A few months ago, I was having dinner with two of my friends in a restaurant. I think we were discussing Massachusetts granting gays the right to marry. I don't quite remember the conversation, but it ended with one friend saying, 'I have nothing against them, but I sincerely believe it is a medical condition' and the other friend denying it by saying 'They are born that way.'
I was thinking how could they be so sure of something they have no clue about. I don't say it to disrespect them, as both are very mature, intelligent and loving people. These two are only examples. This is like a scientist studying 1000 women who go through conception, pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood and concluding that this is what makes a woman a Mother. Doesn't it sound totally ridiculous? How can someone, especially a man, understand what it is to be a mother? He might know what it is to be a father, but definitely not a mother. Similarly how can someone who is straight know what makes gay people gay. Especially if they have never met or known one.
Most probably their conclusion is drawn from a concoction of ideas derived from religion or newspapers or television. Thanks to the latest sitcoms. Almost every one of them has a stereotyped gay character. I have a few close friends that are gay. They don't have sex every night or paint their nails. They are no different. If they didn't tell you they were gay, you wouldn't have the slightest cue to think they might be. Now don't go analyzing all your friends ;)
The point I am trying to make is; if one doesn't know about something, he needs to have the humility to accept that he doesn't know. Whether he takes steps to understand it or not is a separate story. It'll at least keep him from making stupid judgments. People who are unsure are far better than the people who have the wrong idea and believe they are right. Be it with gay people or with any other thing.
A few months ago, I was having dinner with two of my friends in a restaurant. I think we were discussing Massachusetts granting gays the right to marry. I don't quite remember the conversation, but it ended with one friend saying, 'I have nothing against them, but I sincerely believe it is a medical condition' and the other friend denying it by saying 'They are born that way.'
I was thinking how could they be so sure of something they have no clue about. I don't say it to disrespect them, as both are very mature, intelligent and loving people. These two are only examples. This is like a scientist studying 1000 women who go through conception, pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood and concluding that this is what makes a woman a Mother. Doesn't it sound totally ridiculous? How can someone, especially a man, understand what it is to be a mother? He might know what it is to be a father, but definitely not a mother. Similarly how can someone who is straight know what makes gay people gay. Especially if they have never met or known one.
Most probably their conclusion is drawn from a concoction of ideas derived from religion or newspapers or television. Thanks to the latest sitcoms. Almost every one of them has a stereotyped gay character. I have a few close friends that are gay. They don't have sex every night or paint their nails. They are no different. If they didn't tell you they were gay, you wouldn't have the slightest cue to think they might be. Now don't go analyzing all your friends ;)
The point I am trying to make is; if one doesn't know about something, he needs to have the humility to accept that he doesn't know. Whether he takes steps to understand it or not is a separate story. It'll at least keep him from making stupid judgments. People who are unsure are far better than the people who have the wrong idea and believe they are right. Be it with gay people or with any other thing.
To the moderators:
I am not sure if "Philosophy and Religion" is the right group for this article, but I am placing it here because I found other articles about Homosexuality under this group. Please let me know if I need to move this. Thanks.
| anand_gms wrote: |
| A few months ago, I was having dinner with two of my friends in a restaurant. I think we were discussing Massachusetts granting gays the right to marry. I don't quite remember the conversation, but it ended with one friend saying, 'I have nothing against them, but I sincerely believe it is a medical condition' and the other friend denying it by saying 'They are born that way.' |
Which a lot of medical research shows to be basically true. I'm not necessarily referencing a "gay gene", but the circumstances of the birth has been shown to have something to do with it, as well as the density of the local population (higher density, higher rate of homosexuality). Some homosexuals may gain that status through some other force, but usually "born that way" applies.
How did you think it happens?
| Quote: |
| women who go through conception, pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood and concluding that this is what makes a woman a Mother. Doesn't it sound totally ridiculous? |
So, I can be a "Mother" without having experienced any kind of child-raising? Again, what is your definition? If you're going to imply that your definition is different, at least give us an idea of how you are defining it...
| Quote: |
| Similarly how can someone who is straight know what makes gay people gay. Especially if they have never met or known one. |
What does meeting one or known one have to do with it? Not even a lot of gay men or women know why they are gay; they just are. And, again, you're ignoring the sheer amount of medical research that's gone into the subject. Just noting that we're discussing where gay people come from, not their individual stories, which are irrelevant to your point...
| Quote: |
Most probably their conclusion is drawn from a concoction of ideas derived from religion or newspapers or television. Thanks to the latest sitcoms. Almost every one of them has a stereotyped gay character. I have a few close friends that are gay. They don't have sex every night or paint their nails. They are no different. If they didn't tell you they were gay, you wouldn't have the slightest cue to think they might be. Now don't go analyzing all your friends  |
How does it feel to be stuck in the 80's?
| Quote: |
| The point I am trying to make is; if one doesn't know about something, he needs to have the humility to accept that he doesn't know. Whether he takes steps to understand it or not is a separate story. It'll at least keep him from making stupid judgments. People who are unsure are far better than the people who have the wrong idea and believe they are right. Be it with gay people or with any other thing. |
Valid point. Just bad example...
HMMOST people are not experts, so they have to rely on others for guidence. look a the bible, the "moral" guidence for at least 80% of americans, it says that 2 men sleeping together is an abombination. and says taht they should be stoned.
this is their guidence, reinforced by their religious leaders as well as political leaders. people will believe anything......dont act as if we should be surprised that a majority of the world has a multitude of irrational beliefs, not least of which are religion and superstition.
I don't really get how people say it could be a choice at all. Heterosexuals are born to genetically/mentally be attracted to those of the opposite sex. How is it THAT unlikely that homosexuals are born genetically/mentally to be attracted to those of the same sex? It's not. It just seems like common sense to me. There are defects and mutations within the creation of DNA all the time. They create significant differences in the person who has these mutations (sickle cell disease for one). I'm not saying homosexuality is a disease, but to say that it's 100% a choice just seems absurd to me. It just shows the fear and brainwashing that die hard religious people have. They'll base their entire lives and beliefs from a 2000 year old book written by a few humans.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| It just shows the fear and brainwashing that die hard religious people have. They'll base their entire lives and beliefs from a 2000 year old book written by a few humans. |
Or the lack of open-mindedness that others have. After all, most Christians acknowledge that The Bible is outdated in a number of areas (even if the basic ideas hold), but that's not convenient to your argument, so it's ignored. It's more important to demonstrate that you can attack something old in favor of something new, and that those that hold beliefs different than yours really are imbeciles. I always find it interesting that those that claim enlightenment usually do so by using the "believing in old things is not the way to enlightenment; believe what I believe to find it" argument...even various popes have stated that it's okay to hold non-Christian beliefs (pitiable, but still okay)...
HMBased on your experiences that may be true. Based on my experiences with people who follow the Christian faiths, they hold the Bible extremely close and think IT IS the word of God and that IT IS the supreme idea. I'm not talking about the people who go to church on Christmas and Easter and occasionally on Sundays.
How do I have a lack of open-mindedness toward those who think homosexuality is a sin and 100% choice? There's so much irony in that it's not even worth addressing in all honesty. Yes, I am attacking people who say homosexuality is a sin and a choice. I believe that's my right just as it is their right to seclude homosexuals and say they're going to hell for being genetically/mentally attracted to those of the same sex. At least I made my own decision in that situation rather than letting a 2000 year old book do it for me.
And no, most Christians who attend church consistently and follow the religion fully as it is a part of their duty do not denounce what the Bible says in hardly any aspect. Most see homosexuality as a sin and that homosexuals should go to hell if they continue to sin in that way.
Believing in old ways never has and never will be the way to enlightenment. How can you move further ahead when you're constantly being held back by old, outdated principles and logic? You can't. Pretty common sense.
