Homosexuality: does one choose it, or is it pre-determined?

[CloseTheBlastDo]

and dont say"they were born with it" because if they were born with it then there would be more of them.

 

...please tell me your joking!

 

SO many explinations have already been used in this thread to try and explain to you the sheer stupidity of such a comment - and somehow you've managed to miss them all.

 

I'll just use one of the already mentioned analogies and incorporate it into your own (hilarious) comment

 

'and don't say left-handed people are "born with it", because if they were born with it there would be more of them'

 

Modern evidence CLEARLY shows homosexuals are born with specific differences of a very specific part of the brain. Homosexuality is also evident in many animal species.

 

I know you will probably just ignore this and carry on in your ignorant, bigoted ways, so I can only hope reasonably rational people see this thread and possibly re-think their views...

[Dagobahn Eagle]

and dont say"they were born with it" because if they

were born with it then there would be more of them.

 

And not to mention:

"Homosexuals reproduce in hiding, because if they can't reproduce, why else can there be so many of them?" , which gave me a good healthy laugh (although Tracken's statement doesn't appear to be a joke, which makes for a less healthy record for him in my eyes).

 

Exactly, may I ask, would that increase the number of homosexuals?

 

And what if they aren't born with it? Really, I honestly cannot understand why people make such a big deal out of whether or not someone's born with it. Is that more of a reason to hate someone? Do you hate everyone whose adopted as well? They aren't "born adopted", you know, and they are a minority group, so do you hate them too?

 

You can be born straight, homosexual, or bisexual, and you can change at least once during your life. Like, for the thousandth time. Why nobody includes that in school curriculum is a mystery of the magnitude of those Sherlock Holmes is sent to investigate.

 

...I don't hate gays I hate the way they live... I don't care what they do with their time and what they do in their sex life [what were those "-signs doing hanging out by 'sex life'? -Eagle], but don't try to form our government around them and their lifestyle.

Oh my goodnees.

 

What exactly do you mean, you hate the way they live but not them? To use my (and, as I've realized, many other people around the web's) analogy of left-handed people yet again: "I don't hate left-handed people, just the way they use their left hand instead of their right hand".

 

For your information, you do not make sence, although your post says plenty about you..

 

Lastly, what do you mean by "the governmnent forming around their lifestyle"? You sound as if we have to choose between the governmnent supporting gay people and supporting straight. I've got plenty of examples of countries legalizing gay marriage without banning heterosexual marriage (no, for real, I do! Hey, come back, listen, I can prove it!!). If you mean "forming around" as in "stop prescecuting and discriminating", then yes, we're "forming our government around homosexuals". Although I'd like to use the term "expand our freedom to homosexuals".

 

That's all for today

Dagaybahn Eagle.

 

PS: In the future, can anyone who's anti-gay please do more than pop in, post, and then permanently abandon the thread? I find it annoying when people post their opinion, and then, when challenged, refuse to answer to the challenge.

[Kurgan]

Tell that one to Reverend Phelps and his "God Hates Fags" campaign. *shudders*

 

Stereotyping almost 2 billion people based on what one guy does?

 

Sigh...

 

(not to mention assuming that 30,000+ denominations all think and teach the exact same things as this Phelps guy)

 

 

 

Incidentally, I keep hearing over and over again that the principle idea behind the gay rights movement is not just lack of discrimination in hiring practices, but the LEGAL BENEFITS of marriage (ie: child custody stuff, alimony payments, insurance, joint tax forms, etc). Though many would point out that Marriage isn't all sweetness and light, but that's what they feel is entitled for equality.

 

Of course religious recognition for for gay marriages is a different story, and it all depends on what groups the gay people belong to. Some groups have no problem with them, others do.

 

And of course some gay people don't care about marriage, just like some straight people don't.

 

 

The whole "they were born that way" argument is a very important one to the gay rights movement, because (and most gay rights activists assert that it's "natural" or "normal" and use this, at least from what I've heard form them) that way they can argue that it should be protected and accepted the same way that race and gender is (supposed to be) under the law.

 

If it's a choice, they can be discriminated against much more easily, just as alcoholics, smokers, and people with a tendency toward violent behavior can be.

 

In the scientific community there is some evidence that there *might* be a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality or bisexuality, while some behavioral studies indicate that sexual preference is only a "preference" and is psychologically or socially constructed. Others assert that it's based on a number of factors like early childhood or fetal development. It's just not known yet, but that outcome is very important to a lot of people.

 

The idea is that if homosexuality is a chosen behavior (or a disorder like an addiction) then it can be "cured" or a person can choose (with enough willpower or the right therapy) to change.

 

 

Hence, a big chunk of the debate swings on that.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Stereotyping almost 2 billion people based on what one guy does?

 

Sigh...

 

(not to mention assuming that 30,000+ denominations all think and teach the exact same things as this Phelps guy)

Hmmm... with all due respect, he mentioned only Phelps, not the rest of the christians. He didn't sound like he was stereotyping 2 billion people to me. If he is, though, I agree it's wrong to say and think such things.

 

If it's a choice, they can be discriminated against much more easily, just as alcoholics, smokers, and people with a tendency toward violent behavior can be.

Yes, but the fact that they weren't born that way doesn't make it a conscious choice. I know that.

 

I realized I was homosexual in middle school (I remember sitting in class looking at this boy), then I fell in love with this beutiful, sweet girl and, to put it this way, realized I wasn't gay anymore:).

