Homosexuality

[The.Lost.Hylian]

I'd say 15 years is when it's going to start. It's going to take a while before the older, more intolerant generations are moved out of power.

Or they die ?_?


Also, I find it funny how many people in here are "as long as they don't come on to me" or "as long as they don't hit on me". How many fucking gay men have hit on all of you? How many? Probably not a lot.

It's rather sad that some of you can't see past things. Some of you are still "scared" of homosexuals. I've been hit on by a rather many homosexual men, and it really doesn't phase me. I usually take it as a compliment that someone finds me attractive. Sometimes I can feel uneasy if the dude is persistent, but then I actually realize how women feel when men go after them. Helps you put it in perspective. Gay guys don't hit on you to gross you out. They are attracted to you. Whatever. Just handle the situation like you would if a fat chick hit on you.


Oh, and in response to the "unnatural" debate, there are many animals who engage in homosexual acts. Find that Duck Rape thread for a perfect example. We're not the only species to hump the same gender.

 

[Atlas]

obligatory GB_Packer_FTW is gay for favre.

i am gay, and im also christian/catholic (well raised anyways) though i dont really post in this thread much since im not a good debater:/ im more of a guy who post links :D

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2005/07/11/GayMarriage/

http://www.waf.org/familyarchives/marriage/Historys view on gay marriage.htm

http://www.apa.org/topics/topicsbehavior.html bunch of studies on here by the American Psychological Association (*seems to be unbiased but i guess people have their own perception to what they read or have learned, so studies may mean fuck all)

Gay people see themselves portrayed positively in several places in the bible. In the Old Testament, the entire book of Ruth is one of the most beautiful stories of love between two women that has ever been written. How ironic it is that many passages from this beautiful scripture have been used over the years in heterosexual marriage ceremonies!

The story of David and Johnathan in the book of I Samuel is also a beautiful gay love story (I Samuel 19:1 through 23:29). In it, each shows the committment and sacrifice for each other that every gay couple has experienced and can instantly recognize.

Even Jesus was unquestionably aware of homosexuality, and yet there is no record that he ever condemned it. In at least one instance, he praised the faith of a gay man! In the original Greek version of the beautiful story of Jesus healing the centurion's servant (Matthew 8:5-13, Luke 7:2-10), the words used to describe the centurion's companion isn't "servant" at all. They translate accurately as "beloved boy," a phrase that clearly connotes the common practice at the time of older gay men or gay men in positions of authority keeping younger men as their lovers and partners.

now i dont have my bible handy at the moment to check this out but if deck_knight (or any other christians i should say) knows, or wants to check it he can. (the link isnt really that useful though, its more about a faq for parents finding out their child is gay)

not to exclude the other side of the fence:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marj.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marj_c.htm (conservative christian views aka, anti-gay marriage)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marj_l.htm (liberal christian views aka, pro gay marriage



that about as far as i feel like going into this atm. on the topic of pride parades. its a parade. parades are fun. why should some jolly fat bastard whos not even real gets more respect.

 

[Dragontamer]

You know... there is something I probably should bring up.

I hate gay PDA (public display of affection). You know why? Because men smooching each other in public is disgusting.

Of course, I probably should note that all forms of PDA IMO are disgusting. If you're going to smooch publicly, keep it to a hug, sweet single kiss or whatever. Don't essentially dry fuck each other in public (hetero or homo). That said, if you do go to the high school I used to go, don't go down the G hallway, nor any of the stairs in that hallway >_>

And yes, I should note I organized this post strangely :-p Seriously though, PDA is a separate issue, but my stance on PDA is the same for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. And yes, I know most gays don't do PDA... but I just wanna note that PDA and homosexuals are two totally different and unrelated topics.

 

[mf]

Or they die ?_?


Also, I find it funny how many people in here are "as long as they don't come on to me" or "as long as they don't hit on me". How many fucking gay men have hit on all of you? How many? Probably not a lot.

It's rather sad that some of you can't see past things. Some of you are still "scared" of homosexuals. I've been hit on by a rather many homosexual men, and it really doesn't phase me. I usually take it as a compliment that someone finds me attractive. Sometimes I can feel uneasy if the dude is persistent, but then I actually realize how women feel when men go after them. Helps you put it in perspective. Gay guys don't hit on you to gross you out. They are attracted to you. Whatever. Just handle the situation like you would if a fat chick hit on you.