Our local state priest has told us he supports homoweddings!
But there are still discussion in the swedish state church....
In my mind -> when is love not as great as another love?????
The bible is just a powertoy -> the most spread weapon on earth... It's time to plug that weapon!!!!
I have to do a RE module on homosexuality and so when i was revising it I found the some experts came up with a theory that although it is thought that the men did the hunting and gathering and the women made the food and looked after that children. however they came up with some evidence (I dont have a clue what this evidence is by the way) that there were some men that atually stayed with the women and were homosexuals.
now in a servial sense this would of been because if the main group of men were out hunting for food, without the 'homosexual' men with the women the women would be very vulnerable for attack for other tribes. and so it is thought by some people that it was a defence mechanism
and just like people having different genes with is 'mother nauture' defence mechanism - so sugesting that peoples sexual preferences are determined before their birth. it is basically an outdated defence mechanism (because there is no need for men to stay home because be do not live in tribal communities any more)
i hope i explained that ok, sorry about the spelling 
(i have no idea how true it is, it just seemed like an interesting theory that seems quite logical) HereticMonkey and Liljp617,
It seems the two of you are arguing about what MOST Christians believe (whether they think the Bible is becoming outdated or they fully believe in it).
Liljp617, I think your guess that most Christians fully believe in the Bible is from your own expierence. Truth be told, most Christians (especially those in the United States) are liberal. Granted, there are still some (more times than not the older believers) that believe that the Bible is the ACTUAL work of God. However, in today's younger generation, most believe that the Bible was written by men who put in their own inturrpretation of some things. Although they know this, they still hold to many of the beliefs within the Bible because they think most of them to be moraly correct (i.e. Thou shalt not murder).
HAPPY HALLOWEEN!
As per the back and forth in here, most Christians are mistaken, most arn't really Christians at all but rather label themselves as such. If you actually read the bible and the teachings of Jesus, the second greatest commandment is to love others as yourself. Meaning no gay-bashing. Yes homosexuality is a sin but that doesn't mean to bash or look down upon, I hate it when people make that assumption. It is true that in the old testament there is written some rules on homosexuality and to stone them, however, those are laws for a different time and different people.
I just happened onto this topic since I was questioning my own orientation. And I'm not here to hijack the topic or anything but I think I need help. This may not be the right place or the right time to ask, but I'm just hoping for some honest replies, and please don't flame me.
I discovered my orientation wasn't straight during the time when I had my first love. In which I didn't know I had fallen in love till a later time when I noticed I missed the person practically every second and every hour. Nobody knows, cause I didn't tell, I behave like a normal kid, and I don't behave like a girl or a sissy. ( Stereotyped gays )
It's not that I haven't tried to change my orientation or anything, I did try, and try as I may, nothing happened. This includes getting a girlfriend ( Which was disastrous, I think I hurt the girl ), watching straight porn ( I don't endorse this, but I'm just trying ), going to the Church seeking answers through religious means. Yes I've tried in every way to be normal. I even swore that I would not have sex with a man. But I can't help but fantasize and stuff. Lets not go into details.
From the religious point of view, gay is a sin. Understood, so I'm sinning. But it's not written in the bible a solution to this. Psychologists do not help, advisors only go thus far, my parents weren't of much help since they don't understand how I feel.
What I wanna know is, is there any way in which I can change? Or do I just be me, and say screw the world? Or do I just live in delusion and keep myself unmarried and just concentrate on work? I don't know where to go from this point on. I'm trapped in a world where "If you ain't normal, you suck". I need an adult's point of view, an adult to help me, some mature advises that could possibly change me. What can I do?
Wow. OK, let's get some things straight (no pun intended).
Firstly it sounds like you are gay from what you say. Let's not go into details because we're not here to satisfy the prurient interest of readers, let's just say that I think it's pretty obvious from what you have posted, and I think, if you are honest with yourself, you'll agree.
Next question - is it sinful? Well, you don't say what religion you are, so I'll assume it's one of the Christian ones. Being gay is NOT a sin, according to most Christian sects. Practicing gay sex IS a sin, however. So it sounds to me as if you are not yet a sinner.*
Next question - can you change? You don't say how old you are, which could be important since many men go through a phase where they may be attracted/curious about homosexuality and later find that they are hetero-sexual. Sexuality is, I think, not a case of 'one or the other', rather it is a scale with most people grouped at one of the two ends and many people falling somewhere in between. It is possible to change sexual orientation by use of hormone and behavioural treatment, I believe, BUT personally I think that most of the reported cases are those involving repression of desire rather than genuine change in behaviour.**
Finally, should you try to change? This is a question that only you can answer. My personal opinion is no, you shouldn't. If your main motivation is religious, then obviously you have a problem. It is difficult to reconcile gay sex with most Christian religions and that is a problem that many gay men/women face. Since I am not a Christian it is difficult for me to advise on that. From a non-religious perspective, however, I would advise you to think very carefully about such an attempt since I personally believe there is nothing 'wrong' with your sexuality and would be concerned about the consequence of any attempt to change it via medicinal/psychotheraputic methods.
Personally I think it is unhealthy to live a lie, but that, as I say, is something only you can decide on.
* I should be clear at this point that I am not a believer myself and you should, when seeking advice, be clear about where your 'advisors' are coming from before you evaluate such advice.
** http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html Thank you for enlightening me from a non-religious point of view. I am personally not a religious man, I'm a free-thinker. And I'm aged 17. I've been experiencing this for close to 4 years now. And I was in a state of depression for 2 years I believe. After reading the article that you presented, somehow there isn't a "cure" right now. Truth is, I don't want to change for the sake of changing, I just want to be accepted in the society. So I can only hope the society changes for now. I understand. Thanks alot.
| JinTenshi wrote: |
| I just want to be accepted in the society. So I can only hope the society changes for now. |
I can only assume that you live in a particularly non-tolerant community - perhaps the 'Bible-Belt'?
Here in the UK things are different. I won't say that there is no homophobia - there still is in pockets -but it is the exception not the norm. It really would not be an issue for most people here (and, I suspect, for most people in the US). You may well live in a community where it IS an issue and in that case I can offer no better advice than maybe you should think about moving. On the other hand you may be projecting your own uncertainty and fears, and, perhaps, your sexuality is not such a big deal after all. I can't know which it is and therefore would not dream of councilling you on the best action. Have you/Can you talk to your parents/family/friends about this?
Last edited by Bikerman on Sat Dec 29, 2007 12:21 am; edited 1 time in total | JinTenshi wrote: |
| I'm trapped in a world where "If you ain't normal, you suck". |
This is absolutely not true. What is normal? Is it what the TV sitcoms try to feed us? Marriage, 2.5 kids, a mini-van and a white picket fence? The world is full of glorious, beautiful diversity, and there are many people who recognize this and even celebrate it. | Jinx wrote: |
| JinTenshi wrote: | | I'm trapped in a world where "If you ain't normal, you suck". |
This is absolutely not true. What is normal? Is it what the TV sitcoms try to feed us? Marriage, 2.5 kids, a mini-van and a white picket fence? The world is full of glorious, beautiful diversity, and there are many people who recognize this and even celebrate it. |
Replace normal with "in the majority" and it's extremely true as has been evident since the dawn of recorded history. | Bikerman wrote: |
| JinTenshi wrote: | | I just want to be accepted in the society. So I can only hope the society changes for now. |
I can only assume that you live in a particularly non-tolerant community - perhaps the 'Bible-Belt'?
