quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder if anyone realizes how hypocritical the U.S. is, touting their "equality" while homosexuals are treated as second-class citizens.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't think gay marriages should be observed either. I'm convinced that gays are gay by choice at least 90% of the time, possibly 100%. Until someone proves that homosexual desires are natural, inborn and cannot be helped, I feel no pity for gays. They have chosen their lifestyle by their own choice. It's wrong to force other people to have to observe their unions and get tax breaks for them on top of that.

Just because a guy decides they're going to marry another man instead of a woman, we have to honor that marriage and give it the same respect as a traditional, natural union? Bullshit. Are you going to also argue that if a man falls in love with his retarded brother that we also should honor that marriage? And would that be thought of as treating that person as a second rate citizen just because we don't allow him to marry someone who is handicapped?

I don't go along with 90% being gay by choice. Homosexuality is no more a choice than is the color of one's eyes or foot size. The extent to which the lifestyle is displayed is a matter of choice. There should be another term used, apart from a marriage, to define a long term homosexual relationship. A preacher or judge preforming a homosexual "union" along the same lines as a heterosexual wedding is but a poor taste parody of a time honored tradition.

I'm with es. I just don't think that it's a choice. It seems awfully coincidental that so many gay men would share the same personality characteristics - effeminate behavior, very artsy. Call those cliches if you will, but it's true of all of the gay men I've ever met.

I'm a very practical person. Gays and lesbians are going to form permanent relationships whether society recognizes them or not. I think we're better of recongizing the relationships and maybe even encouraging them because promiscuity doesn't do anyone any good. I am definitely opposed to calling it marriage or allowing public officials to perform some sort of ceremony, but I am in favor of having the law allow two consenting adults to pass property to each other in intestacy (i.e. if they don't have a will) and recognize both parties as parents of a child.

Who's that quote from, by the way?

Homosexuality is definitely not 100% genetic. Twin studies have proven this (if one identical twin is gay, then the other is not necessarily gay).

However, there is some slight correlation between genetic relations and homosexuality, although you probably could say the same about being a professional athlete.
I'm with Karan. Homos are gay mostly by choice. Sure, there might be some inheritable characteristics that increase the propensity for going homo (such as effeminate physical characteristics), but being gay is no more inherited than being an asshole.

And as I've said before on this subject, you certainly don't inherit things like lisps, flamboyant gesturing, and wearing female clothing. These are learned behaviors. Being gay is more of a social outlet than an inherited trait.

I just don't think that it's a choice. It seems awfully coincidental that so many gay men would share the same personality characteristics - effeminate behavior, very artsy. Call those cliches if you will, but it's true of all of the gay men I've ever met.

Then explain to me why those same homosexual men talked normally all through high school and then, when they come out of the closet, they suddenly have different mannerisms. This is absolutely not evidence that being gay is an inborn trait. In fact, what you have observed is evidence to the contrary. This is assuming that you realize that those men didn't always act that way.

Who's that quote from, by the way?

Borghunter in the Supreme court protects Sodomy thread. I didn't want to derail that thread, so I started a new one.

This is from ES:
I don't go along with 90% being gay by choice. Homosexuality is no more a choice than is the color of one's eyes or foot size.

Why not? What have you observed about gays that makes you think this? Hey, if you can convince me that homosexuality is an inborn trait, I'll change my mind. But from what I've seen in my college years, it definitely looks like a choice to me. Look at all the other animals in Kingdom Animalia. How many gay animals do you see running around? Like I said, it's not natural. If it were, our species wouldn't be as successful.

Looking at this from a Darwin perspective, having a trait that leads one to homosexuality is not conducive to the "success" of a species. What I mean by "success" is the chance to reproduce. Gays can't reproduce, naturally anyway. Therefore, any who actually whad a trait that caused them to become homosexual could not reproduce. Since they could not pass the trait on, they would die and the likelihood of having children that carried the trait were pretty damn low. One could argue that homosexuality's biggest enemy is mother nature. She kills them all.

Saying that homosexuals are homosexual by choice...this implies that they can change their sexuality and their attractions whenever they want. Can you? Can I? No. We are naturally attracted to the opposite sex, we can't help that, and gays are naturally attracted to the same sex, by some quirk of genetics, environment, upbringing, or some mix thereof. Saying that gays are homosexual by choice is simply idiotic, unless you're saying that you could become homosexual if you wanted to. Can you?

this implies that they can change their sexuality and their attractions whenever they want

Borg, you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not going to pretend to know what abilities gay men have, but I do know some gays, men and women both, that have flip-flopped their "attractions."
Perhaps it is a psychological disorder.

Saying that gays are homosexual by choice is simply idiotic

Be careful, you sound idiotic yourself by saying things like this. Are you an expert in homosexuality? I didn't think so. Neither am I. If you want to talk, be reasonable and rational. If you want to sink down to some of these other posters' level and call me idiotic for debating a very real possibility, go to that debate forum and argue with one of the other posters on this board that calls everyone idiotic.

Although clear proof of homosexuality being of genetic origin is not available, I am not convinced that it is purely a behavioral choice. How to explain it then? Many homosexual males report knowing at an early age (often pre-pubescent) that they were "different". I've yet to meet the first one who tells me that it was a conscious choice to become attracted to their own sex rather than the opposite. My statement ("I don't go along with 90% being gay by choice. Homosexuality is no more a choice than is the color of one's eyes or foot size. ...") is based upon my nearly thirty years of working as a clinician in the mental health / social services areas. The general subject of homosexuality has been the topic of numerous conversations in and out of various classrooms and work areas. It is not necessarily an inherited trait, nor one that comes completely from the familial relationships. Apparently it's back to the old "nature vs nurture" argument.

A lot of gays say it's something they knew about or at least suspected about themselves since they were in their teens. The teen years are pretty early to be getting into the perverted side of sexuality.

I think Karankawa's argument about mother nature weeding out homosexuals through natural selection is a good one, though. The only thing I can think of is that societal norms overrode the sexual desires - i.e. in the past gays got married and had kids because that's what you were supposed to do, even if their heart wasn't really in it.

Gay marriage today, tomorrow it will be brother and sister, then brother and brother, sister and sister. Then we can have mother and son, father and daughter, He** a family that plays together stays together. Is a marriage still sacred, or is it becoming just another usless thing of society. Being "gay" is not natural, just like screwing your dog bingo is not normal, but I quess if you really love bingo then maybe society should let you marry him. If one CHOOSES to be GAY then "so be it" just leave the rest of society out of your twisted scam. Live togehter and shut up.......

Originally posted by mad dog
Gay marriage today, tomorrow it will be brother and sister, then brother and brother, sister and sister. Then we can have mother and son, father and daughter, He** a family that plays together stays together. Is a marriage still sacred, or is it becoming just another usless thing of society. Being "gay" is not natural, just like screwing your dog bingo is not normal, but I quess if you really love bingo then maybe society should let you marry him. If one CHOOSES to be GAY then "so be it" just leave the rest of society out of your twisted scam. Live togehter and shut up.......
:rolleyes: Typical Christian supremacist response.

First, why would someone choose to be gay?