Good post, a lot of homophobia stems from people simply being afraid that they won't be able to handle a situation where someone who they aren't attracted to is attracted to them. It's quite an arrogant stance to take. As far as I'm aware, there are is no lesbian movement campaigning against heterosexual marriage because they are fed up of guys hitting on them.

... but I just wanna note that PDA and homosexuals are two totally different and unrelated topics.

So why bring it up? Yet again the debate is sidetracked by unnecessary topics. You don't seem to be responding to any previous point in particular so I can only assume you bring this to attention as a personal disclaimer of some sort.

 

[sbc]

Those Bible quotes are extremely vague iirc, the David and Johnathan one goes something close to: "David and Jonathan were happy together and one in spirit"

Wow, they certainly must be gay...

 

[junkgamer]

I ask the question as to why there is a question about gay marriage. Gay people should be allowed marriage because gays have the right to be just as miserable as anyone else.

But all joking aside I've read all the arguments and the nay sayers fall short on facts. Their arguments seem to be derived from fear and the reactionaries crying about the sanctity of marriage are obviously unaware of the divorce rate and the fact that people most often either get married for money or because the woman got pregnant.

I don't think it was coincidence that my parents wedding anniversary was in October and my birthday is in March. I also don't think its strange that once my sister and i grew up they got divorced.

People will continue to get married for the wrong reasons and skyrocket the divorce rate regardless of their sexual preference. This is a non issue and always will be. Just legalize gay marriage so the time can be spent on something more important, like cleaning out my fridge.


​

 

[DM]

This thread has completely spun out of control. That is mostly the mods' faults for not putting their collective foot down on it a long time ago.

The basic argument underlying EVERYTHING that has been said in this thread is this: is homosexuality a trait or a choice? Without truly addressing and answering that question, everything else that has been said in this thread is moot and pointless gumflapping.

I know somewhere in the first 200 pages it WAS touched on, and by both sides of the debate. But from here on out, if this thread is to have any validity, the posts should contain a strong reference to the above question, or else risk being deleted for irrelevance.

 

[gorm]

I'm not sure if i agree with that question being the foundation of the debate, mostly because I think it is so trivial! Then again i think the whole argument is trivial, so I'll throw in my 2 cents.

Here is a study that demonstrates that gay men smell things more like women. It seems silly, but thats pretty much conclusive evidence that a homosexual man has his brain wired differently than a woman.

As far as whether becoming gay happens at birth/during life, i can't really comment on that. There are citations of a higher degree of homosexuality in men with older brothers here, so certainly it can be argued that people are not "born gay" but I don't really see how this affects anything, even if we make the assumption that becoming gay is purely a function of environment, which is impossible for any of us to prove so it isn't worth arguing (though I may be wrong).

It seems that (at least for the half dozen odd gay people I know), one's own homosexuality is a deep set realization that occurs near (often just before) puberty, and often is a terrifying prospect. This is anecdotal I know but I think from my experience with people, there is no way that this could be a choice.

it makes sense of course when you think about the amount of stigmatization people face.

so yeah, i cant see how anyone could argue that this is a choice, without maybe siting some anecdotal evidence of people being "reconverted" through willpower.

I reiterate my question to deck knight about whether he actually knows someone who is gay.

 

[Altmer]

This thread has completely spun out of control. That is mostly the mods' faults for not putting their collective foot down on it a long time ago.

The basic argument underlying EVERYTHING that has been said in this thread is this: is homosexuality a trait or a choice? Without truly addressing and answering that question, everything else that has been said in this thread is moot and pointless gumflapping.

I know somewhere in the first 200 pages it WAS touched on, and by both sides of the debate. But from here on out, if this thread is to have any validity, the posts should contain a strong reference to the above question, or else risk being deleted for irrelevance.

Studies have pretty much shown that homosexuality is a trait. I don't really think that gays have a possible choice: I guess one could argue that every argument based on the opposite premise is pretty much false, or at the least badly backed up.

 

[DM]

I'm not sure if i agree with that question being the foundation of the debate, mostly because I think it is so trivial! Then again i think the whole argument is trivial, so I'll throw in my 2 cents.