 

But the important part of the story is that it was not a conscious choice. To me, it just happened. From liking an ethnic Norwegian boy, I fell in love with a Chinese American girl. The same way as I grew tired of ice cream for a long period and got all crazy for coke. Crude analogy, maybe, but that's how it worked for me.

 

The concluding point is this: A lot of people are a minority without having become that way. Adopted people for example (although adoption is a conscious decison for the new parents, for the child it's something that's mostly over his/her power). People are making the totally wrong type of analogy when they compare homosexuals to alcoholics, IMO. But I see your point.

 

Dagobahn Eagle

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Oh my god.

A birth defect, huh? Well, there's a new one.

 

As for the topic of homosexuality, let me continue by saying that I have homosexual friends. What are they? They are my FRIENDS.

Which means nothing to me as long as you don't support it. Nice try.

 

I asked him for his reasons, and his response was that he doesn't necessarily want to be hetero. Shocked, I looked at him and said "o.k."

Meaning he wants to be with a guy instead of a girl. He could be in love for all you know.

 

Well that is what you get from basing your theology from the Simpsons. I've never read the Gospel according to Matt Groening, but something tells me that it would "fall short of the glory of God."

 

If there is a birth defect in one identical twin, it will be in the other. Personality traits in one identical twin will exist in the other. So how about homosexuality? Logically if one twin is homosexual, then the other must be. Ah....this is where genetics does not apply. I actually know of a case. Two friends of mine are identical twin brothers, we'll call them Tom and Bob. Tom is gay, and has had several sexual relationships with other men. Tom claims he was born with his homosexual desires. It if was truly GENETIC, then Bob would be gay too. However, Bob has no attraction toward males. Bob had never had an attraction toward males. Bob is straight, happily married to a gorgeous woman, and is a proud father. He's a straight shooter with not a gay bone in his body. And let me tell you, he'd have a real problem if someone put their gay bone in his body. (BA DUM BUM!!!)

Is heterosexuality genetic? Don't think so, because that'd mean that you'd be gentically different from a gay person if you were straight, which you've just clarified that you don't.

 

So... is heterosexuality is "birth defect"? Yes, by your reasoning just as much as heterosexuality.

 

I have however heard of MANY cases of children that were sexually molested by another family member (male and female). It is to no suprise that they in turn became homosexual. I have one word: TEXTBOOK.

"It's no surprise that that left-handed boy failed his math class. It's in my text book that they are more stupid..."

 

Two words to you: Obsolete textbook.

 

Does this mean all gay people were sexually molested as a child?

Um, yes, never mind the fact that I can't remember that. They did it in my sleep, right?

 

I have never met every single gay person that has existed or does exist, so I don't know the correct answer to that.

 

You do. One word: Textbook.

 

You can't be born as something, and not have it be a genetic case. There is however one thing that is genetic, and yet is not inherited from parents. That is a birth defect.(...) Now is homosexuality a birth defect?? Well I do not believe it is, but I have no proof one way or the other. However if it were a birth defect, then would it be a good birth defect? Well....no. The title "good birth defect" is contradictory and self defeating.

 

 

Homosexuality is not genetic. There is no gay gene.

So you do know that, at least. Good.

 

Biologically, humans were created male and female (the whole Adam and Eve vs. Adam and Steve argument).

Humans were created to be homosexual or heterosexual. If Adam and Eve couldn't potentially be homosexual, they wouldn't be at the same evolutionary stage as humans (as humans can be homosexual or heterosexual), and thus the argument is invalid.

 

Sexual love is one of the best ways to show another person that you love them. We do not have any children, and we don't plan on having children any time soon.

 

Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. People are gay, because they want to be gay.

Uh, evidence?

If so, explain how you chose note to be gay. Did God ask you before you got born or something?

 

Gay people are gay simply because they want to be gay.

Uh, evidence?

If so, explain how you chose note to be gay. Did God ask you before you got born or something?

Okay, here's a newsflash: You can't choose who to fall in love with.

 

Shocked, I looked at him and said "o.k."

HUH?!

What'll the next thing be? Some short guy who refuses to pray with you to become longer?! A left-handed person who refuses to train usage of his right hand with you?!

 

I'm truly shocked. I mean, he's actually accepting himself for what he is?!

 

Gay people are not born gay. It is not natural for someone to be gay.

Again: Do you have some bloody evidence for this?

There's a long step between being unnatural and being a minority group.

 

-Eagle.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

"But wait....homosexuals are born that way....right?" No. There is ZERO scientific proof that they are born that way.

 

You can't be born as something, and not have it be a genetic case.

 

I'm afraid both these statements are simply untrue.

 

There is PLENTY of evidence which points to the fact that homosexuality CAN be inbuilt at birth. (I'll explain why I said CAN instead of IS later...)

Whether you choose to except the evidence, on the other hand, is an individuals choice of course.

I would refer you to the 'Adaption vs. Evolution thread' which has more details about this evidence, and I will make an effort to find a weblink directly to the results of the studies I saw (assuming one is avaliable).

 

As far as the issue of genetics, I have already stated that I do not believe genetics is linked directly to homosexuality (which is why the case of the twins where one seems to be gay where the other appears to be not doesn't really affect my opinion) but again, I don't have the data to make that assumption into hard truth.

 

The evidence I HAVE seen though, indicated one thing VERY strongly. That among those subjects who were tested, ALL homosexual brains had a distinct and consistent difference in their brain make-up compared to their hetrosexual counterparts.

So whether it's genetic, or conditions within the womb, or some mechanism we don't know of or understand yet does not affect this result. The brains are different. We may not know exactly how or why, but that doesn't change the fact that they were different.

