So ,what you think about it? I hope that we have a nice discussion about it. I think it is perfectly normal.

[ September 08, 2002, 10:57: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 90 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Homosexuality:Good or bad? (90 votes.)

What you think about homosexuality? (Choose 1)
* I do not care - 43% (39)
* I think it is VERY BAD(should be eliminated) - 19% (17)
* I think it is nice, when people love each other. Gender does not matter to me. - 38% (34)

Gender should'nt matter.

I don't mind it at all. I actually find camp comdians the VERY BEST kind of comedian!

Wow, open-minded bunch we've got here.

I really don't care what anybody does. It isn't my business. Just let them be in love :)

Doesn't really matter to me, what people do in their own beds in their own time is frankly none of my business.

I think it would be more interesting to discuss whether heterosexuality is good or bad.. in a sense, all it does is bring on our pointless existance to the next generation, destroying the planet while we're at it. :evil:

Or we could use condoms :D :D :D

Who voted that it was bad?

Forget about maniqueism...

It's not good or bad; black or white...

It's just a way of living, some like it, some don't.

Like colors, textures or music, just a preference; not a fate-maker.

I think it is bad , very bad :p
But humans are like a bunch of animals, so way bother :confused:

[ September 08, 2002, 15:10: Message edited by: vonGriffin ]

Nothing is bad about it. Some simply feel differently than the rest. I myself just don't care about others being homosexual. And as I often say:

As long as there is love, there is also hope. And as long as there is hope, the humanity will survive. The instant when it is gone humanity will die and even then our souls will forever live among the stars And what's the point of all this bullsh** some of you might ask. It's simple: you love and you live, you don't and you die. Sooner or later. And speaking of love, what the hell am I still doing here when I should be out there looking for a new g/f?

Oh and humans aren't like a bunch of animals. We are animals and are simply a bit more evolved than other species.

[ September 08, 2002, 15:42: Message edited by: Keneth of the Darkforest ]

I just don't see why men don't want to love women. They are cuter more beautifull more mentally elegant. All in all an interesting difference for men. Its a priviledge to be able to date women and merry women. I can understand lesbians though. As I wondered; Who wouldn't want to live with a women? ;)

[ September 08, 2002, 16:33: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

I'm not against it, but sometimes I can't stand them... and its good to see people here are very open minded. Makes me feel that the world is really nice. (*me starts feeling mushy and blushy... blechh!!!*)

:evil:

Noble most gay men are gay because they like 'it' up the 'you-know-what'.

What up?? and we-know-what??

*friend whispers Morgoth something in ear*

Why would somebody do that?!?

lol

Anyway - I don't honestly care about peoples preferences, there are enough lesbians at our school and sure it is a bit odd seeing them but it isn't any of my business and they don't hurt anyone. Women tend to accept these things better with men it's just the same - they just make more fuss about it

I really dont care!!!
If a man whants to pin another man then fine by me as long as it's no me!
Buut why would anyone wanna pin a man when there ar women who I find more attractive.
Anyway if God made two people come together even is they are of the same gender than thats what God wants and who are we to argue with te cretor?
Anyway I'm sounding like a priest so I think I'm gonna stop right here......

Paddy, sword of justice and fury!!!
(My sword brings justice on all who are evil and strive to bring chaos!!!)

Idea for new poll "Lefthandedness: Good or Bad?"... (sheesh...)

Anyway if God made two people come together even is they are of the same gender than thats what God wants and who are we to argue with te cretor?well,,,,Vojtila would disagree

I don't have a problem with gays or lesbians. I have a pretty good friend who's a lesbian and it's never bothered me.

well I agree with nobleman on this one :)

And actually I dont see why anyone would care to mess in other people's love life

Gay men are the best! :D For every gay couple there are two available women for every straight dude :D Can it be any better?
Lesbians on the other hand! :evil: :flaming: Sure it is nice and cuddly and all that **** but they are stealing OUR women!!! It shouldnt be legal I tell you! ;)

There's nothing wrong with admiring a man, even for being muscular. However, our genitals were shaped that way for a reason. Perhaps there might a genetic reason for it, but I think that although love is great, homosexuality in essence is wrong.

What, might I ask, makes it wrong? To say it is unnatural is ignorant, to say the least. After all, there is homosexuality amongst other animals as well. We are no more evolved or better than any other animals. We have simply gone in another direction, one we see as superior. Our population is steadily growing as it is, so why is it a horrible thing to have a percentage of the population not having children? Perhaps it is nature's own population control method, along with the obvious other methods.

I'm putting Godwin's Law at the 95 percentile on this one, so far.

Heh. Sol'Kanar, to say it is unnatural is an understatement.

Learn a little about what happens during homosexual "sex." It's completely unnatural.

And humans have a higher incidence of homosexuality than any other species.

The thing I don't like about it is that some of them seem to think that they must go parading around anouncing it to the world. I don't run around yelling "I'm straight!" at the top of my lungs, why do they?

Because they're a minority, and a minority that doesn't draw attention to itself becomes obscure in the minds of the majority, or non-existent at all, making anyone who is not part of the majority a highly dangerous deviant. I'd think this is pretty obvious to most people...

Interesting that the poll results are not really reflected in the debate, but there you go. Not enough "bads" being owned up to.

Still, personally, I'm in the don't care camp (no pun intended). Let people do what makes them happy, it really isn't anyone elses business. Having said that, I must confess that seing two guys holding hands / kissing etc in public makes me a little uncomfortable. It's simply not something I'm used to since I don't tend to frequent gay haunts. Still, I don't have to stare either.

This is an off topic post, to do something I've not done in SP in a looong time.

*Spots righteous paladin/servant of god/hero/dogooder/ trash.*

*walks right up and chops off Padeen's head.*

Bah. No god/deity should tell people how they are to live.

Heck, I do not even believe in god, but i agree, Shura. No one can tell people how they live their lives.

After all, there is homosexuality amongst other animals as well You mean that species of monkeys (can´t really get their name), they´re having "you know what" with their children and other animals as well.
But when humans do that it´s bad

(Not that I´m homophobe or something, but it´s not really an good argument)

Actually, the most "homosexual" mammal is a species of bats, whose name eludes me at this time. Perhaps what happens during homosexual sex is not what one's organs were designed to do, but that does not make the act inherently unnatural. After all, it isn't something one simply chooses to do.

Wow Okay.

First of all, those monkeys aren't monkeys. They're apes and they're called binobos. They're a close relative of chimpanzees which means they're a close relative of us. (Chimpanzees share 98% of our DNA, so binobos must be pretty close.)

Second, binobos, as far as I've ever heard, haven't been documented having sex with their children or other animals. They do frequently have what we'd consider heterosexual and homosexual sex purely for the pleasure of it. It is a way of saying, "Oh, sorry I stole your banana" to them.

Binobos aside, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality. We're the only species which has supposed "orientations" and most psychologists will tell you it's more like humans are naturally bisexual --as the binobos-- but have established pointless cultural taboos that have turned sexuality into an intensely personal, feared, secretive subject.

I often go to messageboards and give advice on sex and sexuality and teenagers' (and adults, sometimes even!) ignorance of sex and sexuality never ceases to astonish me.

Homosexuality is neither an illness nor a sin. Clinical studies have shown there is some genetic basis for it, there is not set dynamic for an "enviromental" cause of it, and it can't be "cured". That much is, more or less, medical fact.

And as to why would men be attracted to men over women -- what a ridiculous question. I'm not a gay man (I'm not even a man!) but it should be logic that people don't rationally think out what attracts them to other people. I mean, did you ever sit down and decide based on a firm foundation of logic what you are attracted to? No, of course not. Don't be silly.

Jesus! Now they wil post:

I saw someone handling a bee! Is he a killer? Because of the killer bees? I heard bees are evil! They kill people! Kill him! And then celebrate an feel like getting close to your "honey" because you saved the day!

Shall we bring the Inquisition or the Nazis to the thread?

Leave the homosexuals be!