Second, we're not the only species that engages in homosexual behavior. Most primates do, for starters. I don't offhand know about animals beyond that group. Furthermore, homosexuality as a tool of nature can be argued both ways. Humans, being adept at fighting off most ways of population control, have an internally wired technique which encourages us to copulate in ways which won't lead to overpopulation. This most likely won't be a detrimental decrease in the birth rate since most studies estimate only 10% of the population is strictly homosexual. In addition, being social beings by nature, non-breeding adults can assist in raising the youth of others, assuring that they live to give birth to a new generation.

Borg if I'm Christian then you must be the Pope!!! I look at things alot different then you think, I have said before I don't believe in the Bible. Do I know for a fact that it is not true, no I don't....

Sorry if it sounded like bashing, I'm really not, I'm just sick of gay this, gay that. Why don't they just live there life and quit trying to prove something. OK I understand there gay, "whoopy shit" lets move on. There are kids starving in this world there are people dying in this world, BUT lets stop everything so the gays can be happy because we all know that is what is important.

Originally posted by Munchmausen
First, why would someone choose to be gay?

Second, we're not the only species that engages in homosexual behavior. Most primates do, for starters. I don't offhand know about animals beyond that group. Furthermore, homosexuality as a tool of nature can be argued both ways. Humans, being adept at fighting off most ways of population control, have an internally wired technique which encourages us to copulate in ways which won't lead to overpopulation. This most likely won't be a detrimental decrease in the birth rate since most studies estimate only 10% of the population is strictly homosexual. In addition, being social beings by nature, non-breeding adults can assist in raising the youth of others, assuring that they live to give birth to a new generation.

Why does someone choose to be burnt with cigarettes or chained up while having sex? choice.... Why do some like oral and some don't? choice......

We are the only species(that are homosexual)......... Animals are not gay, Yes a male dog will bone another male dog it is to show who is boss, it has NOTHING to do with being gay(I can't stop laughing).

I suppose Panda bears are all gay that is why they are dying out. I think you just explained what happened to the dinasour's they were all gay. If you think being gay is a form of population control then I've got some diamonds I want to sell you.

Once again I don't care if some one wants to be gay just keep it to yourself. So freakin what, you can't be married whoopy sh** live together and be happy just quit wasting tax dollar so you can prove something that society is getting SICK of. I want a law passed that says I can stand naked in my front yard maybe I should start making an issue of it.

Originally posted by mad dog
I want a law passed that says I can stand naked in my front yard maybe I should start making an issue of it. If you were gay, you would have a better chance of getting a law like that passed. :)

Originally posted by mad dog
Why does someone choose to be burnt with cigarettes or chained up while having sex? choice.... Why do some like oral and some don't? choice......

We are the only species(that are homosexual)......... Animals are not gay, Yes a male dog will bone another male dog it is to show who is boss, it has NOTHING to do with being gay(I can't stop laughing).

I suppose Panda bears are all gay that is why they are dying out. I think you just explained what happened to the dinasour's they were all gay. If you think being gay is a form of population control then I've got some diamonds I want to sell you.

Once again I don't care if some one wants to be gay just keep it to yourself. So freakin what, you can't be married whoopy sh** live together and be happy just quit wasting tax dollar so you can prove something that society is getting SICK of. I want a law passed that says I can stand naked in my front yard maybe I should start making an issue of it.

Thank you, mad dog. I agree. However, there ARE a few species of animals that exhibit homosexual behavior. Nevertheless, it's an irrelevant point since the behavior of one species proves nothing about the behavior of another species.

What I have to ask...is why would I choose to be a lesbian? Having to life through the daily torture of my lifestyle. You're not suppose to help who you love. Whether the person be of the same sex or not. It's like asking people who see theirselves as straight, so you choose to be that way, or do you just not have any attractions toward the same sex. That goes for gays/lesbians/bisexuals as well. We can't choose who we love. Why should we be condemned for loving someone of the same gender?

Why not give same-sex marriages a try...I don't think the 59% divorce rate that the United States currently has could get much higher if you let a few gays and lesbians get married to one another.

Originally posted by Karankawa
It's wrong to force other people to have to observe their unions and get tax breaks for them on top of that. [/B]

Karan brings up an interesting point here. I mean, I've never respected moralistic objections to gay marriage, but arguing against married gay couples recieving the same tax treatment as hetero married couples gets my attention.

Why do we tax married couples differently from unmarried couples? Is it for the purpose of encouraging breeding children within a stable family atmosphere? If that's the idea, then I agree with objecting to gay marriages on this ground. Gay marriages do not breed or raise children in a stable family atmosphere, therefore they should not receive the same tax treatment as a hetero married couple.

That begs the argument over whether gay couples can GENERALLY provide the same degree and quality of family life that a hetero couple can. Offhand, I would say definitely not, but I wouldn't mind hearing a few opinions on the subject.
And I have another question for anyone supporting gay marriage: Do you also support polygamous marriages? That is, aren't most of the issues presented by gay marriages also issues presented by polygamous marriages?

Havok LMAO :D

Originally posted by Dykesrainbow
What I have to ask...is why would I choose to be a lesbian? Having to life through the daily torture of my lifestyle. You're not suppose to help who you love. Whether the person be of the same sex or not. It's like asking people who see theirselves as straight, so you choose to be that way, or do you just not have any attractions toward the same sex. That goes for gays/lesbians/bisexuals as well. We can't choose who we love. Why should we be condemned for loving someone of the same gender?

Why not give same-sex marriages a try...I don't think the 59% divorce rate that the United States currently has could get much higher if you let a few gays and lesbians get married to one another.

If you are happy being who you are then why make such an issue of what you are doing? I'm glad you are happy in your life knock yourself out just leave society out of it. Marriage originated for people of opposite sex. If gays want to be treated equal then why do they keep asking to be treated special? There are more important things in this world then "gay right this" and "gay right that".

If gays want to be treated equal then why do they keep asking to be treated special?
They don't. They ask for the same rights you and I have, mad dog.

Borg, bu** sh**, they have the same right as you or me they just want affirmative action, they want to become a new race. When they get fired from a job the first thing out of there mouth is "they fired me because I'm gay". I'm not using this example just becasue, I have wittnessed this. I worked for a company, there was a gay couple there, one guy was kool no problems, the other guy was always "gay this, gay that" well quess what he had an accident, went for a drug test, tested positive, fired. He instantly started b***hing he got fired because he was gay, load of sh**, he was fired for being high. Quess what because he did make such an issue of the gay thing he got his job back. Now I'll tell you the name of the company WAL-MART...........Gays have all the rights they need to practice there twisted lives why do we have to keep hearing about "the poor fag". I know one thing if the sh** keeps going on you will see more hate crimes, I want to be the first to say "told ya so". Be gay, be happy, just quit trying to be the center of the universe. I honestly believe gays are not really happy I think they just have to keep trying to prove a point that know one wants to hear about.

Mad Dog...We do not have the same rights as everyone else. Perfect example is marriage. We don't have the right to be married to someone we love. The only state that has Civil Unions is Vermont. That's not a full marriage. In marriage you get the name change, you're able to get insurance through joint policies, not with a Civil Union though.

