Homosexuality

[Daedalus]

Two disturbing trends.

The mental illness thing: it's an analogy that is absolutely inappropriate. It's like me saying religion is a disorder (except one which, unlike homosexuality, does not manifest in our evolutionary predecessors, nor other animals for that matter...).

And anyways: guys, how does religion come into this? Since when has religion been a factor when it comes to human rights? Separation of the church and state, kids. No one religion can have precedence over others when it comes to the establishment of law. And if you want to use the Bible to back up your homophobia, you better take the Bible as it is. Ever read the Old Testament? I seriously doubt that there are any more misogynistic texts widely read today. Adultery, in the Bible, is punishable by stoning. Disobeying your parents is punishable by stoning. Losing your virginity before you're married is punishable by stoning. Everyone must get stoned!

Which is a message you can find in the Koran too, of course; I'm not discriminating. But I'd rather have you be hypocrites and ignore all the fiddly bits in your Holy Books--the ones that don't quite fit with 21st century views of morality and equality--than use them to justify ignorant prejudices.

PS. Anyone for banning marine18? @marine18: stop copy and pasting your material (it doesn't quite qualify as productive use of technology); try not to cite contradictory statistics in a single post (what, according to your ridiculously titled "heterosexual rights" organisation (as if destroying someone else's rights qualifies as your own) is the real % of homosexuals in the population?); and try not to use outdated and discredited studies.

PPS (hey, that's a subject!). Please let's just ban that thing? How the hell do you pass down a "hormonal imbalance" which causes homosexuality (which (as you actually point out) is a slight impediment to the survival of one's genes) down generations?

PPPS (I know, I know). In the spirit of IB and liberalism and acceptance and predicting future trends and world peace and stuff ... let's lump homophobia with racism and anti-Semitism and the whole Nazi brew and just ban him.

Peace.

[Arrowhead]

PS. Anyone for banning marine18? @marine18: stop copy and pasting your material (it doesn't quite qualify as productive use of technology); try not to cite contradictory statistics in a single post (what, according to your ridiculously titled "heterosexual rights" organisation (as if destroying someone else's rights qualifies as your own) is the real % of homosexuals in the population?); and try not to use outdated and discredited studies.

PPS (hey, that's a subject!). Please let's just ban that thing? How the hell do you pass down a "hormonal imbalance" which causes homosexuality (which (as you actually point out) is a slight impediment to the survival of one's genes) down generations?

PPPS (I know, I know). In the spirit of IB and liberalism and acceptance and predicting future trends and world peace and stuff ... let's lump homophobia with racism and anti-Semitism and the whole Nazi brew and just ban him.

Peace.

Here here. *cue vigorous fist thumping* Edited December 18, 2011 by Arrowhead

[Hannah.M]

Okay, so I haven't the time to go through all of the posts, so mine might be just a tad irrelevant. But I noticed a comment a long time ago in the thread saying that "the pieces don't fit," as well as multiple comments about how homosexuality isn't natural. Obviously most of us know that homosexuality is found in an abundance of species, but we're the only ones who are homophobic. As well, in terms of sex, the puzzle pieces most definitely do fit, in my opinion. Women have g-spot and clitoral pleasure centers, and men have a penis and a prostate. So, both sexes are capable of fulfilling one another. I actually kind of think there are more options for male-on-male sex in terms of pleasure. I think that sexually, that completely cancels out the 'unnatural' and 'puzzle-piece' theory.

Also, a 'handicap' implies some sort of disadvantage, to which there are none. True, it's not the most popular sexual orientation, and so perhaps one could label it a 'social abnormality'. However, homophia is something that is developed, and to me that's the real handicap. Homosexuality, to any open-minded person, is not a hindrance in any sense. Homophobia, on the other hand, is hurtful and holds back from the general societal progression towards peace and equality.

Sorry for choppiness, irrelevancy, and potential bad grammar.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Hannah.M

[Ezak]

Besides, this "it's not natural" argument is pure nonsense, hell, they even have a fallacy named after it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_fallacy.

Sadly, this thread seems to be an orgie of said fallacy.

[Jyrgen]

I can't believe it's such a big deal, when the whole world is full of more obvious unsolved issues. Surprised by many comments in this thread, I thought IB students were less close minded, although most people seem to have a healthy attitude here.

Some men like penises up their butt. Some women don't like penises at all. Some people even enjoy the features of both sexes. So what?

