The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[dylansan]

"Just" an organ that could keep someone alive.

 

[sn00pie]

Edit: sn00pie and Famine, both of what you said is true, but who knows, no one knows how God works. The cloning an organ is still not creating a being artificially, it's just an organ for Pete's sake.

However, the process of creating this organ is the sheer epitomy of what you so eloquently call "playing God".

By your reasoning we are not allowed to artificially create life, but we are allowed to artificially prolongue it. Doesn't God decide when a life ends?

 

[TheCracker]

The cloning an organ is still not creating a being artificially, it's just an organ for Pete's sake.

So what's the difference between artificially creating a new life and keeping an existing life alive that would have died if artificial body parts hadn't been available?

 

[Leonidae]

from my point of view, there is no God or gods of any kind. some kind of divine creature that can not be seen, touched or whose existence cannot be proved, shouldn't be eligible as an excuse to neglect, judge or incriminate some aspects of mankind.

 

[Touring Mars]

Don't worry... being an atheist gives you as much chance of understanding God's will as anybody else - none.

 

[inferno]

Alright, let me just open by saying that i have several homosexual and bisexual friends. Am i any less friends with them because of that? No. Do they know my opions on homosexuality? No. I'm sure many of them wouldnt apreciate it.

I know Famine will probably tear into me for what i am about to say because i have no scientific base, so let me clarify that this is my OPINION of the medical specifics behind homosexuality.

You can say that it's about love all you want, but the root of it is attraction. It is "normal" for adult humans to be attracted to adult members of the opposite sex. What this is controlled by i havent the slightest but bottom line thats the way we are normaly set up.

Emotional bonds exist in all our relationships, the thing that separates (good) friends from love intrests is physical attraction.

now before you bash me for being shallow, take a second. Guys if you have a female friend, one you get allong with well, just the same as you do with your best guy buddies. Say you find her attractive. Honestly tell me, would you date this person? i thought so. i cant speak for women but with men, physical attraction is all that saparates our best friends from our "girlfriends".

Now as i stated before, it is "normal" for us to be physicaly attracted to the opposit sex, but this is not always the case. Whatever part of our existance that determines that attraction, is obviously different in homosexual people. They dont choose to be attracted to the same sex, or both sexes instead of just the opposite one, they just are.

I have come to relate it most closely to pedophilia. "normal" people are attracted to adult, or "mature" members of the opposite sex but some are not, There sense if physical beauty failed to grow up with them, and probably still resides with the age group of about when they themselves began being interested. for whatever reason, this faculty dosnt always evolve in the manner that it should. I think it only strienghthens my arguement that most pedophiles target members of the same sex as well.

Moving away from such a taboo subject, lets talk about any other "addiction" some people like to drink, some people just got themselves hooked on something,

Everyone likes different things, and some people like things that are bad, or bad for them. We are predisposed to this, we have out likes and dislikes from birth. But just as smokers are allowed to smoke if they want, as long as it's not in a no smoking section. They also have help groups if they want to quit. Now pedophilia stands apart because it is a verry damaging addiction for the victims and sufferes of this desease should be contained, but treated, not just thrown in a jail cell. Homosexuality on the other hand dosnt seem to be doing any damage, except perhaps for the viewer who dosnt wish to see it or the small child who asks, "why are those two daddys doing that" it's an impression that a small child simply dosnt need, and having the very idea in ones subconcious could very well influence there sexuality in the future.

Homosexuals who want to be homosexuals should be and are allowed to do so. it is not my place to judge, ot pass judgement on them. thats gods job. the ones who dont want to be should have support groups and counceling for helping with that, and i believe that the "smoking zone" should be in the privacy of their own homes. Homosexuality shouldnt be being pushed on us as ok, it's not, but neither is smoking, but we let people do that. just keep it in the privacy of your own home and it dosnt bother me or affect me one bit.

I am not Homophobic. I have many homosexual friends. i wont be in a relationship with one though because of the moral and religious conflict that it brings, and also, every bisexual woman i have ever dated has cheated on me, with annother woman. it raises the problem of one person not being able to satisfy "all" their partners needs simply for the lack of being able to be both a man and a woman. and i think we can all agree on manogamy.