 

Of course, the tests I've seen were on a relatively small number of test subjects, so by all means I think more tests need to be done to provide more evidence either way. And of course if it turns out those results where some kind of fluke, then I will be the first to admit that I need to re-think my views.

 

But the fact is - at this moment in time - the evidence I have talked about is not dirctly disputed...

 

You've stated that you believe that homosexuality is induced by experiences during upbringing - mainly negative ones. I, also, don't have any such statistics to hand -which means what? We just don't know! Your ASSUMING that the majority of gay people have some kind of traumatic event linked to their 'conversion' so to speak, but you simply don't know.

...and this is a VERY dangerous and nieve assumption to make...

 

Now is homosexuality a birth defect?? Well I do not believe it is, but I have no proof one way or the other. However if it were a birth defect, then would it be a good birth defect? Well....no. The title "good birth defect" is contradictory and self defeating.

 

So here you are basically covering your bases. You have a pre-determined belief that homosexuality is some kind of defect or problem. So either way it doesn't matter whether it's a mental disorder or birth defect. Either way, homosexuality is still classified as a problem, and your objective is accomplished.

 

Now unfortunately, at this point, I can't disagree directly, although I would at least question whether it should just be ASSUMED to be a birth defect. TO me, this is a very tricky, contiversial and in many ways almost unanswerable question. (Unless you implicitatly believe anything the bible tells you of course. In which case, your mind is already made up for you)

 

I would remind you that various organisations (usually religious) have looked for ways to 'rid' people of their homosexual urges. Many were no different to torture. I know of one technique which involved showing the subject homosexual imagery which was meant to excite them. THen, at the point of excitement, sending high-voltage electric shocks through the body. Often directly to the testicles.

 

Now, I don't think anybody in this forum would disagree that what I have just described above was barbaric, ignorant, and just plain wrong. (If you don't think it was wrong, please post your address so that I can come visit your house and give your sadistic arse a good kicking)

 

But this is what happens when you assume that homosexuality is a fundemental problem that simply HAS to be sorted - at ANY costs.

 

I would issue a challenge to you jedispy that I have challenged to every other person on this forum - give me a clear and distinct explination as to what makes homosexuality 'wrong',in such a manner that it would have to be clasified as a 'defect'.

I'll give you an example to help you. Murdering people is wrong. Why? You are depriving another person the freedom to live! It's obvious. (Of course you have to discuss wars, self-defense etc., but assuming murder means simply killing another human being in cold blood with no decent motive)

 

OK, now do the same thing for homosexuality. Homosexuality is wrong because [fill in the blank]. Who's freedoms does it interfere with? Who does it harm? What damage does it cause? Please explain clearly and thouroughly. Only once you have done this will I accept homosexulity as a birth 'defect'. Until then, I simply see homosexuality as an example of human diversity -nothing more, nothing less. It only has a moral connatation if you choose to force one onto it.

 

So far you have just made a lot of half-arsed claims without even reference to any actual evidence - only fairly weak analogies which half the time are not consistent or logical. (Many examples of this have already been pointed out by Dagobahn Eagle)

 

 

To end with, I will explain my CAN instead of IS comment at the top of the post. And I do this with some trepidation, because unfortunately, in my experience, bigots are easiely confused and distracted by truth with many layers. But anyway, here goes:

 

It is entirely possible to have two types of homosexuality. One type I would ASSUME to be the most common, which would be the type which is inbuilt from birth. HOWEVER, if we know anything about human beings, it is possible for human beings to go against their natural nature. So to me, it seems entirely possible and quite plausaible that a naturally hetrosexual man could 'experiment' with homosexuality - in the same way that a homosexual man could force himself to live a hetrosexual life because of the pressure around him from his friends / family etc.

 

THis is why I would NOT expect every single man living a homosexual lifestlye to have the tell-tale brain make-up that I mentioned earlier. I would, however, expect most of them to have it.

 

Of course this makes the issue VERY complicated indeed. And I know people such as yourself jedispy will simply assume that homosexual behaviour is ALWAYS going against the inbuilt nature of hetrosexuality. (No matter what evidence was shown to the contrary).

 

unfortunately, I believe the truth about homosexuality is elusive and complex enough that the people who want to see it as a problem and a 'defect' will always have some kind of ammunition to back their cause. At least for the immediate future...

 

I only hope we as a society and a species can become more enlightened...

[SkinWalker]

This is an excerpt from the abstract of a recent study (Rahman & WIlson, June 2003):

 

The growth of scientific knowledge concerning the biology of sexual orientation during the past decade has been considerable. Sexual orientation is characterised by a bipolar distribution and is related to fraternal birth order in males. In females, its distribution is more variable; females being less prone towards exclusive homosexuality. In both sexes homosexuality is strongly associated with childhood gender nonconformity. Genetic evidence suggests a heritable component and putative gene loci on the X chromosome. Homosexuality may have evolved to promote same sex affiliation through a conserved neurodevelopmental mechanism. Recent findings suggest this mechanism involves atypical neurohormonal differentiation of the brain. Key areas for future research include the neurobiological basis of preferred sexual targets and correlates of female homosexuality.

 

In the journal Nature (Williams, et al, Mar 2000), it was shown that men with more than one older brother, who are more likely than first-born males to be homosexual in adulthood, are exposed to more prenatal androgen than eldest sons. Prenatal androgens may therefore influence adult human sexual orientation in both sexes, and a mother's body appears to 'remember' previously carried sons, altering the fetal development of subsequent sons and increasing the likelihood of homosexuality in adulthood.

