Jump to content

Homosexuality


Morpheus

Recommended Posts

Well unfortunately there are many people... And by many, I mean the majority of the global population, who still think the way I suggested. Which I agree, it sounds mellodramatic, but I meant it more just to incite a reaction.

And if there were a pill or something, no I would not take it.

Clearly scientists and psychiatrists have contemplated what you've just said about the medical aspect of it. It used to be classified (for example in the DSM) as a mental illness, but they removed that classification decades ago.

I'm not so sure. You should check out some of the polls.. in the developed world at least, advocacy for gay marriage is getting pretty close to 50% of the population.

Other than that my only question is .. why would you put your SAT scores in your signature?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice I said world's population, not develped world. For those living in many non-developed countries, the thought of a possibility of marriage is probably the last thing on their minds with regards to what they face.

And I'm not sure really. I suppose at the time I was really happy with them because I studied heaps for it (I know they aren't perfect but whatever)...but I suppose it's no longer relevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Treating homosexuality as a disorder is a bit extreme. What next? Will they start treating celibates and people who don't want to have children? Even if it were a disorder, I wouldn't support any research to find a cure for it because it's simply waste of resources. There are worse diseases out there that need the time and attention.

Other than that my only question is .. why would you put your SAT scores in your signature?

Haha, why not? Odd question.

Edit: Post #132 on the 13th 8-)

Edited by genepeer
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahaha thanks guys :) as a result I shall leave them there

Also, why must it be seen from your medical perspective as a "disease" rather than an example of "genetic variation in the population" or something else? It needs to meet certain medical criteria to be classified as a disease and evidently it does not.

Yet I must agree with you that I think it is better to approach it from a medical rather than political viewpoint. However, unfortunately it's the politics surrounding the subject that need addressing/change still. Medically, I think it's (in the western world), well agreed upon to not be a disease/a problem.

On a side note, if anyone reading this has any personal questions/needs help or advice regarding this subject, feel free to message me and I'll try to reply asap :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, why must it be seen from your medical perspective as a "disease" rather than an example of "genetic variation in the population" or something else? It needs to meet certain medical criteria to be classified as a disease and evidently it does not.

Yet I must agree with you that I think it is better to approach it from a medical rather than political viewpoint. However, unfortunately it's the politics surrounding the subject that need addressing/change still. Medically, I think it's (in the western world), well agreed upon to not be a disease/a problem.

On a side note, if anyone reading this has any personal questions/needs help or advice regarding this subject, feel free to message me and I'll try to reply asap :)

I wish to clarify a few points. Firstly, I said 'disorder' not 'disease'. In my opinion, there is a very fine line between the two. A 'disorder' is used mainly to describe intrinsic abnormalities; malfunctions which occur naturally due to genetics or one-off external experiences which causes the malfunction. A 'disease' is used to describe extrinsic causes which impair bodily functions. As such you can 'catch' a disease but you can't 'catch' a disorder. You have skewed what I was trying to say by portraying me as describing homosexuality as a 'disease which will infect everyone'. No.

Secondly, it is not 'my perspective'. It is the perspective I think any person who has a critical mind should take. You seem to think that there is zero possibility that it is a disorder. I don't think that is the right approach. You stated before that you would not accept treatment if, hypothetically, homosexuality was indeed a disorder, but you didn't say why you would refuse treatment in such a scenario. To ignore the possibility would be wrong. Another poster stated that they wouldn't support any research on such a 'disorder'. I think this is absurd. I would have thought that all homosexuals, bisexuals and heterosexuals would want a medical explanation at least on the issue of sexuality. Never mind whether you can medically change your sexuality or whether it is a 'disorder'. If no research should be done on the topic, there is no reason to discuss it here; it would be a complete waste of OUR time, not some random researcher's.