Gays are not going to bring the wrath of god or end the world sooner. the wrath is already coming and homosexuality has always existed, it has just taken time for it to manifest in humans, which was already expected to happen sinse the begining. the world will end when it's time winds down, and how bad thngs get before then, well, god only knows. no pun intended. but it's already set in stone. everything that has and will happen is already well known to the creator. why do you thin the bible says "a man should not lay down with annother man" obviously they knew at some point we were gonna try it. haha

well, thats what i believe. I hope my opinions sit well with most of you on these boards.

 

[sn00pie]

Homosexuals who want to be homosexuals

This is inherently flawed, can you see why?

every bisexual woman i have ever dated has cheated on me, with annother woman.

Ahem.

You may have this a little bit skewed. Lots of girls like to make out with their friends after a few drinks. I have had a girlfriend who notoriously did this, this isn't nessecarily cheating. Does it mean she's fundamentally bisexual? Probably not. Does this make her a sexually secure person? Very much so.

I think Duke said it earlier, sexual preference shouldn't nessecarily be set in stone, I believe it can fluctuate within its own bounds.

 

[inferno]

This is inherently flawed, can you see why?





Ahem.

You may have this a little bit skewed. Lots of girls like to make out with their friends after a few drinks. I have had a girlfriend who notoriously did this, this isn't nessecarily cheating. Does it mean she's fundamentally bisexual? Probably not. Does this make her a sexually secure person? Very much so.

I think Duke said it earlier, sexual preference shouldn't nessecarily be set in stone, I believe it can fluctuate within its own bounds.

No i'm not sure i understand why that is flawed. how so?



As far as i'm concerned, a girlfriend of mine, acting on her sexual intrest in another person, male or female, is cheating. I can understand her being attracted to someone other than myself, of course shes still going to find others attractive but it's acting on those desires that i consider cheating. she needs to controll herself as i do for her.

just my opinion.

as far as her being "fundementaly bisexual" i dont get what you mean. i'm talking about women who were self proclamed bisexuals. so.. yes they were bisexuals. i dont know, maby i'm missing your meaning.


(lol at that smilie)

 

[sn00pie]

No i'm not sure i understand why that is flawed. how so?

It is suggesting homosexuality is a choice.

as far as her being "fundementaly bisexual" i dont get what you mean. i'm talking about women who were self proclamed bisexuals. so.. yes they were bisexuals. i dont know, maby i'm missing your meaning.

By this I mean bisexual by nature as opposed to merely having bisexual tendencies, or rather sexual actions that could be perceived as being bisexual by nature (but aren't).

As far as i'm concerned, a girlfriend of mine, acting on her sexual intrest in another person, male or female, is cheating.

I can respect that. 👍

 

[inferno]

It is suggesting homosexuality is a choice.


By this I mean bisexual by nature as opposed to merely having bisexual tendencies, or rather sexual actions that could be perceived as being bisexual by nature (but aren't).


I can respect that. 👍

Ahh ok i understand you now.

On the first bit though, i suppose what i meant was, it's possible to be homosexual and be ok with that, or to be homosexual and not want to be. but yes i think we agree with eachother. including the thing. haha. but, i learned my lesson on that one.

 

[UnoMOTO]

I’d like to ask a hypothetical question. Let’s start with the foundation that homosexuality is not a choice and you are born with that strand of gene that predisposes you to be attracted to the same sex mentally and physically.

To go from there, a person would not be able to reproduce to continue that gene type.(exclude sperm donors and medical ways of reproducing for this example). If over the next million years of evolution wouldn’t that strand of gene become obsolete? If nature has no use for that gene, would it work it’s self out of the gene pool?

I’m looking for a serious scientific answer and one that is not laden with personal beliefs or opinions. The problem I see is that’s how people look that homosexuality as a flaw or that there is something wrong with it. How will nature handle this situation over the long run? Is the gene a trait that is so random that you just can’t put a finger on what causes that individual to be different?