Most of them are not happy with mankind or their families due to the less-than-observed fact that they were abused at some point in their childhood or adolescence; yet they certainly look for love but don't trust enough in the opposite sex.

And please; feeling itchy because someone is different than you are shows certain troubled degree of mental immaturity. Stop your idiocy of believing someone different than you is evil. It only shows you need to spend a lot of time in the shool you never went.

I'm not homosexual; but I must say let live an live yourself.

[ September 10, 2002, 01:55: Message edited by: Shadowhunter ]

There shouldn't even be a question of right/wrong, natural/unnatural, good/bad. Homosexuality isn't a 'choice.' It isn't a 'life decision.' It is how people ARE. Granted, homosexuals are the minority, but so are people who favor their left hand.

[Ironic note. Left-handedness and homosexuality were both taken as signs of the devil in the Middle Ages. Both often led to burning at the stake.]

I am shocked and appalled that some people in this forum could even consider homosexuality bad, or even worse, feel it should be eradicated. I live in a cosmopolitan setting [New York City], and probably take that fact for granted, but that is just IGNORANCE. If you think there is something inherently wrong with homosexuality, you are wrong.

Gender doesn't matter, period.

I see nothing wrong with people loving/having sex with each other as long as everything that happens is consensual and both parites enjoy. Period.

By the way, a comment relating to the matter: It's seen completely normal if a male gets turned on when watching two women get it on, but if a woman gets turned on by two males doing it, she's a sicko.... someone explain this logic to me...

Ara
(Slash.... Yaoi... goody...)

It doesn't bother me ... i mean, i have a couple of gay and lesbian friends and they seem fine. The only time that i will object to homosexuality is ifone was to make a move on me.

Thats when i stand up for myself and pelt em' one.

So like for example, if i saw agay couple walking in the street, hugging, kissing, holding hands etc. It wouldn't bother me and in the slightest. But like if i was at some club or pub, and a man kept on tryin it on with ne, he may end up leaving with a black eye ...

Sorry Kooran, that I mistaked apes for monkeys

Shall we??

:shake: :shake:

[ September 10, 2002, 20:13: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

on average, i'm 34% supportive of homosexuality

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=001886#000009

Eze I dont really believe in any god that exist or that doesnt!!
But the paladin makes me have too!
Anyway if their is a superior force that made us maybey it's up in the universe somewhere just playing around with us making some people cartain way and others another

Paddy!
(Yes, I am THE paladin master!)

Take the time to get to know someone who's decided to become homosexual. Every time you will discover that that person has been sexually abused, had a screwed up relationship with one or both parents, or is trying homosexuality just to rebel against what is normal.

I'm quite a bit older than most of you posting in this thread. I've known and been friends with more homosexuals than you have probably even met. I am neither ignorant not hateful. But it is obvious that homosexuality is a disorder, just as it was classifed for decades by the APA (which changed its ruling when homosexual activists managed to climb into its hierarchy; the APA is now contemplating making "religious rigidity" a clinical disorder, so that should give you some idea of the direction that organization is heading).

Of course it is not normal for a man to desire another man physically. "Normal" is a relative term, and even the most ardent homosexual activists claim that only 13% or so of the general population is homosexual. That means that the other 87% are the normal ones. Look up the term "norm."

And the biological evidence for homosexuality is far from conclusive. It may well end up like alcoholism -- there are genes that mean you're more likely to be an alcoholic, but treatment and self-control can prevent it.

Any way you slice is, homosexuality is an activity. Your genes do not demand you stick your plug in the wrong socket. You voluntarily do that yourself. It's not like eye color, something you have no choice but to accept. It's something you do.

And there are many documented cases of people recovering from homosexuality. Look up the organization PFOX, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays. There's another group called Exodus that helps people recover from the homosexual lifestyle as well.

Please. If you wish to respond to me, don't stoop to calling names or claiming I'm ignorant. I disagree with a lot of people on the subject, but at least have the class to debate politely and without personal attacks.

Shralp, I'm sorry if my comments offended or hurt you. Everyone is entitled to their own opinoin, and my comments were not aimed specifically at you.

However, I still get a sick feeling when I see you treating homosexuality as a disease, of which one can 'recover.' You also mentioned someone who is 'trying homosexuality.' Homosexuality is not a temporary condition. It is not an error. It is how people are.

It is a terrible, ignorant generalization for you to say that homosexuality is developed when someone is abused, etc. What the truth is, is that many homosexuals are abused *because* of other people's unwillingness to accept them as NORMAL.

Once again, lefthandedness is far from the norm. The English language is strucutured so right-handed people can pull their hand across the paper, making it easier to write for the majority of the population to write. And there has *never* been a case of a 'recovering left-hander.'

P.S.: I am not calling you ignorant, although I feel some of your statements have been.

[ September 10, 2002, 22:07: Message edited by: SlimShogun ]

Take the time to get to know someone who's decided to become homosexual. Every time you will discover that that person has been sexually abused, had a screwed up relationship with one or both parents, or is trying homosexuality just to rebel against what is normal.-I'm more or less a homosexual. I've done hours upon hours of research on the subject because for a time I too thought it was pathological and frequently wanted to kill myself due to the shame of my "disorder".

However. If you read studies done on homosexuals (may it be psychological, genetic, or even psychotherapic) you'll soon see your statement is in fact very false.

On two counts. First, your presupposition that homosexuality is chosen is false. To say orientations are chosen is to say the natural one is bisexual and that heterosexuality (as mutually exclusive as homosexuality) is also chosen. In saying that you'd be going against the bulk of all medical research on sexuality so far known.

And those that do "choose" homosexuality are part of a radical anti-heteronormative sociological organization whose name eludes me (but I will look up and link you to later, hopefully). They choose to carry on homosexual relationships although this is not their orientation. Needless to say, most homosexuals are homosexuals because that is their orientation.

There is a gray area when bisexuals (like myself) have a large preference of one sex over the other. This is as unprofound as favorite color or flavor.

As for you theory of previous sexual abuse or bad relationships with parents, I will look up the title of a good psychotherapy study that documented these theories. None of them were found to be true among lesbians or male homosexuals.

The theory of the parent is Fruedian in origin and is for the most part in modern psychiatry discredited.

If you go to www.psych.org (http://www.psych.org) you can read the American Psychological Association's official statements on homosexuality. It (and ego-dystonic homosexuality) have long been off the books. (1972 for homosexuality and about a decade later for ego-dystonic homosexuality.)

I'm quite a bit older than most of you posting in this thread. I've known and been friends with more homosexuals than you have probably even met. I am neither ignorant not hateful.-You need not be either to be wrong. I have been friends with more homosexuals, bisexuals, and heterosexuals than I'm sure you could boast. This doesn't make either of us an authority on homosexuality, bisexuality, or heterosexuality.

But it is obvious that homosexuality is a disorder, just as it was classifed for decades by the APA (which changed its ruling when homosexual activists managed to climb into its hierarchy; the APA is now contemplating making "religious rigidity" a clinical disorder, so that should give you some idea of the direction that organization is heading).-Since when are you an authority on the credibility of the APA?

Of course it is not normal for a man to desire another man physically. "Normal" is a relative term, and even the most ardent homosexual activists claim that only 13% or so of the general population is homosexual. That means that the other 87% are the normal ones. Look up the term "norm."-It is generally conceded that throughout history the consistent percentage of homosexuals is anywhere from 5-10%, whereas other genetic mutations such as left-handedness show a similiar consistency of 8%. I say genetic mutation because links have been found (by the NIH) between homosexuality and the length of a gene from the mother. (Shorter in gay men and longer in gay women, if I remember correctly.)

And the biological evidence for homosexuality is far from conclusive. It may well end up like alcoholism -- there are genes that mean you're more likely to be an alcoholic, but treatment and self-control can prevent it.-You don't know many alcoholics, do you? Hehe, kidding. That aside, this conservative argument has long lost its steam.

Most traits are based on a "genetic predisposition" and this relates to the evolutionary biology concept of "reaction norm". Reaction norm is the general balance between the genes you are given and how they are used within your enviroment-- whether or not they stay latent.