Here in the UK things are different. I won't say that there is no homophobia - there still is in pockets -but it is the exception not the norm. It really would not be an issue for most people here (and, I suspect, for most people in the US). You may well live in a community where it IS an issue and in that case I can offer no better advice than maybe you should think about moving. On the other hand you may be projecting your own uncertainty and fears, and, perhaps, your sexuality is not such a big deal after all. I can't know which it is and therefore would not dream of councilling you on the best action. Have you/Can you talk to your parents/family/friends about this? |
Not exactly the bible belt. Supposedly the government here in SG are homophobes. No just kidding. But it's against the law to sex / marry a man. It's not that I've not though about moving, but I don't have what fits the requirement of moving yet, and I'm too young too. Moving takes alot of money too, which obviously a 17 would not be able to obtain.
I've talked about this with my mom. I approached the question very carefully with a statement "Mom, I could be bisexual". After some minor conversation, her final reply was "Try to concentrate more on the girls" and I knew I couldn't tell her anything anymore. My friends, some I've talked to, they support me the way I am, I appreciate it, and perhaps I should just delude myself that everyone is like that. And if I don't tell, no one knows anyway... | Quote: |
Based on your experiences that may be true. Based on my experiences with people who follow the Christian faiths, they hold the Bible extremely close and think IT IS the word of God and that IT IS the supreme idea. I'm not talking about the people who go to church on Christmas and Easter and occasionally on Sundays.
How do I have a lack of open-mindedness toward those who think homosexuality is a sin and 100% choice? There's so much irony in that it's not even worth addressing in all honesty. Yes, I am attacking people who say homosexuality is a sin and a choice. I believe that's my right just as it is their right to seclude homosexuals and say they're going to hell for being genetically/mentally attracted to those of the same sex. At least I made my own decision in that situation rather than letting a 2000 year old book do it for me.
And no, most Christians who attend church consistently and follow the religion fully as it is a part of their duty do not denounce what the Bible says in hardly any aspect. Most see homosexuality as a sin and that homosexuals should go to hell if they continue to sin in that way.
Believing in old ways never has and never will be the way to enlightenment. How can you move further ahead when you're constantly being held back by old, outdated principles and logic? You can't. Pretty common sense. |
I see a really big problem with your argument. The whole being held back by old, outdated principles and logic thing? Yeah. The problem with this is that the Bible is still relevant. Look at any chapter in the Bible and you can still find principles that apply to our life to day. WHy? because we still experience the same emotions, and have the same weaknesses(though they may come in different packages) such as sexuality and worshipping false gods. The lessons that you can learn, such as doing good to others, even though they dont do the same in return, faith ect... can all applied to my life today, so don't you dare tell me that it is old, outdated and irrelevant.I truly believe that know one really knows what makes homosexuals homosexual. I read one study where a biologist claimed to find chromosome that was different among gay people. I read a study done by a psychologist who said that everyone is born with the potential to be heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual and the difference between these people is development. So I honestly don't know and I don't think anyone really knows.
| aames_prov356 wrote: |
| Quote: | Based on your experiences that may be true. Based on my experiences with people who follow the Christian faiths, they hold the Bible extremely close and think IT IS the word of God and that IT IS the supreme idea. I'm not talking about the people who go to church on Christmas and Easter and occasionally on Sundays.
How do I have a lack of open-mindedness toward those who think homosexuality is a sin and 100% choice? There's so much irony in that it's not even worth addressing in all honesty. Yes, I am attacking people who say homosexuality is a sin and a choice. I believe that's my right just as it is their right to seclude homosexuals and say they're going to hell for being genetically/mentally attracted to those of the same sex. At least I made my own decision in that situation rather than letting a 2000 year old book do it for me.
And no, most Christians who attend church consistently and follow the religion fully as it is a part of their duty do not denounce what the Bible says in hardly any aspect. Most see homosexuality as a sin and that homosexuals should go to hell if they continue to sin in that way.
Believing in old ways never has and never will be the way to enlightenment. How can you move further ahead when you're constantly being held back by old, outdated principles and logic? You can't. Pretty common sense. |
I see a really big problem with your argument. The whole being held back by old, outdated principles and logic thing? Yeah. The problem with this is that the Bible is still relevant. Look at any chapter in the Bible and you can still find principles that apply to our life to day. WHy? because we still experience the same emotions, and have the same weaknesses(though they may come in different packages) such as sexuality and worshipping false gods. The lessons that you can learn, such as doing good to others, even though they dont do the same in return, faith ect... can all applied to my life today, so don't you dare tell me that it is old, outdated and irrelevant. |
With regards to homosexuality (which is the topic at hand) it's very outdated and completely illogical, so I stand by that. | liljp617 wrote: |
| I don't really get how people say it could be a choice at all. Heterosexuals are born to genetically/mentally be attracted to those of the opposite sex. How is it THAT unlikely that homosexuals are born genetically/mentally to be attracted to those of the same sex? It's not. It just seems like common sense to me. There are defects and mutations within the creation of DNA all the time. They create significant differences in the person who has these mutations (sickle cell disease for one). I'm not saying homosexuality is a disease, but to say that it's 100% a choice just seems absurd to me. It just shows the fear and brainwashing that die hard religious people have. They'll base their entire lives and beliefs from a 2000 year old book written by a few humans. |
I'm suprised that you've written "creation of DNA", not a evolution. that 's beside the point, now let me ask you this, are you a homosexual? if you are have you ever asked yourself if you're the one who is being brain washed by our society? We're all being brain wash on someway. And if you're not homosexual do yo believe in God? well obviously not. see the thing is you have to know if it's wrong that you're doing, if you knpw that being gay is wrong then you have an option not to be gay. otherwise serial killers, Pedophiles etc. would have their way because they can just say oh there are defects and mutation within the creation of DNA all the time. I am not trying to put Homosexuality on the same level of criminals I am merely trying to make my point. so who are these religious people you reffering to? 2000 year old book? you mean the Bible? umm I would rather base my living on the bible rather than something or someone that believes that it's ok to have sex with the same sex. | gr8inferno wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | I don't really get how people say it could be a choice at all. Heterosexuals are born to genetically/mentally be attracted to those of the opposite sex. How is it THAT unlikely that homosexuals are born genetically/mentally to be attracted to those of the same sex? It's not. It just seems like common sense to me. There are defects and mutations within the creation of DNA all the time. They create significant differences in the person who has these mutations (sickle cell disease for one). I'm not saying homosexuality is a disease, but to say that it's 100% a choice just seems absurd to me. It just shows the fear and brainwashing that die hard religious people have. They'll base their entire lives and beliefs from a 2000 year old book written by a few humans. |
I'm suprised that you've written "creation of DNA", not a evolution. that 's beside the point, now let me ask you this, are you a homosexual? if you are have you ever asked yourself if you're the one who is being brain washed by our society? We're all being brain wash on someway. And if you're not homosexual do yo believe in God? well obviously not. see the thing is you have to know if it's wrong that you're doing, if you knpw that being gay is wrong then you have an option not to be gay. otherwise serial killers, Pedophiles etc. would have their way because they can just say oh there are defects and mutation within the creation of DNA all the time. I am not trying to put Homosexuality on the same level of criminals I am merely trying to make my point. so who are these religious people you reffering to? 2000 year old book? you mean the Bible? umm I would rather base my living on the bible rather than something or someone that believes that it's ok to have sex with the same sex. |
No, I'm not a homosexual and it was never a choice in my life not to be one. You can base your living on whatever you wish, just keep it out of other people's lives and stop using the Bible as an excuse to be prejudice. It's called equality. I would think by now we would have learned something about it. Homosexuals hurt you in what way? They don't. So it's a sin in your opinion? Guess what? In no way does the Bible give you (or anyone) the right to judge someone and say they are a sinner. According to the Bible, you have no credibility in saying anything about them being sinners. According to the Bible, God is the determiner of sin and he is the only one who can pass judgment of how others live their lives. No, I'm not religious, I'm simply stating what the Bible/Christianity preaches..or what they're stereotyped to preach. You know, treating others how you wish to be treated, not passing judgment of others when it's not your place, respect others, etc. I guess that's been lost over the years though.