Originally posted by Dykesrainbow
Mad Dog...We do not have the same rights as everyone else. Perfect example is marriage. We don't have the right to be married to someone we love. The only state that has Civil Unions is Vermont. That's not a full marriage. In marriage you get the name change, you're able to get insurance through joint policies, not with a Civil Union though.


Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij also 'mer-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family



Exactly how are you going to found and maintain a family?


If it is insurance and other benefits you want, why not simply try to pass legistlature to allow that? Why try to be married? As you can see from the above definition, gays hardly qualify to be married. So call your relationships something else.

Exactly how are you going to found and maintain a family?
For lesbians, artificial insemination from a sperm bank; for gay men, artificial insemination of a surrogate mother.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
For lesbians, artificial insemination from a sperm bank; for gay men, artificial insemination of a surrogate mother. Just as mother nature intended it. :rolleyes:

the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
Nope, nothing there about nature.

Originally posted by Dykesrainbow
What I have to ask...is why would I choose to be a lesbian? Having to life through the daily torture of my lifestyle. You're not suppose to help who you love. Whether the person be of the same sex or not. It's like asking people who see theirselves as straight, so you choose to be that way, or do you just not have any attractions toward the same sex. That goes for gays/lesbians/bisexuals as well. We can't choose who we love. Why should we be condemned for loving someone of the same gender?

Why not give same-sex marriages a try...I don't think the 59% divorce rate that the United States currently has could get much higher if you let a few gays and lesbians get married to one another.


LOL, shoker. first of all59% of all mariages dont end in divorce. Look at it this way, half of all marriages last forever. Who goes into a marriage expecting to get divorced? thats idiotic, but then again, libelas live on sour grapes. But, to go along with your thery, if there were gay marriages, all the flaming queers in the US wold be married and divorced about 100 times in thier lives. They would rush out to Las Vegas and get married just becasue they could, the divorce rate would reck 75% in no time, in fact, this could all be a ploy by the divorce lawyers, hmmmm and as to why people are gay, a lot do it for the attention they get, alot do it becaue they are screwed in the head and want to cry out, so they think taking a d*** up the a** is going to solve everything, LOL , one more thing, I always said I would only get married if I was going to have kids, thats the only reason to get married in my book, I got married and have 2 kids now (though all natural, organic methods might I add) this whole gay thing is a sqeaky wheel, who really gives a rats eye lash? the only who cares gay people are gay aere other gay people, maybe thats the problem, they want attention, WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA- I want the rights of gay people! The right to bitch and complain non stop and have poele say "I feel your pain, we are with you" Blah blah blah

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Nope, nothing there about nature. whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family Left out that part. Wonder why? Maybe because its says nothing about joining man and man, woman and woman. Hmmm....wonder why?

Um...things change. The definition should be change, since it is a flawed definition. In fact, it is not current:

mar·riage n.

a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
b. The state of being married; wedlock.
c. A common-law marriage.
d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage

Many homosexual males report knowing at an early age (often pre-pubescent) that they were "different".

I wonder how many people that have psychological problems also realized that they were "different". I know that retarded people eventually realize that they are different from peole that are not retarded. And they're doing that with a really low IQ. Perhaps their "feeling different" led them to decide to be gay.

I simply don't ever hear any remotely solid evidence that homosexuality is an inborn, innate trait. Since it is either a choice or an illness, I don't think that they should be able to get married. After all, homosexuality is an aborration of society and nature.

I've yet to meet the first one who tells me that it was a conscious choice to become attracted to their own sex rather than the opposite.

You work at a clinic and have never heard of people deciding that they are gay for a few years and then after a period of time changing back to hetero? Hmmmm.... From what I've seen, this is fairly common!

Karan, it is no more a choice than your heterosexuality is a choice. How the hell can you conciously choose who you are attracted to?

Citing my sources:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm#chan
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html

Borg, your source says this:

Once established, sexual feelings are unchangeable.

As I've already stated, I know this is untrue. I've seen people change from hetero to homo. I've also seen people change from homo to hetero. Don't send me a source telling me that sexual feelings are unchangeable when I am already sure that they are. And hey bro, do you believe everything that is printed? You really shouldn't. To me, those sources you gave out are a bunch of gay propaganda to try to convince me that homos are just as normal as heteros. I already know that scientific evidence on this subject is inconvlusive. All I really meant to do when I started this thread is state my opinion based on the what I've seen.

How the hell can you conciously choose who you are attracted to?

I don't know how they do it, they just do. Like I said before, I'm not discounting that homosexuality could be a sort of psychological illness.

What if anyone could be homosexual if they subconciously talked themselves into it. Let's say that as a child, you get along great with peers of the same sex. However, peers of the opposite sex make fun of you, or seem to be repelled by whatever kid reason they think up (you stink, your hair is messy, you're fat, whatever). So you grow accepting that you get along well with the same sex but not with others. Then you find out about homosexuality. You think about it and then suddenly think that's what you are. So there you are, a gay is "born." Is this not possible?

Originally posted by Dykesrainbow
Mad Dog...We do not have the same rights as everyone else. Perfect example is marriage. We don't have the right to be married to someone we love. The only state that has Civil Unions is Vermont. That's not a full marriage. In marriage you get the name change, you're able to get insurance through joint policies, not with a Civil Union though.

You are absolutely right, you have more rights, read my post on page 2, if he had been heterosexual then he never would have gotten his job back.

I believe it was Havok that posted the definition of marriage. Marriage is between man and woman, if you want to live together and you need a piece of paper to prove who you are then come up with a new word. Stop whinning about how unfair society is, like I have said you are looking to make yourselfs noticed, like a race. You are not worried about equal rights you are worried about special privilages.

I've seen invividuals struggle with their own sexuality. Generally after a short stint of experimentation they tend to revert to whatever direction their own sexuality takes them.

What I'm still trying to understand is why someone, gay or lesbian, would choose to live in a world where they're hated for who they sleep with. Would someone answer that for me?

I know I can't help who I love. and all the gay people I know aren't just in it for sex like everyone stereotypes. They like relationships like straight people do.

Originally posted by Dykesrainbow
What I'm still trying to understand is why someone, gay or lesbian, would choose to live in a world where they're hated for who they sleep with. Would someone answer that for me?

I know I can't help who I love. and all the gay people I know aren't just in it for sex like everyone stereotypes. They like relationships like straight people do.

Part 1; Not everyone hates you infact I would bet that the people you know and hang out with don't hate you at all. Why do people choose to do alot of things that others don't like? body piercing, tatoos, etc... why do I choose to hunt when so many hate me for it? Quit whinning, your making a moutain out of a mole hill....You don't have to be gay for someone to not like you.

Part 2; I'm alittle confused are you saying gay people like to have sex with straight people :confused: I understand that people of all walks of life have close friends, boy, or girl, but when one decides to have sex with the same sex they are gay, or at the very least bi.

Dykesrainbow hasn't said a word about having sex with straight folks. She's discussing relationships. We all have relationships with people we're not inclined to sleep with, correct?

Of coarse unless your name is Son Of Sam. Most people have a best friend and 8 times out of 10 there best friend is of the same sex. That does not make the person gay, the reason they are gay is because they prefer to have sex with people of there sex. I quess I just misunderstood the 2nd part of her post.