I see no reason to prevent some people from becoming homosexual. As this has been a long-occuring mutation within the population and has caused no discernable harm (a benign trait with no ties to other traits) I see no reason to prevent it or wipe it out. But that would lead to an philosophical ethical discussion of eugenics, which we can switch to another topic for should you feel so inclined.

Any way you slice is, homosexuality is an activity. Your genes do not demand you stick your plug in the wrong socket. You voluntarily do that yourself. It's not like eye color, something you have no choice but to accept. It's something you do.-Homosexual sex is an activity, yes. I'd recommend it personally, but hey, kazhdy drochit kak on kochet (everyone is used to what they like). The homosexual orientation, however, is not. You see, you oversimplify human sexuality, so your logic is flawed.

And there are many documented cases of people recovering from homosexuality. Look up the organization PFOX, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays. There's another group called Exodus that helps people recover from the homosexual lifestyle as well.-That is a lie. I am deeply sorry I have to say that, but I'm afraid I must. The results of reparative therapy are classified in several different categories:
1. Suicide.
2. Depression.
3. Embaressing failure. Ex-ex-gays.
4. The creation of "asexuals".
5. The conversion of bisexuals by shock therapy or strict religious willpower to only express their heterosexual attractions.

I also must point out that there are no clinical studies of so-called "reparative therapy" and that all results are anecdotal and without scientific basis. The APA has officially stated their rightful disapproval of such things.

Please. If you wish to respond to me, don't stoop to calling names or claiming I'm ignorant. I disagree with a lot of people on the subject, but at least have the class to debate politely and without personal attacks.-Just because you have class does not mean you may demand my respect. Seeing as I have dedicated years to the study and understanding of my own sexuality, and of human sexuality in general I find it offensive you could be so incorrect and so pointedly self-righteous.

That being said, thanks for giving me an opportunity to respond to common misconceptions held by the general public. Your misestimations of the issue are someone else's realizations of the truth. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, not the orientation, preference, or action thereof. I hope someday you have the humility to see that. Thank you again.

Edit: Quote tags. "qiote" Hehe.

[ September 10, 2002, 22:18: Message edited by: Kooran ]

Take the time to get to know someone who's decided to become homosexual. Every time you will discover that that person has been sexually abused, had a screwed up relationship with one or both parents, or is trying homosexuality just to rebel against what is normal.I beg to differ. My sister is a lesbian, and she has never been sexually, mentally, or physically abused. She also had a great relationship with our parents (had, because both are deceased - and she was out of the closet before either one passed, so you can't use that either).

As far as rebelling against what is normal, define normal. Then apply that definition to another country or culture (and at any time throughout history) and compare it to yours. You'll find that what may be normal for one group, may be abhorrent to another, and vice versa. Some cultures think it's normal to drop a baby down a well simply because it was born female, others think it's normal to perform genital mutilation. Still others think it's normal to add a "u" in color, humor, favor, etc. Try this: gamers are not "normal"...they're still in the minority compared to non-gamers. Maybe someone should send you (or all of us) to one of those "deprogramming camps" to cure you of your abnormal obsession with playing computer games.

My sister has been openly gay for 12 years (she's 28 now) and has been with her partner for 10 of those years. They're even "married" - not legally, of course, but a ceremony was performed by an ordained minister, and they consider themselves married.

Whether homosexuality is genetic, caused by abuse, or just simply a lifestyle choice, what difference does it make? It's not like the majority of gays are actively attempting to turn straights into gays. They just want some rights, and to not be persecuted for what they are. I think there were others who wanted - and got - the same thing...blacks, women, children, and so on.

Incidentally, I didn't participate in the poll, since there's more to the issue than just "good or bad".

As for those who said they'd punch out a gay for hitting on them: Assuming you're male and you only like beautiful women, if an ugly woman asked you to dance, would you punch her? Maybe we should let that gorgeous girl you've been asking out (who keeps declining) punch you out. I've been asked to dance, or whatever, by many guys (I'm male, BTW), and my usual answer is, "Thanks, but no thanks. I'm straight, but not narrow-minded." Just remember that *you* will be the one going to jail for punching the guy/gal, not him/her.

[ September 10, 2002, 22:44: Message edited by: MaxxQ1 ]

Slimshogun on Shralp:

"P.S.: I am not calling you ignorant, although I feel some of your statements have been."

I feel that is awfully restrained of you...

That's putting it lightly...

Your genes do not demand you stick your plug in the wrong socket. You voluntarily do that yourself. Shralp, try to empathize for a moment....for any reason, be it sexual molestation as a child, parental issues, or rebellion.... could you ever voluntarily choose to participate in homosexual acts?

Sexual acts are animalistic and instinctive. Tendencies towards preference are inherent from a very young age. Humans are curious from as early as two years old about sexuality... without fully understanding what it is. I have known twins who are homosexual, as well as adults who say that as early as the age of 5, knew that they didn't like the opposite sex "that way." I do not understand how those certain circumstances are possible without genetics, considering that there is the lack of pre-requisites to becoming homosexual as stated earlier.

If it isn't already understood, it should also be important to realize that most opinions come from religious beliefs. Homo and heterosexuals battle with the fact that the bible states that homosexuality is a sin. To some who believe it is genetic... find it hard to believe that something you're not in control of can be a sin. As others believe people are in control of their sexuality, understand that perfectly.

Okay, I know several gay men. with only 1 exception, none were abused, they get along with their parents fine, and came to the realization that they were homosexual well after the "rebellious" part of their lives. All of then dated women, and still find women beautiful, but they prefer the sexual attentions of men.
No, homosexuality is not the norm. It is also not unnatural. All animal species have homosexual populations, so I'm not surprised we humans do as well.

And there has *never* been a case of a 'recovering left-hander.' Actually, my mother, who is naturally left-handed, was forced to learn to write with her right hand in school.... just needed to say that.

Ara
(Hmm... need more space in my head...)

But ask your mother if she can write as naturally or as well with her right hand. Most left-handers are beaten into being ambidexterous, I know my chemistry teacher and stepdad had this happen. If you ask them, they'll say it impaired their ability to write with either hand well. Very similiar to the results of "reparative therapy" in homosexuals. Cheers, though.

...and the japanese still encourage children to use their right hand even if they're naturally right-handed. i think it's a tradition based on the advantage of using the right hand for brush calligraphy (which has persisted despite younger generations rarely using calligraphy).

btw, alot :rolleyes: of you are confusing genetic predisposition with the expressed phenotype (and norms of reaction), especially Kooran...

Most traits are based on a "genetic predisposition" and this relates to the evolutionary biology concept of "reaction norm". Reaction norm is the general balance between the genes you are given and how they are used within your enviroment-- whether or not they stay latent.
no. if a hypothetical 'homosexuality gene' (e.g. one increasing testosterone levels) can be influenced by the environment after birth ('latent'), it would be possible to influence sexuality at later stages of life (e.g. you could suppress testosterone levels after puberty to stop a person being gay). which is ridiculous, as many of you have pointed out, homosexuality is probably a polygenic characteristic.

I see no reason to prevent some people from becoming homosexual. As this has been a long-occuring mutation within the population and has caused no discernable harm (a benign trait with no ties to other traits) I see no reason to prevent it or wipe it out. :grin: that one made me laugh. firstly, homosexuality is detrimental to the individual who is gay. as they are unwilling to reproduce, their complement of genes are not inherited by the next generation. homosexuals are evolutionary dead-ends, with a fitness value of zero. So to a population, being gay does cause harm- the investment of various resources has gone into a gay individual that will not contribute as much to population growth as an actively-reproducing straight individual. secondly, being gay probably arises form the combination of any number of mutant genes, which are fundamentally 'tied' (linked) to others- themselves. the genes that give rise to homosexuality are genes essential to development, otherwise positive natural selection would have weeded them out.

evolutionary geneticist :square:

Xen, pardon my being graphic, but when Bubba bends over and yells "put it in, big boy!" I have a choice. I can voluntarily commit a homosexual act, or I can be sensible and keep my member out of places it doesn't belong. It's voluntary.