You can believe homosexuality is wrong. That's your freedom and choice. But your religion never has been and never will be an excuse to voice discrimination or prejudice against others. If you follow your religious teachings, I think you realize that.
On a side note: The comparison with pedophilia has been overplayed immensely. Each time it becomes a worse argument. There is no comparison to be had between pedophilia and homosexuality. Pedophilia is very much a known disease; homosexuality is not (based on the present description). Pedophilia is harmful to children who in no way can defend themselves; homosexuality is between two mature people who know what is going on and it is natural between both of them. A child being sexually molested is in no way natural to the child. A child being molested leads to insane amounts of mental instability; homosexuality does not. I fail to see any similarities. | Quote: |
| With regards to homosexuality (which is the topic at hand) it's very outdated and completely illogical, so I stand by that. |
It really is not irrelevant to this topic either. check out my post on all religion aside...is it wrong to be gay? I should be on the last page. | liljp617 wrote: |
No, I'm not a homosexual and it was never a choice in my life not to be one. You can base your living on whatever you wish, just keep it out of other people's lives and stop using the Bible as an excuse to be prejudice. It's called equality. I would think by now we would have learned something about it. Homosexuals hurt you in what way? They don't. So it's a sin in your opinion? Guess what? In no way does the Bible give you (or anyone) the right to judge someone and say they are a sinner. According to the Bible, you have no credibility in saying anything about them being sinners. According to the Bible, God is the determiner of sin and he is the only one who can pass judgment of how others live their lives. No, I'm not religious, I'm simply stating what the Bible/Christianity preaches..or what they're stereotyped to preach. You know, treating others how you wish to be treated, not passing judgment of others when it's not your place, respect others, etc. I guess that's been lost over the years though.
You can believe homosexuality is wrong. That's your freedom and choice. But your religion never has been and never will be an excuse to voice discrimination or prejudice against others. If you follow your religious teachings, I think you realize that.
On a side note: The comparison with pedophilia has been overplayed immensely. Each time it becomes a worse argument. There is no comparison to be had between pedophilia and homosexuality. Pedophilia is very much a known disease; homosexuality is not (based on the present description). Pedophilia is harmful to children who in no way can defend themselves; homosexuality is between two mature people who know what is going on and it is natural between both of them. A child being sexually molested is in no way natural to the child. A child being molested leads to insane amounts of mental instability; homosexuality does not. I fail to see any similarities. |
So I'm prejudice? Interesting. and no I do not equal my self to homosexuality sorry. I do not use the Bible as an excuse that the stupidiest thing I've ever heard. and no Homosexuals has ever hurt me in any way (no pun intented) . I do not judge them and saying they're all sinners because the bible does look up Leviticus 18:22. Treat others like you want to be treated and respect your neighbors etc. are still in play until today I don't know where you live but here in Wisconsin I see majority of it excluded Madison and Milwaukee.
Now I happened to have a Family member and Friends that are homosexuals and I don't hate them.
and I also have friends who are addicted to heroine but you're not gonna see me shootin' up with them. Now I don't know why you had to explained the definition of pedophilia, I do not make a literal comparison between homosesuality and pedophilia, I was merely making a point that convictions can make you think twice, therefore a pedophiles can opt out for committing the crime if s/he feels convicted of doing such action. The reason why you don't see this is because of what you believe, You do not believe in God nor the Bible (well ofcourse) , therefore you have a diferent definition of sins, or do you even believe in sins? hmm.
May God bless you and your Family | gr8inferno wrote: |
| see the thing is you have to know if it's wrong that you're doing, if you knpw that being gay is wrong then you have an option not to be gay. otherwise serial killers, Pedophiles etc. would have their way because they can just say oh there are defects and mutation within the creation of DNA all the time. |
Looks like you're the one who's brain washed. Accepting something and believing in it fully without actually going through the trouble to think for yourself about other possibilities; thats truly being brain washed.
Let me break it down for you.
Problems with Pedophilia:
Harms children
Destroys families
etc.etc.
Problems with Serial Killing:
Well, this one should be obvious.
Problems with homosexuality:
...
If you could, please list something that is a negative result of homosexuality.
Also statements like this:
| gr8inferno wrote: |
| and I also have friends who are addicted to heroine but you're not gonna see me shootin' up with them. |
makes you seem like a homophobe. Thats like saying you assume that your gay friends are going to want you to have sex with them... riiiight.So, if a pedophile is attracted to children, he is looked down upon, but its okay for a gay to be attracted to the same sex...?
Can't the pedophile just say "oh, I was born like this" and be done with? Or are gays superior?
In my eyes, a gay is the lowest form of human life ever to exist.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
So, if a pedophile is attracted to children, he is looked down upon, but its okay for a gay to be attracted to the same sex...?
Can't the pedophile just say "oh, I was born like this" and be done with? Or are gays superior?
In my eyes, a gay is the lowest form of human life ever to exist. |
The comparison is wrong and, actually, odious.
Firstly let us distinguish between attraction and action. A paedophile is one who is attracted to children, not necessarily one who has sex with children. We can debate how widespread this attraction is, especially since the advertising industry seems to reflect the fact that many males are sexually attracted to very young women and I'm sure that some here will have attended, or at least be familiar with, parties where women are dressed in 'schoolgirl vamp' outfits which are seen by many as sexually arousing. The point in question, however, is not the attraction itself but acting on that attraction by indulging in sexual acts with a minor.
Paedophilic sex involves sex with a person that is legally deemed to be incapable of making an informed decision. The objection is based on that, not on the gender or method of sex. We do not distinguish between a gay paedophile and a 'straight' paedophile, because the point is not the gender or type of sex, it is the fact that it is NON-CONSENSUAL sex. Paedophilic sex is, and should be seen as, a form of rape.
To compare that with consenting gay sex is inaccurate, insulting and, frankly, bigoted. Your final statement is an example of your bigotry. Presumably you regard gay people as worse than mass murderers or other 'evil' people, since you say they are the 'lowest form of human life'. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
So, if a pedophile is attracted to children, he is looked down upon, but its okay for a gay to be attracted to the same sex...?
Can't the pedophile just say "oh, I was born like this" and be done with? Or are gays superior?
In my eyes, a gay is the lowest form of human life ever to exist. |
In the eyes of the majority you would be right on par with them then. Are you by any chance a skinhead? People like you sicken me more than anything. Grow up...or at least stop being a hypocrite. | miacps wrote: |
Problems with homosexuality:
...
If you could, please list something that is a negative result of homosexuality.
|
Simply put; homosexuality doesn't produce offspring (obviously).
Is that a negative? Depends on your views, but for most who see life as offspring of offspring, obviously this is counterintuitive to life.
The other aspect is dependent on your family values, many, myself included, have a view that men and women were put on thie Earth to compliment eachother and each have gender specific roles in the family thus a homosexual couple would be lacking in that department having an abundance of some roles and a lack of others, which causes problems with teaching kids such values and having a complete family. Something this straight world screws up enough on it's own.