Matthew, I accept your offer of help and advice. Up to now it may seem like I'm homophobic, re-read my post(s); it is critical, but with purpose. I am myself slightly confused about my sexuality which is why I find this topic important, especially with regards to childhood experience and parental upbringing. My mother brought me up on her own; I have played very little sports as a child thus being with other guys wasn't a common experience. So here's the question: how do you whether you are 'attracted to males' or simply 'curious' about them due to lack of experience? Does this question define whether one is straight or bisexual? Your comments are appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish to clarify a few points. Firstly, I said 'disorder' not 'disease'. In my opinion, there is a very fine line between the two. A 'disorder' is used mainly to describe intrinsic abnormalities; malfunctions which occur naturally due to genetics or one-off external experiences which causes the malfunction. A 'disease' is used to describe extrinsic causes which impair bodily functions. As such you can 'catch' a disease but you can't 'catch' a disorder. You have skewed what I was trying to say by portraying me as describing homosexuality as a 'disease which will infect everyone'. No.

Re: disease versus disorder it's all purely etymological but you can have non-infectious disease. Rheumatic disease, for instance, can't be passed on in any way. All autoimmune diseases plus many genetic (.:. non-infectious) diseases are labelled with the word 'disease' so it's relatively common. So the use of the words disease versus disorder to distinguish the two isn't something which holds much water -- however you can of course just use the definitions you gave (minus the words 'disease' and 'disorder') and your point makes sense, so I don't think it's too big a deal about the word choice.

As regards the idea of it being an abnormality that all critical people ought to want to investigate, it does make some sense. People have certainly looked for a 'gay gene' in the past and so on. However, as with anything to do with human behaviour, I suspect that it's not an abnormality which can exactly be tracked down. Our understanding of biological causes behind behaviour are limited to some very dubious evidence based largely around Schizophrenia and Depression as being two ends of a spectrum which we can induce or relieve to a small extent in a certain % of cases using molecules which may in fact not be implicated in the root cause, simply in the solution. So yes, it's not the greatest of evidence! Also unlike Schizophrenia and Depression, which is aberrant behaviour that has a negative impact on people and is a clear imbalance somewhere, homosexuality seems (to me at least) to be a little more along the lines simply of personal preference. It makes just as much sense to look for a medical reason as to why some people get a thrill out of going to see Formula 1, and I suspect that the conclusion would probably be a sort-of haze of weak correlations and a general conclusion that nobody really has a clue.

Sexual preference is, in my opinion, something to be put in the same category as favourite colour. Whilst intellectually it's interesting to look for causes for anything and everything, I think that the big crux point would be that people are not discriminated against by their favourite colour (to my knowledge no faction of society looks down on those who like yellow, for instance) so any research done to find some sort of biological discriminator wouldn't be the start of anything nasty. At least, you'd assume so. On the other hand, a biological separator for gay people would in my opinion lead a certain faction of society down a root of there being a basis for discrimination, we'd have the whole of the USA's bible belt getting pre-implantation genetic testing to make sure their child was 'normal'... etc.! I really don't think it could be a good thing.

Plus, I don't actually think that many gay people would want some kind of explanation (which would inevitably be accompanied by some kind of test). I doubt very much that I would like for anything to tell me my own preferences, likes, dislikes and effectively the basis of my personality as some kind of psychological malfunction. I think that people want to decide these things for themselves and would largely reject anybody attempting to tell them otherwise. After all, who are other people to tell me what I like?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Secondly, it is not 'my perspective'. It is the perspective I think any person who has a critical mind should take. You seem to think that there is zero possibility that it is a disorder. I don't think that is the right approach. You stated before that you would not accept treatment if, hypothetically, homosexuality was indeed a disorder, but you didn't say why you would refuse treatment in such a scenario. To ignore the possibility would be wrong. Another poster stated that they wouldn't support any research on such a 'disorder'. I think this is absurd. I would have thought that all homosexuals, bisexuals and heterosexuals would want a medical explanation at least on the issue of sexuality. Never mind whether you can medically change your sexuality or whether it is a 'disorder'. If no research should be done on the topic, there is no reason to discuss it here; it would be a complete waste of OUR time, not some random researcher's.