 

So as you can see, there is sufficient literature to suggest that homosexuality is likely the result of biological response to stimuli pre and post natal if not related to a genetic propensity. Note that I didn't say "homosexual gene." I doubt that there is a gene or a genetic code for homosexuality, but it seems very likely that there are genetic sequences that make homosexuality a condition that may occur naturally.

 

As to the idea that christian organizations can "convert" homosexuals back to heterosexuals, Barry Yeoman of Psychology Today (Mar/Apr 1999) said, "For every person who claims a conversion to heterosexuality, there are several others who fail in their efforts. Two of the founders of Exodus International [a christian program to "convert" homosexuals], Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper, left the organization after falling in love, and more than a dozen Christian ministries have closed down after their leaders reverted back to homosexuality."

 

Nothing will be solved till it is "actually" proven that homosexuality is, or is not a choice.

 

What do you define as "proof?" Do you mean without a doubt, with reasonable doubt, with good probability, or just show the possibility?

 

I ask because if there is even the possibility that the exclusion of homosexuals and the subsequent oppression of them is unfounded because they "couldn't choose" their situations, wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution?

 

You yourself noted that "why would someone choose a lifestyle only to be bashed" or oppressed? Your context was christianity, but wouldn't it apply to homosexuality?

 

 

Rahman, Qazi; Wilson, Glenn D.June 2003.

Born gay? The psychobiology of human sexual orientation. Personality & Individual Differences, Vol. 34 Issue 8, p1337, 46p

 

Williams, T., et al. Mar 2000. Finger-length ratios and sexual orientation. Nature 404, 455 - 456.

 

Yeoman, Barry Mar/Apr 1999. GAY NO MORE? Psychology Today, Vol. 32, Issue 2

[Dagobahn Eagle]

What do you define as "proof?" Do you mean without a doubt, with reasonable doubt, with good probability, or just show the possibility?

Evidence would show that providing facts to christian fanatics just do not always cut it, wouldn't it?

 

--Eagle

[lukeskywalker1]

Alcholism, smoking, and doing drugs can all be beaten (even though they say its genetic)

 

LukeSkywalker, if your ignorance were only damaging to yourself, I'd just leave you to it. But unfortunately your ignorance is hurting a whole group of society - helping to keep them stigmatised and morally inferior in the eyes of many. So you can't be allowed to just spout out your verbal direahha without retort - because your words affect more than just yourself - even though your too immature to understand this.

 

Because I speak out for my religion. Interesting. God commands we talk, not just sit back and let stuff happen. Your here to tell the christians how dumb they are, in the hope they will turn against God. Correct?

 

 

NCV BIBLE

 

Mathew Chapter 5 Verse 22

 

 

But I tell you, if you are angry at another brother or sister, you will be judged. If you say bad things to a brother or sister, you will be judged by the council. And if you call someone a fool, you will be in danger of the fire of hell.

 

 

 

Not true, some of us in this thread simply want to know the truth. Sure, we have our own opinions at this point in time, just as you have.

 

 

Even if we agree that a gay should be allowed to be a bishop, somewhere there will still be gay bashing. We basically argue for nothing. These threads dont change a thing.

 

 

As to saying people go to hell just for being the wrong religion, there are a great many Christians (of various denominations, including Catholics, and thus by extension I assume Episcopalians as well) who believe that simply being a Christian is not enough to assure salvation. Many who belong to the Church may still not be saved. And many outside the Church may in fact be saved, through God's mercy.

 

Christ said that... sort of.

 

 

NCV BIBLE

 

Matthew Chapter 7 Verse 21-23

 

 

Not all those who say that I am their Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven. The only people who will enter the kingdom of heaven are those who do what my Father in heaven wants. On the last day many people will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, we spoke for you, and through you we forced out demons and did many miracles.' Then I will tell them clearly, 'Get away from me, you who do evil. I never knew you.'

 

 

 

He sends people to hell just for being bought up in the wrong religion

 

You know I never said that. If they hear, and dont believe, in the end they will have no excuse. Same with you, you dont have an excuse. In the end, if he asks you why you didnt turn, you wont be able to answere, because you dont have an answere.

 

You, however, only believe what you want to believe. Actual evidence means next to nothing to you - as you've already admitted yourself.

 

You are a hipocrite, the bible is proof enough. The only thing that cant be proven is the miracles, and God.. other than that, theres evidence of most of the bible. But because its old, you dont believe it. If I showed al lof the people here perfect proof the bible was real, then you would still not believe. If I proved everything false, you wouldnt change. (granted, i did some quick searches on yahoo and google, and maybe they were wrong. SORRY!) You already have your mind made up, and closed about the bible. Your posts say it all. You call it ignorance, and other things.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

A common comparison I see is with alcoholism. A tendency towards alcoholism may be in fact genetic, but that doesn't mean that it is something good, or that we shouldn't try to help people with that condition.

 

I have no doubt that there are valid parallels between alcholism and homosexuality. i.e. their biological origins.

 

What I'm disputing is the assumtion that homosexuality be treated as a 'defect' or 'problem', which needs to be 'resolved'.

let me make it clear - I am not saying I have the concrete answer to this question. I am undecided, and am willing to listen to all (sensible) arguments. But at this point in time, I don't see enough of a reason to see homosexuality as ANYTHING but an instance of human diversity.

 

Anyone with sense can see that alcholism is a problem.