I just thought of another example of how some people definitely choose to be homosexual: prison inmates. I imagine that anyone who is starved for sex is willing to get it anyway that they can. This applies to unattractive people as well. Our natural biological instinct is to have sex.

Hypothesis:

When people cannot get sex, they turn to homosexuality.

Originally posted by Karankawa
I just thought of another example of how some people definitely choose to be homosexual: prison inmates. I imagine that anyone who is starved for sex is willing to get it anyway that they can. This applies to unattractive people as well. Our natural biological instinct is to have sex.

Hypothesis:

When people cannot get sex, they turn to homosexuality. I hope this post was a poor attempt at humor. If not, then its one of the most asinine statements i've yet to read on this forum.

Havok, you disappoint me. Don't be like most of these posters and simply make an insult without reason. If it's asinine, explain why.

Im sorry to have to disagree with you Karan....but your claim that people "turn" gay because they are ugly and want sex is asinine. What facts do you base this claim on?

I know a few gay people. Some really fine looking women IMO and the guys are not ugly. So physical characteristics really dont factor in to the equation as a whole. I am sure there are a few people who fit your assertion, but that is not the rule.

And the prison thing. Most of the homosexual acts that i have heard of in prison are rapes. That is not someone looking for sex, that is someone taking something. Big difference.

It's okay to disagree with me, I expect it. The reaction I get when I say that homosexuality is a choice rather than an in-born trait is usually yours. I find that, in itself, puzzling.... I think it's because people like to have something that is difficult for them to fathom, like homosexuality, explained away easily with the "inborn trait" explanation. I'm no psychologist though, so I don't know why that is.

You ask what facts I have to base my claim on: Let me reiterate that I am hypothesizing, and I do not know for sure!!! I am simply going by the things that I have observed in 6 years of college and years of aging around a suburban society. The more I see, the more I believe homosexuality is either a choice or an illness, rather than an in-born trait.

Exhibit A: Bisexuals. Will you tell me that these people were born bisexual? Bisexuals sleep with whoever they choose. The explanation I've gotten from two bisexuals I asked were that they don't really consider gender a basis as to whether or not they should date the person. They date the person for who they are. Based on those 2 responses, I think all bisexuals choose to be such.

Exhibit B: People that start out as either homosexual or heterosexual and then "change their minds." This is an obvious case where the individual was attracted to one sex, and then suddenly decided that, instead, they are attracted to the other sex. My gut feeling is that these people are suffering from psychological illness.

Exhibit C: Gays acting a certain way and/or talking "gay." The fact that gays immitate gay behavior certainly leads me to believe that homosexuality is a learned behavior, not instinctual or innate.

Exhibit D: Some gays that I meet could not ever get with someone of the opposite sex because their chances of attracting someone of the opposite sex is nil. What are these people supposed to do? Become celibate the rest of their lives or try a lifestyle where they will be received and loved and get lots of sex?

This is good enough for now. I have more thoughts, but I dont' want to turn this into a lecture.

Exhibit A: Bisexuals. Will you tell me that these people were born bisexual? Bisexuals sleep with whoever they choose. The explanation I've gotten from two bisexuals I asked were that they don't really consider gender a basis as to whether or not they should date the person. They date the person for who they are. Based on those 2 responses, I think all bisexuals choose to be such.
Let's see, If they choose that, then I think they are quite a bit smarter than the rest of us, they choose on personality alone, and not looks. But... that's wrong, I've heard bisexuals talk about how ugly some are, and how they would rather not go near them.... So, I don't quite see the choice in the matter for soley for who they are. If it is a choice, then if you wanted to, you could be bisexual, would you look at somebody on their personality alone, or would looks come into factor? I think looks would, therefore throwing you to one sex only. I don't think they just choose.

Exhibit B: People that start out as either homosexual or heterosexual and then "change their minds." This is an obvious case where the individual was attracted to one sex, and then suddenly decided that, instead, they are attracted to the other sex. My gut feeling is that these people are suffering from psychological illness.
If they change their minds at a young age, say 12 to 15 or so, then its possible. Many around those ages tend to have fears about liking of the same sex, and some act on that fear, and then decide if it is or isn't for them. If they are much older, then they are fucking lying that they were either gay, or that they changed. Maybe their church helped them change their mind.

Exhibit C: Gays acting a certain way and/or talking "gay." The fact that gays immitate gay behavior certainly leads me to believe that homosexuality is a learned behavior, not instinctual or innate.
That is complete and utter bullshit. Gays don't talk "gay", don't act "gay". That is a very small portion of them that get a lot of attention for it. And then there is Richard Simmons that hammered that into the head of stupid Americans. Homosexuals talk and act exaclty the way we do. Except for when they are with their mate...

Exhibit D: Some gays that I meet could not ever get with someone of the opposite sex because their chances of attracting someone of the opposite sex is nil. What are these people supposed to do? Become celibate the rest of their lives or try a lifestyle where they will be received and loved and get lots of sex?
This doesn't make any sense. My chances of getting with somebody of the opposite sex are about nil. Same with Borg's(hehe, wait dammit... there was that girl, bastard). I don't have any tendencies to go to the same sex...(personally, I think the thought that you would assume somebody like me would do that is disgusting). So, now that my chances are nil... I'm going to become gay all out of the blue? Don't think so, I also doubt that is true with basically anybody else. And, what qualitities make them unatractive to the opposite sex, and what makes you think that they would make them attractive to the same sex? Lots of love based on the fact that they just couldn't find somebody of the opposite sex? I think that would be a troubled relationship. So... uh, I don't quite think so.
Yes, not everything is about sex, I would hate to be your wife, "honey, do you love me"
"uh, sure, can we f*** now?"
"but..."
"get it on!, f*** me! Big sex for me!"

Oh, and back on the marrage part, something I posted in another forum(this topic must be very addictive)And fine, I'll censor the thing, you people have no tolerance and are little catholics when it comes to obsinities:

"If I remember right, in the United States a marrage is nothing more than a contract between two people. Sepperation of church and state, you can be married in a church, but then you have to sign a contract to make it legal. So, trying to stop people from marrying somebody of the same sex is a government restriction, and therefore, tyranny. So, the Church has no say in who can and cannot be married, they can forbid people to marry on their property though. Therefore any Religious Right's argument is now NULL AND VOID, so F*** YOU. And does the US forbid a contract between two people of the same sex? I don't know if it does or doesn't. Can't remember... "

Blib, I actually pretty much agree with Karan here.

Yes, many if not most gay men I've met ACT gay. Perhaps it's just ben my personal experience, but have you ever seen a gay pride parade or other homosexual event? I'd be very surprised if you didn't find the majority of those people exhibiting stereotypically "gay" behavior that has nothing to do with sexuality. But even if we are talking about a "small portion" of the population, you must admit that that portion has not been born gay, or at least, they weren't born behaving the way they do, right? And if you do, you are also admitting that being gay at least CAN be, if it isn't always, a learned trait.

