The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

  • Thread starter Duke
  • 9,138 comments
  • 447,985 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
I'm one of those who believes sexuality is determined at birth...straight or gay...and whether or not someone is gay isn't a problem for me!

Heck...some of the funniest friends I've had over the years have been gays...go figure!

HOWEVER

What does piss me off though about homosexuality are all the bible pushers who go out of their way to 'judge' others for what they do in their own lives...and blatantly IGNORE Mathew 7:1...which pretty much says..."do NOT judge or you shall be judged"...

And as for part of the quote in the 1st post in this thread that got this debate/conversation going, let me add the following insight:

"...I've never seen a queer animal...and I'll be damned if I ever do...

I've never seen a gay animal myself, but in their defense, I've also never seen a bear sh** in the woods...but just because I haven't seen THAT doesn't mean there aren't gay animals.
 
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce."

Plato's ghay.
 
I seen a gay animal. Two penguins at the zoo are gay. It was all over the news around here just a couple weeks ago. Now I'm not sure what they actually mean by gay tho. I heard these two guy penguins hang out together and are always chillin together and do not mate with the females, but I don't no if they mate with each other. If they don't it sounds just like a couple of friends hanging out with low testosterone. Seems like the zoo should look into it a bit more.
 
There are also plenty of examples of rape and murder in the animal kingdom. I can understand the rebuttal to "it's unnatural" just sayin we don't always follow our lesser examples in nature.
 
There are also plenty of examples of rape and murder in the animal kingdom. I can understand the rebuttal to "it's unnatural" just sayin we don't always follow our lesser examples in nature.

But there's quite a difference between rape/murder and having mutual sex with a person of the same gender wouldn't you say?
 
No of course not, but there is literally millions of gays now. Millions and you only heard of a few. There is just more of everything now.

There's more people now. The world population is 7 billion. :crazy:

It seems homosexuality (along with a vast number of philosophical topics) was first truly studied after agriculture, during Roman times when the world's population increased to 50-100 million. We have time now to ponder these things since there's really not a whole heckuva lot going on. No world at war (I, II, korea, etc). No black death, plagues, diseases, etc going around. The western world is relatively tranquil.

When people are struggling just to survive they dont have time to ponder these things. But there's certainly just as much intricacy to philosophy as many other subjects. :sly: Its just not important to people.

I doubt people are born that way. People's orientations are probably dependent on what happens during early childhood. For example, there is evidence that having an older male sibling can increase your chances of being gay, or it could be because of a lack of a relationship with one's father. There are also stories of lesbians that were molested as children, could this have instilled a fear of men?
I dont agree. Many people are molested. 1 in 6 or something crazy like that. Most dont turn out to be gay. I also dont agree that its a disorder. Its very clearly a life strategy of some sort. As far as gay boy with older brothers, some studies have shown a hormone shift in the mother after having several children to be a factor.
 
Last edited:
I'm actually bisexual. :)

I first began to notice an attraction to some of my friends when I was 11 or 12. I came out to my peers properly around 15, although some already knew before then. Though I later realised that was not the case. I concluded around 17 that I was actually bisexual. I'm curently 19, and with my first girlfriend. I'm more sexually attracted to men, but I prefer to have relationships with women.

Sorry, Peter, I wasn't ignoring your response, I've been really busy planning our driving holiday next year! :)

My daughter can see when a guy is attractive, but has absolutely no interest in them sexually. I guess she is 100% gay, and that's fine by me. The funny thing is, her father was Bi, and I think kind of in denial. Maybe he thought a relationship with a woman and a child would sort his sexuality out once and for all. Didn't work. He did a runner with a guy he worked with when I was three months pregnant. I guess not many women can say their partner left them for another man!:)
 
This made me chuckle:

s98Sw.jpg
 
Indeed I would.

I'm not quite sure I follow you but did you mean just because something is natural it isn't necessarily good? In that case I agree, but I fail to see how homosexuality would be negative.

What's your stance?
 