This is wrong, for many reasons, some of which Alice pointed out.

If in our model of the world we had people naturally born with their color preferences as Green, and some few born with, or discovering at some point in their life, a preference for Blue, it would be natural to assume the latter to be defective in some sense. But without bringing some sort of religious or pseudoreligious frame of morality into the thing, being gay is just like liking Blue instead of Green. When you like Blue, there's no reason you would want to like Green instead, for the simple reason that you already like Blue.

I think research into homosexuality is quite fascinating, though, without looking too deeply into its normative implications on people's sexuality, and I'd like to drop my two cents in here:

The Kinsey reports, perhaps, represent some of the strongest evidence we have for humans to be naturally born bisexual.

That's a weird idea, I know, but think about it: how could we possibly have biological systems built into us to love only the opposite sex? We have a sexual instinct which is generally pointed in that direction (e.g. guys like breasts and curves; women like V-shaped torsos and (one hopes) large penises), and that's almost like an emergency override, but it's hardly fine tuned. Every seen a dog humping everything it sees (including your leg)? The systems we build up culturally and societally have far more staying power in the mind, because they are composed (I like to imagine) of neural circuits in our brains distilling hundreds - maybe thousands - of years of human culture, one that is changing and evolving, in some sense of the word, all the time.

It so happens that our culture is predominantly 'keyed' to heterosexuality, which makes a great deal of sense, particularly if you invoke the anthropic principle (how would a culture where gay sex was preferred ever come to dominate the world?) but it's important to remember that this isn't the only option. I remember vaguely, from conversations, (too tired to Google this - might come back to it later though, if I remember) stories about cultures - possibly Polynesian (?) - where this was entirely not the case. It's like monogamy and polygamy; Mother Earth has no morals, and evolution is a fierce, but very imprecise, tool. That one way of thinking dominates the world is testimony not to our natural instinct to choose one path but rather the workings of time, a peculiarly modified form of natural selection I guess, where societies that were more successful in one aspect or another grew to dominate or exterminate those that were not. This was the great insight I gained from 'Guns, Germs and Steel', a book which I recommend to anyone hoping to understand the way human societies work.

So yeah, that's my two cents. And I do believe that people get some sort of a choice, as with the sorting hat in Hogwarts. If you believe it's already determined and you have to come to terms with something in your DNA, maybe it will be - confirmation bias and a whole arsenal of psychological effects (eg heuristics) come into play - but if you don't, maybe it won't be. I would be interested to see whether this theory holds any water in the practical sense: if a person is attracted to both sexes, but chooses to indulge only one of these inclinations, can he permanently alter this aspect of his personality? I am sure there is a way to study that, maybe compare it with what happens when a Bible belter tries to belt it out of his son...

PS - I forgot to add a bit about romantic love somewhere along the way. This is where I was trying to separate the physical and emotional components of love .. when you're horny, you basically want to sleep with anything, the hotter the better. But most of us wouldn't base our long-term relationships on physical attraction alone; this is partly why a romantic relationship between two people of the same sex is completely possible. And wouldn't it make sense for this emotional base to be able to override the crude physical distinctions between male and female?

Edited by Daedalus
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another poster stated that they wouldn't support any research on such a 'disorder'. I think this is absurd. I would have thought that all homosexuals, bisexuals and heterosexuals would want a medical explanation at least on the issue of sexuality. Never mind whether you can medically change your sexuality or whether it is a 'disorder'. If no research should be done on the topic, there is no reason to discuss it here; it would be a complete waste of OUR time, not some random researcher's.

If people want to understand the roots of homosexuality, it's fine. It is when they start looking for a cure that it seems like wasting time. Another example: I would like to read a study on the causes of right/left-handedness, but if scientists start looking for a cure for left-handedness, I wouldn't care for it.

I hope you get what I mean.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, why must it be seen from your medical perspective as a "disease" rather than an example of "genetic variation in the population" or something else? It needs to meet certain medical criteria to be classified as a disease and evidently it does not.