Firstly, being constantly drunk limits the ability to think clearly and perfom everyday tasks (drive a car, hold down a job etc.)

Secondly, constant drinking attacks a person's health - directly attacking major organs such as the kidneys.

 

Ok - so now what are the effects of homosexuality? Does it affect the ability to perform everyday tasks? Does it affect a person's ability to think and reason? Does it attack the health of a person?

 

Unless anyone else can provide evidence to the contrary (that isn't scripture), I think the answer to all these is no.

 

people should learn to live with their, shall we say, disability, rather than be dominated and controlled by it.

 

Please explain your definition of 'disability' - under which homosexuality would be one.

 

Kurgan, as one of the last sensible and reasonable christians I know of on these forums, please engage in a sensible debate with me on this topic.

 

Why is homosexuality WRONG - in clear, presise and logical terms so all of us can understand...

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I'm with CloseTheBlastDo' on this one: Why do people keep comparing 'homosexuality' to alcoholism, disabilties, problems, etc.?

 

Cases of point:

People should learn to live with their, shall we say, disability, rather than be dominated and controlled by it.

You can be born homosexual, for a lot of deceases go unchecked.

 

Oh, and the brain thing: Yes, I do think 'homosexuals' have a different brain buildup. What I hate is that people use this against them and label it as a "brain defect". Left-handed people, too, use our brains differently (focusing on using the right part instead of the left part).

 

Birth defect: I don't think preference towards people from another 'race' is genetical. Are you saying that's a birth defect too?

 

It's your preference, for god's sake, that's all. A community where a majority like girls and the rest who like guys are denounced as "retared" is like a community where the majority of people date people of their own colour, and then wonder how the interracial couples got their "problem", "handicap", "defect", etc. "God created Adam and Eve, not Ali and Eve, thus, no interracial dating". See my analogy?

 

I seriously do believe that one day there will be no more racism or homophobia. I also believe that humans will find someone else to hate, but that's another story...

[Dagobahn Eagle]

If the population goes too high, it will sort itself out; through war, famine and diseases. (im not saying thats good... I'm saying, it happens, and these things can take care of themselves). We dont need an alternative sex, to stop the population from growing. I'm sorry, but to slow down the population growth isn't a good excuse.

You're hereby admitted to the Order of the Unfortunate Souls on Dagobahn Eagle's Ignore List.

 

Think 9/11. 2000+ people dead. "We don't need homosexuals because bombings a'la the ones in Berlin that killed millions in the 40's and the 9/11 attacks do the job a lot more nicely". Do you realize what you are saying?

 

I know, you're going to say you don't want or like wars and etc. etc. etc. That's nonsence and you know it.

 

Because when it comes down to it, you do, because otherwise homosexuality in your eyes would be accepted, something you cannot afford. Let's say you are faced with a problem of growing population. You have the choice between having 11 000 of your neighbours being homosexual and not getting pregnant.. or you have the choice of a coup in the United States leading to a massive civil war involving the US Armed Forces and NATO against the rebels, leading to 11 000 people in your neigbourhood getting killed.

 

"Oh, we don't need gays, I'll just take on a guerrila uniform, cover up my face, start the 2nd American Revolution, and go kill every republican Neo-Minute Man in my neighbourhood..."

 

Why am I sure about this? Because if you really followed the bible and condemned war, you'd say "we don't need gays and wars to lower population rates..." Just the fact that you want to stop gays and don't oppose wars (otherwise gays would be in there with 'things that happen no matter what we do'...)

 

What is the point of sex in the first place? there are 2 reasons, reproduction, and pleasure. Ok, so homosexuality doesnt reproduce, neither do some married couples. Lets look further into this.

Uh.. homosexuality is for pleasure, simple as that. So?

 

*did some searches*

You sure did. And I guess your search bar contained something in the nature of "Why does homosexuality suck".

 

Okay, so if everyone were homosexual, the world would die. Are you going to kill every impotent person in the world too? Are you going to kill off every person who does not plan to marry and have children? You sound like the damned nazis, wanting to kill off every individual who somehow doesn't benefit society (except from bin Laden, Lenin, Houssein, Cortez, and all those other 'natural' people who do such a nice job at keeping world population down).

 

In the end, you control whether you go to bed with someone or not.

and

I can understand how people have homosexual thoughts or orientation, and it's very much comparable to other urges of humans...urge to have sex, urge to do bad things because that's what to be human is. To make mistakes is human.

Which issuch a good reason to persecute them...

 

And for the thousandth time (spelled in laaaaarge letters in case you forgot your glasses),.

1. You don't get to pick your orientation
   
2. You don't pick who you want to fall in love with.
   

 

You cannot hide below the "hate the sin, love the sinner" umbrella forever, lukeskywalker1. You simply cannot. You hate gays, no matter what they do and don't do. And you just do not understand that you don't pick who to fall in love with more than Africans picked their skin colour.

 

"I can understand that they're dark-skinned. Everyone wants to do something wrong sometimes."

 

"There are certain things that the Aryan race have to survive...Bright eyes, blonde hair, and light skin. If everyone were African, these factors would be destroyed, and so would the Aryan population unless we start altering genetics of people, and Mein Kampf has already established what's wrong with that!"

 

"Of course it's wrong to be African. I don't think they're doing anything wrong, but die fuhrer said that..."

 

"In the end, you decide if you want to wear an afro or not. Thus, I can procecute you."

 

Farewell.

Dagobah Eagle.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

You say they are genetic, but people can overcome them.

