The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

  • Thread starter Duke
  • 9,138 comments
  • 447,879 views

I think homosexuality is:

  • a problem that needs to be cured.

    Votes: 88 6.0%
  • a sin against God/Nature.

    Votes: 145 9.8%
  • OK as long as they don't talk about it.

    Votes: 62 4.2%
  • OK for anybody.

    Votes: 416 28.2%
  • nobody's business but the people involved.

    Votes: 765 51.8%

  • Total voters
    1,476
Domestic cats (well, feral ex-domestic-cats) will do it. If a dominant new tom takes over territory, he'll kill every unweaned kitten he can. That causes all the females to go back into heat so he can breed them himself, therefore improving the chances his genes will get passed on instead of some other cat's.
 
Domestic cats (well, feral ex-domestic-cats) will do it. If a dominant new tom takes over territory, he'll kill every unweaned kitten he can. That causes all the females to go back into heat so he can breed them himself, therefore improving the chances his genes will get passed on instead of some other cat's.
Do you think the cat actually thinks it that far through, or that it's simply an instinct that was in some cats, and by their means of living, they simply dominated?

Calling animals stupid is ill informed, if they were stupid they wouldn't be here. I'd also point out a case where a dolphin 'saved' two beached whales in New Zealand (maybe Australia).

How do you know that killing their young isn't an effective way of population control?

As for killing their mates? Humans don't they that, do they?

Well, you brought up dolphins intelligence. But they're the smartest animal aren't they? also the only non-human mammals that breed for pleasure?

Do you really believe these animals kill their young thinking, "hey, there's to many, we won't have enough food in winter, let's kill it"?

Yes, 1 out of 10,000 humans kills their mate.
That's definetely the exact same as, say, black widows killing their mates 10,000 out of 10,000 times if they get the chance.
 
Well, you brought up dolphins intelligence. But they're the smartest animal aren't they? also the only non-human mammals that breed for pleasure?

No to both (I assume you meant copulate for pleasure).

Try the bonobos. Again.
 
RecklesAbandon2
Do you really believe these animals kill their young thinking, "hey, there's to many, we won't have enough food in winter, let's kill it"?

No. I think it's a coincidence that works.
 
How do you know they cannot listen to their minds? I think the case of the dolphin saving those beached whales is a show of how intelligent some animals are.
 
And whales, they understood them after all. Unless the dolphin was from Philadelphia and had a pistol.
 
I found this story to be a bit fitting. I was also surprised at the news site I found it on.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356639,00.html

Homosexuality Common in the Wild, Scientists Say.

As gay couples celebrate their newfound right to marry in California and opposition groups rally to fight the ruling, many struggle with this question: Is homosexuality natural?

On this issue, Nature has spoken: Same-sex lovin' is common in hundreds of species, scientists say.

Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo, were a couple for about six years, during which they nurtured a fertilized egg together (given to them by a zookeeper) and raised the young chick that hatched.

According to University of Oslo zoologist Petter Böckman, about 1,500 animal species are known to practice same-sex coupling, including bears, gorillas, flamingos, owls, salmon and many others.

If homosexuality is natural in the animal kingdom, then there is the question of why evolution hasn't eliminated this trait from the gene pool, since it doesn't lead to reproduction.

"Not every sexual act has a reproductive function," said Janet Mann, a biologist at Georgetown University who studies dolphins (homosexual behavior is very common in these marine mammals). "That's true of humans and non-humans."

Some scientists have proposed that being gay may serve its own evolutionary purpose.

"It could be a way that you strengthen bonds — that's one hypothesis," Mann told LiveScience. "Another is that it could be practice for heterosexual sex. Bottlenose dolphin calves mount each other a lot. That might benefit them later on."

Marlene Zuk, a biologist at the University of California, Riverside, suggested that gay individuals contribute to the gene pool of their community by nurturing their relatives' young without diverting resources by having their own offspring.

One thing that does seem to be exclusive to humans is homophobia.

"It's a very interesting question as to why anybody ever cares," Mann said. "There are different theories about why people find it threatening.

"Some think it disrupts male bonds, like you're not playing for the right team. The funny thing is that people say homosexuality is unnatural, that non-humans don't engage in homosexual behavior, but that's not true. Then they'll say it's base and animalistic."

Humans' resistance to the idea of homosexuality extends even to research on the behavior in animals.

Scientists who study the topic are often accused of trying to forward an agenda, and their work can come under greater scrutiny than that of their colleagues who study other topics, Mann said

"It's kind of a shame because I think that probably is a reason why people don't look at it more," Mann said. "That's probably why we haven't gotten further. You would think we'd know more than we do by now."
 
In Holland this commercial with Adam and Eve never made it to television. I wonder why...... :dopey:


 
A new paper published this week shows physical differences in brain structure and "functional connectivity" between homo- and heterosexual subjects. They show that certain specific parts of the brain in heterosexual males and homosexual females are more similar to each other than heterosexual females or homosexual males, and vice versa...

This certainly lends some weight to the argument that people are physically/biologically more predisposed to homosexuality...

BBC Article...
 
quoted from that BBC article refered to by Touring Mars:
"As far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay," he said.
There has never been a doubt in my mind and I'm pleased that at last some real evidence is coming about. :)
 
My opinion is that I do not mind if Gay people want to get married, it is not like it hurts me and all they are doing is loving each other, but I don't think that they should be allowed to adopt because I think that a child should grow up with a Mother and a Father, and they would be teased if they had two Gay parents.
 