I am also with Karan in thinking bisexuals are a good indicator that this is learned behavior. Are you going to try to claim bisexuals are born that way? I know a guy who was attracted to only one other guy in his entire life, but otherwise liked women. Was he born to like just one man? If that's what you think, you're way off.
I partially agree with Karan about homos going homo just because they basically can't laid as a hetero. However, I'll admit I really have no good evidence or logic to back this up other than personal experience. But it makes sense. The vast majority of homos out there that I've seen are extremely unattractive to the opposite sex (although I HAVE met at least one very attractive lesbian), and homosexual culture is an accepting and loving society....almost like unofficial therapy for the sexually deprived. Homosexuality is a sensible solution for these people.

And, once again, I can direct you to identical twin studies which PROVE that one identical twin can be gay while the other is not. If there's anything that kills the purely genetic link, that does it for me.

But I will disagree with Karan when he calls homosexuality a psychological illness or choice. I DO think it is a psychological byproduct, but I wouldn't call it an "illness" as illness suggests some incapacitating effect....these people have no trouble functioning in our society.

As for choice, without getting into a debate over whether we EVER actually make choices.....while I'd concede there could be SOME choice involved in sexuality generally, I generally don't think it's any more of a choice than heterosexual attractions. Have you guys ever been unattracted to a woman (or man!) at first and then become attracted to her after spending a lot of time with her? I have, and I suspect that's the same process gays go through. They spend a lot of time thinking about the same sex, then they experiment, and then they become accustomed to the same sex. Have you ever "chosen" to be attracted to someone? That's kindof an iffy question for me. I mean, I've met women whom I've consciously decided were compatible with me and decided to try to get more involved with those women...is that "choosing" an attraction? If I had to say, I'd say it partially is. I suspect it's the same for homosexuals.

Yes, many if not most gay men I've met ACT gay. Perhaps it's just ben my personal experience, but have you ever seen a gay pride parade or other homosexual event? I'd be very surprised if you didn't find the majority of those people exhibiting stereotypically "gay" behavior that has nothing to do with sexuality. But even if we are talking about a "small portion" of the population, you must admit that that portion has not been born gay, or at least, they weren't born behaving the way they do, right? And if you do, you are also admitting that being gay at least CAN be, if it isn't always, a learned trait.
It's a fashion. So, you say being an asshole and wearing "cool" clothes is a product of being heterosexual?

I think I'll skip the rest because you answered everything at the bottom.
Have you ever "chosen" to be attracted to someone? That's kindof an iffy question for me. I mean, I've met women whom I've consciously decided were compatible with me and decided to try to get more involved with those women...is that "choosing" an attraction? If I had to say, I'd say it partially is. I suspect it's the same for homosexuals.
Right there. If that kind of attraction is the same for homosexuals, then whats the difference. It may be part choice, and part attraction. They choose to be with them, but they are also attracted. Same.

Also, And, once again, I can direct you to identical twin studies which PROVE that one identical twin can be gay while the other is not. If there's anything that kills the purely genetic link, that does it for me.
It can go the other way around to, there are twins that one is straight, the other one may not be. Personality of twins can be completely opposite. I think we can say that personality is not biological, neither is being gay. But is personality a choice? You can choose to be a jackass, because that relates more to fashion(hey, it can). But likes and dislikes(true ones, not wavering ones just to conform) are not quite choices. And isn't sexual preferance a like?

Blibb,

I found about 75% of your post to be completely wrong or trash, so I will ignore it. However, you said one thing that I will comment on:

This doesn't make any sense. My chances of getting with somebody of the opposite sex are about nil. .....So, now that my chances are nil... I'm going to become gay all out of the blue?

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that EVERYONE who doesn't get sex turns homosexual. I'm simply saying that some do.

Leper,

But I will disagree with Karan when he calls homosexuality a psychological illness or choice. I DO think it is a psychological byproduct, but I wouldn't call it an "illness" as illness suggests some incapacitating effect....these people have no trouble functioning in our society.

Okay, perhaps "illness" is too strong of a word. Although I think that when you define an illness as indicative of not being able to function in society, I think you're wrong. How about if we call it a more subtle word, like ....disorder. Oh well, I'm not interested in arguing semantics. I find it amusing that you agree with me though!! I thought you would disagree at least some!

By the way… Why is so important to know if homosexuality is genetic or not ?

I think that it is like all parts of one's personality : something too complex to be reduced to one cause. There are many factors, biological, psychological and social, that affect everyone's sexuality. We could also question anyone's heterosexuality in the same terms. Is it a choice ? Something "natural" ? Or the choice made by society for most people ?

I think that, about homosexuality, the most intersting thing to debate about is the way people are free or not to be homosexual in any given society.

Originally posted by astrapol2
By the way… Why is so important to know if homosexuality is genetic or not ?

I think that it is like all parts of one's personality : something too complex to be reduced to one cause. There are many factors, biological, psychological and social, that affect everyone's sexuality. We could also question anyone's heterosexuality in the same terms. Is it a choice ? Something "natural" ? Or the choice made by society for most people ?

I think that, about homosexuality, the most intersting thing to debate about is the way people are free or not to be homosexual in any given society.

The reason the genetic argument is important is because it has a strong bearing on the question you think is interesting, whether or not someone should be free to be homosexual to various degrees.

You see, if homosexuality is genetic, that means one can't help it, which in turn, means that it cannot be immoral. If it's something that homosexuals can control, then the individuals are expected to be responsible for the consequences of their behavior.

Just, fyi, this summer, the U.S. Supreme Court found laws which criminalized sodomy (which existed in 10-25 of the states) to be unconstitutional.

Originally posted by Leper
You see, if homosexuality is genetic, that means one can't help it, which in turn, means that it cannot be immoral. If it's something that homosexuals can control, then the individuals are expected to be responsible for the consequences of their behavior.


this is a bit simplistic.

1- the fact that something is not genetic does not imply it results from a conscious choice. Social pressure or psychological trends are constraints one can hardly escape too.
2- Even if it was had a genetic cause, people who do not accept homosexuality would say it is a genetic defect, like many diseases, and thus something to eradicate.

I think that the debate on the causes of homosexuality in itself tends to be homophobic, in the way that it considers homosexuality as a deviant behaviour and tries to identify the causes of this deviance to see if people should be blamed or cured.

I do not give a damn about the causes as long as this behaviour is not a problem for me. Why not rather look for the causes of bad driving ? That is a much more serious threat to the lives of people !
;)

astrapol2,

I do not give a damn about the causes as long as this behaviour is not a problem for me.

I wouldn't give a damn about homosexuality either, but the fact is, you are missing the picture. Perhaps in France homosexuals aren't given special considerations, but here in America, it is being considered, and in some cases implemented.

I'm think you just jumped to the end of this thread and skipped the beginning if you don't understand why we are discussing this. Next time, try reading the title of the thread and maybe you'll start understanding a little, at least. In the meantime, don't try to derail a thread just because you don't think it's worthy of discussion. Thank you.

Originally posted by astrapol2
this is a bit simplistic.

1- the fact that something is not genetic does not imply it results from a conscious choice. Social pressure or psychological trends are constraints one can hardly escape too.
2- Even if it was had a genetic cause, people who do not accept homosexuality would say it is a genetic defect, like many diseases, and thus something to eradicate.