[EccentricPianist]

Like so many before me, I say that love is love is love, and it's not all about sex. Yeah, maybe it might not be 'natural' because it wouldn't exactly be something that would survive long what with all the selecting out and no offspring thing. However, I don't think that someone who is homosexual chose to be that way. Look at the general feeling towards the LGBT group today. Who would willingly subject themselves to that just to make a statement (though, there's always that outlier, but that's besides the point). I'm not too wonderful in the TOK area, but I enjoy pondering these things. I'm totally chill with whatever choices people make (well, not doing drugs and stuff...that's generally not too wonderful and has proven detrimental effects!), and think that whether it is or isn't genetic, everyone should be respected for their choices (yakka yakka yakka world peace...here ends the wonderful world train of thought. ). As my kindergarten teacher used to say "if you haven't got anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."

Hope I didn't upset the flow of the conversation. Feel free to skip right over me!

Edited January 17, 2012 by EccentricPianist

[Avan:)]

Wow, firstly great discussion guys I'm just reading the posts and am like: "woah, nice one *thumbs up*, oooh nice contra *thumbs up* lol ...

anyway, I find the homosexuality and people interesting. When I first heard it, I was against it, because I did not understand it, pure ignorance that is

I thought people were just using that as an excuse to do "crazy stuff" like kissing a person of the same sex.

But, later onwards, which took time I read more about it and I am convinced that homosexuality is AS normal as heterosexuality.

And discriminating here again is what I personally find like racism, call it gender-ism if you want. And the last thing this world needs is a new area

and source for hatred (now after bieber ) ...

It's called a shift in paradigm (i think) and if you are IB, you would have come across it. Things, concepts change and people must learn to cope with change. If it were not for change, such as turning to democracy for example, we would still be living under a weird king or dictator (same thing). Change is GOOD for you.

Furthermore, while writing this, it made me think whether accepting an unusual new concept depends a lot on your age as well

I mean, I find that as a teenager being open minded about everything I have learned to accept homosexuality and hope I will always be open minded in the future as well.

However, I know a friend's mom is really paranoid about this concept, and she starts freaking out when her 7 year old son mimicks a girl on tv, obviously in a girl's voice

( and I must admit it sounded soo real lol) or other such things which are termed as " girly " in society. The funny thing about this however is she says she is fine with

homosexual people, but not if it's HER son. o.0'

[CkyBlue]

I've been thinking recently, though I do support the notion of homosexuality (same sex marriages and stuff like that), I have found that I am strongly against the two having oral sex. I have always believed in homosexuality to the extent of platonic love, but that is where I draw the line. Any thoughts?

[Award Winning Boss]

I've been thinking recently, though I do support the notion of homosexuality (same sex marriages and stuff like that), I have found that I am strongly against the two having oral sex. I have always believed in homosexuality to the extent of platonic love, but that is where I draw the line. Any thoughts?

Why should you care what 2 people do during their lives? You wouldn't care if a couple went to Disney land together so why should you care what they do in the privacy of their own home?

Also, you're for the marriages (which is something you could stop whether it be through political movements or something else) but how do you propose stopping two people having oral sex together?

[The Economist]

Generally when the issue of sexuality comes up, you are actually talking about the sexual attraction a person has for an individual of the same sex. Platonic love would mean that there is only an emotional connection and love, but there is also physical.

But again, why bother about what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms? They are not forcing you to watch and you will never have to see any homosexual couple having sex. It's simple as that.

[CkyBlue]

I'm not familiar with the couples, but I am sure there are those who exist who only love each other based upon a non-sexual attraction. Not all homosexual couples are attracted to a sexual level right? Yes, they are allowed to do whatever they want and there's no stopping that, but there is something that just doesn't click in my mind with the image of oral sex. I guess those are just my own thoughts; I was raised to believe it was wrong...

[Award Winning Boss]

I'm not familiar with the couples, but I am sure there are those who exist who only love each other based upon a non-sexual attraction. Not all homosexual couples are attracted to a sexual level right? Yes, they are allowed to do whatever they want and there's no stopping that, but there is something that just doesn't click in my mind with the image of oral sex. I guess those are just my own thoughts; I was raised to believe it was wrong...

You were raised to believe it was wrong, well so was I to some extent but can you say why you think it's wrong? Or is it just an emotional attachment to the negative aura you have towards it?

Just a few questions

Edited February 18, 2012 by Award Winning Boss

[The Economist]

Just throwing it out there: homosexual couples are no different than heterosexual ones.

(apart from the fact that one couple has two people of the same sex and the other two of the opposite.)