You can argue that their is an urge that arises without consent, but the action itself is entirely under my control. Unless it's, like, a prison shower scene or something. Then you just gotta go with the moment.

the god--
no. if a hypothetical 'homosexuality gene' (e.g. one increasing testosterone levels) can be influenced by the environment after birth ('latent'), it would be possible to influence sexuality at later stages of life-Not necessarily. The idea of a reaction norm is the mix of the enviromental factors and the genetic ones influencing development. That doesn't mean they can be suddenly changed.

(e.g. you could suppress testosterone levels after puberty to stop a person being gay). which is ridiculous, as many of you have pointed out, homosexuality is probably a polygenic characteristic.-There is no evidence that it is. The evidence we have is it is the length of a single gene and the mutuation is probably from a hormonal imbalance in the mother during early pregnancy.

that one made me laugh. firstly, homosexuality is detrimental to the individual who is gay. as they are unwilling to reproduce, their complement of genes are not inherited by the next generation.-Gay people can have children but not naturally. And if you want to measure everyone by their genetic worth, as I said, start a new topic discussing Mengala's eugenics because that's the road we're heading down.

homosexuals are evolutionary dead-ends, with a fitness value of zero. So to a population, being gay does cause harm- the investment of various resources has gone into a gay individual that will not contribute as much to population growth as an actively-reproducing straight individual.-That's not true. Those that can not produce whether it is by cirumstance (age), defect (infertility), or choice (and a smart one at that) are not useless to their population. If a population is only the sum of its genetic worth then we might as well start the genocide now.

secondly, being gay probably arises form the combination of any number of mutant genes, which are fundamentally 'tied' (linked) to others- themselves. the genes that give rise to homosexuality are genes essential to development, otherwise positive natural selection would have weeded them out.-There is absolutely no evidence for your assertion. None. De nada. Nyet. It should be understood that we know very little about how human personality develops. Obviously, wanting to have sex just serves an evolutionary need and in that light homosexuality transcends the physical purpose of sex.

And in that way, so does birth control, oral sex, anal sex in a heterosexual setting, and religious celibacy.

However, humans have choice. And considering there are upwards of six billion people on a drastically abused planet right now, I think it <i>is</i> in our best evolutionary interest to have a population check in place-- but a very, very small one at that.

Overall, "the god" your post had very little pertinence to it at all. You did a lot of talking and used impressive terms I learned in 9th grade Biology class, but you didn't make much of a point.

Shralp--
No reply to my post?

Xen, pardon my being graphic, but when Bubba bends over and yells "put it in, big boy!"-Don't do that.

I have a choice. I can voluntarily commit a homosexual act,-A homosexual act doesn't make you a homosexual just as a heterosexual act doesn't make you a heterosexual. Orientation and action can have very little to do with each other. You seem to continually miss this essential differentiation.

or I can be sensible and keep my member out of places it doesn't belong.-Your penis would enjoy being up a rectum as much as a vagina. The essential feeling of sex is the same. The rectum certainly wasn't designed for sex (the muscus membrane is too thin) but then again, neither was the mouth and I don't see you ragging on oral sex.

It's voluntary.-So is jumping off a cliff. Just because I jump off a cliff doesn't mean I am a cliffosexual.

You can argue that their is an urge that arises without consent, but the action itself is entirely under my control.-Of course. But what makes that action wrong? I still see no reason.

Unless it's, like, a prison shower scene or something. Then you just gotta go with the moment.-Your humor does nothing for me.

Shralp, you know that most homophobes are gay themselves?!?

like, a prison shower scene or something Can you pick up the soap? Please? :D

[ September 11, 2002, 22:35: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

Shralp, your snide humour can't help you this time, big boy. I'd really like to see you respond to what MaxxQ1, Kooran, and I have said.

Shralp, you know that most homophobes are gay themselves?!?-Studies have verified that long-held suspicion. Homophobic men are more sexually aroused (faster, more, and for longer) than unhomophobic men by homosexual porn.

I can even tell you personally I feel it's true. In the times I thought homosexuality was pathological (and had long realized I weren't straight mkay) I went through a phase of rather profound self-hatred, depression, and forced "straightness".

There were moments I wanted to physically harm or even kill other gay people I met. Since I had never had the desire to kill another human being before in my life that's when I started to really investigate what my options were-- reparative therapy or acceptance.

I can't explain how fierce that hatred is, either. You need to be there feeling it to understand I think. And until you have been, don't pretend to sympathize.

Shralp, then why do some men beat their heads against shower walls after having sex with a woman they really really wish they hadn't had sex with? ;)

[ September 12, 2002, 04:03: Message edited by: Xenecor ]

How I laughed at the god's post and your response, Kooran. More proof biologists should not be let out in public.

Just as you felt compelled to respond when you saw dubious information on something you happen to know a lot about (homosexuality), Kooran, the god just had to set you straight on your shaky grasp of genetics. And now I'll get my oar in.

You know, don't you, that all that about evolutionary dead ends isn't a *value judgement*? The idea that a homosexuality allele (form of a gene) could be just another neutral genetic variant, like brown hair instead of black, is ridiculous -- unless the "gay allele" did something *else* too that furthered survival or reproduction, it would die out of a population. It could be polygenic (determined by the interaction of several genes) -- but who cares?

What I am doing *right now* is far more unnatural than licking some other woman's vulva. I'm smoking a cigarette and typing on a computer keyboard. No genes can justify this. Do they have to? What, really, about our lives is *natural*?-- if the African savannas are the venue by which appropiate human behavior is judged -- we are all highly deviant.

Which is fine by me. Nice comments about homophobes -- how true. I daresay some of what goes on in my bedroom would curl Shralp's hair, too -- and I'm straight.

The God - Your idea that there couldn't be a "gay gene" (a single one) is interesting. There was an idea that there was such a gene, but that it could be incomplete dominance - that having one copy of it would increase the fitness of the indiviual, and two would result in the associated phenotype. You know your Mendel!

Do I believe it? No, but frankly, who cares. This is not a subject that requires serious thought, any more than establishing the genetics of lefthandedness does.

As for Shralp's request that he shouldn't be insulted for having such, frankly, noxious views. I don't think that anyone coming onto these boards and insulting a given race in such a way would expect to be given such a concession. It is embarrassing that people hold views such as his, I believe that such ignorance should not be tolerated with some of the *extreme* understanding that has been shown on this topic.

(PS MethylViolet - smoking cigarrette? memetic evolution perhaps ;) )

[ September 12, 2002, 12:39: Message edited by: Christopher_Lee ]

MethylViolet--
Fair enough. Just don't say you laughed though, you don't need to be condescending, it makes it harder to admit I was wrong.

Apparantly, I'm 33% gay according to that test.

I think that may explain my feminine side of actually thinking before acting ... heck!

Ah well i know the truth and i'm 67% hetrosexual :)

Yeah, sure enough, I got attacked. Go figure. Christopher Lee, it's probably better if you just don't respond to any of my posts since you seem to sling insults rather than respond with logic.

On the APA: You (Kooran?) say that there have been no clinical studies done of reparative therapy. Then you say that the APA disapproves. That doesn't say much for the APA, does it?

Methyl, don't make quite so many assumptions about what would or wouldn't offend me. You don't know me, and you're resorting to the personal attacks that I offended you with earlier on the boards. I thought we'd come so far since then. :1eye: Your statement that what's best is not necessarily what is natural is dead-on, BTW.

Most responses to me have fallen into one of two camps: Either pointless name-calling or just resorting to the tired old "it's natural, not a choice" line.

The bottom line is that we don't know what causes homosexuality. Methyl did a good job of explaining some of the genetic theory and gave me some good food for thought. But it is still very much an open question in the scientific community. There were several comments to the effect that science has no proof that homosexuality is merely a choice. Guess what, kids? There is also no proof that homosexuality is not a mere choice. Ya know why? Because there's no proof either way.