 

There are many genetic "favorisms" that people can overcome via free will... there many more that people cannot. It is likely that there is no one cause to homosexuality. It could be partially genetic, partially choice, partitially prenatal protein/steroid exposure, partially postnatal development and chemical releases/reuptakes in the brain. I think the end of it all will link to neural causes...

 

When you start discussing neural problems, there are many that can be overcome by the individual via lifestyle changes, such as mild depression. There are many, however, that are just something the individual has to learn to deal with, such as a Gray Matter Heteratopia.

 

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

I guess saying its immoral would be wrong, even though i have said that, and it is my opinion. The reason that doesnt say its wrong is because thats my perspective, and the gay person doesnt veiw it as immoral. So no one can say that.

 

This is all true. And as valid as if I said that from my perspective it was immoral offer one's life to a deity. I don't say that, just for the record.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Homosexuality, as mentioned before, goes against God's order of things. If you do not believe in God, homosexuality also goes against Nature's order of things.

 

The first may be true, if you hold religious teachings as valid. These same religious teachings offered justification for slavery as well, however.

 

The latter is patently false. Nature has many uses for homosexual and bisexual relationships. The bonobo monkey, as I mentioned before, as well as the octopus. Sheep have been observed engaging in homosexual relationships, and researchers have identified dolphins that are only homosexual and choose each other as permanent partners. Nature is full of examples of homosexual and bisexual activity.

 

It is man that goes against the norm of nature and makes sexuality into a construct that includes wickedness, pleasure, jealosy, etc. We assign meanings to sex that nature never intended and use some of the meanings that nature did.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Homosexuality is not genetic, for if it was, it would be found on the X chromosome, and scientist have yet to find a gene that denotes Homosexuality.

 

First, to exclude a hypothesis simply because it hasn't been discovered to be true by testing isn't the way science works.

 

Second, you obviously didn't read the study I quoted (or even it's quote). There is evidence of homosexuality on the X chromosome.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

The mere fact that someone would act out that sexual attraction of the same gender, is an abomination against nature and a perversion against what humans are meant to do.

 

Abomination (n.) The feeling of extreme disgust and hatred; abhorrence; detestation; loathing;

 

Abomination, it would seem, must therefore vary from person to person, since we all have varying degrees of "disgust and hatred." Nature doesn't know abomination as it is a concept not a person with emotion.

 

Perversion (n.) The act of perverting, or the state of being perverted; a turning from truth or right; a diverting from the true intent or object; a change to something worse; a turning or applying to a wrong end or use.

 

This is a possibility. But then we would have to examine the degree of the perversion and compare with other societal constructs, such as kissing. Mouths weren't meant for kissing, but every bit of evidence suggests that they are efficient for mastication, respiration, and vomition. What purpose does a kiss serve in nature?

 

If we can agree that a kiss is acceptable, then can we not also agree that felatio is acceptable. What is the difference? Only the geography of the body parts. Equally aborant bodily fluids have the propensity to be dispensed from both.

 

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

In the end, you control whether you go to bed with someone or not.

 

This is true regardless of what your sexual orientation is, and therefore irrelevant to the discussion. But for that matter, we have many choices that we make regardless of the needs of nature. At the end of the day, you control whether or not to eat.

[Datheus]

The way I see it, if you break life down to it's most basic levels, it's really nothing more than chemicals 1s and 0s. Sentient life is coincidental of that. Your glands and organs are always working. "Is A happening? No. Ok, then do B. Crap, but C is happening!" and then you have a heart attack.

 

So really, when you think about it, if your body has a 1 marked for you spreading your seed, it might not necessarily be quite so concerned with what exactly it is being spread to. That is left up to your more sentient abilities (Sight, smell)...

 

So, I think as we can safely assume that humans are probably the most self aware life form on the planet. Someone might want to argue that, but just for the sake of THIS arguement, let's assume that's solid fact. So our internal systems know we're spreading seed, but we have enough "free will" (whatever you may want to call it) to "over-ride" our external systems.

 

That's not to mention that man doesn't really live by all the laws of nature anymore. Again, I know that's arguable, but just work with me here.

 

So other than the more vigilant churchs' cries of heresy and "abomination against nature", what is really against it? We're self aware enough to know how to work around it, even if we were ALL homosexual. And it's not like our population is dropping. Maybe homosexuality is the ANSWER. If nature (mind you, not humanity) would truely take its course, we have to die out some time. Or our growth needs to at least STOP. Maybe it really isn't working against nature.

 

So if the argument about homosexuality working against nature, does the Church really have a leg to stand on? No, not really. Not as far as I can see. But again, I suppose they still have the right to cry wolf. As long as they're not hunting gay people down and literally burning them at the stake, they can say all they want. Gay people can say all they want about straight people. So what if the Church is running its mouth. That doesn't mean you have to listen. People simply don't easily change their mind. It's best just to turn the other cheek and block it out. It's just words, people.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

OK - so if I can attempt to sum up what needs to be 'answered' in respect to homosexuality from the debate thus far (for those of us who are discussing this rationally and sensibly)

 

1. Is homosexuality an inbuilt impulse and drive (as real and as powerful as the hetrosexual impulse and drive?).

 

2. Can homosexuality be defined as a 'disability' / 'problem'.

 

OK - irrespective of the actual answers to these questions, let's agree to one thing -the theoretical implications to these questions.

 

First note that question 1 and 2 are two INDEPENDENT questions. The result of one does not imply the result of another.

 

Theoretically - if the answer to question 1 were YES, and the answer to question 2 were NO, then homosexuality is an example of human diversity - no more, no less.