So... homosexualities problems are dependant on your beliefs. However from the species as a whole view I would see it as a negative due to the lack of being able to produce offspring. Kinda kills that branch on the tree. If everyone was gay, bye bye species.Why does everyone assume that homosexuals do not produce offspring? History is full of counter examples. The are many examples of gay men and women who have married and had children. Whether you regard this as a good thing or not is not really relevant to the point. Homosexuality does not preclude reproduction and heterosexuality does not guarantee it.
| Quote: |
| Why does everyone assume that homosexuals do not produce offspring? History is full of counter examples. The are many examples of gay men and women who have married and had children. Whether you regard this as a good thing or not is not really relevant to the point. Homosexuality does not preclude reproduction and heterosexuality does not guarantee it. |
I want examples other than adoption that you know for sure that are true. If you just say that they do and don't support it, no one can believe you b/c of lack of evidence. | Quote: |
liljp617 wrote:
No, I'm not a homosexual and it was never a choice in my life not to be one. You can base your living on whatever you wish, just keep it out of other people's lives and stop using the Bible as an excuse to be prejudice. It's called equality. I would think by now we would have learned something about it. Homosexuals hurt you in what way? You know, treating others how you wish to be treated, not passing judgment of others when it's not your place, respect others, etc. I guess that's been lost over the years though.
You can believe homosexuality is wrong. That's your freedom and choice. But your religion never has been and never will be an excuse to voice discrimination or prejudice against others. If you follow your religious teachings, I think you realize that. |
So I am prejudice? I don't think so. I am just trying to make the point that we weren't meant to be with someone of the same sex. It just isn't natural.
| Quote: |
| So it's a sin in your opinion? Guess what? In no way does the Bible give you (or anyone) the right to judge someone and say they are a sinner. According to the Bible, you have no credibility in saying anything about them being sinners. According to the Bible, God is the determiner of sin and he is the only one who can pass judgment of how others live their lives. |
Yes, in my opinion, it is a sin, and if you have actually read the Bible, then you would know what it says. It is not me that says that they are the sinner, it is the Bible. Romans 6:23 says eveyone sins (for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God), but where you are trying to quote the Bible, you are misquoting. It says not to "try to pick the speck out of your brother's eye when you have a plank in your own."(MAtthew 7:4) All that that means is that you shouldn't trying to tell someone that they need to repent to God of their sins, when you have much bigger unconfessed sins in your life. I am not saying that I don't sin, b/c I will admit that I do. WHat I am saying is that I have confessed mine, homosexuals are ignoring theirs and I am trying to show them that what they are doing is wrong and there is a God that loves them and wants to forgive them if they will let Him, that is all.
| Quote: |
| They don't...., I'm not religious, I'm simply stating what the Bible/Christianity preaches..or what they're stereotyped to preach. |
You are misquoting Remeber Davids sin with Bathsheba. Nathan pointed out his sin. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Why does everyone assume that homosexuals do not produce offspring? History is full of counter examples. The are many examples of gay men and women who have married and had children. Whether you regard this as a good thing or not is not really relevant to the point. Homosexuality does not preclude reproduction and heterosexuality does not guarantee it. |
lol, that's not homosexuality... that is someone with a homosexual gene who is passing it along through offspring...yes, however how could that account for the number and variety of homosexuals in the world today? Plus, are the truly homosexual if they married and had kids, wouldn't a true homosexual find sexual relations with a woman revolting? Just like I would find those with a man. So all they are passing along is not a truly homosexual gene, but rather a bi-sexual one, which, of course, is a different issue.
This is all assuming there is a homosexual gene. And that it is not socially generated. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
So, if a pedophile is attracted to children, he is looked down upon, but its okay for a gay to be attracted to the same sex...?
Can't the pedophile just say "oh, I was born like this" and be done with? Or are gays superior?
In my eyes, a gay is the lowest form of human life ever to exist. |
In my eyes, that is the lowest thing you can say and a prove of being completely narrow minded. I am not even going to try to counter it as, by making this statement, you have proven to be very sad. Religion has completely sickened your mind. Open your eyes! | coeus wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Why does everyone assume that homosexuals do not produce offspring? History is full of counter examples. The are many examples of gay men and women who have married and had children. Whether you regard this as a good thing or not is not really relevant to the point. Homosexuality does not preclude reproduction and heterosexuality does not guarantee it. |
lol, that's not homosexuality... that is someone with a homosexual gene who is passing it along through offspring...yes, however how could that account for the number and variety of homosexuals in the world today? Plus, are the truly homosexual if they married and had kids, wouldn't a true homosexual find sexual relations with a woman revolting? Just like I would find those with a man. So all they are passing along is not a truly homosexual gene, but rather a bi-sexual one, which, of course, is a different issue.
This is all assuming there is a homosexual gene. And that it is not socially generated. |
Many people do things everyday that they find distasteful or revolting.
There is some evidence for a genetic element to homosexuality but no evidence that I know of for a single gene. Sexuality is a complex issue and it may well have a genetic component but it certainly does have an environmental/social component.
http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm | Bikerman wrote: |
Many people do things everyday that they find distasteful or revolting. |
This is true but do you think people would commit and marry into something they find distasteful or revolting? | coeus wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
Many people do things everyday that they find distasteful or revolting. |
This is true but do you think people would commit and marry into something they find distasteful or revolting? |
Why else would they divorce and become homosexual?
Many people, and there are numerous examples, married in the earlier years when homosexuality wasn't accepted, just because it was normal to marry. Not because they wanted too. | coeus wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
Many people do things everyday that they find distasteful or revolting. |
This is true but do you think people would commit and marry into something they find distasteful or revolting? |
Not only do I think that, it is beyond dispute since there are numerous examples (as coen states).
Societal/legal pressure was such, not that long ago, that there was no reasonable alternative for many gay men and women. Some men/women chose to remain batchelors/spinsters but that in itself carried a social stigma, so often the easier course was to marry. You should also bear in mind that the Victorian concept of marriage was very different from our ideas today.the divorce / homosexual thing doesn't display a revolt for sexual relations with the oppostie sex, it displays confusion, uncertainty. Which is my point, that they don't exhibit truly homosexual behavior, but rather a mix of that and of "normal".
I am revolted by the idea of laying with another man and I would never marry one(f I could) then divorce and marry straight. So the opposite would do the opposite, never marry straight then divorce for gay.
| coeus wrote: |
the divorce / homosexual thing doesn't display a revolt for sexual relations with the oppostie sex, it displays confusion, uncertainty. Which is my point, that they don't exhibit truly homosexual behavior, but rather a mix of that and of "normal".
I am revolted by the idea of laying with another man and I would never marry one(f I could) then divorce and marry straight. So the opposite would do the opposite, never marry straight then divorce for gay. |
No, it doesn't display confusion at all. It displays self-preservation. Just because you think a certain way does not mean that others also think the same way. We know that many homosexual men have married and had children - the point is not at issue. They often did this not because they were confused about their sexuality but because the legal and social pressures to conform overcame their reluctance to marry and have heterosexual intercourse. | Bikerman wrote: |
No, it doesn't display confusion at all. It displays self-preservation. Just because you think a certain way does not mean that others also think the same way. We know that many homosexual men have married and had children - the point is not at issue. They often did this not because they were confused about their sexuality but because the legal and social pressures to conform overcame their reluctance to marry and have heterosexual intercourse. |
I guess we just agree to disagree.
I refuse to believe that if someone was truly gay they would push aside their disgust for the sake of conformity. I would think a truly gay man...not bi here, would detest sex with a woman and thus wouldn't even marry to conform, would just stay single.
I am basing this on the fact that I am straight, not bi, and I detest the idea of sex with another man. I am using the definition of homosexual as someone with direct opposition to me and thus would detest sex with a woman. Even for the sake of social conformity, marriage isn't that important in our society...see the 60% divorce rate Well you can disagree all you like. This is another example of refusing to accept evidence which is contrary to your own beliefs. The fact is that there are numerous examples of gay men (who describe themselves as gay) who have married and had children. The fact that you refuse to accept they are gay is not really important and the fact that you refuse to believe this says more about you than it does about them...