Given that it is still an open question, why is it that I, who think -- without conclusive proof -- it is something that people choose to do, am called ignorant, homophobic, etc. while you who think it is genetic -- without conclusive proof -- are righteous defenders of the oppressed? I have not said and do not think that homosexuals are evil. I have not said and do not think they're all going to Hell. I have said and continue to maintain that anal "sex" (I reserve the term sex solely for vaginal intercourse -- which doesn't give you license to assume that I think all other...erm...activities are wrong in themselves) is completely unhealthy, unnatural, and should never, ever be done.

I also maintain that homosexual feelings are a disorder, just as your vaunted APA taught for decades before homosexual activists quite cannily got into positions of influence within the APA.

As to the outrage over my claim that people become homosexual due to the reasons I listed: I really can't disprove your particular case studies without knowing a lot more about the people you speak of. And I've heard too many people make the same claims only to discover they were covering something up to simply take you two at your word.

I get a kick out of people calling me a homophobe. joacqin, speak up for me and tell them that my actions in the chatroom show me as anything other than a homophobe. :1eye: Have Extremist dig up some of the old posts between him and me. (Start with the one entitled "I love Extremist.") Hell, I was so androgynous in chat at first that Tal had to ask me my gender.

Naturally, you armchair crusaders for homosexuality will now start thinking I'm hiding something and am really a homosexual myself. Yawn. SS, DD.

http://www.manifestation.org/~ill/images/funny/pics.php?show=gayalarm.gif

[ September 12, 2002, 20:53: Message edited by: Shralp ]

Shralp, old boy. No one is upset as too wether it is genetic or a choice... I think people are more bothered as to your saying things like "I also maintain that homosexual feelings are a disorder".

That is not a healthy attitude to take to someones "choice" (as you put it).

IMHO, there is a difference between homophily (sp?) and homosexuality.
I think we have been speaking about homophily here.
Homophily is something you can't change. You just like people of your own gender, that's all, and nothing's wrong with that.

Homosexuality is something you choose for. You choose to have a relationship with an other (probably) homophil.
That's when things like religion and others come in mind.
Christians (most of them) accept the fact that someone is attracted to the same gender (homophily). But many of them are having troubles with homosexuality, and maybe I do, too. That doesn't mean that I am having troubles with homosexuals. They can do what they want, it's their choice. It's just the way of living I can't cope with, not their person.
Other religions go a step further: A few months ago, homophily was called a communicable disease, by an Imam. I reject that.

I hope I made my point clear and hope you understand me: I don't mind if people are straight, homophil or homosexual.

One more thing: I only have one entrance, which is for food. And I don't stick carrots up my ...

My first post in five hundred years and already I'm annoying people.

No, no -- Kooran! I didn't laugh at *you* -- I laughed because the god, like all biologists, talked about genetics in this blunt and dispassionate way that normal people take offense at, as you seemed to do. Any scientist talking about fitness or evolution or survival would not imply that one gene or outcome is *better* than another -- concepts of good/bad are irrelevant to science -- any more than a chess expert would say that a queen is *better* than a knight. So while a normal person might reasonably conclude that the god is against homosexuality, I didn't conclude that at all -- he was just setting you straight on how genetics works. This goes to show why biologists spend so much time in the lab -- they're a danger to themselves and others in the real world. I see it all the time, I *do* it all the time, and it cracks me up.

No offense meant to you, of course, the god -- only the warmest fellow-feeling.

And Shralp, I respect your courage in coming out with beliefs that a lot of people share but are too cowardly to own -- as always. My remark was intended as a gentle reminder that the anal sex you ridicule is not limited to homosexual couples.

LOL!!

-So is jumping off a cliff. Just because I jump off a cliff doesn't mean I am a cliffosexual. I needed a good laugh, thanks!

Homosexuality IS a sin. God commands us not to participate in it. Homosexuality is NOT acceptable. On the other hand, I pray that all homosexuals will see the truth. I'm not out to stone them, but I refuse to see anything as acceptable when God does not. Those "Christian" officials who condone this lifestyle need to study the Word more carefully and develop a relationship with Christ. Those "scientists" who say homosexuality isn't the choice of the person - it's all in the genes - need more education. There is no research that proves a person is a homosexual because of his genes any more than there is research that proves a person is a murderer because of his genes.

Stand for right.

Flamers need not respond because I will not be reading this thread.

:flaming: (in the words of johnny storm) :grin:

yep, biologists should be locked-up, restrained with gagging-orders and possibly prevented from breeding (we, too, might as well have 0 fitness). :evil:

just as methylviolet said- i was just trying to be informative is all, kooran. no hard feelings ;) (unless of course people check-out your picture :love: )

that stuff about a 'gay gene' was just a hypothetical i remember from the furore that arose when e.o. wilson suggested it (though he's often quoted out-of-context). though i get the impression your response was tongue-in-cheek. :p

Well, time to drop my two cents. I personally have nothing against homosexuals, as long as they don't start to bother me. I have friends, colleagues and such who are homosexuals, and I don't avoid them or treat them "abnormal" or anything. And I agree there's a number of "natural homosexuals". However, you can't deny the fact that there are instances where this homosexuality is not "natural", but rather resulting from child abuses, tragic past experience with the opposite sex and such. It's wrong to say all homosexuals are result of some unnatural cause, but it's also wrong the deny the fact that some homosexuals are in fact result from past tragic experiences and could be "cured" in some way and leading happy "normal life".

I think recently this issue has gone to way of the feminists, that they are a bit overdoing it claiming all homosexuals are natural and can never be changed.

And yup lefthandedness can be changed, and actually a lot of parents here try to change their left-handed children from early ages with great successes. It's nothing to do with "mistreatment" or "burning at stakes", but rather for a easier time in their future lives, as noted by someone above that toady's languages and a lot of devices are designed to be utilized by right-hand people better. And I know some firend who were lefthand when they were very young and changed to righthand and no they are not unhappy or depressed or anything using their righthands, they do not feel any difficulty and they write and work as well as we "natural righthanders".

And Lastly, and probably most importantly, "natural homosexuality" is indeed a genetic disorder. There's no denying that. Yup maybe it can't be cured and certainly it don't pose any danger to people around them (no more than "normal people" at least). Let's take it this way, does a tiny non-dangerous tumor a disease? Yes it doesn't hurt the person nor does it hurt the society, it doesn't pose any danger at all, but still it's a disease.

And let's analyze homosexuality in a biological way. First, homosexuals have a lesser chance to mate with opposite sex, that means, their genes have a lesser chance to reproduce. And that's a fact, and that means the genes are defective, or mutated, or not normal, whatever way you wish to put it. That's nothing to do with society or anything, just strict biological sense, genes which prevent itself to reproduce are not good. so in that sense homosexuality could be compared to non-fertility, which is considered a genetic disease.

So unless we start to clone people and no longer base our reproduction method as mating of opposite sexes, homosexuality should be treated as a genetic disorder if you ask me.

Of course we shouldn't force them to "cure" this disease if they don't wish to. And we should never mistreat them.

PS: One intrinsic problem about homosexuality that I know of is that I know some lesbians who want to have children, however currently the only options are to adopt one or use sperm banks, but the problem is that way the child is not "their own". The child lacks some "instinctive genetic links" to one or both of his/her parents. So unless we allow them clone a child from their cells, they could not be really happy in this case.

EDIT: for the vote, I voted I don't care. since I'm not a homopsexual, homosexual related problem don't really concern me, unless they try to start a relationship with me... but then I think my gf'd shred them apart...

[ September 12, 2002, 19:05: Message edited by: alighter ]

Kull--
Homosexuality IS a sin. God commands us not to participate in it. Homosexuality is NOT acceptable. On the other hand, I pray that all homosexuals will see the truth. I'm not out to stone them, but I refuse to see anything as acceptable when God does not.-It's unfortunate you can't think for yourself, then.

Those "Christian" officials who condone this lifestyle need to study the Word more carefully and develop a relationship with Christ.-Perhaps it is you who needs a better study of the bible. The word for homosexual didn't even exist in ancient times, the closest word they had for it was a male prostitute. And as for Christ, he never spoke a word on homosexuals.

