The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Joel]

Normally I might not even bother to post here, but it seems to me pretty much everyone except this new guy everyone doesn't like is equating "gay rights" with the civil rights movement. No. No, no, no, no.

I get that you think you're the dissenting voice in an echo chamber of democrats or whatever (even though this forum has a very heavy libertarian slant and half the posters are from outside the US), but in this case you're arguing against logic with feelings and fallacies. Putting gay rights in quotation marks at the beginning of your post gives it a certain tone. I realize you're trying to hide it behind a thinly veiled attempt to play devil's advocate, but you aren't fooling anyone.

Check it. Some scientists did research and you know what? There wasn't any trace of a gay gene anywhere. Quick page but it contains the basic point. Cliffs: a lot of people say it's not a choice, but science is having a real hard time figuring out why it's not a choice. Personally, I think it is. A lot of things are choices that don't feel like it.

The key point here that it doesn't seem like you gave much credence to:

Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

Your nugget of proof says that there is no simple "if X then Y" relationship discovered between sexual orientation and any contributing factor, not just the absence of a gay gene. That means that it is also not proven that people become gay as a result of their culture or upbringing. The other humourous bit about you using that link as your evidence, is that you're disputing it as you use it to make your point. It says most people experience little to no sense of choice, while you said "Personally, I think it is". Your own evidence makes an assertion contrary to yours.

And that's true even if there is a gay gene. A lot of other things might be genetic too, like aggression and traditionalism. Tendencies that can be fought down if the situation requires it. Tendencies that, in many cases, the law either snubs or makes us fight down, for various reasons. Also don't forget about brain plasticity - both internal and external factors can change the way we think and behave. From what I've heard, this can happen at any age, even without us noticing.

Yes, gay people can "choose" to not have sex with the gender they're attracted to for their entire life. I'm sure you can empathise with them on that one.

The difference between sexuality and aggression/traditionalism/whatever, is that "choosing" to act on your homosexuality doesn't violate anybody's rights. You're trying to draw a link here between restraining yourself from assaulting people and restricting consenting adults in relationships. It's a red herring; the core of this debate is whether or not it's morally acceptable, not whether or not you can suppress your sexuality. The very institution of marriage in the first place runs contrary to our desires to create as many offspring as we can.

If you want to argue that homosexuality is right, or that the government should accomodate it the same way it accomodates heterosexual marriage, then fine, let's have that debate. But stop saying that homosexuality is as genetic as the color of a person's skin.

If you want to get into that debate I'm sure people here would be happy to refute your position. The point about gay rights being compared to civil rights is not that being gay is genetic, it's that it's just as arbitrary and stupid a reason to restrict people's rights as it was to restrict them for the colour of their skin. The point is that civil unions vs gay marriage and "don't talk about it like it's acceptable" is the 21st century equivalent of a coloreds only entrance, separate water fountains for whites and coloreds, and resistance to interracial marriage.

There are no logical arguments that are being brought to the table in favour of restricting gay rights or maintaining the status quo. The irony here is that the "liberal touchy feely" position is the one that's backed by logic, and the social conservative position is backed by feelings and a general discomfort on this issue. All while the poor straight religious people talk about being oppressed.

TL;DR: Even strong urges, genetic or otherwise, can be fought - and successfully. Something doesn't automatically become right just because you think your DNA is telling you to do it.

TL;DR, you started with a straw man argument that everyone here is talking about a gay gene, then you cited one paragraph as evidence that there is no gay gene, and then you contradicted your own source of evidence.

 

[Azure Flare]

I'm not trying to get into this, but I want to say this.

The ones who say that being gay is a "problem" and "a choice" are always the ones who are closed-minded assholes that think their lives are to be dictated by a book that was written 3,000+ years ago.

 

[Carbonox]

I'm simply saying that it should be kept private, out of public view and not being taught as acceptable or normal.

I take issue when peoples' kids are coming home from school being told that gay is okay, normal or acceptable.