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Well you can disagree all you like. This is another example of refusing to accept evidence which is contrary to your own beliefs. The fact is that there are numerous examples of gay men (who describe themselves as gay) who have married and had children. The fact that you refuse to accept they are gay is not really important and the fact that you refuse to believe this says more about you than it does about them... |
actually it doesn't refute anything I say at all.
I say a truly gay person is opposite sexually as one who is straight.
A straight person would never willingly go into a gay relationship (commitment type relationship, not a simple one night stand), if they were truly straight...by definition.
Thus when you have a "gay" person who lived a straight lifestyle before then they are by definition, not totally gay, rather confused with a hint of bi.
Just because you say your gay doesn't mean you are, just like lots of people say they are christian but they are not. It's word play and no one knows the definition.
But my point all along it is very important to get the right definition for in the sake of the human species a truly homosexual person would never reproduce unless the seed was forcefully taken and planted. so-to-speak. Thus truly homosexual genes, if they existed, would never get passes unless by force. But the gay with some bi would. | coeus wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Well you can disagree all you like. This is another example of refusing to accept evidence which is contrary to your own beliefs. The fact is that there are numerous examples of gay men (who describe themselves as gay) who have married and had children. The fact that you refuse to accept they are gay is not really important and the fact that you refuse to believe this says more about you than it does about them... |
actually it doesn't refute anything I say at all. |
Yes it does. Completely. | Quote: |
| I say a truly gay person is opposite sexually as one who is straight. |
No that is wrong. You seem incapable of accepting a standard definition for any word unless it conforms to your own view. This is a meaningless way to debate and is sometimes called the 'Humpty-Dumpty syndrome'.*
| Quote: |
| A straight person would never willingly go into a gay relationship (commitment type relationship, not a simple one night stand), if they were truly straight...by definition. |
Only if you accept your definition, which is not generally accepted. Humpty-dumpty syndrome again.
| Quote: |
| Thus when you have a "gay" person who lived a straight lifestyle before then they are by definition, not totally gay, rather confused with a hint of bi. |
yet again the HD syndrome...
| Quote: |
| But my point all along it is very important to get the right definition for in the sake of the human species a truly homosexual person would never reproduce unless the seed was forcefully taken and planted. so-to-speak. Thus truly homosexual genes, if they existed, would never get passes unless by force. But the gay with some bi would. |
That's quite comical - 'the right definition' presumably means 'your definition'?
Gay is defined as :
A person whose sexual orientation is to persons of the same sex.
A man whose sexual orientation is to men: an alliance of gays and lesbians.
It is not defined as a person who would never have intercourse with the opposite sex - that is your HD definition.
* 'When I use a word', said Humpty Dumpty, 'it means exactly what I wish it to mean, no more, no less'.Bikerman, there is no fallacy going on here, but I feel you want there to be.
Under your definitions and that of the "norm" you are right, I never disputed that, I said under these definitions it is disputed. Language is a funny thing and there can be many different ideas for what means what, hence why I laid out what my definitions were right away so as to not confuse.
But don't confuse that with disputing your view of the definition for I am not doing that.
It is just my personal view that someone who is gay has sexual preferance for ONLY their sex. When they have preferance for both, the term is bisexual.
A gay man just likes guys, would never have sex with a woman.
If he ever would consider it then he goes into the realm of bisexual.
But of course, your definition and that of the "norm" seems to mixthis up some and thus there is confusion. Unfortunatly language isn't as standard as we would all like it to be. 
| coeus wrote: |
| A gay man just likes guys, would never have sex with a woman.If he ever would consider it then he goes into the realm of bisexual. |
HD syndrome again. Just because one is attracted to one gender does not mean that one would not have sex with the other gender, even if the act were repulsive or distasteful to one. As I have frequently pointed out this is demonstrated by the fact that many men HAVE done so. Many such men are NOT bisexual - they feel no attraction to women, their intercourse with women was mechanistic and done only to confirm to a social expectation in order to father children. | Bikerman wrote: |
| HD syndrome again. Just because one is attracted to one gender does not mean that one would not have sex with the other gender, even if the act were repulsive or distasteful to one. As I have frequently pointed out this is demonstrated by the fact that many men HAVE done so. |
You are right, and I am saying that is the problem.
For you see there is already a term for a gay person like whom you are talking about, and they are refered to as being bisexual.
So, because both terms exist they shouldn't overlap, or else what would the point be of the term bisexual? Bi means both and is clearly geared for people who prefer or don't mind both. Gay is therefore does not and should not have to refer to people who do both sides for there is a term for it, but no term for stickly "same sex" thus gay means "same sex" and bisexual means "both".
You are describing someone that does both sides and thus would be bisexual, not stickly gay. While they are gay, they are more than that an belong under the bisexual umbrella.
Just because a lot of people say a word means something, doesn't means it was meant to mean it that way, what was that fallacy you tried to pin on be reguarding that same idea?It is pointless debating with you since you seem incapable of grasping simple semantics.
A bisexual is one who is physically attracted to both sexes. You do not need to feel a physical attraction to have sex with a person. A gay man having sex with a woman is not bi-sexual, he is a gay man having sex with a woman. End of story.
| Bikerman wrote: |
It is pointless debating with you since you seem incapable of grasping simple semantics.
A bisexual is one who is physically attracted to both sexes. You do not need to feel a physical attraction to have sex with a person. A gay man having sex with a woman is not bi-sexual, he is a gay man having sex with a woman. End of story. |
Would you have sex with a man right now? | coeus wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | It is pointless debating with you since you seem incapable of grasping simple semantics.
A bisexual is one who is physically attracted to both sexes. You do not need to feel a physical attraction to have sex with a person. A gay man having sex with a woman is not bi-sexual, he is a gay man having sex with a woman. End of story. |
Would you have sex with a man right now? |
This is exacly what he means. You do not get it. It isn't about desire but simply about the fact that it's possible. | Coen wrote: |
This is exacly what he means. You do not get it. It isn't about desire but simply about the fact that it's possible. |
possibility is a theory, i'm talking in reality.
It is physically possibly for a male and female to mate, no crap. It's also possible for me to eat a tomatoe but I don't like the taste so I won't do it. The fact is that we are driven by desires and for someone to go against their innner desire to COMMIT to a RELATIONSHIP and enter in something they disagree with, I am just not buying it. At least not on the suggested scale.
Thus my question is legit. Would bikerman marry a male? (assuming bikerman is a he) If the answer is yes well then, I bow down to society shaking my beliefs of how humans work. If no, then my point exactly, that you have no desire to do so and wouldn't do it to appeas society, for you can do the same thing being single.Would I marry a male? Yes, under certain circumstances. If, for example, the alternative was 20 years in prison. It would depend in each case whether I considered the alternatives worse than the marriage itself. That does not mean I am gay, of course, although I can comfortably live with any assertion you may make to the contrary.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Would I marry a male? Yes, under certain circumstances. If, for example, the alternative was 20 years in prison. It would depend in each case whether I considered the alternatives worse than the marriage itself. That does not mean I am gay, of course, although I can comfortably live with any assertion you may make to the contrary. |
Yeah, but your circumstance is unrealistic and you wouldn't commit to sexual relations. Unless of course there is something you are not telling us...lol
I hope you are seeing the parallel here.
There is no realistic circumstance forcing gay men to marry a woman, nor anything forcing them to have sex and have kids. It is all of their own will. | coeus wrote: |
Yeah, but your circumstance is unrealistic and you wouldn't commit to sexual relations. Unless of course there is something you are not telling us...lol
I hope you are seeing the parallel here.