[CkyBlue]

It's all jumbled in my head. I was told it was naturally wrong, biologically wrong etc. Perhaps because there weren't as many homosexuals before. I'm not sure actually; but I think there has never been as many non-heterosexuals as there are today and onwards, or were they all just suppressed before?

Not a history buff, but I think at some point in time there the non-hetero population was close to zero. So something might have happened? Could it have been some sort of evolution? I think it might have been a stickiness to the old traditions...

But you've convinced me there isn't anything wrong with it, as long as they are happy and not forcing anything upon anyone, I think things should be fine.

[The Economist]

But you've convinced me there isn't anything wrong with it, as long as they are happy and not forcing anything upon anyone, I think things should be fine.

That's pretty interesting (the evolution part). Unfortunately we can never be sure about the exact numbers of the gay population. Take into consideration that there was a time period were being gay was considered illegal and people were being arrested (in some developing countries you can still get arrested for being gay and there are legislators trying to pass a bill enforcing the death penalty). Even when people understood that it was extremely stupid to arrest someone based on his/her sexual orientation, gay people were killed (and still are) for being who they are. I think that unless someone is finally 100% sure about the causes of homosexuality (there is some evidence, but does not fully explain it) we will not find out if something happened in the past.

Also, for the part I'm quoting, you say that as long as homosexuals are not forcing anything upon anyone, things should be fine. How about the reverse? How about what heterosexuals are forcing upon gay people? People bring in religion to oppose homosexuality, but above all, religion (any religion I believe) teaches people to love each other and not treat a minority as second class citizens deprived of human rights.

I sincerely believe that the way we are raised affects are views on homosexuality. I mean, while I was growing up nobody told me that the words "fag" and "dyke" could hurt someone, these were words used by people in my environment all the time and I still cannot say the word "gay" or "lesbian" without thinking that I'm saying something wrong/negative. As the generations progress though, you can see how educated individuals help change the negative perceptions people have for others, not treating them as a pariah (especially minority groups).

Nobody forgot when women were second class citizens or when black people were. Things changed for them and hopefully things will change for the gay community as well.

[CkyBlue]

Yes, history has shown that societies were not as kind to the gay population as it is today, and even now it is a struggle for many. That was what I was talking about too when I suggested a "stickiness" to the old traditions; people are so attached with how they used to live that they are not willing to accept change (or a growing acceptance). I don't think full equality will be reached anytime soon (think about the support for a gay Republican candidate)

I'm not a religious person, and I think religion shouldn't have anything to do with homosexuality if it's used to oppose it. Like Daedalus said, it's pretty terrible if you justify ignorant prejudices using religious messages. I'm not sure about every religion having that message you mentioned, but certainly it has good intentions. I don't think religion was very strong in support homosexuals though, since in the past and perhaps even now people lived under social hierarchies and it doesn't seem like their religion stopped kings, lords and others from imposing discriminatory laws against those who were were at the bottom of the social ladder.

When people have been living with that kind of mindset for that long and those principles passed on for who know how many generations, it is very difficult for them to change how they think. We can impose laws for equality rights for gays and lesbians, but it is unlikely that some will ever change how they feel about them. We can only hope, I guess.

[fercho29]

Well, what should I say? I defended Gay Marriage in my TOK essay. Or not really, I just wanted to say an example about the limitations of Faith not to base my discussion in gay stuff.

[Wykked Wytch]

I would like to open this by saying I am a bisexual woman. I would also like to get some misconceptions about bi people out of the way. I am not promiscuous. I am not "faking it." I do not have over 9000 STDs. I am not a lesbian in denial. I have not been sexually abused. I am not mentally ill. I have not made any infernal contracts with unclean spirits. I am not and will not ever be attracted to children. I do have occasional crushes on straight friends, but I never act on them. I do not stalk the night and feast on the blood of beautiful maidens. I will not rape you, and I will not participate in your threesome.

Obviously I believe in same-sex marriage because I see no reason why homosexual love is inferior to heterosexual love. I do not accept the "civil unions" compromise either, because to me it feels like the state is sending the message that homosexual love is not worthy of the title of "marriage."

In the past, people against same-sex marriage have told me that legalizing it would "infringe on religious liberties." That's not really true. Because America has a strict separation of church and state, the state cannot force churches or any religious group to perform a marriage they do not doctrinally condone. This is how the law works today. A priest doesn't have to marry a gay couple for the same reasons a rabbi doesn't have to marry a Jew and a gentile.

I would also like to point out that there is exactly no reputable scientific evidence that homosexuality and bisexuality are caused by trauma or an unhappy childhood. None. Nada. Zilch. I challenge anyone who opposes SSM to find some actual evidence for it without smearing copypasta that you obviously didn't read or write all over this fine and dignified thread.