I haven’t seen any proof that it is a choice so far. I didn’t become of age and have a magical day that I made the choice to chase girls around the playground. It just happened without a logical event.

 

[Duke]

Yes, theoretically natural selection would breed homosexuality out of the gene pool. However, it has not done so in human evolution so far, so as a species-wide survival trait, it must not be a deal-killer.

 

[Famine]

Yes, theoretically natural selection would breed homosexuality out of the gene pool. However, it has not done so in human evolution so far, so as a species-wide survival trait, it must not be a deal-killer.

Nor in many animal species either. I can point to at least dogs, sheep, goats, chimps, bonobos and dolphins. At least.

 

[Sage]

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/FAQs.shtml#gaygene

 

[UnoMOTO]

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/FAQs.shtml#gaygene

I get the thought process. Because my wife would like a gay guy to go shopping with may be enough to make the gene survive.

It’s possible that there is no link between the “gay” gene and reproduction therefore it would never be eliminated by nature.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

However, the process of creating this organ is the sheer epitomy of what you so eloquently call "playing God".

By your reasoning we are not allowed to artificially create life, but we are allowed to artificially prolongue it. Doesn't God decide when a life ends?

If we are able to pro-long a life than it's God's will it was possible. Creating a life is not meant to be, but in that same sense you could say that if we are able to do it then it is God's will. I don't pretend to know how God works, and no human mind could ever comprehend, so I'll leave it at that. I think I've argued all my important points here, so I'm done.

 

[Famine]

If we are able to pro-long a life than it's God's will it was possible. Creating a life is not meant to be, but in that same sense you could say that if we are able to do it then it is God's will. I don't pretend to know how God works, and no human mind could ever comprehend, so I'll leave it at that. I think I've argued all my important points here, so I'm done.

Yet you still believe it to be wrong?

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Yet you still believe it to be wrong?

It's hard to know what to believe in cases like artificial pregnancies, like I said I can't pretend to know how God works. I'll just keep my nose out of the whole affair and live my own life how I think it should be.

 

[Famine]

A healthy point of view.

So anyway. Abortions...



(just kidding )

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

A healthy point of view.

So anyway. Abortions...



(just kidding )

Thanks, although you might not agree with my beliefs at least someone finally agrees with my line of thinking. Maybe abortions needs a thread of its own. Another place for us all to get at.

 

[Touring Mars]

I’m looking for a serious scientific answer

It depends on how you define "gay genes". There is no clear evidence that humans possess a single gene that 'causes' homosexuality - not in the same way that a specific gene defines your eye colour or whether you have cystic fibrosis etc. But it is entirely possible - and there is growing evidence to support the idea - that homosexuality is more likely to arise in individuals with a certain collection of genes...

The concept that homosexuality is inherited is seemingly contradicted by everyday observation. How many homosexuals have homosexual parents? A few perhaps, but the vast majority of homosexuals have heterosexual parents. So clearly homosexuality is not quite like eye or skin colour (in that it is not directly predictable from an inheritance point of view), but that doesn't mean that homosexuality cannot be influenced/dictated by genetics.

Some genes or combination of genes can lead to an individual possessing certain characteristics, but the genes that you inherit from your parents are randomly shuffled and this new combination of genes may produce different effects. Say your father has genes A,B,C and D and the combo of the genes A+B results in highly masculine behaviour. Say your mother has genes ADEF and A+F results in highly feminine behaviour. When the father (ABCD) and mother (ADEF) reproduce, their offspring will get a random mix of their genes, say ADCF... the child is male, but doesn't inherit the father's traits of masculinity (AB) but the combination of genes AF are there, resulting in an inate preference towards 'feminine' behaviour.

This is a highly oversimplified model and I'm pretty sure there's huge things wrong with it, but in principle, it can and presumably does happen all the time whenever sexual reproduction occurs. No mutations are needed, and no new genes have been made...

edit: A similar thing may be happening in suicide risk as well. Evidence suggests that suicide risk has a genetic component too, although the concept of a 'suicide gene' is equally counterintuitive as a 'gay gene'.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Out of curiosity, the studies into the genetic issues at play in "suicide risk" - is this a more general indication that there's a polygenetically influenced tendency in some towards depression and anxiety, or is this a direct link to some sort of "suicide impulse"?