There is no realistic circumstance forcing gay men to marry a woman, nor anything forcing them to have sex and have kids. It is all of their own will. |
Okay, lets go to a realistic example then: Unless you marry a woman you will be outlawed by the church. Your family and closed friends will hate you and find you the worst piece of crap that exists. Your entire social life will collapse and on top of that some people are being taught that it is sinfull to be gay. You will be hated by those you love. Can you imagine the pain that would cause? So you marry a woman to prevent all these things I just summorised. | Quote: |
| I hope you are seeing the parallel here. |
There is no parallel. In Victorian England it was illegal to practice homosexual acts punishable by life imprisonment. My example is entirely realistic and is based on examples in history.
As to whether I would commit to homosexual acts - again it would depend on the circumstances so I do no absolutely rule it out.
This whole conversation is rather pointless, however, since we don't need to guess, there are recorded examples of gay men having children and getting married. It's a fact, whether you wish to accept it or not.
End of conversation. | Coen wrote: |
Okay, lets go to a realistic example then: Unless you marry a woman you will be outlawed by the church. Your family and closed friends will hate you and find you the worst piece of crap that exists. Your entire social life will collapse and on top of that some people are being taught that it is sinfull to be gay. You will be hated by those you love. Can you imagine the pain that would cause? So you marry a woman to prevent all these things I just summorised. |
The gay men that married women were closet homosexuals, no one knew. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | I hope you are seeing the parallel here. |
There is no parallel. In Victorian England it was illegal to practice homosexual acts punishable by life imprisonment. My example is entirely realistic and is based on examples in history.
As to whether I would commit to homosexual acts - again it would depend on the circumstances so I do no absolutely rule it out.
This whole conversation is rather pointless, however, since we don't need to guess, there are recorded examples of gay men having children and getting married. It's a fact, whether you wish to accept it or not.
End of conversation. |
Yes it is a fact, no one is disputing that. But I am saying they wern't gay, they were bisexual. Obviously, by defination, they had sex with women, they had kids. Bisexual.Humpty Dumpty syndrome seems to be your only argument and, since I find it wearing to argue with someone who changes the definitions of words to suit their own point, then I think it would be best to just let you post whatever HD nonsense you like and add you to my 'ignore' list.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Humpty Dumpty syndrome seems to be your only argument and, since I find it wearing to argue with someone who changes the definitions of words to suit their own point, then I think it would be best to just let you post whatever HD nonsense you like and add you to my 'ignore' list. |
lol, fair enough.
In the words of Morpheous: "Free your mind." | coeus wrote: |
| Coen wrote: |
Okay, lets go to a realistic example then: Unless you marry a woman you will be outlawed by the church. Your family and closed friends will hate you and find you the worst piece of crap that exists. Your entire social life will collapse and on top of that some people are being taught that it is sinfull to be gay. You will be hated by those you love. Can you imagine the pain that would cause? So you marry a woman to prevent all these things I just summorised. |
The gay men that married women were closet homosexuals, no one knew. |
So now that also matters? I thought homosexuals would never marry or have sexual intercourse with a female.
On another point, why were they closet homosexuals? Because they were taught it was wrong to be by faith. While in fact it isn't at all. | Coen wrote: |
| coeus wrote: | | Coen wrote: |
Okay, lets go to a realistic example then: Unless you marry a woman you will be outlawed by the church. Your family and closed friends will hate you and find you the worst piece of crap that exists. Your entire social life will collapse and on top of that some people are being taught that it is sinfull to be gay. You will be hated by those you love. Can you imagine the pain that would cause? So you marry a woman to prevent all these things I just summorised. |
The gay men that married women were closet homosexuals, no one knew. |
So now that also matters? I thought homosexuals would never marry or have sexual intercourse with a female.
On another point, why were they closet homosexuals? Because they were taught it was wrong to be by faith. While in fact it isn't at all. |
Yeah, definatly worded that funny, my bad. I was implying that your statement made no sence. All of the cases of gay men that married and eventually divorced because they were "gay" were closet gays and no one knew they were gay and thus wern't forced into the marriage but rather chose it. Implying that they wern't fully gay and were confused.There are examples known of homosexual people who knew they were homosexual but did marry because they did not want to be outlawed by everyone. It is not uncommon.
| Coen wrote: |
| There are examples known of homosexual people who knew they were homosexual but did marry because they did not want to be outlawed by everyone. It is not uncommon. |
Not uncommon? And just how do you find a woman willing to go along with that? Also, do everyone one of those examples produce kids to further on the genes into the gene pool? I'm not buying it.
My point is that homosexuality is unnatural in the eyes of reproduction and thus our species as a whole. It is counter-intuitive to life and thus if natural selection is really how it happends (which makes sense) and there is a gay gene then there wouldn't be as many gays as there are, it would be quite rare. Which leads me to believe it is socially constructive. | coeus wrote: |
| Coen wrote: | | There are examples known of homosexual people who knew they were homosexual but did marry because they did not want to be outlawed by everyone. It is not uncommon. |
Not uncommon? And just how do you find a woman willing to go along with that? Also, do everyone one of those examples produce kids to further on the genes into the gene pool? I'm not buying it. |
That is your flaw, not mine. And the woman don't have to know. A man can keep it quiet.
| Quote: |
| My point is that homosexuality is unnatural in the eyes of reproduction and thus our species as a whole. It is counter-intuitive to life and thus if natural selection is really how it happends (which makes sense) and there is a gay gene then there wouldn't be as many gays as there are, it would be quite rare. Which leads me to believe it is socially constructive. |
The world is getting overcrowded. A little less humans would do wonders. If only the gay people would remain, if it is a gene, the world would be a lot better. Surely, as the main ideal of a species is to survive, the gene would dissapear or some of the gay men could have sexual intercourse with lesbian women. If both pairs have a child wish such a bargon is easily made. | Coen wrote: |
The world is getting overcrowded. A little less humans would do wonders. |
As natural selection would have you desire, yet we have desires and moral codes telling us the opposite. Interesting
And the gay gene would only take care of one person, the person "infected" (hate that word, but it fits)The word doesn't fit at all. It is no infection. Those desires also are a result of evolution as has been explained multiple times.
| Coen wrote: |
| The word doesn't fit at all. It is no infection. Those desires also are a result of evolution as has been explained multiple times. |
lol, homosexuality is a result of evolution?
A mutation mistake maybe, but surly you don't think homosexuality benefits the host?
Evolution is based on the idea of natural selection where random mutations that benefit the organisim live on, and those that don't die off. Homosexual desires prevent reproduction and thus offer no benefit to the organisms survival. I don't see how natural selection can explain homosexuality existing in anything but random rare forms. | coeus wrote: |
| lol, homosexuality is a result of evolution? |
Yes.
| coeus wrote: |
A mutation mistake maybe, but surly you don't think homosexuality benefits the host?
Evolution is based on the idea of natural selection where random mutations that benefit the organisim live on, and those that don't die off. |
You are wrong. That is the schoolchild's definition of evolution.
| coeus wrote: |
| Homosexual desires prevent reproduction and thus offer no benefit to the organisms survival. |
They do not prevent reproduction, and they do not need to benefit the organism's survival to be transmitted. They are more likely to be transmitted if they increase reproductive success. But if they don't they could just as well be transmitted anyway, especially if they are a by-product of other genes that do increase the reproductive efficiency of the organism - which homosexual behaviour almost certainly is.
| coeus wrote: |
| I don't see how natural selection can explain homosexuality existing in anything but random rare forms. |
i could recommend beginner's books on evolution by natural selection to act as primers. But you will have to unlearn everything you have been taught by anti-evolutionary propaganda. You may not be opposed to evolution, but you are using language that has been created by those people... and that has unfortunately fallen into the public consciousness.[quote="miacps"] | gr8inferno wrote: |
Let me break it down for you.
Problems with Pedophilia:
Harms children
Destroys families
etc.etc.