I think that the debate on the causes of homosexuality in itself tends to be homophobic, in the way that it considers homosexuality as a deviant behaviour and tries to identify the causes of this deviance to see if people should be blamed or cured.

I do not give a damn about the causes as long as this behaviour is not a problem for me. Why not rather look for the causes of bad driving ? That is a much more serious threat to the lives of people !
;)

A bit simplistic? Yeah, probably. That's probably true of just about every post written here. I could write more on the topic, but seriously, who would want to read all of that.
Your argument that homosexuality does not need to debated betrays your position on the issue. That's the position of someone completely accepting of homosexuality. In the U.S., that's a minority position compared to a majority of Americans either finding homosexuality immoral or just plain gross. I myself think it's a minor problem in that it renders the homosexual effectively sterile, which is not a good thing for the evolution of our species. If impotence were contageous, would you think that needs to be addressed for any reasons other than individual pleasure? I would.

So is the issue of whether homosexuality is genetic worth debating? No matter what you say, you can't deny that it impacts how people approach the issue, and for that reason alone, inheritability must be addressed.

Back to the original point of discussion:
Should homosexual marriages be legal?

I say no, stictly because it will grant favors to a minority of people that to some degree want to further their agenda, whatever that may be (much like lobbyists, I might add). I ask, why would homosexuals want to push their way into the institution of marriage - a time-honored establishment that lies at the very core of this society? Is it REALLY just so that they may enjoy the same benefits that hetersexual married couples enjoy? Did the Founding Fathers (no, wait -- gotta be PC -- the Framers) have homosexuality in mind when they wrote the constitution? Did state officials have homosexuality in mind when they wrote state constitutions?

Today, the entire concept of marriage has been so twisted on both sides: (i) as a sexually gradifying relationship between man and woman that is easily dispensible (look at the divorce statistics) (ii) as a joining of any two people, as long as they "love" each other. Believe it or not, there are people willing to push American values and laws into a gelatinous state, where up is down and down is up. How would American society react to a legislation legalizing homosexual "marriage" 20-50 years from now. And no, people would not just "accept it for what it is" because abortion is still a very controversial topic even after over 30 years since its legalization.

Look, I don't care what goes on in the closet. But when two people publicly and formally announce to the world that they want to live together "until death do us part" they are creating a political unit, a unit that may determine the philosophy of an entire nation. This has enormous ramifications for the entire human family, and you all should be thinking hard about the potential outcomes of such action.




"Upward and Onward"

Originally posted by psamtik071

I ask, why would homosexuals want to push their way into the institution of marriage - a time-honored establishment that lies at the very core of this society? Is it REALLY just so that they may enjoy the same benefits that hetersexual married couples enjoy?

What else could it be ?

Believe it or not, there are people willing to push American values and laws into a gelatinous state, where up is down and down is up.

What do you mean by "gelatinous" ?


This has enormous ramifications for the entire human family, and you all should be thinking hard about the potential outcomes such action.


OK, tell us what in your mind could be the drawbacks of homosexual marriage.

Originally posted by Karankawa
I wouldn't give a damn about homosexuality either, but the fact is, you are missing the picture. Perhaps in France homosexuals aren't given special considerations, but here in America, it is being considered, and in some cases implemented.


I do not say it is worthless to debate about homosexuality. But I still believe that debating about the causes of homosexuality is irrelevant. I prefer to debate about the place of homosexuals in society, especially if one is talking about homosexual marriage.

Of course homophoby exists in France. But, during the last decade, homosexuality has been much more accepted, at least publicly. A law has been voted to allow a specific kind of union for homosexuals (and heterosexual who do not wish to marry - which is may case).

The new mayor of Paris is homosexual and often takes part in the gay pride, as well as other politicians from left or right. Few politicians, except at the far right, would question homosexual rights.

I would like to point out that there is an imbalance here. While homosexuals can get applauded for strutting around and proclaiming their "gay pride" from the liberal public, hetersexuals expressing their "pride" are looked down upon as pimps and whores.

A gelatinous state of morals and values is a state of near anarchy, where laws are not solid enough to support a stable government. Look at Jello. If you give it the slightest push, it wobbles, much like American values today. This is not France, which crumbled into anarchy after the American Revolution. New ideas do not always work, and many times cause more harm than good.

I seriously believe that homosexual "marriage" will crumble the very foundation of what marriage is and what it stands for. Read carefully:

Today, the entire concept of marriage has been so twisted on both sides: (i) as a sexually gradifying relationship between man and woman that is easily dispensible (look at the divorce statistics) (ii) as a joining of any two people, as long as they "love" each other.

Look, homosexuals can do their thing all they want in private. They have the freedom to do that. What they (and heterosexuals too, for that matter) don't have the right to endanger, as I said, a time-honored and essentially sacred practice just for recognition and a few benefits. If that's not selfish I don't know what is.




"Upward and Onward"

I would like to point out that there is an imbalance here. While homosexuals can get applauded for strutting around and proclaiming their "gay pride" from the liberal public, hetersexuals expressing their "pride" are looked down upon as pimps and whores.
It goes the opposite way with conservatives.
(...) just for recognition and a few benefits. If that's not selfish I don't know what is.
Ah. I see. Only heterosexuals are allowed recognition and benefits, just because you want to keep your word sacred.

I fail to see why the government should have anything to do with marriage anyway. Get the gov't out of marriage, and leave it up to whoever is marrying people to decide who to allow and who not to. If somebody wants to marry three people, two gay people, let them. The government doesn't belong in our bedrooms.

If I remember correctly, conservatives are the ones being ostrasized by the "majority" in Hollywood and education. Name me one conservative actor or professor who did not suffer through a barrage of criticism from his/her peers merely because he/she had "conservative" or "traditional" beliefs.

Well, isn't marriage a HETEROSEXUAL institution after all?

I don't know why the government stepped into marriage. Oh yeah, maybe they realized that family is integral to the survival of this country, and screwing around with what the family represents will kill American society and what it always stood for. That is what's sacred, not my word. My word is no better than yours.



"Upward and Onward"

Originally posted by psamtik071
While homosexuals can get applauded for strutting around and proclaiming their "gay pride" from the liberal public, hetersexuals expressing their "pride" are looked down upon as pimps and whores.


And heterosexual are never beaten to death by skinheads, sent to concentration camps by nazis or ostracized by their workmates because of their sexual preference.
You must admit it is much easier and comfortable to be heterosexual in our societies.

This is not France, which crumbled into anarchy after the American Revolution.

I do not understand what you mean. But maybe this should be developed in a new thread.

I seriously believe that homosexual "marriage" will crumble the very foundation of what marriage is and what it stands for.

It's time you explain us more in detail how homosexual marriage would endanger marriage and the whole society. I do not see.

I already made my point clear; it is not my responsibility to have you understand as long my point is well made. I fyou have trouble understanding, I suggest you reread my posts.

Clarification: What do you call the French Revolution? Besides I merely setting up a parallel to an ultra-liberal government that collapsed under itself in the late 1700's and shows some instability now.

Looks like I'm done here.