Classic.

"I have no problems with gays as long as they don't do this or that or especially that one thing in public"

 

[homeforsummer]

I don't really see the comparison. Straight = natural. You can't make kids with two men or two women. You need both parts.

So people who choose not to have children in the first place is not normal too? Since they aren't using "both parts" to "make kids".

If sexuality is solely about procreation then anyone who doesn't procreate isn't normal. Hell, people who can't get a partner for some reason aren't normal either. Or infertile couples.

 

[Famine]

I wouldn't hold out much hope for answers. I'm still waiting for the answers to a similar question from the start of the week:

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Uh-huh. And in the 100,000 year history of humans, how long have they been marrying one another (and one at a time)?

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

My eldest is being raised by one party with no blood relationship to her. A very good friend of mine is raising a child to whom they have no blood relationship.

I wonder what your "natural law" says about that. And, for that matter, divorce, premature death or gamete donation - the commonest reasons for a child being raised by one party with no blood relationship to them.

It seems rather a narrow definition of "normal" to mean "white, heterosexual, right-handed male in an exclusive and legally formalised sexual relationship with a fertile female with no attempts to limit conception".

In fact it's such a narrow definition that it covers a tiny proportion of humans - and that's sufficient argument for it to be abnormal.

 

[hogger129]

you can get a civil union, play house, call it whatever you want to call it. it still isn't marriage.

 

[Famine]

I guess the questions are still too awkward for you?

you can get a civil union, play house, call it whatever you want to call it.

And blacks can access the building through the service entrance.

it still isn't marriage.

Except that by definition it is - whoever the participants and however many there are, it's a marriage and should be called that, rather than the modern version of the word as bastardised by religion.

 

[Danny]

Well if politics and religion shouldn't be mixing, then why not agree to let homosexuals have a legal marriage?

Yeah it's called a civil union.

But wait...

you can get a civil union, play house, call it whatever you want to call it. it still isn't marriage.

Be careful. It's beginning to look a bit like you haven't got the first clue.

 

[niky]

Something doesn't automatically become right just because you think your DNA is telling you to do it.

So making sweet love to a woman isn't right? And not acting like a homicidal maniac?

But stop saying that homosexuality is as genetic as the color of a person's skin.

http://io9.com/5967426/scientists-c...ity-is-not-genetic--but-it-arises-in-the-womb

Epi-genetics means that it can still be passed on from generation to generation. Which means that it isn't a "nurture" thing, it's still a "nature" thing.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I wouldn't hold out much hope for answers. I'm still waiting for the answers to a similar question from the start of the week:It seems rather a narrow definition of "normal" to mean "white, heterosexual, right-handed male in an exclusive and legally formalised sexual relationship with a fertile female with no attempts to limit conception".

In fact it's such a narrow definition that it covers a tiny proportion of humans - and that's sufficient argument for it to be abnormal.

It's comical to watch people quoting the Bible selectively to make their case, leave out everything that applies to them. You're right, if you really believe in the Bible, the range of normal or acceptable in Biblical terms is pretty rare. If you have sex outside of marriage you're a sinner. Condoms? Nope. Cop a feel when you were 14..straight to hell. Go on a date and lust in your mind about her curvaceous body...you're doomed.

I'd like to get a look at Hogger's resume and see just how much of the Bible he chooses to follow so we can judge him in the same light he has judged homosexuals and other "deviants".

Some sage advice for you Hogger from your very own book:

Luke 6:37 “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;

Romans 14:1-23 "As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. ..."

 

[Danny]

I'd like to get a look at Hogger's resume and see just how much of the Bible he chooses to follow so we can judge him in the same light he has judged homosexuals and other "deviants".

It's interesting to note that the arguments about what is and isn't 'natural' are being made... via a computer.

Just as God intended.

 

[FoolKiller]

Normally I might not even bother to post here, but it seems to me pretty much everyone except this new guy everyone doesn't like is equating "gay rights" with the civil rights movement.