Those "scientists" who say homosexuality isn't the choice of the person - it's all in the genes - need more education. There is no research that proves a person is a homosexual because of his genes any more than there is research that proves a person is a murderer because of his genes.-You're wrong on both counts. There isn't "proof" beyond a reasonable doubt, but there is reasonable evidence both for a gay gene and for an assemblage of traits in brain activity (geneticly formed, it is assumed) that are linked with an indifferent personality capable of murder.

Stand for right.-Whilst you are quite self-righteous, you weren't the one who put "right" in that word.

Flamers need not respond because I will not be reading this thread.-I am not different from you, so don't flatter yourself by giving me an insulting title.

the god--
-Fair enough. And I never said biologists should be locked up and in retrospect I'm sorry I so wrongly came across as strawmaning biologists as badly as I did. Forgive me that, that is not usually how I argue and I'm embaressed I got so emotional.

(And thanks for calling me cute.)

alighter--

Well, time to drop my two cents. I personally have nothing against homosexuals, as long as they don't start to bother me.-Why? Are you so sexually insecure that you can't handle the thought of a man thinking you're attractive?

I have friends, colleagues and such who are homosexuals, and I don't avoid them or treat them "abnormal" or anything. And I agree there's a number of "natural homosexuals".-That's kind of you.

However, you can't deny the fact that there are instances where this homosexuality is not "natural", but rather resulting from child abuses, tragic past experience with the opposite sex and such.-The way you put it, I can deny it, actually.

It's wrong to say all homosexuals are result of some unnatural cause, but it's also wrong the deny the fact that some homosexuals are in fact result from past tragic experiences and could be "cured" in some way and leading happy "normal life".-If homosexuality is a psychological defense mechanism to them then they are not homosexual, it is as simple as that. Did you heterosexuality blossom as a defense mechanism becuase you had bad previous relations with men?

I think recently this issue has gone to way of the feminists, that they are a bit overdoing it claiming all homosexuals are natural and can never be changed.-What do the feminists have to do with this? Yes, they support civil rights and obviously, they sympathize with sexuality. This doesn't mean there is a militant lesbian conspiracy among the feminists.

And yup lefthandedness can be changed, and actually a lot of parents here try to change their left-handed children from early ages with great successes. It's nothing to do with "mistreatment" or "burning at stakes", but rather for a easier time in their future lives, as noted by someone above that toady's languages and a lot of devices are designed to be utilized by right-hand people better.-Where's your evidence for that? I've never seen it done with "great success". And again, it could then be argued they were simply ambidexterous and had a preferential hand.

And I know some firend who were lefthand when they were very young and changed to righthand and no they are not unhappy or depressed or anything using their righthands, they do not feel any difficulty and they write and work as well as we "natural righthanders".-What hand I write with is not an elemental part of my being charged with desire, love, intimacy, and the complexity of emotion.

And Lastly, and probably most importantly, "natural homosexuality" is indeed a genetic disorder. There's no denying that. Yup maybe it can't be cured and certainly it don't pose any danger to people around them (no more than "normal people" at least).-Realisticly, we still do not know enough about the origins of sexuality to claim what is natural. OBVIOUSLY heterosexual sex is the most productive and would be encouraged in our genetics but few of our close ape cousins are strictly heterosexual, either. Why decide that only having heterosexual relations is what is most healthy?

Let's take it this way, does a tiny non-dangerous tumor a disease? Yes it doesn't hurt the person nor does it hurt the society, it doesn't pose any danger at all, but still it's a disease.-I thought a disease needed to be harmful to be a disease. A benign tumor is just that, a benign tumor.

And let's analyze homosexuality in a biological way. First, homosexuals have a lesser chance to mate with opposite sex, that means, their genes have a lesser chance to reproduce.-No chance, I should think. That doesn't mean they can't have children however. Lesbians often have artificial insemination.

And that's a fact, and that means the genes are defective, or mutated, or not normal, whatever way you wish to put it. That's nothing to do with society or anything, just strict biological sense, genes which prevent itself to reproduce are not good. so in that sense homosexuality could be compared to non-fertility, which is considered a genetic disease.-Infertility. Non-fertility suggests choice, infertility is the inability to breed. Homosexuals don't need to pass on their genes to create more homosexuals and although, obviously, it's not fun for your DNA to never travel, that doesn't render you useless to society or even useless biologically to your population.

So unless we start to clone people and no longer base our reproduction method as mating of opposite sexes, homosexuality should be treated as a genetic disorder if you ask me.-I don't ask you.

Of course we shouldn't force them to "cure" this disease if they don't wish to. And we should never mistreat them.-I don't see my orientation as a disease. I'm not a victim of my genetics. I'm happy this way, and I bet I'd be happy straight if that'd been the case. There's nothing wrong with homosexuality (or bisexuality in my case) so why should the issue of its treatment even be considered?

PS: One intrinsic problem about homosexuality that I know of is that I know some lesbians who want to have children, however currently the only options are to adopt one or use sperm banks, but the problem is that way the child is not "their own". The child lacks some "instinctive genetic links" to one or both of his/her parents. So unless we allow them clone a child from their cells, they could not be really happy in this case.-The lesbian parents I've met (two sets of them, so far) are quite happy. Not everyone has the undying desire to pass on their lineage.

EDIT: for the vote, I voted I don't care. since I'm not a homopsexual, homosexual related problem don't really concern me, unless they try to start a relationship with me... but then I think my gf'd shred them apart...-Yeah, it's reasonable to not care if people aren't being given their rights as long as you aren't one of those people.

continued...

On the APA: You (Kooran?) say that there have been no clinical studies done of reparative therapy. Then you say that the APA disapproves. That doesn't say much for the APA, does it?-Allow me to clarify. Those who promote reparative therapy have no clinical studies to back up their hypothesis on the causes or cures of homosexuality. That is why the APA does not support it.

Most responses to me have fallen into one of two camps: Either pointless name-calling or just resorting to the tired old "it's natural, not a choice" line.-It is unfair to simplify everything I said into such a pathetically unencompassing statement. This is the framework for what's called a "strawman" argument. Observe.

The bottom line is that we don't know what causes homosexuality. Methyl did a good job of explaining some of the genetic theory and gave me some good food for thought. But it is still very much an open question in the scientific community. There were several comments to the effect that science has no proof that homosexuality is merely a choice. Guess what, kids? There is also no proof that homosexuality is not a mere choice. Ya know why? Because there's no proof either way.-So if that's the bottom line why do you insist it is a disorder? You are contradicting yourself. And I disagree that that's the bottom line, in any case.

Given that it is still an open question, why is it that I, who think -- without conclusive proof -- it is something that people choose to do, am called ignorant, homophobic, etc. while you who think it is genetic -- without conclusive proof -- are righteous defenders of the oppressed?-I am not a righteous defender of anything. This is another strawman. (I'm counting now: 2)

You are not homophobic because there is no such thing. Calling ignorance a phobia is a misnomer. I associate it much closer to racism and I don't do so without foundation.

I have not said and do not think that homosexuals are evil. I have not said and do not think they're all going to Hell. I have said and continue to maintain that anal "sex" (I reserve the term sex solely for vaginal intercourse -- which doesn't give you license to assume that I think all other...erm...activities are wrong in themselves) is completely unhealthy, unnatural, and should never, ever be done.-Anal sex is not the only homosexual act, nor is it one exclusively to homosexuality. Yes, it was not designed to have a penis stuck up it, but niether was a mouth. What makes one so much more unnatural than the other?

I also maintain that homosexual feelings are a disorder, just as your vaunted APA taught for decades before homosexual activists quite cannily got into positions of influence within the APA.-(Strawnman count: 3) It taught that based on a Freudian perspective of psychology and psychotherapy. They believed all homosexuals were gender inverts based on some of Freud's assumptions on the development of heterosexuality. Freud is no longer held up as true by the majority of psychologists-- whether they are APA members or not. Medical and scientific knowledge in general has room to evolve, change, and continuously improve -- this does not mean it is untrustable and incredible.

