Homosexuality

[Xorv]

Is it biological? Is it personal choice? Is it possible in the animal kingdom?

Intresting subject.....

http://www.narth.com/docs/bioresearch.html

 

[Iridium]

Like most other qualifiable psychological traits, I suspect that homosexuality has a genetic and an environmental component. I guess saying that it is "natural" is accurate. In my view, this does not change how disgusting it is. Homosexuality contrasts with what I consider normal, and I don't like the IN-YOUR-FACE attitude of most homosexual-rights activists. One of my Resident Advisors in college last year was an activist, and she once threatened to report us to the disciplinary office for saying "faggot." I am against gay marriage, since a normal marriage is beneficial to society and therefore deserving of financial benefits. A homosexual union will doubtfully create a model (or even a properly functioning) individual if they choose to adopt - this is not deserving of financial benefits. I can't help what people do in their bedrooms, though, so I generally don't concern myself with the issue.

 

[The_Isle]

I don't know about the claim that somehow adopted children raised by homo couples will turn out less well adjusted than children from normal couples or even single mums/dads. IF there is any concrete evidence I'd like someone to post it.

Like every other person, I've nothing against male homosexuality in principle, as personally repugnant as it may be.

 

[RookParliament]

I think that if discrimination ended against homosexuals the Gay Pride parades would dry up pretty quickly. As it is I still think the majority of homsexuals are not in those parades and just want to live a normal life. Well your Resident Advisor sounds like a victim of the PC movement (and a bitch). Damn political correctness. I really don't see a gay couple not being able to raise a healthy child that they adopted, taking that kid out of the system that screws them up more than two gay parents ever could.

A gay marriage is also beneficial to society. First marriage in modern society in the US is definetely not what it once was. Often many hetero couples decide not to have children Nowadays its more of a emotional relationship, and an economic relationship. Married gays that love each other will buy homes, work at jobs, and buy Christmas presents. I don't see how thats bad for society or not deserving of the financial benefits of marriage. Not to mention gays want, and deserve, the same benefits that hetero's get with marriage in that they want to have hospital visits, rights to deceased remains. There is plenty of breeding still going on, as well as influxes of immigrants that we don't have to worry about population decreasing.

And back to the original post, yes I think its biological in origin.
Also even though I'm not going to start having sex with men, or jerking off to gay porn, I don't find the thought of gay sex repugnant.

 

[RookParliament]

Also I believe any consenting adults should be able to marry each other.

 

[Demiurge]

Married gays that love each other will buy homes, work at jobs, and buy Christmas presents.

Even if you allow them to marry, many would be reluctant to marry and be a "family" because others don't approve. I'm sure they already work at jobs and buy presents for one another. I'm skeptical of the idea that gay marriage would lead to an economic boom.

Not to mention gays want, and deserve, the same benefits that hetero's get with marriage in that they want to have hospital visits, rights to deceased remains.

They don't deserve anything. There are no natural rights that are conditions of one's existence. This(who can marry) is a determination of law, not a natural entitlement.

The thing about marriage is that it remains attached to religious tradition within the minds of the populace. Marriage is not yet ready to become strictly a legal, secular union in the US. Gay marriage could be forcefully imposed, I suppose, but there's no reason for the government to do that(nor would I, were I running it). Plus, it(the government) is fractured regarding this issue, so the agenda is even more impractical.

there is plenty of breeding still going on

Too much and involving the wrong people.

as well as influxes of immigrants that we don't have to worry about population decreasing.

No mas.

 

[Demiurge]

For the government to make gay marriage possible in all states would be tyranny of the highest order and an example of the exercising of power most illogically. In many places, people are overwhelmingly against gay marriage. To step in and go against their wishes in such an instance would be a disaster. It serves no practical end. It's trampling the majority to make some small group feel better. Fostering the contempt of the masses unnecessarily is no way to run a successful state. I could understand such autocratic practices much better if they were in the interest of something other than pacifying a minority group.

 

[Silver Incubus]

I don't understand why they just don't make a separate system called Gay union or something, that is exactly like marriage, but for gay people. that way it doesn't have to be religious

 

[Iridium]

What I don't understand is why gay rights activists, instead of pushing for expanded civil union benefits (they all claim this is about rights, not symbolism, anyway), wage war against the entire conservative right about a semantics issue. They deserve no victory for their arrogance alone.

 

[Dushan S]

Well I'll just quote myself from another thread, it was off topic there anyway..

This is already for another thread, but technically, but validation or hate towards homosexuality and homosexuals is based on one misunderstanding. Homosexuals can be quite different between themselves.

Some people are born with certain and in that case it is true, it is biological origin, and I think that it is absolutely valid for those persons to change their gender, so they can have body that goes along with their inner sex.
Other large portions of homosexuals are people with psychological problems about their identity. Every human being goes thru homosexual phase thru his childhood, and when person for different reason fails to build his identity and learn his way with other sex, he/she ends like a typical case for a psychotherapy, may it become homosexual or not. Actually a lot of people that live life of hetero sexual are psychologically close to homosexual. Typical married man that has never become really psychologically intimate with his wife, and finds most of pleasure by having a beer with his buddies. He has never bridged the gap between sexes and never will.
Finally there are homosexuals that are sociopaths because they are finding that sex with same gender is turning them on in a same way as some pedophile is turned on by a child, and they can hardly make lasting relationship with other person that is of same gender.
Part of the confusion comes from the society. All homosexuals are constantly put to one basket, before because of hatred and suppression towards them, now because of idea of liberty and freedom of self-expression, without really understanding the matter.

