147 replies to this topic

[Sandwich]

SG6 Warlord, on Mar 22, 2011 - 07:24, said:

As long as it happens behind closed doors then it can happe. But i don't wanna hear them ranting about thier rights, or thier struggle or any of that.
I'm opposed to it and always will be. But thats my right, they seem to have acquired thiers so I sure as sure got the right to speak out about it.

Opposed to it because of a decent reason? The only reasons I can ever come up with are feeling uncomfortable and general/fundamentalist religious prejudice. I've thought about it a lot and decided that neither of those are even bordering on good reasons. They would both pertain only to me, for starters - if I can do whatever I want personally (other people being homosexual doesn't make me or anybody else engage in homosexual behaviour), so can other people. That's a principle of free living and free speech that I think is ultimately important.

I also completely disagree with the fact that you have a right to speak out about it. Nobody has the right to hate on people for no reason in a public arena. Homophobia is, in that sense, no different from racism. Intolerance and prejudice are intolerance and prejudice are intolerance and prejudice. I also think it's bordering on ridiculous and annoying to go around having gender parades all the time etc. etc., I'm not sure if treating it so elaborately is exactly the way to normalise it, however the right to be proud of something doesn't give other people the right to bash them for it. That's an idea even more ridiculous than the parades sometimes seem!

[ShineeLikeMe]

SG6 Warlord, on Mar 22, 2011 - 07:24, said:

As long as it happens behind closed doors then it can happe. But i don't wanna hear them ranting about thier rights, or thier struggle or any of that.
I'm opposed to it and always will be. But thats my right, they seem to have acquired thiers so I sure as sure got the right to speak out about it.

Last time I checked, gays hadn't acquired their rights yet in any sense of the word. If you look at the majority of the Constitutions of countries around the world they protect human rights based on "gender, race, and religion" there are some variations but those are the big three. I could count on one hand the number of countries that have added equal treatment to their constitution based on sexual preference. So no, gays have no acquired full rights. Yes you have the right to oppose being gay. Yes you have the right to ignore gays when they try to attain equal rights. But saying that you prefer it happen behind closed doors is just reverting back to the idea of separate but equal again. "Sure they can be black and get the same education but just at a different school" is the same as "Sure they can be gay as long as its in their house where I don't see it".

[zakrzi]

I think that homosexuals should be given rights to get married etc. but not to have children as it is not "normal" to have two fathers or two mothers and this kind of family can have some "bad" influence on child's mentality.

[Crnjanski]

Quote

I think that homosexuals should be given rights to get married etc. but not to have children as it is not "normal" to have two fathers or two mothers and this kind of family can have some "bad" influence on child's mentality

I couldn't agree more. They are all human beings, they should have the same rights as we all do, but with that one exception of not being able to adopt a child.

[ShineeLikeMe]

Crnjanski, on Mar 24, 2011 - 22:17, said:

Quote

I think that homosexuals should be given rights to get married etc. but not to have children as it is not "normal" to have two fathers or two mothers and this kind of family can have some "bad" influence on child's mentality

I couldn't agree more. They are all human beings, they should have the same rights as we all do, but with that one exception of not being able to adopt a child.

         So basically you're picking and choosing the rights that a minority group can and cannot have. Either we have them all or we don't. Either we're equal human beings or we're not. Now which is it?
         By the way, some of the best people I've ever known has been raised by a single parent and two dads and two moms are jut as 'normal' as a mom and a dad. Yes children need a female and male role model in their lives but that does NOT have to be their parents. Personally my parents are the farthest things from role models I have. My aunts are the best role models to me and I have no male role model. I am a perfectly normal functioning member of society and quite a good one at that.
         In order to reiterate my point, please reread your statement. You say that gays are "human beings" and "should have the same rights as we do" while in the same breath you would take away the joy of raising a child and the proud moments that come with being a parent from someone you deem a 'human being'. That statement in and of itself is a contradiction.
         We've all heard of the argument that gay families will shatter the foundations of our society but let's look at this shall we? Interracial marriage used to be looked at as taboo. It was seen as dirty and the children born from these marriages were considered mutants and referred to as "mulatto". Furthermore DIVORCE isn't even allowed if you read the Bible. And don't talk to me about "Oh that's outdated" because it wasn't outdated until 1960 when divorce rates skyrocketed.
         You say that having two parents of the same gender will create "bad" effects on the child. Divorce have been PROVEN to cause major psychological damage to a child's social life. Drug addict parents even if they have both a mom and a dad and only one of them is a drug addict has caused not only psychological damage but oftentimes emotional AND physical damage as well. There have been no studies shown that having 2 dads or two moms have had ANY sort of damaging effect at all. On the contrary its been proven that children in same sex families have had a better sense of self and increased self esteem.
      