Maybe if the anti-gay crowd didn't use the same arguments as those opposed to civil rights used to.

Check it. Some scientists did research and you know what? There wasn't any trace of a gay gene anywhere. Quick page but it contains the basic point. Cliffs: a lot of people say it's not a choice, but science is having a real hard time figuring out why it's not a choice. Personally, I think it is. A lot of things are choices that don't feel like it.

So does that mean there is a gene to explain why I am attracted to certain women, but not others? Or a gene that explains why I am not attracted by the attributes most makes are. I'll take a long-legged redhead over a big-boobed blonde any day. Where's that gene?

Attraction is far more complex than a simple genetic code, gay or straight.

And that's true even if there is a gay gene. A lot of other things might be genetic too, like aggression and traditionalism. Tendencies that can be fought down if the situation requires it. Tendencies that, in many cases, the law either snubs or makes us fight down, for various reasons.

So there is a legitimate reason for the law to make a homosexual snub or fight down his/her desires?

Something doesn't automatically become right just because you think your DNA is telling you to do it.

Nor does it become right or wrong just because the political system says it is.

If you want to argue that homosexuality is right, or that the government should accomodate it the same way it accomodates heterosexual marriage, then fine, let's have that debate.

I've tried, multiple times. I get no response or one sentence non-responses. Did you bother reading everything before jumping in to defend "this new guy."

But stop saying that homosexuality is as genetic as the color of a person's skin.

I think we said natural and non-harmful. Not a lot of genetic words being thrown about.

I also compared it to religious persecution. Was that a bad comparison too.

you can get a civil union, play house, call it whatever you want to call it. it still isn't marriage.

Either take marriage out of the law and give everyone equal rights or legally allow gay marriage.

You can call it what you want, but it is still the exact same kind of committed relationship I share with my wife. Give them the same rights and quit playing semantics.

 

[demonchilde]

Upbringing.

Um, wha ?
So I could simply raise my white kid to be black???
Friggin awesome, even more scholarships he can apply for ^^

Or do you mean, if my family goes tanning a lot, a couple generations from now I might pop out a black child?

 

[Famine]

Um, wha ?
So I could simply raise my white kid to be black???
Friggin awesome, even more scholarships he can apply for ^^

Or do you mean, if my family goes tanning a lot, a couple generations from now I might pop out a black child?

Yep. You can bring gay kids up to be straight after all.

 

[Danoff]

I still maintain that the solution to this is to get the government to switch entirely to civil unions for everyone. No state-recognition of marriage. Civil union sounds much more like a government/legal structure to me than marriage anyway. People can still get married at their church if they want, but in the eyes of the government everyone is equal.

Done, gay marriage problem solved. Next.

 

[hogger129]

I still maintain that the solution to this is to get the government to switch entirely to civil unions for everyone. No state-recognition of marriage. Civil union sounds much more like a government/legal structure to me than marriage anyway. People can still get married at their church if they want, but in the eyes of the government everyone is equal.

Done, gay marriage problem solved. Next.

Agreed.

 

[FoolKiller]

Agreed.

Semantics and you're happy. Wow. You still seem to believe that the current definitions of civil union and marriage mean the same thing legally.

I think there should be zero government interference in relationships. The financial side of it should all be handled contractually and regulated by existing contract law.

And then if anyone wants to call themselves married, they can.

Sad thing is, I think if it always existed the way Danoff explains there would be people arguing against civil unions for homosexuals and we'd have to call it life partnerships or something. Otherwise homosexual civil unions would somehow demean their heterosexual civil union.

 

[Azuremen]

Agreed.

So, like, are you ever going to get around to addressing the questions on your "normal" black people comment, or my question as to where you live in the world? Or the questions Famine has put forth, or the questions about which parts of the Bible you seem to agree with?