A new paper published this week shows physical differences in brain structure and "functional connectivity" between homo- and heterosexual subjects. They show that certain specific parts of the brain in heterosexual males and homosexual females are more similar to each other than heterosexual females or homosexual males, and vice versa...

This certainly lends some weight to the argument that people are physically/biologically more predisposed to homosexuality...

BBC Article...

All that means is that both subjects like tits and bits. We already know that. They can't prove predisposition unless they test newly born babies.
 
My opinion is that I do not mind if Gay people want to get married, it is not like it hurts me and all they are doing is loving each other, but I don't think that they should be allowed to adopt because I think that a child should grow up with a Mother and a Father, and they would be teased if they had two Gay parents.
Because that is definitely the most confusing thing for a child to possibly deal with.


If we based laws on what would get a child teased then we would ban glasses and World of Warcraft.

If they can provide a stable home life then it is far better than a divorced home. The same goes for the mother and father thing. Single parent homes happen all the time where a father or mother is completely missing and those kids turn out just as well as any other kids.

The only gay couple I have problems with adopting children is Rosie O'Donnell and her wife, and that is because she is a loon.
 
Because that is definitely the most confusing thing for a child to possibly deal with.


If we based laws on what would get a child teased then we would ban glasses and World of Warcraft.

If they can provide a stable home life then it is far better than a divorced home. The same goes for the mother and father thing. Single parent homes happen all the time where a father or mother is completely missing and those kids turn out just as well as any other kids.

The only gay couple I have problems with adopting children is Rosie O'Donnell and her wife, and that is because she is a loon.

Yes but it is the purpose of people to reproduce, it messes up the fundamental foundations of A. a species B. a society. Therefore I do not think that it should actively by encouraged, not that I think it should be discouraged as people should be free to do things they want as long as it doesn't hurt other people.
 
It is the purpose of people to live how they see fit - the purpose of a species is to reproduce and to exist, but individuals can and should be free to do whatever they please as long as it doesn't harm others. How are two humans who choose to live alone on a hill and never have any children different from a homosexual couple in your argument? They also don't reproduce..
 
Yes but it is the purpose of people to reproduce, it messes up the fundamental foundations of A. a species B. a society. Therefore I do not think that it should actively by encouraged, not that I think it should be discouraged as people should be free to do things they want as long as it doesn't hurt other people.
You have major contradictions going on in this one single post – I think you need to flesh out your thoughts more, because I don’t even know how to argue with someone who’s arguing for two opposite things at the same time.
 
You have major contradictions going on in this one single post – I think you need to flesh out your thoughts more, because I don’t even know how to argue with someone who’s arguing for two opposite things at the same time.

No? I am saying that it is fine for Gay people to marry each other but I don't think that they should be allowed to adopt children, but if one or both of them has a child of their own before they started being a Gay couple then fine.
 
No? I am saying that it is fine for Gay people to marry each other but I don't think that they should be allowed to adopt children, but if one or both of them has a child of their own before they started being a Gay couple then fine.
I understood that. I was addressing your explanation, which really makes no sense:

Yes but it is the purpose of people to reproduce, it messes up the fundamental foundations of A. a species
First off, humans have long removed the shackles of nature. The purpose of people is not to reproduce – if you want that to be your purpose, that’s fine, but don’t thrust it on everybody else. If you really want us to obey the laws of nature, then throw away your condoms, don’t get vaccinated, don’t get dental work done, stop all C-sections, don’t wear anything that you didn’t make by hand, stop using the Internet, etc. etc. etc.

B. a society.
Gay parents mess up the fundamental foundations of society? What?

Therefore I do not think that it should actively by encouraged, not that I think it should be discouraged as people should be free to do things they want as long as it doesn't hurt other people.
This is what I was talking about contradictions. Gay parents don’t hurt other people, ergo it should be legal for them to be parents. QED.
 
if you want that to be your purpose, that’s fine, but don’t thrust it on everybody else.
In your own words.
You have major contradictions going on in this one single post


How will he be able to reproduce without thrusting it on someone else?


EDIT: Tree'd somewhat. Should've scrolled down the whole way before replying.
 
Wow Racer21, homophobic much? One of my friends is the adoptive child of a lesbian couple, and he's the nicest damn person I've ever met. You have really screwed up values man.
 
*eyebrow*

if me and my better half, 21, wanna bother adopting, we will, wether some of you like it or not! sides, when one of my ex's dumped a former GIRLfreind on me with two kids (a disabled teenager and a two year old), i not only survived, i think I qualified as a good potential dad.
 
No? I am saying that it is fine for Gay people to marry each other but I don't think that they should be allowed to adopt children, but if one or both of them has a child of their own before they started being a Gay couple then fine.
The outcome of a child depends upon how his/her parents raise them, and the parents' sexuality is not necessarily going to have an affect on how they do so.

Being so, I'd really love to know why you think gays should not adopt.
 
If you read my post then you can see that I am not "homophobic" I don't mind if they get married, but when you bring in other people into it, children then it is different for me. That is my opinion and those are yours, I am not looking at it from a religous point of view either.
 
Back