Yet I must agree with you that I think it is better to approach it from a medical rather than political viewpoint. However, unfortunately it's the politics surrounding the subject that need addressing/change still. Medically, I think it's (in the western world), well agreed upon to not be a disease/a problem.

On a side note, if anyone reading this has any personal questions/needs help or advice regarding this subject, feel free to message me and I'll try to reply asap :)

I wish to clarify a few points. Firstly, I said 'disorder' not 'disease'. In my opinion, there is a very fine line between the two. A 'disorder' is used mainly to describe intrinsic abnormalities; malfunctions which occur naturally due to genetics or one-off external experiences which causes the malfunction. A 'disease' is used to describe extrinsic causes which impair bodily functions. As such you can 'catch' a disease but you can't 'catch' a disorder. You have skewed what I was trying to say by portraying me as describing homosexuality as a 'disease which will infect everyone'. No.

Secondly, it is not 'my perspective'. It is the perspective I think any person who has a critical mind should take. You seem to think that there is zero possibility that it is a disorder. I don't think that is the right approach. You stated before that you would not accept treatment if, hypothetically, homosexuality was indeed a disorder, but you didn't say why you would refuse treatment in such a scenario. To ignore the possibility would be wrong. Another poster stated that they wouldn't support any research on such a 'disorder'. I think this is absurd. I would have thought that all homosexuals, bisexuals and heterosexuals would want a medical explanation at least on the issue of sexuality. Never mind whether you can medically change your sexuality or whether it is a 'disorder'. If no research should be done on the topic, there is no reason to discuss it here; it would be a complete waste of OUR time, not some random researcher's.

Matthew, I accept your offer of help and advice. Up to now it may seem like I'm homophobic, re-read my post(s); it is critical, but with purpose. I am myself slightly confused about my sexuality which is why I find this topic important, especially with regards to childhood experience and parental upbringing. My mother brought me up on her own; I have played very little sports as a child thus being with other guys wasn't a common experience. So here's the question: how do you whether you are 'attracted to males' or simply 'curious' about them due to lack of experience? Does this question define whether one is straight or bisexual? Your comments are appreciated.

All I said was that I think the possibility that it is a "disorder" has been heavily researched and questioned, and I think it's safe to say it's not.

The reason why I wouldn't accept treatment? Because I am completely happy with who I am. I am very happy with my life and where I'm going. I am in a loving, monogamous, long-term relationship. I have family and friends that love me. etc. etc. As a result of these and many more, I have no reason to change. I wouldn't want to jeopardize what I already have, which for me is something very special.

I believe that my sexuality (and I think all sexuality, but I should only really speak for my own experience), is genetic/biological. I don't think it has anything to do with my upbringing/environment. And I would say it runs in the family as I also have a gay brother (and another one who is straight). I have many gay/bi cousins and relatives....one of whom is 88, a war veteran from Africa, and a millionaire! haha.

For me, and I think for many people, experience (like actually doing something physical with someone else) isn't necessary. For me, I knew from what I was attracted to when looking at porn on the internet. I looked at all sorts of things (all I mean is like guys and girls ahaha). From that I developed a personal understanding of my own sexuality. I did find it hard to come to terms with it, but that was because I didn't have anyone to talk to. Fortunately there are MANY, MANY internet sites and forums with lots of great, supportive information on it that can help a lot. Also friends, too. Ever since I came out, I've had a few other friends tell me that they're actually gay, or bi, or questioning, or what ever. It was great to be able to talk to them about it all. A very important thing is to not blame yourself or others. There's nothing wrong with it. It's just a natural part of life :)

There's no rush in needing to know your sexuality. It's a gradual process. I think the most important thing is the support of others. You need to understand that some people might not react well, but that shouldn't deter you. Yet who knows :P Not a single one of my friends reacted badly. Quite the contrary I'd say. When I put up my change of relationship status to be with my boyfriend, I had about 40 something likes and heaps of positive comments. More than when I posted I got an IB 43 ahaha. My parents were not as good, but they were trying to come to terms with having 2 out of 3 gay sons. It didn't take long for them to come to terms with it though, and now things are great.