Sure, if medical science found a way to alter a human beings sexual preference (in a non-barbaric way which was concusively proven to work), then why not have the choice to have this prodedure - I agree with that.

(Of course, if a solution involves tampering with a baby's development, then of course the baby cannot offer an opinion on the matter - which is a problem which HAS to be considered...)

 

Conversily - if the answer to question 2 is YES, then the answer to 1 becomes less important. Homosexuality is a problem - regardless of it's origin. (Mental or biological) And we as a species must endevour to find some way of stopping it. I believe this task becomes much harder and much more dangerous if the answer to question no.1 is YES.

 

 

OK - so that's the theoretical bit over. Anybody who disagrees with that, I'd like to know why...

 

 

So now, WHAT are the ACTUAL answers to these questions in reality?

 

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the answer to question 1, in many if not most cases is YES. While I agree that more studies and evidence needs to be collected, the evidence avaliable at this point in time is both thourough and undisputed (scientifically).

Of course, humans can go against their natural urges, but this is a side issue that could be mentioned in relation to ANY human activity and preference.

Either way - regardless of my personal opinions, evidence will continue to mount either way - so I'm confident that question 1 will one day be answered with a good amount of certainty.

 

Question 2 - however, is much trickier and may NEVER be agreed upon.

At this point in time, the ONLY thing I have heard that I accept as at least an argument for homosexuality being treated as a 'problem' is the fact that homosexual people cannot naturally have children.

(Notice that I said I accept it as an argument. This does NOT mean I do actually accept this as a valid problem - it just means I am willing to discuss this as a valid topic. As opposed to verses from the bible, and unfounded nonsense written by religious bigots - which to me is simply background noise)

 

Is it a problem that homosexual people cannot naturally produce children? (disregarding the idea that they periodically engage in hetrosexual intercourse - which kind of defeats the definition)

 

First of all, the idea that homosexuality can threaten the very continuation of the human race is a bit laughable. Not only has homosexuality been discovered occuring naturally within other animal species (which have survived on this earth a lot longer than we have!), but there is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is destined to mulitply and spread like some kind of virus.

Homosexuality has always been a minority, and I don't see any reason for that to change.

 

Also to me, it's not so much different than a hetrosexual couple deciding not to have childern - I would not look upon these people as having a 'disabillity' or a 'problem'. Although of course you can argue that this is a choice they are making and not enforced upon them by their biological make-up, which I would have to agree with...

 

So these are the only 'unknowns' for me. We need more evidence to determine quesion 1 for sure, and we need to decide how important reproduction is to an individual to determine question 2.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Dagobahn Eagle,

 

I agree with all your comments and arguments.

I still do not see the reproduction issue as one that should push homosexuality into the 'problem' catagorisation.

 

And you are spot on in all your parallels with other events and situations in history.

 

This is why I am eager to discuss these matters with those who understand how carefully this issue needs to be treated, and the responsibility we have as a species to not blindly repeat the mistakes of the past.

 

...and as for those who simply dismiss homosexuality as 'wrong' without even bothering to use their brains?! Well, let's just say I find it offensive and repugnant. (I assume as much as they are offended by my 'blasphemy')

[lukeskywalker1]

It is likely that there is no one cause to homosexuality.

 

Thats very possible...

 

Do you realize what you are saying?

 

im saying things happen. It brings the population down. Someone already said the affect of homosexuality on population is nothing... it may affect it a little... but not a lot.

 

 

 

 

You hate gays, no matter what they do and don't do. And you just do not understand that you don't pick who to fall in love with

 

Nice judgment, anyways, im well aware that you dont pick who to fall in love with. The bible never said that was wrong, only the sex. I do feel its wrong, my opinion. I feel that if God made people, he has the right to choose who they should be with. But you dont believe that, so i cant argue.

 

Overall, the only real arguement christians have is the bible says its wrong. Nothing more, so really its impossible for a christian to pursuade a person that its wrong if they dont believe in the bible.

 

This is true until (like i said before) we determine whether or not your born being homosexual, or if its something else.

 

But cant preference be changed? I feel its choice. Like food, you like certain types, other types dont taste good. It all tastes the same, its just your opinion that you dont like whatever the food may be. Could be totally different with homosexuality.

 

 

closetheblastdo, why would someone be offended? its your own opinion. I mainly disagree when you speak against God perosnally.

[Kurgan]

Second, let's say we had the means of altering DNA all the way from the beginning of time. You do realize that humanity, time and again, have denounced certain qualities as wrong. Lefthandedness, African skin, East Asian eyelids, and so on and so on and so on. If we were to 'cure' everyone different from us, we'd live in Hitler's dream world. No diversity, to put it short.

 

I am not talking about forcing people to change against their will or killing people who are "undesirable."

 

What the question of a pre-natal "cure" would be, is it ethical to change the genetic structure of a person who is not yet born?

 

It is definately something that would be controversial, but it's not the same thing as saying "well, kill all the homosexuals, they are bad." This would only apply to people not yet born, who sadly don't have a lot of rights.

 

But if we can possibly cure other "disorders" in the womb (predisposition to alcoholism, violence, diabetes, heart disease, etc) why not this?

 

You're not killing anyone, and they would never know the difference. Of course, if you say that "for the sake of diversity" (?) we have to have homosexuals and heterosexuals and bisexuals, then you would most likely disagree with this.

 

That is, if it's even possible to do this. Certainly it would be a better "cure" than the brainwashing therapy that others have mentioned as being so offensive.