Don't believe me? Sources:
http://www.childadvo...on_children.htm
http://www.hopenetwo... of Addicts.htm
http://www.time.com/...1994480,00.html

The last article is a Time article from CNN. A largely unbiased news network.

In summation, before you go around throwing out the completely foreign idea (to you) of gay families, I would do your research and see just what it is that bugs you about it instead of "bad" things may happen.

[Proletariat]

Crnjanski, on Mar 24, 2011 - 22:17, said:

Quote

I think that homosexuals should be given rights to get married etc. but not to have children as it is not "normal" to have two fathers or two mothers and this kind of family can have some "bad" influence on child's mentality

I couldn't agree more. They are all human beings, they should have the same rights as we all do, but with that one exception of not being able to adopt a child.

You may be interested to note that homosexual swans make better parents statistically than heterosexual swans.

I would love to know what you define as "bad influence". Liberalism? Tolerance? Open-mindedness?

Because I gotta say, there's only one instance of "bad influence on a child's mentality" I can detect in this thread, and it ain't the gays.

[jayrobsah]

homosexuality is wrong according to the bible and this is what we shall go by
thats all

[Proletariat]

jayrobsah, on Apr 02, 2011 - 10:27, said:

homosexuality is wrong according to the bible and this is what we shall go by
thats all

You should change that "we" in your post to "I."

That's all.

[larry]

So just to go back to when this debate was interesting...

There's another theory about biological factors in homosexuality from The Economist: characteristics often associated with homosexuals, such as sensitivity in gay men, and more self-assertiveness in lesbians, actually result in greater sexual success for heterosexuals (i.e. straight guys who have some "gay" characteristics get more sex - think about it...). These characteristics have some genetic basis. Thus heterosexual people with these "gay" genes will be more successful sexually, but also more likely to have children in which these characteristics are even more pronounced: i.e. gay. So that could be why gay genes get passed on: through the siblings of gays, who have some of their "gay" genes, and are the more attractive for it, but who actually procreate.

Yes, there are a lot of "more likely"s in there, but we're talking about statistical probabilities. I just thought it was an interesting theory.

I also don't necessarily agree with the argument that homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality are purely social constructs. I think there are some people who are only attracted to their own sex, and some who are only attracted to the opposite sex. (Seriously, you think gays are actually bisexuals repressing their attraction to the opposite sex because of societal mores?) That said I find the argument that about 10% of people are solely hetero, 1% homo, and everyone else in between extremely interesting and fairly plausible.

[Proletariat]

larry, on Apr 03, 2011 - 07:23, said:

So just to go back to when this debate was interesting...

There's another theory about biological factors in homosexuality from The Economist: characteristics often associated with homosexuals, such as sensitivity in gay men, and more self-assertiveness in lesbians, actually result in greater sexual success for heterosexuals (i.e. straight guys who have some "gay" characteristics get more sex - think about it...). These characteristics have some genetic basis. Thus heterosexual people with these "gay" genes will be more successful sexually, but also more likely to have children in which these characteristics are even more pronounced: i.e. gay. So that could be why gay genes get passed on: through the siblings of gays, who have some of their "gay" genes, and are the more attractive for it, but who actually procreate.

Yes, there are a lot of "more likely"s in there, but we're talking about statistical probabilities. I just thought it was an interesting theory.

I also don't necessarily agree with the argument that homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality are purely social constructs. I think there are some people who are only attracted to their own sex, and some who are only attracted to the opposite sex. (Seriously, you think gays are actually bisexuals repressing their attraction to the opposite sex because of societal mores?) That said I find the argument that about 10% of people are solely hetero, 1% homo, and everyone else in between extremely interesting and fairly plausible.