So to answer your question, yes I think you can know without actual experience. For me the actual experience confirmed completely what I already knew. But just because you have some feelings for members of the same sex doesn't mean your gay, or even bi. That's for you to decide. A lot of people (most probably wouldn't admit it) have similar feelings, especially in high school/college. It's just a part of growing up.

Just remember this. The most important thing in your life should be being happy and finding love.

Sorry this was all over the place haha. It's getting a bit late here (11pm wow. Clearly no longer an IB student).

I'll try and add more to this later if I think of things.

You're under no pressure. There's no time constraints. There are no tests related to this (my best attempt at an IB analogy). Just take it easy and enjoy yourself. (and be safe).

edit.

but on a side note, I think it's better to come to an understanding of your sexuality as soon as you can (without rushing!). I'm just saying that it's not preferable to end up getting married and having kids and then coming to accept it etc. (but that doesn't mean you can't get married and have kids!! Just preferably with the person you're actually going to stay with your whole life! I hope to marry my boyfriend and perhaps have a family one day. who knows :P)

For me I fully came to accept that I am gay during my IB exams because I was writing a valedictorian/school captain speech and was talking about the different measures of personal success and part of that was the notion that success should be derived from being true to one's self. You need to be true to who you are and accept and embrace that and try to be the best person you can be. And ever since I accepted that and came out and started exploring my true sexuality...I really started to love life and things really changed for the better :) I feel so much more clarity and direction.

Also for the record, I did date girls many times before...and it sucked haha. One of the girls I dated (for 4 months about 3 years ago) is now one of my closest friends. We became so much closer after telling her I'm gay. She was so supportive and understanding and we talk about everything now haha.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...

I don't see why you'd refuse two people to marry each other because they've got the same sex

edit: http://www.ibsurviva...3-gay-marriage/

i do...cuz the puzzle peaces don't fit :badmath:

1. the word is "pieces" and not "peaces".

2. What do you mean by saying they do not fit? They are not capable of loving each other enough in order to get married simply because they are of the same sex? You try to deny them from getting married because you're little brain does not seem to be able to conceive how a man can love a man and a woman can love a woman? I can find numerous examples of marriages between heterosexuals which of course were disastrous simply because the "puzzle pieces did not fit", but nobody said anything because they were of different sexes and it was a"normal" wedding.

Spare me the boring talk that this world would probably be a better place if homosexuals were not allowed to get married. They are not trying to ruin your family values, they simply want to be equal to you. We're all humans and we're equal either you want to see it or not. Also, I will not try to debate the idea of civil partnerships (or whatever they call them), because it's like telling a person that "ok you can sit here, but you just can't sit over there" and this seems no different than pure discrimination.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I find there is nothing really 'wrong' with homosexuality in order to try and prove that it is right. Homosexuality is just different, the act of it feels very different in any case. Speaking as someone who is bisexual, I don't really see why homosexuality is so bad? God (or the progression of nature via evolution, whichever you prefer) made human beings into beautiful creations that we are. Heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, the act of either of these sexualities involves appreciating and loving nature's creations in their barest forms. It is beautiful to make love to a man or a woman.

I'm not a Christian, so I don't know much about that religion, but I know Hinduism is pretty lax about homosexuality. Indian culture isn't, but Hinduism is if you read the older texts and such. It's all about the pleasure and beauty that can be obtained from fulfilling the most primal need of human beings: sex. So if you love walloping your schtiff in a vagina or an as*shole, it doesn't really matter. If you love a man, a woman, a man who wants to be a woman, a woman who wants to be a man, or some other combination, then so be it. Just leave animals out of the picture and the roses and daisies will come a-flying.