Considering the answer to this question is the basis of the argument of 99% of the people on either side of the debate, it doesn't seem to trivial to me.

 

[akuchi]

. If you want an level field first talk to someone like a Priest or Bishop of the Catholic\Christian Church. Then for the left side of the issue consult somone that actually is GAY. I'd like to hear someone who is gay post on this thread and offer there thoughts.

Hey, part-time dyke speaking - I'm for the legalization of gay marriage, not because I might ever want to get married to a woman - I don't want to get married at all, in fact - but because it seems inherently ridiculous that people see it as less valid than any heterosexual relationship.

And as to the promiscuity issue - I've a gay ex-best friend who's a massive slut, but for the first 16 years of her life she was exclusively straight and she was a massive slut then too (three dates on one night and slept with all of them sort of slut).

Personally I think the sort of sluttitude that doesn't result in a teenage pregnancy is preferable.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Considering the answer to this question is the basis of the argument of 99% of the people on either side of the debate, it doesn't seem to trivial to me.

Actually I am pretty sure DK was arguing that Homosexuality wasnt a choice. I dont remember anyone suggesting that it was a choice except one post mentioning it with regards to bisexuals.

Have a nice day.

 

[DM]

Actually I am pretty sure DK was arguing that Homosexuality wasnt a choice. I dont remember anyone suggesting that it was a choice except one post mentioning it with regards to bisexuals.

Have a nice day.

You misunderstood me. DK represents the majority of anti-gay marriage debaters who think homosexuality is a choice; those of us in this thread arguing for gay marriage have concluded (based on years of research) that homosexuality is in fact NOT a choice.

That's what I was trying to say, that the answer to the aforementioned question is what this debate is really about.

 

[Steeler]

Not allowing full rights only reinforces the notion that they somehow don't deserve them. People tend to get used to how things are. Much like I'd be against arguments in the late 1800s saying that people just aren't ready for a free black, or in the 1960s, saying people just aren't ready for an equal black, and that we just need to give it a little more time before we give them equal rights, I'm against this "wait it out" approach. If you wait without doing something, opinions aren't going to change.

Let's compare it to the liberation of blacks, as you did. They were technically "freed" way back in 1865 at the end of the Civil War, yet it took a full century to actually be free of the prejudice and hate and such that persisted even after the law itself stated that they were free. The reason was that the vast majority of the country still felt that blacks were inferior to whites and such, so the law didn't mean much. This "freedom" wasn't really freedom at all.

In the 1960s, it was different than today, because you'd have a TON of people actively campaigning for equality, and not just blacks. Today...well, I would think that the opposition is a lot stronger and more widespread to gays then it was then to blacks. And I don't see near as many protests and marches and such demanding for rights NOW.

Likewise, the fight for gay rights today is at a standstill now because people aren't ready for it, basically. There is still a lot of social stigma associated with being gay and people view these people and their lifestyles/choices/whatever as inferior and disgusting, etc. BUT the times are changing and slowly more people are growing to accept gay people...as such, I think when the time for our generation comes to pass (or the current generation in power dies off), we will make a law stating that gay marraige is legal.

I see what you are saying, I mean hey, it'd be best if the law were passed tomorrow, but there are a lot of people out there who would raise fucking hell if it were to happen.

But I disagree with your last point/sentence. The younger adults of today are proof that opinions are changing...if you "wait it out", then eventually it will not even be a question of whether homosexuals will be able to marry. Yeah, duh, "waiting it out" sounds like a horrible solution but it's all we can really do.

oh yeah and homosexuality is genetic

</ontopic>

I don't think that's even really a question, more like a fact, so I don't see what there is to debate regarding that original topic...

 

[Hipmonlee]

You misunderstood me. DK represents the majority of anti-gay marriage debaters who think homosexuality is a choice; those of us in this thread arguing for gay marriage have concluded (based on years of research) that homosexuality is in fact NOT a choice.

That's what I was trying to say, that the answer to the aforementioned question is what this debate is really about.

But DK thinks that homosexuality isnt a choice..

Have a nice day.

 

[gorm]

oh yeah and homosexuality is genetic

got anything to back that up?

