. We HAVE to. But saying "It's between you and God" is exactly what God doesn't want. Judging is his share, but saying someone's commiting a sin with the Bible in your hand isn't judging.

Also SugaryGoesRawr, I believe I gave allready enough "good" reasons why homosexuallity is wrong(unnatural, unhealthy...).

The thing is there actually is proof for God when you open your eyes and see the world in all it's wonder.

All the world, the plants, the animal, the universe,... is just amazing. It all is in one perfect balance. There's no doubt it happened by a Creator, since there's no way it all happened "magically" from itself, without being "programmed".

For example, I'm a (quite good) calculator programmer. And when I create a program and try it fir the first time, no matter how good programmer you are, it's almost certain there'll be one small bug that will cause the program to not function.

If you keep that in mind and think that there isn't a "programmer" out there, it just doesn't make sense. There must be one, extremely smart "Programmer" out there: God.

 

[Midorime]

Disclaimer: What I have posted below might cause a few heated moments, and I am not fully awake this morning. i am not actively trying to insult anyone, I am speaking my full opinion on things I know or have read about and not all might be 100% but i tried to get the jist of it. I realize it might rub some people the wrong way, but everyone is entitled to their opinions. As my therapist always told me: opinions are like ********--we all have them and they all stink.

Yes but I don't believe in God or anything of the sort. As a child I was raised with the concept, as I grew up i switched to Wicca, but now I am atheist. And i feel it wrong for other people, who are 'sinners' just as much as anyone else, feel they have the right to judge and persecute people for what they feel is 'against the Bible.' Look at the Westboro Church, saying soldiers need to die. Or the fact they were going to picket at the school where all the kids were shot. I guess we could also look at various 'holy wars' and such. Yeah, how nice, kill people who don't believe in what you do.

What is really 'good' anymore? There's so many 'Gods' and so many sects to Christianity and such that Catholics will say "No, we're right, and you can't do A, B, and C," and then Lutherans will say "Oh no, that's fine, you can do those, but you can't do X, Y, Z." It's like all of it just cancels out and everything seems to be bad. And then some say you're going to hell no matter what. Well gee, ain't that a nice thing to raise a child up into. "Sorry sweety, it doesn't matter how good you are as a person, you were born full of sin and will burn forever in the afterlife unless God thinks you were good enough, and then maybe he'll save you." The Bible was written by man, who is fallible. It's been revised so much that it's practically lost all meaning and is nothing but a bedtime fable at this point.

I'm sorry but, I'm not trying to offend I just find the whole religion thing mind boggling on how it brainwashes people and turns everyone against each other. The intentions, morals, values and such may be good, but they are executed negatively some of the time. Christians against Muslims against Jews and just... isn't it just the same dang God?

I just do not see religion having say whether a man and man, or a woman and woman, can marry, live together, etc. Marriage existed before Christianity adopted it, and even then, it was used to hold the woman to the man, it was not something seen as being 'equal' in rights to those involved--it made the woman property. I can say that I am happy that some people see it today as being equal, and I do feel strongly that people can marry, despite what gender they are. And those who think ill about it can keep it to themselves. Hell i don't see anyone going to the Middle East to prevent the men from beating their wives. And those people believe in God, too, and they say that their scriptures allow it when the wife is being unruly.

It's all just nuts when you involve religion into this. Take it out, cut it out of this whole thing and all you have to go on is the feeling of unease when you think about the same gender together. That feeling is fine and legitimate for you, but don't push it on others and tell them they can't be together because it makes you feel 'yucky.' Besides, this subject isn't even about religion.