Christian people I have a question. How is it possible for god to love all, and exclude gays? If he made everyone than why did he even make gays? Just to hate on them?
Don't confuse God's desire/will with Christian's beliefs. Considering I attended a commitment ceremony in a church that was officiated by a minister, but know the church my parents took me to would cast out any open homosexuals that came through the door I think it is safe to say that Christian people can't even agree on what it is to be Christian, nor do any of them likely have a smidgen of an idea of what God actual wants or thinks.

That said, here is my likely as incorrect thoughts. I personally believe that after the new covenant formed with Jesus that the eye for an eye, smiting God's enemies relationship ended and became an all accepting and loving relationship. Unfortunately all three of the monotheistic religions descended from Abraham can't stop hating each other long enough to realize that loving one another is what God would prefer, and in that same vain have stretched that hatred within their own demographics because not getting along with each other for thousands of year isn't enough self-righteous bigotry to stoke their own religious pride.

Personally I think gays, cancer, ADHD, etc all come down to chemicals. All of these things are relatively new (after 1950). Years ago how many gays did you hear of? Yes they probably didn't say anything as much as they do now, but there's no way there was millions of them and only a small few were willing to except it.
Two words: Roman Baths. If you look at history and literature there are references to men with feminine traits, fancy ways, etc and even outright suspicions of homosexuality among people even in royal families. But in a time with medieval torture chambers and repenting for heterosexual impure thoughts required lashings no one was publicly announcing their sexual preference and there definitely wasn't a gay club anywhere around.

Honestly, your premise could be used to point at anything. My in-laws are 70 but most people refuse to believe they are out of their 50's, my 97-year-old grandmother is often mistaken for being in her 70s. Chemicals making us healthier? Look at the women desired by men 50 years ago. Marilyn Monroe would be derided for being chunky in today's society. Have chemicals affected the physical attributes that we find attractive? I prefer redheads or brunettes over blondes. Is that chemicals? It definitely isn't the mainstream. Things change over time, and have often. Just look at the measure of beauty or the styles of different times.

Cancer same thing. I guarantee you have or know someone who had/has cancer. It's crazy the amount of people who get cancer, but again years ago barely anyone got it compared to now.
Before you can begin going down this road with anything you need to look at a half million variables. Detection methods mean we know about more forms than ever before because we couldn't even see them before. Similarly, a homosexual can be open in public with much less risk to life and limb. Societal changes have to be taken into account before you can start randomly blaming chemicals.


Slow news week, right?
It got coverage because it was a species that partners for life but is endangered so they were separating them to different locations so that they can hopefully find a female mate and breed.
 
Probably a repost (it's from 2007), but since it's almost X-mas and the dancing is amazing and all gay. Must-keep-watching 👍

The 12 gays of Chrismas :bowdown:

 
Sorry about the thread revive, but I had a thought recently. If the purpose of a species is to reproduce, and homosexuals can't reproduce due to their sexual preference, doesn't that mean that they don't want to be a part of the human species? I know that's not their intent, but any homophobe can use that as a valid argument against them. Right?
 
Last edited:
That's very much a Darwinist approach. I feel all humans are unique and should be treated with equal amounts of respect and dignity, no matter how much they contribute to society.
 
Sorry about the thread revive, but I had a thought recently. If the purpose of a species is to reproduce,

Not true. Free will means we can do as we please.

and homosexuals can't reproduce due to their sexual preference

They can. Sperm donation or surrogacy. And while they don't actually create the child, adoption means they prepare another member of the species for the future. And all three of these options are used by both hetro- and homosexual couples. And bisexual couples.

doesn't that mean that they don't want to be a part of the human species?

Ridiculous. Did any of us choose to be members of the human race? It shouldn't, and indeed doesn't matter what your sexual orientation is, choosing to not have children or raise children is exercising your right to do what you want.

I know that's not their intent, but any homophobe (like me) can use that as a valid argument against them. Right?

May I ask what makes you homophobic? Do you look down on gays or are you sensible like Der Alta, who believes homosexuality is a sin but it's not for him to pass judgement?
 
