The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[nd 4 holden spd]

Wouldn't culture as a whole have a profound affect on the child and pretty much make them like anyone else as well? I mean unless a homosexual couple locked their child inside and forced views upon them I do not really see how they would turn out any different. It really would be an interesting study to see what happens to a child reared in different types of environments.

I think a study would be interesting indeed. Safe to bet though that there would be some differences.

 

[Sage]

Um, many those studies have already been done. In fact, let me quote from the most recently-published meta-analysis (which means that someone collated data from many many studies on the same subject) that I could find on PubMed.

Conclusion

The literature, while still preliminary, supports the notion that children raised by same sex couples become healthy well adjusted adults who are not more likely to be homosexual than children raised by heterosexuals. Specifically, it appears that children raised by same sex couples are not affected by their parents’ sexual orientation in terms of their sexual identity and their psychological well-being. They do not appear to be stigmatized by their parents’ orientation nor are they at increased risk for being sexually abused by their parents.

I would quote more (I have access to the entire article), but that would be illegal, since this is not free content.

 

[Famine]

That's different

Of course it is.

So things that are "unnatural" and require "man made doings to achieve that" are bad, but only when used for something you don't like. Got it.

 

[Touring Mars]

It really would be an interesting study to see what happens to a child reared in different types of environments.

They did an experiment on this - it was called "life"!

Because a young boy with 2 female parents would grow up thinking like a girl

Does a boy growing up with a single mother also grow up thinking like a girl? There is no evidence of that whatsoever. The amount of young boys growing up with lesbian parents is tiny compared to the amount of young boys growing up with a single mother or even the amount of young boys growing up with inattentive dead-beat dads who exert little or no positive influence on them at all.

Although a child is always going to be susceptible to its environment to some extent, there is actually very little evidence to suggest that something as fundamental as sexuality can be influenced by anybody...

 

[Sureboss]

Because a young boy with 2 female parents would grow up thinking like a girl, he would be an outcast at school because most people will reject him for his parentage, and a rough life, or a lonesome life messes with a human's head and can send them crazy.

Because all lesbians are feminine?

 

[Famine]

Although a child is always going to be susceptible to its environment to some extent, there is actually very little evidence to suggest that something as fundamental as sexuality can be influenced by anybody...

Jet from Gladiators doing the Hang Tough event.



Actually... *scurries off*

 

[Encyclopedia]

The Girl Scouts are like that in America - they don't even exclude atheists.

The Boy Scouts have an official policy not to accept homosexuals or atheists, but there are troop leaders at local levels who defy that policy.

Sorry for going a bit off-topic but why aren't atheists allowed in the Boy Scouts?

 

[CraftyLandShark]

It was founded originally as a semi-religious institution, but didn't actively discriminate against atheists until recenty. Strangely enough, beginning in the 70's, the Mormon church began to establish a strong grip on the Boy Scouts of America. They now encourage an active exclusion of atheists and homosexuals as they claim that neither "lifestyle" offers a positive role model for young boys.

 

[Touring Mars]

Because all lesbians are feminine?

ROFL... Good point!

 

[TheCracker]

Jet from Gladiators doing the Hang Tough event.



Actually... *scurries off*

Jet! Oooooowooo, Jet! Oooooowooo

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Of course it is.

So things that are "unnatural" and require "man made doings to achieve that" are bad, but only when used for something you don't like. Got it.

I never said they were bad did I? I said that a man made un-natural pregancy to aid single sex couples was different to using a computer to aid day to day life. Speaking of which, do those bone-marrow-made sperm produce a normal rate of success for a normal child (not disabled)?

 

[Famine]

I never said they were bad did I? I said that a man made un-natural pregancy to aid single sex couples was different to using a computer to aid day to day life.

How is a man-made unnatural pregnancy any different to a man-made unnatural thinking machine? Both require significant scientific advancement in order to achieve something not found in the natural environment.