 

[majesty]

Homosexuality is not 100% genetic. I'm certain there are things, as per my posts on pages previous (the long first one in particular), that give any person a higher chance at becoming a homosexual. Call it a predisposition. It doesn't guarentee anything will happen. Look at the pedophile example I tastefully presented earlier- they clearly do have a biological predisposition but that doesn't mean 100% of people with said trait are going to become pedophiles. I'm comparing them simple because they represent another sexual divergence from the norm and it gives a potential (and rather convincing) model to work with.

Naturally it is external factors that can ultimately decide these things, though.

 

[obi]

I disagree, DM, and that question presents a false dichotomy of "nature or nurture?". You can't say that it's one or the other, because not only are both of them influential, they alter each other. Environment changes biology, and, unless you are adopted, your parents genetics (and, hence, your genetics) make up a major part of your environment. Consider checking out the book Nature Via Nurture if you want a bit more information on this.

It's also irrelevant. Let's consider the example of me and fish. I don't like to eat fish because they don't taste good. Whether I don't like to eat fish because of my genetics (or other non-genetic biological factors) or my environment has no bearing on whether eating fish is healthy or moral.

/edit: However, I do agree it's an important point to address because it's a common argument.

 

[DM]

But DK thinks that homosexuality isnt a choice..

Have a nice day.

...

Oh. Then I have no clue what's wrong with the fucking kid.

 

[Bam]

First thing, I just want to say that I'm not a great debative poster, and that my thoughts may not come off exactly the way I want them to when I post them sometimes. I read the first few pages of this thread, and then skipped to the last where it was stated that this thread has gone out of control and is then brought back to the basic question of "is being gay a choice or not?". There was a similar arguement on the hidden board at NSider2 (don't ask if you don't know) a while ago, and it still bursts up every once in a while when some ignorant poster who shouldn't have been allowed access to that board finds it and writes whatever's on his or her mind at the moment.

*goes to get journal that I wrote Biblical scriptures down in*

I will be copying down these verses in NIV (New Internation Version) form, as they are easier to understand by those who aren't versed with Old or Middle English. Here's my first scripture:

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

This verse has already been posted, and clearly shows how God views homosexuality (and lesbianism - I will just use homosexuality to express both points here). Some may argue that since this is from the Old Testament, it is not valid or viable in our culture nowadays since Jesus made a new covenant with the people. That argument makes no sense because even though the new covenant was brought about, God's view still stays the same. It does not change just because the saviour came along and the sacrifices required to have sin forgiven are no longer needed.

Now, if God detests homosexuality, then why would he make a person homosexual at birth (yes, this has been stated a couple of times in this thread by those that are "Christian" but that also believe that homosexuality is not a sin)? Psalm 129:13-15 states:

13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,

I put this in context just so that I wouldn't get the "that's out of context" treatment. According to this verse, God made each person individually, wonderfully, and miraculously, and because he loves every human so much, why would he make one that would automatically go to hell?

That is the human nature - to sin against God. Ever since the fall of man (Adam and Eve), mankind has developed into a worsening state, and it has left God. One of the posters on the first or second page mentioned that all humans are born sinners, but that is not true. It is not until the child has a full recognition of what they're doing, and an understanding of Christianity, that they're responsible for their decisions that will cause them to go to heaven or hell. There is a certain grace period mentioned in the Bible that allows those younger than an unknown age, or possibly a mental-ability-requirement to enter heaven without being punished for their sins, because they didn't know the possible future consequences of their actions.

Back to the main topic, though; is homosexuality a choice or an instinct? I will use another example from Christianity: If God made people to love and be loved by him, but he didn't give them a choice of whether they could love him or not, then what satisfaction would that bring him? He gave humans the choice to love and obey him, so that if in fact we do love and obey him, it will be very satisfying to both him and us. In the same way, how could the same God, who has to give us a choice to obey him or not, allow one to be born without the choice? That would be an exception, and God wouldn't do that.


Yes, I know that this topic is mainly secular and that I'm sporting a Christian standpoint, but because this is what I believe, I feel the need to post it. If there are any other Christians out there that notice a flaw in my post, please let me know and we'll work it out. If you have a question about the validity (is that a word?) of my arguement, post and let me know. Sorry if this is confusing - I'm doing the best I can with what i have.