As to the outrage over my claim that people become homosexual due to the reasons I listed: I really can't disprove your particular case studies without knowing a lot more about the people you speak of. And I've heard too many people make the same claims only to discover they were covering something up to simply take you two at your word.-I understand that. I'll go to the library again tomorrow and find the title of the book so you may read it yourself. I think it was titled "Perspectives on Homosexuality" but that might've been another book.

I get a kick out of people calling me a homophobe. joacqin, speak up for me and tell them that my actions in the chatroom show me as anything other than a homophobe. Have Extremist dig up some of the old posts between him and me. (Start with the one entitled "I love Extremist.") Hell, I was so androgynous in chat at first that Tal had to ask me my gender.-Joking about sexuality doesn't make you unhomophobic.

Naturally, you armchair crusaders for homosexuality will now start thinking I'm hiding something and am really a homosexual myself. Yawn. SS, DD.-(Strawman: 4) I am not a crusader and my chair has no arms. Only you can know if you are a homosexual or not.

Master of Nuhn--
IMHO, there is a difference between homophily (sp?)-I have never heard anything remotely resembling the word homophily but I'm going to assume your meaning is homophilia-- like in the word pedophilia.

and homosexuality.
I think we have been speaking about homophily here.
Homophily is something you can't change. You just like people of your own gender, that's all, and nothing's wrong with that.-Well, you're on the right track distinguishing an orientation from an action, but your terms are a tad screwy.

Homosexuality is something you choose for. You choose to have a relationship with an other (probably) homophil.-Again, your terms make this impossible to respond to. I now have a feeling English isn't your first language.

That's when things like religion and others come in mind.
Christians (most of them) accept the fact that someone is attracted to the same gender (homophily). But many of them are having troubles with homosexuality, and maybe I do, too. That doesn't mean that I am having troubles with homosexuals. They can do what they want, it's their choice. It's just the way of living I can't cope with, not their person.-Why can't you cope with it? Homosexuals must cope with heterosexuals being allowed to be perfectly frank about their sexuality constantly. Homosexuals aren't a different species, either. And the "lifestyle" of a homosexual varies as much as that of a heterosexual.

Other religions go a step further: A few months ago, homophily was called a communicable disease, by an Imam. I reject that.

I hope I made my point clear and hope you understand me: I don't mind if people are straight, homophil or homosexual.-I don't see the difference between being a homosexual and a homophil(e) as you dubbed it. The orientation and the choice to act upon the orientation are not seperate orientations in and of themselves.

One more thing: I only have one entrance, which is for food. And I don't stick carrots up my ...-...*******.

[ September 12, 2002, 23:40: Message edited by: Kooran ]

DAMN! NOT AGAIN!

WHY CAN'T THIS BE OVER ?!

Leave people be!

No one tells you what type of life you should lead; except your parents, and even in that case you don't certainly like it.

If you think being gay is not good... your problem.

If you think being gay is good... your problem.

LET OTHERS LIVE AS THEY WANT DAMN IT!

NO ONE HAS TO HEAR COMPLAINS ABOUT WHAT THEY DO IF THEY DON'T HURT OTHERS !

You don't let anyone poke with your nose. Why do you mess with other's affairs in the first place?

Stop being moronic and learn to respect others, their culture, their language, their gender and their ideas.

Am I telling you how to spell? NO! Because I don't care!

Am I telling you not to be of certain religion because I think they are evil? NO! Because I don't care also.

Will you accept me telling you to pop your eyes off because you read too much profanities? Of course not!

See, I honestly don't give a **** if you or anyone likes me or not or likes what I think or not or likes what I do or not, I will be myself regardless of you or any other because I don't need whinnies; I need constructive people.

See, it's a nice I don't care -- you don't care game we all should play when we are about to flame other people just because they are different!

Homosexuality is a sin? C'mon you ***** ******** ******* ******** **** !!

Didn't you knew Alexander, Florence Nightingale, and SO MANY others were homosexuals and aided mankind to be what is today ??!! In that case you should NEVER step in a hospital or take certain medicine because are prescribed by a gay that does't dress like you and the first nurse was lesbian! SIN!

In fact MOST of the things you enjoy today are homosexual branded you little sinner! AND MOST of the great people in History IS homosexual you little ignorant!

P.S.:

Hey Methylviolet... Where have you been? We missed you as you can obviously see!

[ September 13, 2002, 02:33: Message edited by: Shadowhunter ]

I would like more information from you biologist types (Hi Ms Violet! Welcome back!) on exactly why it is dismissed as impossible that homosexual inclination is a neutral genetic characteristic from an evolutionary point of view. Infertility, OK, but homosexuality? That would only follow, as far as this layman understands, if the homosexually-inclined are considered unlikely to produce children, which doesn't hold much water from a historical point of view. Only 1st world women, and only in the last couple of decades, have really had much choice about getting married and bearing children. It has been the "only game in town" for almost everyone who's ever set foot on this earth, modern mores notwithstanding, and most homosexuals aren't so repelled by the opposite sex that it would have even occurred to them, in less open societies, to flout convention and family-based economies by remaining single. Witness, to take just one example, Oscar Wilde.

In ancient Athens women were treated like livestock, laughable as targets of romantic interest among most sophisticated men, and yet the few women who survived to adulthood in that inhospitable culture were passed around as wives from man to man, with serial divorce the norm. Society adapted to ensure each male citizen got sons- passion for the females who bore them had nothing to do with it.

I know a number of gay men who came of age in the sixties who *knew* they were gay and still got married & made babies because they felt it was expected of them. They certainly have no regrets about it now - a desire to become a parent is totally independent of the gender of the person we end up falling in love with. And now that I think about it, more of my lesbian friends have kids than my straight girlfriends. And none of this nonsense with turkey basters, they went out and found a willing old friend or a one-night stand, and then "lay back and thought about England" as the saying goes. Societally, I see no negative correlation whatsoever between likelihood of reproduction and attraction to the same sex.

If male homosexuality *is* genetically based, now that men and women alike have more lifestyle choices in the free world, isn't it possible that male homosexuality will now start to die out on its own with "gay pride" making it easier than ever for men who love men to choose women-free, baby-free lives? I can't imagine this will be true for women, though. I've never met a lesbian who wasn't baby-mad.

hehehe...my view on homosexuality is pretty twisted. Male + Male = Gross...not "bad" just gross Female + Female = hot, a major turn on! Male + Male + Female = lucky female Male + Female + Female = VERY lucky male!!! Male + Female + Another Female about once or twice a month = My current relationship (I love having a bi-sexual girlfriend) Male + Female = The only way this world will survive...not much "spice" but it works for the majorityI don't think I'll ever be gay...mainly because I don't think having a dick being rammed up my a** would fell that good. Would I try it? Possibly, it all depends on the circumstances, but if I *did* like it, I wouldn't go full blown gay...I love my g/f too much. :rolling:

-Why? Are you so sexually insecure that you can't handle the thought of a man thinking you're attractive?Well, I don't care if other males think I'm attractive or not, how ever I don't like the idea of them try to hit on me, neither.

If homosexuality is a psychological defense mechanism to them then they are not homosexual, it is as simple as that. Did you heterosexuality blossom as a defense mechanism becuase you had bad previous relations with men? Well, so we got different definitions of "homosexual" it seems. For me, there's the natural homosexual (or homophyl as someone stated earlier?) and the unnatural homosexual. So the same apply to heterosexuals. there are the natural ones and the unnatural ones (unnatural being "natural homosexuals" but maybe some tragic experience turn them into heterosexuals). And I myself I can assure you I'm a natural heterosexual. You still put it like if "some" homosexual could be the result of tragic past experiences, then my heterosexuality "must" come from tragic past experience too. However the keyword is "some". some homosexuals are unnatrual, and I don't deny that "some" heterosexuals could be unnatural. However I cleared don't belong to that "some". Also since in "the natural population" heterosexuals are more than homosexuals, the case of "unnatural heterosexuals" would be quite small. Lets' say for everyone there's 10% chance of having a tragic past experience which swayed his/her sexual preferences. so if 87% of people are natural heterosexuals, and 13% of people are natural homosexuals, then there would be 8.7% of people are unnatural homosexuals, and 1.3% of people are unnatural heterosexuals...