What about a man-made unnatural pregnancy in heterosexual couples? Or using a computer to look at child porn?

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

How is a man-made unnatural pregnancy any different to a man-made unnatural thinking machine? Both require significant scientific advancement in order to achieve something not found in the natural environment.

What about a man-made unnatural pregnancy in heterosexual couples? Or using a computer to look at child porn?

Because messing with nature is different to making an electronic gismo, and I'm not sure where your second paragraph is going as I already dismissed it as merely being different, not bad.

 

[sn00pie]

The child would miss out on a presence of the opposite sex in the household and could potentially end up in a bad condition, mental even, when they get older.

"Mental" even, huh?

 

[Famine]

Because messing with nature is different to making an electronic gismo

How so? Was the electronic gizmo created with no "messing with nature"?

and I'm not sure where your second paragraph is going as I already dismissed it as merely being different, not bad.

I'd assume you'd support "manmade unnatural pregnancy" for childless heterosexuals, but not childless homosexuals. I'd also assume you'd support computer use for surfing GTPlanet, but not kiddyporn websites.

Am I correct?

 

[Diego440]

so in what way is molesting kids better than looking at websites about molesting kids...?

 

[Famine]

The... huh?

 

[Diego440]

He's saying that doing things through a man-made object is unnatural.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

The bare essence of the "unnatural" discussion is pretty simple. The primary thing that separates man from animals, as I'm sure most here would agree, is reason, and the most immediately observable difference between reasoning and non-reasoning beings is this:

Animals adapt themselves to nature. Man adapts nature to himself. How else would we have learned to harness fire, create and manipulate tools, and build structures? To say that man harnessing nature at the micro level is somehow immoral or unnatural, but that doing so at the macro level is peachy-keen because it allowed societies to form, is just patently wrong.

 

[Sureboss]

Maybe another salient point to bring to the discussion is the homosexual behaviour of other animals, mainly mammals.

Has this been touched upon, yet?

 

[FoolKiller]

I think it's nice to let people know what your stance is on the matter though. If you had to homo friends (that had only just come out of the closet so to speak) and didn't agree with their doings but didn't tell them aren't you doing wrong by them?

If they are your friends I would assume it means you have known them for a while and I would assume they already know your stance. And of course how you tell them is important too. Saying, "You know, you're going to Hell right?" doesn't work. And even just saying you don't agree with their lifestyle is like telling them you think they are immoral and it makes them feel uncomfortable. What do they gain if you tell them you think they are being immoral but you still want to be friends? An uncomfortable and short-lived friendship.

In the case of people with psychotic illnesses who do commit a murder, this is taken into account as a factor - commonly referred to as 'diminished responsibility'.

And in that case we tend to have special hospitals to place them instead of putting them in with the general prison population. But even mental conditions are treated differently based on how they affect society.

(None of the below is directed at TM, just to avoid confusion. Just throwing in my two cents)


So, even if you considered homosexuality to be a mental condition it causes no more harm to society than those with a learning disability or color blindness. Just because it may be an abnormality (which I don't think it is any more than racial differences) does not mean it is wrong.

I think trying to compare homosexuality to murdering psychotics goes out of the way to try and paint it in a bad light. If you want to try and compare it to something socially unacceptable find something equal.

If you think it is a choice it has all the effect of belching in public.

If you think it is mental illness it has all the effect of tourettes.

Basically, you don't like it but it otherwise doesn't violate your rights. And in that light I think the same courtesy should be returned to them.

 

[Danoff]

Basically, you don't like it but it otherwise doesn't violate your rights. And in that light I think the same courtesy should be returned to them.

Ooooohhhh. Nice one! How long did it take you to come up with that?

 

[Kylehnat]

Maybe another salient point to bring to the discussion is the homosexual behaviour of other animals, mainly mammals.

God created those animals to be straight. They went bad because they watched "Brokeback Mountain".