I did not wake up one morning and decide that I was going to be bisexual. Around the age that kids start to feel sexual attractions for the first time, I noticed that even though I was attracted to men, I was also attracted to women. This did not strike me as intrinsically or instinctually strange, and I was thankfully reared in a rather liberal family environment, so I never questioned it. However, for a long time I considered myself a straight girl who just happened to like girls as well. It was only when I found out the definition of "bisexual" that I realized I was definitely not straight, but bi. I am not sad that I am bi. I don't wish that I was straight. The only people who make my life hard are the bigots who hate me for who I am.

[Capricious]

I'm probably repeating what has already been said 10 times, but it probably doesn't hurt to say it again.

There is not a single credible argument against homosexuality. It's natural, it's normal and it's healthy.

You can say as many times as you like that the Bible doesn't accept homosexuality, but then you have to accept the fact that it also probably doesn't accept you either. 95% of the people on this earth will not go to heaven by the standards of the Bible. Around 2/3 of the people in the US over 20 are overweight. This constitutes gluttony. That's just ONE thing you're not allowed to do and we already discarded 2/3 of the population.

You can say that if everyone were gay then we'd become extinct. Good point, but it's equivalent to saying "if everyone overdosed on cocaine we'd become extinct". It will never happen. Society fits under a bell-curve, majority will be straight, some will be gay and some will be bi. So there's no point in denying homosexuality because it would mean extinction. It's an impossible situation.

However religion is irrelevant. Same sex marriage shouldn't be forced upon churches, much like different sex marriage shouldn't be forced upon society.

This has been a very random ramble, so I'll just conclude by saying that it's OK to be gay.

[Tony Stark]

Being a libertarian, I value individual rights above all else. Do I believe two consenting adults of the same gender have the right to be together? Most definitely. Have the same rights from the State (pension rights etc) as all other citizens? Of course. Marry? Well, I disagree with the use of the term marriage in relation to the State (for hetero couples as well) due to its religious connotations introducing an element of complication, however I most certainly believe they should have the same right to civil union.

Adopt kids? Well, in that case, the rights and wellbeing of the kid must be considered. I would say the ability to raise children is not so much a right as a combination of privilege and responsibility. If it were to be proven that having same-sex guardians adversely affects the wellbeing and development of the legal minor, it may pose a problem. However, this reasoning poses two major dangers: a. it's generalising about homosexuals, b. it introduces a double standard - what if raising them with extreme social views or religious ultra-conservatism was proven to have the same affect, would we bar applicants on that basis?

But, what I disagree with is the modern obsession with political correctness and anti-discrimination laws in terms of the government regulating PRIVATE views. Just as homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else, homophobes DO have the right to their own opinion, and freedom of speech/expression. Just as Does that give them an excuse to target homosexuals for consistent and traumatising bullying? No, but they DO have the right to say they don't like the idea of homosexuality and whatnot. If they say it, they will bear consequences in terms of loss of respect etc, however for them to be legally punished impugns on their freedom of thought and speech. Just as homosexuals have the right to choose a partner as they wish, others have the right to judge (preferably keeping it to themselves, however) the relationship - just as they are allowed to believe that it's a bad match for countless other reasons, they should be allowed to believe that the same-sex nature of the relationship is a bad thing, if they so wish. Prosecuting beliefs legally simply because they are considered 'offensive' is a slippery and dangerous slope towards Statism. We may as well prosecute people simply for saying

As for discrimination? A PRIVATE religious organisation has the right to admit whomever they wish, just as a PRIVATE firm should have the right to hire as they please. This applies to gender discrimination as well. If a manager or owner of a company doesn't wish to hire someone based on personal discrimination, they have the right to exercise their judgement as they wish - they don't have to pay anyone they don't want to. Is it stupid? Most definitely. But if they choose to turn away more qualified applicants on the basis of something irrelevant to their skills and suitability for employment, ultimately it will be THEIR business that will suffer for it. In Australia in particular it's ridiculously hypocritical - if a private company refuses to hire someone on grounds of them being homosexual, a massive discrimination lawsuit can be launched; yet the government still refuses to right of marriage to someone based on their sexual orientation. Private individuals and firms may say and do as they wish, provided they do not directly intrude on the liberties of others (so, they cannot harass, bully or abuse others; but they can choose to hire and think as they wish); however the government's job is to represent and protect the entirety of the population, thus discrimination on their part is wholly inexcusable.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Tony Stark