Or you can continue to just cop out on the real questions while dancing around the actual issue here, which is that you sound extremely bigoted and ignorant.

 

[Keef]

No, not all black people act like normal people. Not to get too far off topic here, gay is not normal or acceptable.

The idea of "normal" is completely subjective. If you're straight and your friends are too then you probably see straight as normal. If you and your friends are gay then you probably think being gay is normal. If you're a woman you probably think yapping about news on TMZ is normal. If you live in a nudist colony you probably think being naked is normal. Likewise, if you're Catholic you might not notice being filled with hate and bigotry because those things are normal.

 

[demonchilde]

Likewise, if you're Catholic you might not notice being filled with hate and bigotry because those things are normal.

LOL, AMEN brother.

The more I studied and grew up as a Catholic, the more details I learned about history, and the higher my education got, the more I looked at Catholicism (not Christianity as a whole) and sat back and said, "wow, that's the story your gonna stick with huh? You actually BELIEVE this s**t? Everyone in the vatican is lucky God isn't really the being they think he is, or they would be screwed. "

I am just going.to leave that there, I do apologize for straying that far off topic.
In attempts to stay on topic, if you agree, cool, if not, awe shucks. Back on track now ;

 

[Villain]

Fighting what you feel is a choice.

What you feel in the first place is not a choice. If it was there wouldn't be a fight.

It's just, beautiful. Look at it again. Ladies (on GTP? Never!) and Gents, the above post has been quoted for truth.

/cue a slow clap.

 

[PeterJB]

I find it very hypocritical when other Christians judge homosexuals. Am I supposed to assume that you lead a perfect life and can never go wrong? I don't really care if gay couples get married or not. It's not for me, but that doesn't mean I should judge others or try and stop them.

 

[demonchilde]

Exactly Pete.
I am not Gay, never tried (if that term even applys), I am a happily married man. As far as myself is concerned, there's no question about it. I am VERY addicted to breasts, among other parts, but particularly the breasts. I don't say that to be funny, I'm being serious. I think of them when I don't see them, notice them no matter whose they are, and fantasize about seeing and "ect." to every pair I see.
This is a problem sometimes, and I do know I am WAY past normal infatuation. But I can't change who I am, or how my brain works. I didn't tell my brain, "hey, brain, think about breasts a lot will ya?" No, its something that developed on its own, without my consent. (My wife is a double-E, lol, think that was by mere chance?)
I try, very hard, to imagine that this is the same for Gay and lesbian people. I know what it's like to not only not be able to control what I'm attracted to, but to be perfectly happy with whatever it so chose. For the sake of being open minded, which I always try to be, I try to learn as much as I can about it. The more I listen to people with intelligent open minds, the more its makes sense and the more comfortable I am with others and accepting I am of not only them, but myself as well.
Everyone thinks their s**t doesn't stink, and loves to point out how smelly other peoples is. To each their own, man.

 

[hogger129]

I find it very hypocritical when other Christians judge homosexuals. Am I supposed to assume that you lead a perfect life and can never go wrong? I don't really care if gay couples get married or not. It's not for me, but that doesn't mean I should judge others or try and stop them.

I don't care either but it's not marriage.

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't care either but it's not marriage.

Says you. My cousin is married, legally, emotionally, and in a church ceremony.

 

[Blitz24]

Says you. My cousin is married, legally, emotionally, and in a church ceremony.

Apparently that's not the case in his world, which is in another dimension, that we do not occupy (thankfully).

 

[hogger129]

Says you. My cousin is married, legally, emotionally, and in a church ceremony.

Married? Says you.

 

[G.T.Ace]

I don't care either but it's not marriage.

Says who?

 

[Blitz24]

Married? Says you.

And the state and the country. But oh I forgot that you don't live here.

 

[hogger129]

Says who?

God

And the state and the country. But oh I forgot that you don't live here.

I am talking about marriage as it pertains to Christianity. The state or country has no businesses defining marriage.