Saying, "You know, you're going to Hell right?" doesn't work. And even just saying you don't agree with their lifestyle is like telling them you think they are immoral and it makes them feel uncomfortable. What do they gain if you tell them you think they are being immoral but you still want to be friends? An uncomfortable and short-lived friendship.

Anytime someone I know says that to me for being an atheist, I want to punch them in the face. And this is exactly what society does, especially when the issues of gay marriage and adoption come up. For as "tolerant" as people like to think they are, the general population is incredibly homophobic, as if gays marrying somehow makes their own heterosexual marriage less meaningful--as if gays raising a child somehow rob that child the privilege of being straight. In the age we live in, it's unbelievable that people can't wrap their heads around the biological concept of homosexuality.

 

[SS69]

People who use the argument that marriage is between a woman and a man, and that the sanctity of marriage must be preserved are absolute morons. A marriage also stands for fidelity. It's also under the presumption that it's "till death do us part". And it's also under the guise of showing absolute "trust" and "faith" you have in another person's love for you.

Yet divorces are at a record high with one of the top reasons, if not the top, being infidelity. People are signing prenups. More and more people enter a marriage today with the belief that it has a shelf life of 5-7 years.

You argue that gays will tarnish the moral/religious fiber of marriage, yet we straight people have just about slain everything marriage used to stand for.

Within the next 20 years marriage will no longer be relevant. It's no longer religious. It's a legal institution. It's a business transaction. It's a terrible investment.

With all that said, what is so terrible about two gay people getting married? Are they going to come in your house (no pun intended) and wreck your marriage? Does that suddenly make you gay? I don't get the argument here.

As Richard Friedman said: "I support gay marriage because I believe they have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us."

As for the topic of this thread. Why is this even a discussion? A problem? Whenever someone is on trial for murder is thier sexuality brought into question? Do people get hooked on meth because they like people with the same sex organs as them? And these virgins the terrorists speak of? Are they circumcised or not?

The problem is not homosexuality. The problem is, we're wasting too much of our efforts trying to decide if it's a problem, and ignoring the real issues in our world.

 

[Pako]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg#file

I wonder what the different divorce rates are, secular vs. Christian based marriaged. By the way, in looking for stats, I found a site that will sell you a divorce kit for just $24.95.

Might find something neat here...
http://www.divorcereform.org/cor.html#anchor613698

 

[Joey D]

Every divorced couple I know went through a Christian wedding ceremony. I don't know how religious they were (it's really none of my business) but I do know they were wed by a minister or priest. I think I may have attended one secular wedding my whole life come to think of it.

 

[Kylehnat]

The problem is not homosexuality. The problem is, we're wasting too much of our efforts trying to decide if it's a problem, and ignoring the real issues in our world.

Well said 👍. It's just another political bargaining chip. A lot of people voted for Bush in '04 because of his stance on gay marriage. He didn't do jack 🤬 about it one way or the other, and now after four years of not hearing about it, the issue is being raised again... How convenient.

 

[SS69]

I'm sorry but the more I think about this the more I get pissed. The fact that his is even a topic of discussion pisses me off. On top of that it has made it to 20 pages long. Why!?!? How is a person's choice of sexuality even prevelant? Do we no longer have the right to make private decisions that effect no one but ourselves without it being questioned? How, in any scenario plausible, could this ever be a problem?

A person's sexuality has no effect on the economy. It has no effect on the crime rates. It has no effect on homeland security. How is this a problem? Because it defies religion? Who cares? An archaic system based on dubious mythology and absurd standards on how a person should live should not get in the way of a person's pursuit of happiness.

Please, someone give me a scenario in which this a problem. In which it's a problem that effects you, the country, and everyone else as a whole. I seriously doubt you can.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

How so? Was the electronic gizmo created with no "messing with nature"?



I'd assume you'd support "manmade unnatural pregnancy" for childless heterosexuals, but not childless homosexuals. I'd also assume you'd support computer use for surfing GTPlanet, but not kiddyporn websites.

Am I correct?