Those percentages at the end there look at lot more European than North American

I still really hate the idea of "gay genes." Honestly, sensitivity? That's a parameter that an individual can change in the mid-point of his/her life, and far from genetic, along with basically any of these social characteristics that one would care to apply to the homosexual stereotype (which, we must remember, is just that: a stereotype.)

It's more the instinctual characteristics associated with sexuality that would have genetic precedence. The difference between learned and innate behaviour.

My position has always been that it's not either/or (Nature/Nurture), but a convoluted mixture of both. And though I made my little joke above, I think the theory that bisexuality is really a lot more prevalent than one may suspect really does have quite a bit of credence to it. I'm not sure on the 89% as a number, but I would still say one that's fairly significant, and then this number would be suppressed into the actual demographics in reality due to societal/familial/religious moulding.

Edited by Proletariat, Apr 03, 2011 - 08:25.

[larry]

Obviously the issue is a lot more complicated than some "gay gene", hence the ' "gay" gene'. That's not to say that there aren't some genes (considering it's genetics, probably a lot) that influence a person's sexuality. The same goes for personality. I'd say both are a combination of nature/nuture.

Lol I'll give you that "sensitivity" isn't the strongest example/way of putting it . But picking on personal experience, don't you know a guy who everyone (or at least all the guys) think is gay, yet who manages to be extremely successful with the ladies? Tempermentally, guys who are more "in touch with their feminine side", and whose features are softer, less macho often manage to get more girls. And assertiveness, including being more sexually aggressive (no, not to the extreme) in women, deemed a "masculine" trait, does have some genetic basis (yes, lots of nurture, but still some nature), and does mean more sex (surprisingly enough )

And yes, there are lots of generalisations in there. Statistical probability and all that.

[Chronofox]

Quote

I think that homosexuality is against human nature. If people became homosexual, there will be no more children   

On the issue of homosexual rights, it would seem that homophobia mostly stems from a lack of education and understanding of the subject. First of all, homosexuality is not an action, but a state of mind. It is likely something that gays are born with (a gene, perhaps?) and sexual preference is not something that individuals have a choice in. To say that homosexuality is 'against' human nature shows a questionable stance upon the subject of human nature itself. Perhaps you mean to say that the purpose of life is to procreate and perpetuate life, as that is what would be best for the human species. However, research has shown that homosexuality in males can actually increase fertility in females, so this argument is invalid. Furthermore, it should be noted that 'human nature' is subject to individual perception, so your understanding of it might not reflect upon the majority's; and, as a free society, people should be allowed to believe whatever they want as long as it is deemed lawful - and homosexuality does not cause any problems to society.

I expect better from modern society than to cling to the traditional arch-conservative belief that homosexuality is a sin. The majority of these people tend to be religious fundamentalists, but let's not forget the fact that the bible also endorses slavery as well as the subjugation of women as mere property. These ideas are clearly outdated, so how is arguing against gay rights any different from arguing for other prejudices such as racism or sexism?

Upon the evolutionary discussion of homosexuality, there is an interesting video out there from Richard Dawkins on his theories upon the perpetuation of homosexuality (not sure if it's been posted here before); take note that he believes that there is a "gay" gene in many of us humans, which may or may not be valid.

Edited by Chronofox, Apr 03, 2011 - 19:09.

[Proletariat]

Chronofox, on Apr 03, 2011 - 19:08, said:

sexual preference is not something that individuals have a choice in.

This is a statement that one can never hope to prove. Since sexual instincts do not manifest  until puberty, any environmental impact upon the psyche of a child that could potentially influence sexual orientation is unable to be either proven nor disproven. However, given the ambiguity of something such as sexual orientation for many individuals, I highly doubt that it is something solely located in the genome.

I'm also quite surprised by how many IB students would regurgitate a statement like "homosexuality is against human nature/my religion, so it is wrong for all 7 billion of us, kthkx." You can be 100% against gays, to the heart of your moral core, but still be intelligent and eloquent enough to make and explain your case. There have been posts like that earlier in the thread, but the recent vomiting of the Bible card kinda lowered my opinions of IB students of the world.