Back to the topic at hand though - this is only based on some limited personal observations, but it seems interesting. A close friend of mine when I was younger had two gay uncles and three gay cousins, among others that the family "suspected", all from her father's side of the family. She now identifies as bisexual, but I'm not entirely sure whether she's not in that "stepping-stone" phase discussed earlier. I've heard of other instances like this.

To be fair I've also heard of plenty of instances of isolated homosexuality that appears to be independent of the family tree. In a trait that is, to this point, only directly knowable once the individual in question self-identifies, any study, no matter how honest its intentions, is going to be somewhat flawed, but most of what I've read also indicates that it may be a polygenic trait. In an instance where the error, due to social pressures, would lean towards suggesting otherwise, the fact that it DOES show some correlation is telling.

 

[sn00pie]

If we are able to pro-long a life than it's God's will it was possible. Creating a life is not meant to be, but in that same sense you could say that if we are able to do it then it is God's will.

I don't understand why you argue your point extensively, then conclude with: "meh I really haven't thought about this myself, nor have I tried to analyze my religion's view upon the subject, let's just say my religion may - or may not allow it", rendering your entire point moot. This has to be the numbest statement ever made in this debate ever. I am talking WORLDWIDE. EVER.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

I don't understand why you argue your point extensively, then conclude with: "meh I really haven't thought about this myself, nor have I tried to analyze my religion's view upon the subject, let's just say my religion may - or may not allow it", rendering your entire point moot. This has to be the numbest statement ever made in this debate ever. I am talking WORLDWIDE. EVER.

Well I'm sorry you feel that way, but I didn't conclude with that on this debate. So what you said about me may be the dombest conclusion ever reached about a person, EVER. I still disagree that homosexuality is OK, because by my religion it isn't. I was saying that other stuff about artificial pregnancy for heterosexual couples. And you accused me of not reading the previous posts

 

[sn00pie]

Well I'm sorry you feel that way, but I didn't conclude with that on this debate. So what you said about me may be the dombest conclusion ever reached about a person, EVER. I still disagree that homosexuality is OK, because by my religion it isn't. I was saying that other stuff about artificial pregnancy for heterosexual couples. And you accused me of not reading the previous posts

I didn't call your conclusion dumb, I called it numb. Meaning: empty, meaningless, moot, expendable, redundant.

And I quoted you on your stance on prolongment of life specifically. Though that doesn't matter, because it (your numb conclusion) can be applied to any religious question.

For someone who accuses me of accusing them for not reading the previous posts better you sure don't read the previous posts, and in particular your own quotes, very well.

 

[TopHat]

And I quoted you on your stance on prolongment of life specifically. Though that doesn't matter, because it (your numb conclusion) can be applied to any religious question.

Which is why this entire argument can be counteracted by the devout saying : "God did it." We're treading water here.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

I didn't call your conclusion dumb, I called it numb. Meaning: empty, meaningless, moot, expendable, redundant.

And I quoted you on your stance on prolongment of life specifically. Though that doesn't matter, because it (your numb conclusion) can be applied to any religious question.

For someone who accuses me of accusing them for not reading the previous posts better you sure don't read the previous posts, and in particular your own quotes, very well.

My mistake, I'm sorry.

 

[Famine]

I still disagree that homosexuality is OK, because by my religion it isn't.

And the jury's still out on that one, since the only passage which seems to say it is also says it's not okay to eat prawns, by threat of stoning to death.

If your religion doesn't ban you from eating prawns, it doesn't ban homosexuality either.

 

[sn00pie]

Which is why this entire argument can be counteracted by the devout saying : "God did it." We're treading water here.

That's okay though, when consistenly used by said devout. It let's everyone know where they stand. I have less patience when this is used as a last resort to back out of a hairy argument, though.

 

[frestkd]

Homosexuality is a sign of the times. Everybody is becoming more selfish, greedy, and not caring about anyone else. I don't think anyone should have any special privileges just for their race, sexual orientation, and religious beliefs.