Woah, I just reread this and it sounds loopy. I'm tired now...sleepy time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have grown up in a Christian home, I have been exposed heavily to the idea that homosexuality is wrong, and that every gay man and lesbian women is a spawn child of the devil. However, I would disagree. Though I don't agree with or condone homosexuality, I don't believe in homosexuals differently based solely on their sexuality. Homosexuals are people too, and therefore they qualify for every basic human right. However, I also believe in freedom of speech. Though the preacher may have said something controversial, it is fair to say that he is allowed to express his own beliefs. If that wasn't the case, then a great deal of people on this here forum could be arrested for what they've said. To contrast, the United States has some of the worst organizations out there, constantly protesting homosexuality or something else arbitrary. Groups such as the Westboro Baptist Church and the Ku Klux Klan run rampant in the United States, and though there are others who stand up and oppose/challenge these groups, the former are ultimately permitted a very extreme form of freedom of speech. Do I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry whomever they want? Absolutely. Do I believe that people should be denied their right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression because their opinions are controversial? No. In fact, controversial ideas/issues are what make TOK such an interesting course. Imagine if TOK was an institutionalized course where all we were fed was mind numbing propaganda. How much better off would we be then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

see it like this; Homosexual (or bisexual) people are as much citizens of wherever they are from as a heterosexual person, it's just logical that they should be able to do everything as a heterosexual (or anyone belonging to the norm) should be able to do. So if we have a legislated civil union I see no point in having it only apply for a normal marriage with two persons of different sexes, and not those of same sex.

But when it comes to marrying in a church I believe that it is up to the church to decide who they want to wed, as they are another organization from the state. Same with adoption, everyone should be able to adopt, but it is up to the adoption organization to decide wether they want to have gay people adopt or if they give the question to the biological parents on who should be able to adopt their kid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

see it like this; Homosexual (or bisexual) people are as much citizens of wherever they are from as a heterosexual person, it's just logical that they should be able to do everything as a heterosexual (or anyone belonging to the norm) should be able to do. So if we have a legislated civil union I see no point in having it only apply for a normal marriage with two persons of different sexes, and not those of same sex.

But when it comes to marrying in a church I believe that it is up to the church to decide who they want to wed, as they are another organization from the state. Same with adoption, everyone should be able to adopt, but it is up to the adoption organization to decide wether they want to have gay people adopt or if they give the question to the biological parents on who should be able to adopt their kid.

First of all, I do understand your point, but I think that if a proposal similar to yours was actually implemented then there would be a lot of confusion. By the way, by saying "churches" you mean individual places of worship? I will assume that you do. At the moment, legislation prohibits homosexual people from getting married so even if some churches have absolutely no problem with it, they still cannot. If they were given the right to choose though, obviously some would deny the conduction of homosexual marriage and some would allow it, but would the marriages be recognized by the government (which is not the case in most countries)? And also, don't forget that churches do have a lot of power. Not only directly to the public, but also in politics so they could easily make sure that the number of churches conducting marriages between homosexual people were minimized/eliminated. Moreover, why allow some people who simply have power decide whether two people who love each other are able to get married?

Similar is the case with adoption centers. I firmly believe that people who are in charge of these institutions are not against allowing homosexual couples adopt a child because, let's face it, growing up with no parents cannot compare to the joy that a family can bring to a child. But again, people with power (who are against homosexuals) could make sure that adoption to homosexual couples were not allowed to adopt. As a result, I think that if no legislation is implemented, granting equal civil rights to all people, then we are preserving the "separate, but equal" notion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one thing we have to start off accepting is that it's completely normal and innate to be grossed out by homosexual activity. It's not homophobic or discriminatory to be grossed out by homosexual sex--I would never want to watch gay porn. However, we don't have to be exposed to this by accepting homosexuality in our lives. In regards to the legal system, legalize it and let it be. They should be allowed to do whatever they want within their own homes. If they're having sex out on the street, that's a different story--but that shouldn't even be legal for straight people right? I think the biggest issue comes up when we see two homosexuals kissing in a public place--to be honest, I find it disturbing, but no I'm not a homophobic discriminatory person, I really do believe it's my innate instinct to react this way.