[Drake Glau]

I agree with you 100% about the make and explain your case part. However, I don't agree with your diction related to the Bible or the fact that it lowered your opinions of anyone. It is perfectly fine to use religion as your case for what you believe. Chances are whoever uses the bible to make a case was raised like that and their morals likely came from that book.
Also the disrespect towards the religion as whole is uncalled for. No I'm not religious at all and could care less what you believe in but I would like to think that IB students, including yourself, would have enough respect for the rest of the people who worship what they worship.

K, I'm done. I don't have an opinion for this topic, people do what they want and we're all human and deserve what we're promised, simple as that for me.

Don't let this derail the debate either, just wanted to insert my opinion about anyone who decides to dis religion as a piece of someone's case.

Edited by Drake Glau, Apr 04, 2011 - 01:36.

[Proletariat]

Drake Glau, on Apr 04, 2011 - 01:16, said:

I agree with you 100% about the make and explain your case part. However, I don't agree with your diction related to the Bible or the fact that it lowered your opinions of anyone. It is perfectly fine to use religion as your case for what you believe. Chances are whoever uses the bible to make a case was raised like that and their morals likely came from that book.
Also the disrespect towards the religion as whole is uncalled for. No I'm not religious at all and could care less what you believe in but I would like to think that IB students, including yourself, would have enough respect for the rest of the people who worship what they worship.

K, I'm done. I don't have an opinion for this topic, people do what they want and we're all human and deserve what we're promised, simple as that for me.

Don't let this derail the debate either, just wanted to insert my opinion about anyone who decides to dis religion as a piece of someone's case.

Haha, calm down. I seems that you've rather overblown the rhetoric, and perhaps I didn't make my half-serious cynicism charming enough, but please don't misinterpret my post. If you followed that other Thread That Shall Not Be Named in this sub-forum a while back you'll know that I have the utmost respect for religious tolerance.

However, that doesn't preclude individuals from using religion as a single sentence end-all-be-all conclusion to this very serious issue. And it certainly isn't an excuse for others to enforce their world view on every single other inhabitant of this planet, as a few posters have done. So to prevent future misconceptions about my position on this, I'll spell it out clearly for you: I have no problems with other individuals being religious. But I'm fairly certain you can find many other posters than me to criticize for close-mindedness.

If I take this issue of homosexuality to a religious leader, I'm confident 90% of them will have more to say than to throw Leviticus 18:22 in my face. It can explain God's position, but what about the way their denomination treats gays in their community? To they ignore them? Punish them? "Convert" them? What about the Christian denominations that accept openly gay members?

[Drake Glau]

Proletariat, on Apr 04, 2011 - 03:21, said:

Drake Glau, on Apr 04, 2011 - 01:16, said:

I agree with you 100% about the make and explain your case part. However, I don't agree with your diction related to the Bible or the fact that it lowered your opinions of anyone. It is perfectly fine to use religion as your case for what you believe. Chances are whoever uses the bible to make a case was raised like that and their morals likely came from that book.
Also the disrespect towards the religion as whole is uncalled for. No I'm not religious at all and could care less what you believe in but I would like to think that IB students, including yourself, would have enough respect for the rest of the people who worship what they worship.

K, I'm done. I don't have an opinion for this topic, people do what they want and we're all human and deserve what we're promised, simple as that for me.

Don't let this derail the debate either, just wanted to insert my opinion about anyone who decides to dis religion as a piece of someone's case.

Haha, calm down. I seems that you've rather overblown the rhetoric, and perhaps I didn't make my half-serious cynicism charming enough, but please don't misinterpret my post. If you followed that other Thread That Shall Not Be Named in this sub-forum a while back you'll know that I have the utmost respect for religious tolerance.

However, that doesn't preclude individuals from using religion as a single sentence end-all-be-all conclusion to this very serious issue. And it certainly isn't an excuse for others to enforce their world view on every single other inhabitant of this planet, as a few posters have done. So to prevent future misconceptions about my position on this, I'll spell it out clearly for you: I have no problems with other individuals being religious. But I'm fairly certain you can find many other posters than me to criticize for close-mindedness.