Problems with Serial Killing:
Well, this one should be obvious.
Problems with homosexuality:
...
If you could, please list something that is a negative result of homosexuality. |
Are you serious? .. you want negative results eh?
here we go,, note: I'm not going to include the One way ticket to Hell co'z I don't want to get all religious with ya,.
HIV virus ..why because study says that homosexual men are more likely to get infected by whopping %50 note: New york times published that in 1997.
Researchers conducted a study to assess how HIV infection and AIDS is impacting the mortality rates for homosexual and bisexual men.
According to Journal of the American Medical Association the risk of anal cancer soars by 4000 percent among those who engage in anal intercourse.
Youth who identify themselves as homosexual, lesbian and bisexual are four times more likely than their peers to suffer from major depression. but wait before you blame me, homosexual activists point their finger at homophobia as the cause of these disorders, but the most extensive studies have been done in the Netherlands and New Zealand where homosexuality is widely accepted.
This is just to name the few.
| miacps wrote: |
Also statements like this:
| gr8inferno wrote: | | and I also have friends who are addicted to heroine but you're not gonna see me shootin' up with them. |
makes you seem like a homophobe. Thats like saying you assume that your gay friends are going to want you to have sex with them... riiiight. |
I strongly suggest that you read my previous post/s regarding my explanation between Pedophilia and Homosexuality, but I don't think it's gonna matter co'z you just labeled me a Homophobe. What I meant was the living in Homosexual lifestyle not because "I assume that they want to have sex me".
so what's your possitive views on homosexuals? c'mon humor me. | coeus wrote: |
| miacps wrote: |
Problems with homosexuality:
...
If you could, please list something that is a negative result of homosexuality.
|
Simply put; homosexuality doesn't produce offspring (obviously).
Is that a negative? Depends on your views, but for most who see life as offspring of offspring, obviously this is counterintuitive to life.
The other aspect is dependent on your family values, many, myself included, have a view that men and women were put on thie Earth to compliment eachother and each have gender specific roles in the family thus a homosexual couple would be lacking in that department having an abundance of some roles and a lack of others, which causes problems with teaching kids such values and having a complete family. Something this straight world screws up enough on it's own.
So... homosexualities problems are dependant on your beliefs. However from the species as a whole view I would see it as a negative due to the lack of being able to produce offspring. Kinda kills that branch on the tree. If everyone was gay, bye bye species. |
I have to disagree that this is a problem.
In a world that is so over populated, less children being born is a VERY good thing. As for the "If everyone was gay" statement, well thats simply not going to happen. | Indi wrote: |
| coeus wrote: | | lol, homosexuality is a result of evolution? |
Yes.
|
Yea use use evolution as a "theory" of Homosexuality, let's jump in to a band wagon of evolutionary theories so we don't have to be responsible for anything.
This theory is so flexible that it can be used to ‘explain’ almost any outcome, but explains nothing.It depends what you mean by explain doesn't it. What I mean by explain is that it provides a plausible mechanism for the thing under consideration. What do you mean by explain?
| gr8inferno wrote: |
HIV virus ..why because study says that homosexual men are more likely to get infected by whopping %50 note: New york times published that in 1997.
Researchers conducted a study to assess how HIV infection and AIDS is impacting the mortality rates for homosexual and bisexual men.
According to Journal of the American Medical Association the risk of anal cancer soars by 4000 percent among those who engage in anal intercourse.
|
These are all a result of heterosexual activity as well. That "homosexual men are more likely to get infected by whopping %50" may be due to more gay couples not using protection(due to obviously not having to worry about pregnancy) while more straight couples do. The fact is anytime you participate in unprotected sex with a HIV positive partner(male or female), you will almost always contract HIV.
| gr8inferno wrote: |
Youth who identify themselves as homosexual, lesbian and bisexual are four times more likely than their peers to suffer from major depression. but wait before you blame me, homosexual activists point their finger at homophobia as the cause of these disorders, but the most extensive studies have been done in the Netherlands and New Zealand where homosexuality is widely accepted.
|
Depression also occurs twice as frequently in women than men. A good reason not to be a woman perhaps? No doubt if all women were viewed to be sinners/going to burn for eternity in hell/inferior, the frequency of depression would be much higher.
| gr8inferno wrote: |
| miacps wrote: |
Also statements like this:
| gr8inferno wrote: | | and I also have friends who are addicted to heroine but you're not gonna see me shootin' up with them. |
makes you seem like a homophobe. Thats like saying you assume that your gay friends are going to want you to have sex with them... riiiight. |
I strongly suggest that you read my previous post/s regarding my explanation between Pedophilia and Homosexuality, but I don't think it's gonna matter co'z you just labeled me a Homophobe. What I meant was the living in Homosexual lifestyle not because "I assume that they want to have sex me". |
I'm not sure how a homosexual lifestyle differs from heterosexual other than sexual orientation...
| gr8inferno wrote: |
| so what's your possitive views on homosexuals? c'mon humor me. |
When you live in a highly overpopulated world, its always good to know that there are people that are less likely to contribute to the problem. Besides that, I don't know of any other positives to having homosexuals in our society, however I've got this crazy belief that people should be able to do whatever they like as long as they are not violating my rights or the rights of others. | miacps wrote: |
| These are all a result of heterosexual activity as well |
umm we all know that, however this is logically unconnected to the question of whether
Homosexuality has negative impact in our society.
| miacps wrote: |
| Depression also occurs twice as frequently in women than men. |
Again it's irrelevant. The opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality,
but holiness in the Image of God, in which we are made, female and male.
Again , your previous post
[quote="miacps"]If you could, please list something that is a negative result of homosexuality[/qutoe]
Lists provided.
| gr8inferno wrote: |
| so what's your possitive views on homosexuals? c'mon humor me. |
| miacps wrote: |
don't know of any other positives to having homosexuals in our society. |
fair enough
[qutoe=miacps"]however I've got this crazy belief that people should be able to do whatever they like as long as they are not violating my rights or the rights of others[/qutoe]
yea that's crazy.Yeah, and, like, black people, you know. They're different! I've never seen a black baby coming into this world, so i'm not quite sure if they're like "that" from birth or if it develops later, but, really, they're just weird.
[/this is SARCASM!]
| gr8inferno wrote: |
| miacps wrote: | | however I've got this crazy belief that people should be able to do whatever they like as long as they are not violating my rights or the rights of others |
yea that's crazy. |
Let's just take a look at what you're saying here.
People should be able to do whatever they like as long as they are not violating my rights or the rights of others = crazy.
Clearly, you're saying :
People should NOT be able to do whatever they like as long as blah blah blah..
Were you friends with Mussolini or something? | Quote: |
The opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality,
but holiness in the Image of God, in which we are made, female and male. |
OK..homosexuality is defined as being attracted to persons of the same gender.
The opposite would be being repulsed by persons of the same gender. So holiness is being repulsed by persons of the same gender? | gr8inferno wrote: |
| yea that's crazy. |
May I ask how old you are?[quote="liljp617May I ask how old you are?[/quote]
Old enough to distinguish between right and wrong. Prejudice is right? Wasn't aware of that. Hmm...news to me. I think most people who aren't blinded by religion would disagree with you. And I believe your inability to treat others how you wish to be treated negates everything you believe in.
Wrong is how you're acting, how you're treating homosexuals.
I haven't read a lot of your posts on this forum, but for now you look like one of two things. Either a troll or a reactionary retard.
| Quote: |
| Prejudice is right? Wasn't aware of that. Hmm...news to me. I think most people who aren't blinded by religion would disagree with you. And I believe your inability to treat others how you wish to be treated negates everything you believe in. |
So you are saying that it is right to be prejudice against Christians and those who happen to believe differently than you, but it is not okay for a Christian