Many people go against homosexuality on religious grounds, but I really don't think God will condemn you if you simply don't advocate nor oppose it. Jesus told his disciples to preach the word in every town, and if they were unwilling to accept it, to dust their feet and move on. If you're a disciple of the christian church, you should then too do the same and just leave it if society is not willing to accept your personal beliefs. As long as you yourself don't engage in homosexuality, you won't be damned for all of eternity.

Scientifically, there's as much science proving that homosexuality is nurtured as there is proving it's innate. We should examine this more, it IS worth it, we can't simply say "let me them be and let's focus on something else"--that's a very ignorant perspective. As a society relying on science, we must examine everything and provide answers for everything. If homosexuality turns out to be a disorder (which I personally think it is), then a "cure" may be developed. No, a "cure", should not be forced on people but be available to people. For example, I have a friend who is mormon who has told me he is having homosexual thoughts, but does not want these because of his religion. I think he's bisexual though, but he wishes these thoughts would stop, even though he does not plan on pursuing a homosexual lifestyle. Wouldn't it be appropriate for him to take this "cure" if he wanted to?

As far as adopting children for homosexual couples--they should be allowed to as long as they go under the same guidelines as a straight couple. As long as it's a good home, and all, a child would be much happier there than an orphanage.

In conclusion: Whatever they do in the discreteness of their own home is fine, but don't parade it around (straight people don't parade it around either). I believe in more power to individual states to decide what they want--under this compromise, homosexuals can move to states where it is legal. Yes, this sounds like "no, YOU have to move", but it applies to straight people as well. For those who don't want to be in a society like this, they can move to a state where it is illegal and where it is more suitable for them. Ultimately, I think a solution should be developed in the middle to satisfy both advocates and those who don't support gay marriage or homosexuality in general.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one thing we have to start off accepting is that it's completely normal and innate to be grossed out by homosexual activity. It's not homophobic or discriminatory to be grossed out by homosexual sex--I would never want to watch gay porn. However, we don't have to be exposed to this by accepting homosexuality in our lives. In regards to the legal system, legalize it and let it be. They should be allowed to do whatever they want within their own homes. If they're having sex out on the street, that's a different story--but that shouldn't even be legal for straight people right? I think the biggest issue comes up when we see two homosexuals kissing in a public place--to be honest, I find it disturbing, but no I'm not a homophobic discriminatory person, I really do believe it's my innate instinct to react this way.

For some reason, you seem to have confused homosexual activity with sex. Ultimately what your first sentence suggests is that it is normal to consider two people of the same sex loving each other, disgusting. Also, you go on and on saying that you are not homophobic but you constantly suggest that homosexuals are always having sex wherever and whenever they can so let's just make sure that this doesn't happen and they keep it in their bedroom. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but homophobia is the case where an individual is occupied by negative feelings towards the LGBT community (don't say "I don't believe that gay people should die so I am not homophobic". you condemn even the kiss of two homosexuals.)

Many people go against homosexuality on religious grounds, but I really don't think God will condemn you if you simply don't advocate nor oppose it. Jesus told his disciples to preach the word in every town, and if they were unwilling to accept it, to dust their feet and move on. If you're a disciple of the christian church, you should then too do the same and just leave it if society is not willing to accept your personal beliefs. As long as you yourself don't engage in homosexuality, you won't be damned for all of eternity.

Scientifically, there's as much science proving that homosexuality is nurtured as there is proving it's innate. We should examine this more, it IS worth it, we can't simply say "let me them be and let's focus on something else"--that's a very ignorant perspective. As a society relying on science, we must examine everything and provide answers for everything. If homosexuality turns out to be a disorder (which I personally think it is), then a "cure" may be developed. No, a "cure", should not be forced on people but be available to people. For example, I have a friend who is mormon who has told me he is having homosexual thoughts, but does not want these because of his religion. I think he's bisexual though, but he wishes these thoughts would stop, even though he does not plan on pursuing a homosexual lifestyle. Wouldn't it be appropriate for him to take this "cure" if he wanted to?