If I take this issue of homosexuality to a religious leader, I'm confident 90% of them will have more to say than to throw Leviticus 18:22 in my face. It can explain God's position, but what about the way their denomination treats gays in their community? To they ignore them? Punish them? "Convert" them? What about the Christian denominations that accept openly gay members?

Sorry, I don't really follow much of the other threads in the debate area because I get sucked in and then stuff doesn't get done
And I still agree with you no single piece of evidence (including religion) can lead to an outright conclusion. It can help to carry a though and maybe strengthen an idea.

Sorry for the jump down your throat thing

[Morpheus]

bomaha, on Apr 03, 2011 - 14:39, said:

I think that homosexuality is against human nature. If people became homosexual, there will be no more children  

What is Human Nature? Homosexuality occurs naturally in humans.

[timmotytimmoty]

zakrzi, on Mar 24, 2011 - 21:33, said:

I think that homosexuals should be given rights to get married etc. but not to have children as it is not "normal" to have two fathers or two mothers and this kind of family can have some "bad" influence on child's mentality.

Just like any years ago, it is said that homosexuality is not "normal", love can't be between the same sex, it is exactly the lack of knowledge about GLBT people. Since the GLBT culture spreading all over the world, people started to accept the fact that homosexuality exist.

Human is not likely to accept innovations immediately, just like the having adopted child. It is rare to see same-sex couple having a child. I do reckon that the more frequent is adopted child by same-sex couple, the more will people accept the fact that such family is "normal". It is always worth to investigate it.

People believe that it could influence the child's mentality, so does heterosexual family influence their gay son? No! maybe people shouldn't looking for any correlation between the sex of parents and the sexuality of the offsprings. In my opinion, for establish such theory, it first should be investigated scientifically.

Regards.

[AznTKyu]

I believe Homosexuality is based on various other factors in ones life, in what they were exposed to, and how they perceived society and their interactions with others. Its not a lifestyle choice nor is it genetics.

[U Mirin' Braahhhh?]

First of all, we're not the most adequate people to be debating this topic lol We're just students that have no deep knowledge about this whole Morality topic.

However, just look at what is happening. Gay people are growing. Not because they now have the freedom to assume themselves as gay but because of other aspects. We've actually reverted what is the basis of democracy: we've turned the minorities more powerful than the majorities. You see, all the politicians want, is to have votes. Thus, they give freedom of speech and freedom of sex. But what are the repercussions to the society?

Not to begin with the whole religious part of it and to mention all that has been said, it definitely corrupts the society. Usually, gay couples that adopt a child will almost force their adopted child to be gay as well. So, where is the freedom of choice here? A child is constantly given the opportunity to experience something that corrupts their mind with thoughts that most of the times are not real. Gay people say that we are all gay, it's just the society that has been telling us that is wrong. And to prove this, they use Freud's method (which btw, has been considered to not be valid for most of the psychological problems...). Where is ethics here? They are disturbing a person's mind.

Now look at this in a more small world. Imagine two best friends. Doesn't matter their sex. One thinks that he's having feelings for the other. As all of you must've experienced, when a person starts to like the other (in opposite sex) it always gives either the wrong way or they end up dating. Now, as the other one is not gay, what will happen is an obsession to turn the other one gay because gay people cannot accept the fact that others are not gay (AND if you actually analyse their attitude, gay people turn out to be the most aggressive despite the fact that they seem to be fragile at a first glance). For gay people, there is no such thing as friendship. Friendship is just a beginning to a relationship. This is another reason to a problem they have: Gay people cannot maintain a relationship stable because they are not capable of being with the same person forever (which does not happen in real marriage - if the marriage is properly held and husband and wife are committed). No matter what happens, they will not stay together if another gay comes. Gay people tend to have (and sorry for using the word) orgies. Hence, I ask, where is the concept of matrimony?? There is no such thing for them.

It was not that deep in terms of TOK but it was meant to talk about what really goes on in reality in a society that accepts homosexuality. Friendship is not a natural thing. It was created by Man (if not by God) and it's quite a strange bond that you won't find in any other species. All the other ones just live in community but there won't be any bond that we can name as friendship.

Hope you got my ideas. and yes, I'm absolutely against homosexuality...