"Upward and Onward"

I fail to see why the government should have anything to do with marriage anyway. Get the gov't out of marriage, and leave it up to whoever is marrying people to decide who to allow and who not to. If somebody wants to marry three people, two gay people, let them.

This reaction interests me. If an issue gets too complicated, let's just throw our hands in the air and walk away from it?

Maybe this thread needs to turn in a different direction. Maybe we need to figure out why the government does recognize marriage.

I'll hazard a guess. The government is very interested in protecting heterosexual couples, since they are the only kind that can copulate naturally. Their offspring are foreseen as the future of the country. Children have always had a lot of value, not just to the general citizens, but to the government as well, since children assure that the nation will continue. Sound okay?

Another example of special gay rights.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/07/28/gay.school.ap/index.html


The fact that gays are more likely to get beat up in school is cause for a special school just for them? Smaller kids are more likely to get beat up than bigger kids too. Perhaps we should make a special school for them.

Truthfully, I'll ascertain that smaller kids have more of a right to their own school than gays do, since at least smaller kids don't have a choice as to what size they are.

Used to be the blacks (Civil Rights), then the poor (the Great Society), somewhere in there the physically / developmentally challenged (Americans with Disabilities Act), now it's looking like there's going to be a Gay Rights Act, or that's what is being pushed for.
It would seem that the push would be toward answering the basic question of how someone becomes gay/lesbian, be that from genetics, basic DNA, or a psychological trait, and then educate the public. We don't need another tax sucking act designed to protect individuals from every race, creed, sex and color when there's already plenty of laws on the books covering every crime imaginable. Gays are already covered under specific hate crimes, is that not enough? Being gay is not a handicap, it's not a developmental disorder, it's not an illness or injury, therefore gays do not deserve any special protection or considerations.

NO ONE deserves special protection or considerations.



"Upward and Onward"

Psamtik, this is not true. Some people are more vulnerable than other and deserve a special status.
Disabled people, people with mental disorder, kids, all the people who can not take care of themselves, they should be protected by the law ans helped by society.

Obviously that does not apply to gays or racial minorities. But the fact that some laws prevent racial hatred or discrimination based on sex or religion seems right to me.

Disabled people, people with mental disorder, kids, all the people who can not take care of themselves, they should be protected by the law ans helped by society.

I did not say anything about society; it can do whatever it wants for the disadvantaged. But the government should not be involved and should not give ANY special treatment to ANYONE, because that is what our government is based on: equality. That includes welfare. I know this sounds thoughtless, but that is the only way we can truly call ourselves a democracy.

Take Social Security, for example. Those who retired deserve the benefits that social security entails because they put money into it in the first place. And no, they are not receiving special treatment because they are elderly. They are receiving those benefits because they simply decided to "open their savings account" at a certain point in time.

This statement may need some clarification, so please criticize.



"Upward and Onward"

The government is based on equality. You can't legislate morality, but you can point society in a more humane direction. The laws & acts that I noted above all have to do with furthering the equality of each individual in this great nation. We cannot deny a person a job they're fully qualified for simply because they sit in a wheelchair. Without the ADA, fully capable individuals nation wide were prevented from even using public transportation so they could get out & find those jobs. The ADA forced public transportation entities nation wide to adapt to the needs of the public they serve, not the other way around. We protect & provide for the special needs of those that need them, we don't provide special care for groups that simply want them.

We protect & provide for the special needs of those that need them, we don't provide special care for groups that simply want them.

That is what I meant, or least what I hoped to mean.



"Upward and Onward"

Coincidentally, Bush has also decided to address homosexual marriages today:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/bush.gay.marriage/index.html

"Yes, I am mindful that we're all sinners," the president said Wednesday when asked for his views on homosexuality. "And I caution those who may try to take the speck out of the neighbor's eye when they've got a log in their own."

So the official position of the president of the USA is that homosexuals are sinners ??!!

I suspect that it is, although it's not entirely clear if he was talking about just being homosexual, or about having homosexual sex. Of course in American politics it's important to keep the party faithful happy so that they'll donate to your re-election campaign fund. Conservative Christians are major Republican party contributors and it would be political suicide for him to come out in favor of homosexuality. I do like his subtle reiminder to conservative Christians - "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Personally, I don't think that merely being homosexual is a sin, but I think homosexual sex is a sin. After all, it is sex outside of marriage. I don't think it's any worse of a sin than heterosexual sex outside of marriage, though.

Been a lonnnngggg time since I've seen the word "sin" used in that way. Typically, not something I even consider.

Have been enjoying the various reactions to Dubya's statement however. We're viewing plenty of reaction with little forethought..

FWIW I heard on the radio this afternoon that Bush has clarified his statement and says that he doesn't consider homosexuality a sin.

Maybe he should hire someone to erase all mistakes froms his speeches before he reads them.

It wasn't a speech - it was a press conference.

Besides it wasn't Bush who brought up the subject of homosexuality.

I am going to go off on a tangent in a minute about a related (or expanded) subject, but I'll state my opinion on this post first. Homosexuals live a deviant lifestye; one unsupported by most relgions, moral bases, and nature itself. It is irregular and therefore sharing the classification of regular behavior should be questioned. I myself feel that homosexuals should be able to share the legal and moral responsibilities/benefits. However, I do think there are exceptions. First, I don't think they should call it marriage. Marriage has always been a union between a man and a women; it has religions roots and I think it would cheat those who believe deeply in its religious/moral backing. I think that there is, however, a very more important issue at hand here.

If gays are going to share every right heterosexual married companies share, does this include having children? Nature itself prevents homosexuals from bearing children...so should we allow them to obtain children any other way. Everyone realizes that a person's childhood has a very large affect on how they grow up...and if they are forced (at a time when they have not the right nor the understanding to make logical decisions) to grow up in an abnormal household such as this, are we not robbing them of the opportunity to live a normal life? I think we are. To me it is extremely important that a child have both a mother and a father, otherwise it is almost certain that they will not develope as they should. Wouldn't it seem selfish for a homosexual couple to raise a child under such circumstances. Homosexuals will almost certainly claim it will have the "beneficial effect" of the child being more unbiased to that lifestyle...but my question to that is shouldn't there be some bias against deviant acts? Sure a child raised in a whore house is going to be more accepting of the idea, but does that mean it's ok? I havn't really developed my opinion fully on this issue but I felt like posting something so here's a taste. I look forward to other opinions. -Jonathan

Let me begin by saying that I agree with you on the subject of marriage. Marriage is a religious ritual and if one doesn't follow the code and traditions of that religion, they should not be allowed to engage in the rites of that religion. After all, a priest or pastor would not perform a marriage between two people if these people openly admitted to physical and/or sexual abuse.

Everyone realizes that a person's childhood has a very large affect on how they grow up...and if they are forced (at a time when they have not the right nor the understanding to make logical decisions) to grow up in an abnormal household such as this, are we not robbing them of the opportunity to live a normal life?

As for this; many children are "forced" to grow up in family settings that the majority would consider abnormal. Would you take a child away from an Amish woman just because her views and the community in which it would be raised are quite different from your's? Or what about the native americans who still hold strong to their traditional way of life? Or interacial couples? Or even a child raised in poverty or vast wealth. These are not "normal" family situations. Would you rob them of their wish for children? No. Because you are a good, open-minded person. It's just another step.