 

[Steeler]

Bam, those are good points from where you are coming from...but the problem that I have is this. I was raised a Catholic (fuck off you know who you are) and I'm starting to doubt some of this "stuff".

You do have a point, but I've seen a lot of evidence and links posted in this thread that clearly show SOME sort of relation between homosexuality and a genetic disposition to do so. And even if it is as slight as a disposition to give someone the possibility or hightened chance of this "sin" of homosexuality, then I'd think that'd be playing against all that God stands for...

Dontcha ever notice how gay men and lesbians tend to appear...well, more of the opposite sex? This isn't true in all cases, but it sure happens...iono how often though.

I personally *think* that nature plays a greater influence that nurture does, and if that is true, then...WE HAVE A PROBLEM.

Perhaps it varies. In two different cases, perhaps someone is gay because he was "genetically predisposed" to do so, regardless of the environment...another moreso because of the environment they grew up in? I think this is entirely possible but I don't have any facts to back it up so don't eat me. But don't you think it makes sense? Do you really expect every homosexual man and woman to have the exact same genetic information that affects this? Could environment both encourage one to become homosexual and yet encourage another to be heterosexual?

IF this were to be true, which is a big if, then how do you expect to tell the difference or treat the ones who were more or less "born" with it differently than the ones who had more of a "choice" in it? I'm just offering this up as food for thought so please don't jump on my fucking back. x) Feel free to ignore.

Anyways back to Bam,

The way I'm thinking right now, I don't think what the Bible says is much of a proof or argument compared to facts and experiments we've seen in the past few years. Not to totally rain on your parade or anything though Bam, that's just how I personally feel.

And there's a hidden board on N2? -_-; I don't post much (at all) on there, I just check my profile out and see who's visited me recently. x)

 

[Bam]

I almost want to put this quote of yours in my sig:

Dontcha ever notice how gay men and lesbians tend to appear...well, more of the opposite sex?

I don't really believe that whether one is gay or not is determined by their hormones. Even if there is a certain "gay" gene, it's not as if that person has no way to control it. I'm also sure that if there were surveys taken to show differences in genetic material between people with McJobs and people who work at a high-paying five-star resturand, there would be differences in their genes. Does this mean anything?

No. Even from a non-Christian point of view, one can tell that there is enough diversity and difference in this world for this to not be a matter that should be taken too seriously. Some studies have shown that people in prison have a different and separate genetic makeup as well that predisposes them to doing whatever that causes them to go to prison. Now, since 49% of the prison population is black (1), does that mean that approximately one half of the entire black population in the USA has those predisposed genes? No, it's just the way that it is (no, I'm not being racist, even my black friends talk about it - there's just cultural differences). It's not the way they're born, it's the way they're raised.

I'm not sure how the difference of the length of a ring finger between a gay man and a straight man has any control of why that man is that way. The matter is also situational - say Hitler was still alive, and he went through all the streets with his campaign, measuring the length of each middle finger. Now, besides the fact that many of these men who would be chosen for the "gay" fingerlength would not be gay, the real gays would be fighting for the exact opposite of what they are now; that being gay is not determined by a genetic cause.

Just my take.

Edit: I'm just using the finger thing from Wikipedia as an example.

 

[mf]

Some studies have shown that people in prison have a different and separate genetic makeup as well that predisposes them to doing whatever that causes them to go to prison. Now, since 49% of the prison population is black (1), does that mean that approximately one half of the entire black population in the USA has those predisposed genes?

This doesn't make any sense. The percentage of the prison population that is black has no bearing on the percentage of black people who are in prison or predisposed to crime.

If you're going to make an analogy keep it rational and relevant.

 

[Habanero Pepper]

The nature verus nurture arguement is really prevalent in the homosexual arguements, it's really more of a nurture factor than anything else imo just from the research that I personally have commited to. But as almost any psychologist would tell you it's a combination of the two with a combination of other variables that helps determine a person's sexuality. They'll also almost consistently agree, unless there's some level of religious/personal bias in their opinions, that the person connot choose who gets them off or not. That would take castration to change.

~peace kiddos

 

[Bam]

Sorry, I just saw what you mean. While searching for a website with statistics, I just clicked on the first one that looked decent and didn't give it much thought. I'll look for a better website with more current and applicable information and edit it in.