Don't get this like I am bashing homosexuals, because I'm not, actually I am finding people that are transsexual and want to change their gender as very brave and true to themselves. It is not easy be in their skin.
But it is from a psychological viewpoint hard for me to accept homosexuality as a personal choice, because most of the homosexual would become hetero after psychotherapy and in most cases there is some kind of trauma, neurosis, whatever connected with their sexual choice.

RookParliament had a comment in another thread about guy drinking with friends. Well again it was not accurate explanation from my side. I was trzing to give example of the one of the many "heterosexuals" that is actualy woman-hater, person that is unable to have a deep relationship with a woman that is completely another world for him. THat is very often case, and those guys can be heterosexual in behaviour, but they look at other sex as they are objects, and can become truly emotionionally close only to his budies that are of same sex. Opposite is often case too, woman that have no homosexual behaviour, but from emotional side they are latent homosexuals.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Also I believe any consenting adults should be able to marry each other.

and i.

i don't approve of it, but the choice is theirs. i am tolerant of such unions, such that they are no less human than i for it.

 

[The Devil's Steed]

I believe that sometimes it is biological (rarely), however in most cases it's a choice.

 

[Iridium]

SilentSong, you're horrible! You're a Christian, but at the same time you are horribly subjectivist. You think gays have the right to marry, something most Christian scholars don't agree with, because "the choice is theirs," but don't think I have the right to smoke marijuana. You never take criticisms to heart, but remain on your high-horse the entire time. Goddamn.

 

[RookParliament]

For the government to make gay marriage possible in all states would be tyranny of the highest order and an example of the exercising of power most illogically.

So its not tyranny to force a morality on people who just want to be happy and have the same benefits as others? This is something the goverment (federal, state or local) should not even have any power whatsoever to decide on. Consenting adults should be allowed to have a legal status equal with all others

 

[RookParliament]

What I don't understand is why gay rights activists, instead of pushing for expanded civil union benefits (they all claim this is about rights, not symbolism, anyway), wage war against the entire conservative right about a semantics issue. They deserve no victory for their arrogance alone.

Its a war for expanded civil union benefits and symbols are weapons.

 

[milkman]

In many places, people are overwhelmingly against gay marriage. To step in and go against their wishes in such an instance would be a disaster. It serves no practical end. It's trampling the majority to make some small group feel better.

The majority is not always right.

 

[RookParliament]

QUOTE=Demiurge]Even if you allow them to marry, many would be reluctant to marry and be a "family" because others don't approve. I'm sure they already work at jobs and buy presents for one another. I'm skeptical of the idea that gay marriage would lead to an economic boom.[/QUOTE]

Buy a home together: pay property taxes, get a mortgage, adopt a child so they are not under the care of the state, buy all those wonderful consumer goods for the kid, amass credit card debt and live the 'ol American Dream. And many not marrying because others don't approve? What about the many that want to marry and cannot?

They don't deserve anything. There are no natural rights that are conditions of one's existence. This(who can marry) is a determination of law, not a natural entitlement.

Ok I'll give you that, but that is why they wish to change the laws through legislation and, unfortunately, the courts

The thing about marriage is that it remains attached to religious tradition within the minds of the populace. Marriage is not yet ready to become strictly a legal, secular union in the US. Gay marriage could be forcefully imposed, I suppose, but there's no reason for the government to do that(nor would I, were I running it). Plus, it(the government) is fractured regarding this issue, so the agenda is even more impractical.

Yet another reason to destroy religion. A tyranny to have religion forced on people.

Too much and involving the wrong people.

I agree with you there.

No mas.[/QUOTE]
Hey we will always need an underclass to do the menial work and Hispanic migrants and immigrants at this point in time fill a large part of that niche.

 

[Mormagil]

The majority is not always right.

Not to put words in his mouth or anything, but to me it seems that Demiurge is taking the pragmatic route, which seems perfectly prudent to me.

 

[RookParliament]

Not to put words in his mouth or anything, but to me it seems that Demiurge is taking the pragmatic route, which seems perfectly prudent to me.

Oh certainly its pragmatic. The opinion of the majority of this Bible-fucked country is certainly not going to change over-night if ever. Civil rights activists will just need to keep at it if they ever hope to achieve their goals. Honestly I hope they do. This country will not turn into a worse place because consenting adults can marry.

 

[milkman]

Not to put words in his mouth or anything, but to me it seems that Demiurge is taking the pragmatic route, which seems perfectly prudent to me.

I'm just saying that I don't think that "upsetting the majority" is a very good reason for being against it. It sure is to a pandering politician but for this discussion, I think it's a poor argument to use.