[Eldritch]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

If the population goes too high, it will sort itself out; through war, famine and diseases. (im not saying thats good... im saying, it happens, and these things can take care of themselves) We dont need an alternative sex, to stop the population from growing. Im sorry, but to slow down the population growth isnt a good excuse.

War, famine, and disease happen, and they take care of themselves, so we should make no effort to do otherwise? I'm almost inclined to agree with Dagobahn's course of action for you - I'm not sure you have the slightest inclination of how offensive a statement this was.

 

And I'm sorry, but how would homosexuals slow population growth? They have no way of reproducing, and they don't lure heterosexuals away from their busy reproductive schedule. This makes no sense whatsoever.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

But if we can possibly cure other "disorders" in the womb (predisposition to alcoholism, violence, diabetes, heart disease, etc) why not this?

 

Kurgan,

 

I understand what your saying, but this has already been covered. I don't think many would argue that if we had the ability to somehow remove the possibility of heart disease from the human race, that would be a good thing.

 

What we need to know is if homosexuality deserves to be placed in the catagory of a problem. We just can't go around changing any old thing we happen to not like about other people - right? I would hope this would be obvious.

 

So - I ask you again, why should homosexuality be lumped in with the other 'symptoms' you mentioned above. I've already talked about how alchoholism can be clearly defined as a problem.

 

Diabetes and heart disease are medical disorders. They limit the ability of the body to function and can cause death.

 

And you've also included violence! Well, Kurgan - I expected more of you to be honest.

 

Do you really feel comfortable comparing a homosexual to a thug? A thug is a CLEAR menace to the people around him / her, and a danger to their health and safety.

A homosexual is a danger to .... err ... who exactly? Your sense of morality?!

 

It's time for you to come off the fence and tell us whether you think - if we had the power - we should just erase homosexuallity from the human race - like it's a disease. Because if you do, you have a moral obligation to justify yourself and give us a good reason for it...

 

I don't want another quote from some religious organisation. They are inherently biased, and their opinion means very little to me. I want YOUR opinion on this matter.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

LukeSkywalker,

 

Do me a favour.

Start a new thread called 'Why the bible is unquestionably true - FULL STOP'. I will gladly discuss with you in this thread why I believe the bible is NOT unquestionably true.

 

Since:

 

a. I don't believe everything in the bible is 'literally' true.

 

b. YOU believe that the bible is the only REAL truth. (i.e. it's like a trump card which means it out-weighs any other evidence or argument any of us can bring to the table)

 

So while we have these two differeing beliefs, it is literally IMPOSSIBLE for us to talk to each-other in sensible terms.

 

So as I say, start a new thread, and we can discuss this. If we could reach a conclusion on this (highly unlikely I know - but not impossible) , then we could possibly start to discuss other matters.

 

Until then, I have nothing more to say to you on the issue of homosexuality, or any other topic.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

But if we can possibly cure other "disorders" in the womb (predisposition to alcoholism, violence, diabetes, heart disease, etc) why not this?

 

You're not killing anyone, and they would never know the difference. Of course, if you say that "for the sake of diversity" (?) we have to have homosexuals and heterosexuals and bisexuals, then you would most likely disagree with this.

Well, alcoholism isn't really the same as homosexuality. Yes, drinking because of a genetic inclination to drink is the same as having sex with a girl because of your inclination to do so. But that's where the similarities end.

 

But homosexuality isn't really bad in itself. It's prejudiced and looked down at by many, but when it comes down to it, it's just another sexual preference, IMO.

 

Of course, I might be completely wrong and biased because of my experiences, but that's my view. There actually was another thread on this that discussed how you would feel if you had 'gay DNA' inside you and someone had changed it, making you heterosexual.

[BawBag™]

Perhaps I'm missing a point, but the alcoholism etc. thing comparison to homosexuality >

 

These things are addictions. They are caused by narcotic/addictive substances which manipulate the body and mind to dependance on them. Trust me with that one.

 

Homosexuality is just simply "something". It's very difficult to put into words. It's not a birth defect, it's not an addiction, it's not "something" that's forced upon people.

Gay people are gay because of feeling, because of emotion. Yes, some people are gay due to growing up in an environment with gay people, but what's wrong with that? I don't worship god (or any god for that matter) because that's how I was brought up, so you can like it or lump it. Your not going to change my mind. Exactly the same for gay people. They choose that way of life.

 

Okely Dokely Neighboureeno's?

 

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Alcholism in and of itself is not totally inborn - of course not. You need to drink alchohol in the first place!

 

But what is meant is actually the 'tendancy' or the 'probability' to become an alchoholic.

 

Some people can drink and not become 'addicted' (Myself included). Some people can even drink heavily, but still not become addicted.

 

However, some people only need ONE drink (literally) and can find themselves addicted. THIS is what we are refering to. Not alchoholism itslef, but the tendancy for a person to become an alchoholic.

This IS almost certainly inborn - most probably genetically. (I'm not aware if this is proven or not)

 

So I accept the analogy works on that level. But that's where the analogy ends. Because while alchoholism can be clearly seen to be a problem - no-one has yet stated, clearly and specifically, why homosexuality should be treated as a 'problem' in the same light.

[BawBag™]

I see your point, but:

 

Simply because homosexuality is not a problem. It doesn't affect life the way alcohol does. People just think it's wrong and it's a problem because they aren't gay.

 

This is it, everytime something new comes to light thats radical, different or just plain crazy it will always get a cold reception.

No-one can "treat homosexuality as a problem".....