I'm sorry to be the one to breaking the news, but there is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is nurtured. I will not, of course, support that there is proof of homosexuality being innate, but scientists seem to believe that the etiologies of homosexual behavior are biological - but, for now, there is no scientific evidence. Moreover, homosexuality is not a disorder. This notion has been rejected by every single major mental health organization. Even the American Psychiatric Association removed it from its list of disorders in the 1970s therefore there is no cure. Seriously, no cure.

As far as adopting children for homosexual couples--they should be allowed to as long as they go under the same guidelines as a straight couple. As long as it's a good home, and all, a child would be much happier there than an orphanage.

In conclusion: Whatever they do in the discreteness of their own home is fine, but don't parade it around (straight people don't parade it around either). I believe in more power to individual states to decide what they want--under this compromise, homosexuals can move to states where it is legal. Yes, this sounds like "no, YOU have to move", but it applies to straight people as well. For those who don't want to be in a society like this, they can move to a state where it is illegal and where it is more suitable for them. Ultimately, I think a solution should be developed in the middle to satisfy both advocates and those who don't support gay marriage or homosexuality in general.

"Whatever they do in the discreteness of their own home is fine": so be gay, but hide it from the rest of the world because we don't want that?

Straight people do not parade because they are given every single right they deserve. The LGBT community though has to advocate for its rights and the fact that everyone is equal. They voice their presence in this world and that gives hope to many children and even adults who are homosexual and are being rejected for their sexuality. If you allow homophobic behavior to continue, then the bullying and the suicides of children will also be preserved. Moving to different states is not a solution. In the end there would be two worlds; the gay and the straight world. But, you know, straight people are the ones who keep having gay babies so there would be a lot of traveling towards the gay world. Just saying. Homophobes should understand that some people are gay and they should get over it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

see it like this; Homosexual (or bisexual) people are as much citizens of wherever they are from as a heterosexual person, it's just logical that they should be able to do everything as a heterosexual (or anyone belonging to the norm) should be able to do. So if we have a legislated civil union I see no point in having it only apply for a normal marriage with two persons of different sexes, and not those of same sex.

But when it comes to marrying in a church I believe that it is up to the church to decide who they want to wed, as they are another organization from the state. Same with adoption, everyone should be able to adopt, but it is up to the adoption organization to decide wether they want to have gay people adopt or if they give the question to the biological parents on who should be able to adopt their kid.

First of all, I do understand your point, but I think that if a proposal similar to yours was actually implemented then there would be a lot of confusion. By the way, by saying "churches" you mean individual places of worship? I will assume that you do. At the moment, legislation prohibits homosexual people from getting married so even if some churches have absolutely no problem with it, they still cannot. If they were given the right to choose though, obviously some would deny the conduction of homosexual marriage and some would allow it, but would the marriages be recognized by the government (which is not the case in most countries)? And also, don't forget that churches do have a lot of power. Not only directly to the public, but also in politics so they could easily make sure that the number of churches conducting marriages between homosexual people were minimized/eliminated. Moreover, why allow some people who simply have power decide whether two people who love each other are able to get married?

Similar is the case with adoption centers. I firmly believe that people who are in charge of these institutions are not against allowing homosexual couples adopt a child because, let's face it, growing up with no parents cannot compare to the joy that a family can bring to a child. But again, people with power (who are against homosexuals) could make sure that adoption to homosexual couples were not allowed to adopt. As a result, I think that if no legislation is implemented, granting equal civil rights to all people, then we are preserving the "separate, but equal" notion.

I think you got the gist of it, but I will try to ellaborate when it comes to churches and marriage of homosexuals.

First of, everyone that is in a relationship with an adult should be able to have a civil marriage. it's either everyone or noone, anything inbetween is just ridicilous. When it comes to the churches, or as you say, individual places of worship, I think that it is up to these organizations to wed whoever they like and refuse to wed whoever they like, the state should hvae no say in this. I see this as an extension of the freedom of speech, they have the rights to decide to whoever they want to provide their services. This may, like everything, be abused to some extent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...