The electronic gismo was invented without messing with nature, I would not support man-made pregancy for heterosexual couples, and GTP is an innocent website, kiddyporn is just downright evil in all cultures around the world.

 

[JohnBM01]

I got to meet my first real openly-gay person last year. He also had plans to become a male-to-female transsexual. I have my own thoughts about homosexuality.

First off, I hate it when people use "gay" to describe something bad. It's totally offensive to homosexual types. If you want to ask for my thoughts... it's really a mixed subject. I believe in social values, and so I have no problem with homosexuality. It isn't a malignant disease. It isn't a psychological problem. It is not a crime on any level. It is just a preference to want to be with someone of their own gender. There's no shame in this. One thing stuck out at me when I was watching some of those... I guess you can call them public access channels. One person simply said, "if you're gay, you're going to die." This, in response to homosexuality in the Bible. I am a social thinker. The idea of homosexuality is going to rub some people the wrong way. I've grown to be more appreciative of people as I've matured. I'm going to feel uneasy myself with the notion of homosexuality, but I'm not going to go and lash out at somebody or call them nasty and inappropriate insults. Homosexuality is not a crime. I'm well aware of Christian values (I'm mostly speaking of homosexuality in America. I'm not sure how it may be in countries outside of America) here in America, but I don't think homosexuality is anything to belittle or hate. Homosexuality is nothing to throw an insult at. It is not something to use to attack or demean people on. If you don't like homosexuality, fine. You're not required to do so. Just don't go around attacking people on the notion that they are homosexual (or even bisexual).

A lot of things really need to change. As I mentioned in my previous paragraph, I'd appreciate nothing more than for people to stop using "gay" to represent something bad. It's what I experienced in my grade school days, AOL chats, stupid ass YouTube video comments in which some bastards don't know common sense even if it slapped them upside the head and made their cheeks red. Again, don't use sexual preference as a method of attacking or belittling people. You just end up feeling stupid and being treated like dirt. I mentioned that the person I got to know last year was gay as well as wanting to be a full-time transsexual. To be honest, I didn't really freak out seeing a (when I first saw him) person in the bathroom with long hair. Speaking as a heterosexual, I actually thought he was rather handsome in appearance. Maybe part of me is that I am an art person, and you tend to see the world in a different way. Okay, I confess... I am heterosexual, but VERY slightly bi-curious. So I'm pretty aware that the same-sex issues would make me somewhat of a target.

I voted "okay for anybody" from the choices. Reason I voted is because I've heard of people who are usually heterosexual, but then have some same-sex experience. I'm not exactly talking intercourse, but getting to see what it is like to love someone of your gender. A person may be heterosexual, sample loving people of the same gender, and never want to meet/date/love anyone of another sex ever again (at least according to the person in question). By stating "okay for anybody," I am basically saying it's okay for anyone of either gender to meet and perhaps grow very fond of someone of the same sex. I just believe in what makes others happy. People come from different cultures or don't really prefer having the Christian-style man+woman marriage. That also brings up issues of same-sex marriage. Again, I feel a person in a same-sex couple should be able to be with whomever makes him/her happy. And if for one guy that another man is whom he chooses to love and be with, that's his call. If one lady is very happy dating and loving another lady, then that's her call. I just believe in love and happiness. Homosexuals are not the lowest class of people on Mother Earth. They are not lost souls in need of exorcising. They are people like you and I. They just have different tastes in mating. So if a guy was asked to pick between Jessica Alba and Justin Timberlake, and if the guy responds Justin Timberlake, then who are we to tell him otherwise? We have to learn at one point to live together with homosexuals and not belittle them each chance we get. I know it's tough to do for some or most people, but they aren't the kind of dirtbags people make them out to be. Let them do as they please. They aren't hurting anybody. Don't make you any less of a person to see or encounter them. Again, all of this from personal experience as well as my social viewpoints.

For an interesting perspective on homosexuality and the Bible, check out this link: < http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian >.