A boy(19) was beaten at Faroe islands, because he went mad at some people who spoke to him in an evil way because it's legal to be cruel to Homo's in Faroe islands..
They are now disgussing wether there should be a law to protect them, because they are vulnerable. The leader of the senat(or what its called over there) said in danish television that if you allowed homosexuality at the Faroes then they would soon have to give pedophile the right to have "fun" with small children....
Priests says that its a sin, because we are not ment to be man with man and woman with woman...They say that it is not a human right to have the permittion to be homosexual!
What do you think, is it is a right and is it unfair treatment by the majority! Is it a problem?
Anders aka Sensei
The pedophilia argument is ridiculous. This person should try and have a look at the rest of the modern world.
Almost all modern countries AT THE VERY LEAST tolerate homosexuality, and as far as i know, we still all think pedophiles are some of the worst criminals there are.
Also, I think the Faroe Island government needs to remember to keep church and state separate, and should start living in the 21st century, rather than the 12th!
Hm...
Homosexuality shouldn't be the issue. People are people, people deserve protection from harm - I don't care if you're Catholic, Jewish, Black, Asian, Gay, or whatever. There are certain basic rights that EVERYONE deserves.
Besides, it's not like their homosexuality is hurting anyone.
Democracy means that anyone has a right to express himself and "pursue happiness" in his way.
As a private matter homosexuality should be tolerated. But there is a problem: from one extreme (punishment) we jumped to the other extreme (homosexuality is normal natural behavior!).
God (or evolution) gave male and female specific complementary sexual organs. Sex any other way than that is sexual deviancy. Yes, from this point of view, oral sex, anal sex etc are sexual abnormalities. These practices are generally tolerated (if they are made in private between consenting adults) therefore homosexuality should be given the same treatment.
| smarter wrote: |
Democracy means that anyone has a right to express himself and "pursue happiness" in his way.
As a private matter homosexuality should be tolerated. But there is a problem: from one extreme (punishment) we jumped to the other extreme (homosexuality is normal natural behavior!).
God (or evolution) gave male and female specific complementary sexual organs. Sex any other way than that is sexual deviancy. Yes, from this point of view, oral sex, anal sex etc are sexual abnormalities. These practices are generally tolerated (if they are made in private between consenting adults) therefore homosexuality should be given the same treatment. |
Going by this, why did "God" make homosexuals gay? ...evolution made us straight imo - so the only thing homosexuality is against is the "survival of the fittest" principle. | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
Going by this, why did "God" make homosexuals gay? ...evolution made us straight imo - so the only thing homosexuality is against is the "survival of the fittest" principle. |
Not necessarily.
a) Natural selection works at the genetic level not the individual human level.
b) Most genetic differences are expressed in more than one way - sometimes a beneficial effect can also result in a malign effect or chance thereof.
A classic example is sickle-cell anaemia which is a potentially fatal condition effecting many black or dark-skinned people. It arises because of a mutation in a gene which codes for haemoglobin. The effect of this is to increase resistance to malaria. It is, therefore, a beneficial mutation. The problem comes when 2 parents with the mutated gene (it's actually part of a gene - called an allele) bear children. Any offspring with both copies of the mutated allele will get sickle-cell anaemia which is a fatal condition (barring bone marrow transplants and a lot of other intervention).
There is a paper which goes through the math of this and examines the benefit/cost in detail here :
http://www.georgetown.edu/projects/handsonmath/downloads/pdf/scel-s.pdf
So the point is that a genetic change which apparently has a detrimental effect on reproduction may, in fact, also produce a beneficial effect.
Homosexuality certainly has a genetic component - though probably not a simple 'gay gene'. It may be that this also produces beneficial effects which mean that selection pressure is equalised or at least mitigated.
I do not want to make generalised statements about gay people and their behaviour because I find such generalisation offensive, but I hope that I do not offend when I say that many commentators have pointed out the debt owed to gay artists, performers and others in that arts who seem to contribute disproportionately in statistical terms.
It is also interesting that homosexuality seems to correlate with the level of social development in the animal population examined - highly social animals have a higher incidence. This may be indicating that the positive benefits are sociological...
Roughgarden has done some work on this which can be read here:
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/the_gay_animal_kingdom.php?page=all&p=y
Regards
Chris