I like the people, they're really nice people themselves. But I don't like the idea of homosexuality. Humans and animals were originally intended to reproduce with heterosexual preferences. Homosexuality is not a norm, and should not be encouraged. However, the people who are homosexuals also shouldn't be made fun of or put down. To me, it doesn't matter if they are or are not homosexual, I treat them the same way. I have a lesbian friend, and I treat her like all my other friends. My previous post was just a thought that I wanted verification on. Don't judge me on that previous post, as I originally thought that that statement was true (and I worded the last sentence badly, I don't put them down, I just wanted to tell you my preference on homosexuals).
 
I like the people, they're really nice people themselves.

Good.

But I don't like the idea of homosexuality. Humans and animals were originally intended to reproduce with heterosexual preferences.

Again, where's the proof that our 'intent', 'purpose' or 'design' is to reproduce? It's something which is needed in order for the species to survive, yes, but that doesn't mean that every single one of us must reproduce. It's quite possible to live a healthy, happy and successful life without producing any children.

Homosexuality is not a norm, and should not be encouraged.

Norm is a bad choice of word. Norms are dictated by society; what is acceptable in one society might be unacceptable in another society. In a society made up entirely of gay people, being gay would be a norm. Of course, without reproduction that society would die out pretty quickly, but the point is, is that in a society where homosexuality is more common, heterosexuality would become 'abnormal' to those people.

Another example; it's a social norm in many places in continental Europe to kiss on the cheek when meeting up or saying goodbye. In other societies, including some European ones like Britain, it's not a norm. But that doesn't make it 'wrong' to do so.

However, the people who are homosexuals also shouldn't be made fun of or put down. To me, it doesn't matter if they are or are not homosexual, I treat them the same way. I have a lesbian friend, and I treat her like all my other friends. My previous post was just a thought that I wanted verification on. Don't judge me on that previous post, as I originally thought that that statement was true.

I wasn't judging you, I was just trying to see exactly where you stood on the issue. You have every right to think that homosexuality is bad, as long as you just think that and you don't do anything about it; don't treat them any differently or try to discourage them from being gay and try to 'turn them straight', for example.
 
If the purpose of a species is to reproduce, and homosexuals can't reproduce due to their sexual preference, doesn't that mean that they don't want to be a part of the human species?

The human species reproduces at a phenomenal rate. We are in more danger of dying out as a species because we overwhelm the worlds ability to sustain the sheer numbers of people than we are of dying out because homosexuals aren't contributing to the birth rate. Also, many hetero-sexual people are unable to reproduce for various medical reasons or just choose not to have children. By your reasoning, are they also to be considered as not wanting to be part of the human species?
 
The human species reproduces at a phenomenal rate. We are in more danger of dying out as a species because we overwhelm the worlds ability to sustain the sheer numbers of people than we are of dying out because homosexuals aren't contributing to the birth rate. Also, many hetero-sexual people are unable to reproduce for various medical reasons or just choose not to have children. By your reasoning, are they also to be considered as not wanting to be part of the human species?

According to my reasoning, then yes.

So in conclusion, my reasoning is wrong. Am I right?
 
According to my reasoning, then yes.

So in conclusion, my reasoning is wrong. Am I right?

Wrong? Strong word. Slightly flawed, maybe. Have you considered that given the rapidly increasing birth rates throughout the world, those not contributing are possibly being responsible, and actually helping the human species?
 
NissanSkylineN1
Sorry about the thread revive, but I had a thought recently. If the purpose of a species is to reproduce, and homosexuals can't reproduce due to their sexual preference, doesn't that mean that they don't want to be a part of the human species? I know that's not their intent, but any homophobe can use that as a valid argument against them. Right?

I'm sorry but thats a horrible conclusion.

What are you even basing that on?
 
I have a feeling that those who are against homosexuality and think it's a problem, are often people who are insecure about their own sexuality. That, or they're religious.
 
@ Parham. If you consider that we're becoming overpopulated, homosexuality would be a good thing so we won't become even more overpopulated. Although LGBT couples can still have children as Liquid said. And Hetero could may not be able to have them at all. Either way, the human race is still being reproduced.
 
Back