Wouldn't it seem selfish for a homosexual couple to raise a child under such circumstances.

And every plan to bring a child into this world is a selfish one. If we didn't do it for ourselves... we wouldn't be here today.

I'm not here to force my views upon anyone. Just to teach and to learn.

Normality… What is it ? If you refer to the most common way of life, it is only a question of point of view. In many countries the "normal familiy" as we see it in western societies does not exist. Many kids are raised by uncles and aunts or grand parents rather than by their parents.

One study has been made amongst people who have been raised by homosexual couples. They do not suffer of any specific trouble compared to other people.

Originally posted by astrapol2
Normality… What is it ? If you refer to the most common way of life, it is only a question of point of view. In many countries the "normal familiy" as we see it in western societies does not exist. Many kids are raised by uncles and aunts or grand parents rather than by their parents.

One study has been made amongst people who have been raised by homosexual couples. They do not suffer of any specific trouble compared to other people. Oh really? And just what is the source of this "study"?

I saw it on TV. A quick look on Google shows that, about this controversial topic, there are of course many different studies and opinions !

I found one site about a rather serious study :

According to that study, while it seems that there are some minor differences between kids raised in homosexual or heterosexual, it has no harmful consequences upon kids.

"There seemed to be no difference in the mental and emotional health of children based on whether their parents were homosexual or heterosexual, or in the quality of the parent-child relationships, the analysis said."

http://www.q.co.za/2001/2001/05/02-gayparents.html

So you have no problem with the emasculation of males then. The study seems to think there is no problem with raising young men who are unsure of their sexuality and themselves. But i see that as a huge problem.

Originally posted by Karankawa
This reaction interests me. If an issue gets too complicated, let's just throw our hands in the air and walk away from it?

Maybe this thread needs to turn in a different direction. Maybe we need to figure out why the government does recognize marriage.

I'll hazard a guess. The government is very interested in protecting heterosexual couples, since they are the only kind that can copulate naturally. Their offspring are foreseen as the future of the country. Children have always had a lot of value, not just to the general citizens, but to the government as well, since children assure that the nation will continue. Sound okay?

Karan,

I think you're on the right track to identifying the real rational issues here and I agree with your assessment. The government doesn't care (or shouldn't care) about whether homosexuality is a sin or morally acceptable. The government cares about creating a functional society and homosexuals favor a dysfunctional society since they cannot reproduce. There's nothing stopping homos from wearing rings, sleeping together, and changing their names, they just won't get government benefits. That's the way it should be handled.

Havok

There is no mention of emasculation of males in that study.

" "They are doing extremely well," Biblarz said. "There's no evidence that in terms of their adjustment and development and well being ... that kids (from homosexual families) are suffering greater harm." He added that, "Children brought up by lesbians and gay men are well adjusted, have good levels of self esteem, are as likely to have high educational attainments as children raised in more traditional heterosexual families."

Parents' sexual orientation matters, study finds
Children raised by homosexual couples have different attitudes toward gender roles and sexual preferences than children raised by heterosexuals.



For example, he said, teenage boys with homosexual parents were more sexually restrained then their counterparts who were raised by heterosexual couples. And boys raised by lesbian couples exhibited less aggressive and more nurturing social behavior then boys raised in heterosexual families.

On the other hand, teenage girls showed an opposite trend. Girls raised by lesbians gravitated towards less stereotypically feminine dress, play and occupations, Biblarz said.

Teenage girls raised by lesbians also appeared to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste than girls raised by heterosexuals. The study also showed that more children from homosexual households gravitated towards same-sex relationships although they were not statistically more likely to identify themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual.

And what is this called?

It is called societal influence.

Well then societal influences are emasculating males. I dont care what spin you put on it. Or what other names you can come up with, the bottom line is what influences they have on young males. And overall, society is definately trying to emasculate males , particularly white males.

I still see no mention of emasculation in this text. You read it with your own preconceived opinion.
And society is not trying to do anything. It is not a conscious being.

Originally posted by astrapol2
I still see no mention of emasculation in this text. You read it with your own preconceived opinion.
And society is not trying to do anything. It is not a conscious being. Ok. Well i guess in France it is normal for the women to be more aggresive than men?

And i should have said elements within society.

I see that some clarification on my part is definately in order. The way I see a normal household is the way nature intended it to be. There is no possible way to have a child naturally without participation from both a male and a female. Therefore, the child is their child, and the normal route to raising the child would of course be both parents raising it. Now I agree that there are many other situations where this doesn't occur, such as divorce, death of a parent, etc. However, these examples usually don't happen until after the child is born, or at least the woman is pregnant. It's very unusual for a dead or divorced partner to contribute to a pregnancy.

Here in lies my major problem. Homosexual couples are willingly introducing a child into what I feel is a less than healthy situation. The child usually has no understanding or chance to make a valid decision on whether they want to grow up under those circumstances. Of course this is just my opinion, and I by no means feel my opinion should be made into law. I simply have no problem in sharing it. I certainly lack understanding of current laws regarding this issue, as well as what homosexuals feel they are entitled to. I disagree with their lifestyle and I feel it is immoral, but as long as they keep it to themselves I could really care less. Sort of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" attitude. Anyway, there's my response. Feel free to agree or disagree. -John

In France? Yes... (just funnin' ya, Asta)

Nothing we do is "natural" anymore.

Having two moms or two dads may make you develop a little diferently, big deal, so does having one mom and one dad, or just a mom, or just a dad etc.

Nobody gets to pick their parents (except that macully Culkin kid and we see where that got him)

And homosexuals should not have to live in the shadows just because some people disagree with their lifestyle and find it offensive. I disagree with a lot of people's lifestyles and find them immoral, but I'm not going to start naming them off (politician, religious fanatics, high-priced defense attournies, sport hunters, corporate businessmen, hip-hop musicians etc., etc., etc.) and I'm certainly not going to tell them that they can't lead a normal, freedom of speach protected life just because I find them offensive. Now voting for them, listening to them and buying their products is a different story...

Originally posted by Jonathan
The way I see a normal household is the way nature intended it to be.

Once again, there is nothing natural in the way we live. Society is a creation of mankind. Marriage is only a convention.

Christian marriage was made obligatory by the catholic church after the middle age to ensure a better control upon society and upon its priests who then could not live with women and depended only from the church.

It seems from most of the post i read here that "marriage" is still closely linked to religion. This is probably true in the USA but not in all the other countries.

In France many people only make a "civil" marriage and do not go to the church. Marriage is a social convention that gives a couple a specific status in front of the law. If people consider this status is acceptable for homosexual, I do not see any reason to oppose this. It won't be a great change for society since homosexual couple will anyway exist and won't procreate, married or not. But it will chage a lot of things for homosexuals.

When you have been living for years with a beloved one, to benefit from the protection of marriage in regard to death or retirement and many other events just seem fair to me.

Why do you have to be married to be protected in death or retirement?? Can you not will to people that you aren't married to?

I still fail to understand why homosexuals feel like they should get the same title for their union as heterosexuals.