-Where's your evidence for that? I've never seen it done with "great success". And again, it could then be argued they were simply ambidexterous and had a preferential hand.So? the same could be argued that those homosexuals that could be "cured" are actually natural bisexuals, and just had a preferential sex... so changing them to heterosexuals just make them change their preferential sex thus they can reproduce better? ;)

-Infertility. Non-fertility suggests choice, infertility is the inability to breed. Homosexuals don't need to pass on their genes to create more homosexuals and although, obviously, it's not fun for your DNA to never travel, that doesn't render you useless to society or even useless biologically to your population.Well, as you stted earlier, since there's no clear evidence whether homosexuality is caused by genes, or a certain pattern of genes / genome or somehting totally different. But if it has anything related to genes/genome, it means the children of homosexuals (if that's possible...hmm.. maybe a lesbian get artificially inseminated by the sperm from a gay?) should be more likely to be homosexuals since they contain the genes/genome from their parents...

-I don't see my orientation as a disease. I'm not a victim of my genetics. I'm happy this way, and I bet I'd be happy straight if that'd been the case. There's nothing wrong with homosexuality (or bisexuality in my case) so why should the issue of its treatment even be considered?Hmmm... I'm not sure, I guess a lot of people just want some natural, normal grandchildren (especially in eastern culture) or that artifical insemination are considered an affront to God (especially in western culture). Speaking of which, why shouldn't we allow the homosexuals to make children from their own genes by the use of cloning technology? I see no reason why artificial insemination is allowed while clone is banned for the homosexuals. We can just get two eggs (or two sperms) from the homosexuals and make them a true child of their own.

-The lesbian parents I've met (two sets of them, so far) are quite happy. Not everyone has the undying desire to pass on their lineage.Not everyone, but "some". "some" is still the keyword here. So for some they have to either change their sexual preference or change their feeling for genetic links (as far as I can tell, this link is especially more present and stronger in females...) to be happy. But both aspects are natural and by your argument should not be changed, so are they the unfortunate one deemed to be unhappy? Of course all problems will be solved if we allow cloning technology used for homosexuals.

And lastly, there is a problem concerning adopted children. I mean, you seems to overestimate the power of instincts and natural factors and underestimate the power of outside influences and educations. Why people speak different languages? Why there are things called cultural differences? Why people have differnet religions and beliefs? Why some ancient cultures consider women to be no more than livestocks? That's not their intrinsic differences, but rather from the society and education and such. So a child adopted by homosexual parents, will there really be no problem at all for the child? I'm not sure on this issue myself though...

PS: sorry for the poor English but it's not my first language...

[ September 13, 2002, 08:28: Message edited by: alighter ]

I know Kull said he wasn't going to read this thread, (shame), so this is for ALL those who claim that Gods word is that homosexuality is a sin, an abomination, an evil and should not be tolerated by Christians. (Which includes my father I'm very sad to say although it's given us a few good wars of words so to speak)

The following may well not be a true story exactly, but the references are all correct, that much I've confirmed. I have a feeling it's been written to make a point, and imho it makes it beautifully:
---
Laura Schlesinger is a well known radio personality in the US who gives advice to callers.

A little while back she advised a caller referring to Leveticus [3rd book of Moses] 18:22, that homosexuality is an abomination and can therefore not be tolerated under any circumstances.

What follows is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by an anonymous American citizen.

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to teach people to live according to God’s laws. I have learnt a lot from you, and now I’m trying to share this knowledge with as many people as I am able. Should someone for example attempt to defend homosexuality, I just remind them that in Leveticus 18:22 it is clearly stated that homosexuality is an abomination. Nothing more to talk about there.

Now, however, I’m looking for some guidance as to how I should live according to God’s laws.

1. Every time I burn a bull as an offering , I know this shall be of a sweet savour unto the Lord. (Leveticus 1:9). I’m having a problem with the neighbours.

2. I wish to sell my daughter into slavery (Exodus [2nd book of Moses] 21:7). In today’s climate, what would be an appropriate price?

3. In Leveticus 25:44 it clearly states that I may keep slaves as long as they are bought from a neighbouring country. Now a friend of mine maintains that this is only true for Mexicans and not Canadians. This is where I need guidance. Can I own Canadians?

4. I have a neighbour who insists on working the sabbath. Exodus 35:2 is very clear on this, he should be killed. Am I morally responsible if I do this myself?

5. A friend of mine is of the opinion that even though it is an abomination to eat fish and shellfish (Leveticus 11:10), homosexuality is worse. I do not agree. Who is right?

6. In Leveticus 21:20 it clearly states that I must not approach God’s altar if I have poor eyesight. I have to admit that I’m short sighted and I use glasses. Must I have 20/20 vision, or do we have some margin here?

7. Most of my friends go to the hairdresser. They have their hair cut on the sides, and trim their sideburns. This is clearly a sin according to Leveticus 19:27. How should they be punished?

8.I have read in Leveticus 11:7-8 that I may not touch the remnants of a dead swine as it is unclean to me. Can I still play [American] football if I wear gloves?

9. My uncle has a farm. He sins against Leveticus 19:19 because he has more than one crop in the same field. His wife is no better as she wears clothes made from two different types of materials (a mixture cotton and polyester). He also swears a fair bit. Is it really necessary to gather the whole congregation to stone them to death (Leveticus 24:10-16)? Would it not be just as easy to burn them at a family gathering the same way as we do with people who sleep with their relatives (Leveticus 20:14)?

I know you have studied these sorts of problems in depth, so I’m sure you can help me. Thank you for reminding us that God’s words are unchangeable and forever.

With kind regards from a loyal disciple and fan.

---

In order to save any of you looking Leveticus 18:22 up, this is what it says: 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

This is the framework for what's called a "strawman" argument.No, actually. A strawman is the term for putting up fallacious (and usually easily disproven) arguments. You're arguing that I've reduced the arguments against me incorrectly. You're wrong, of course, but at least get your terms right.

So if that's the bottom line why do you insist it is a disorder? You are contradicting yourself. Not at all, actually. I think it's a disorder. I can't prove it scientifically, but then I'll wager that you believe all kinds of things that have no scientific proof of. That homosexuality is not a disorder, for instance.

I am not a righteous defender of anything. Well, ignoring the fact that my post was not aimed directly at you, I nonetheless disagree. No one else has taken up the pink triangle flag and ran with it like you have. You've taken the time to quote all objectors in several long posts. That, my friend, is something who thinks he's a righteous defender.

You are not homophobic because there is no such thing. Calling ignorance a phobia is a misnomer.Excellent point in the first part. Homophobia is a term usually applied incorrectly. Your reasons are wildly off, however. Of what fact am I ignorant? Please enlighten me -- it is your duty to your fellow man. In fact, this is the thing I most want you or someone on the pro-homosexual side to answer: Of what fact am I ignorant? I assume you're referring to scientifically proven facts, right? If not, you've just tipped your hand.

I associate it much closer to racism and I don't do so without foundation.Not even close. No one chooses his race. People choose to be homosexual. There is no fault in thinking someone has made a poor choice. I do the same for heterosexual infidelities, if it matters.

Interesting take on the APA decision, as Freud was falling out of favor at about that time IIRC. I don't recall my source for the claim that homosexual activists worked to overturn its classification as a disorder, but if I do come across the information again I'll update this thread.

Joking about sexuality doesn't make you unhomophobic.LOL. You really don't know what I was referencing here, so maybe you shouldn't draw any conclusions.

In the hope that Kull will read this:
You know that the church has strictly forbidden Dungeons & Dragons, so what are you doing here??

Anyways, back to the topic:
I don´t really care if somebody is gay, if he makes a pass at me, I´ll just say "thanks, but I´m straight". Instead of kicking his ***. (Yes Sniper I mean you)


Oh, and Viking, ROTFLMAO!!


[ September 13, 2002, 16:26: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

Well, ignoring the fact that my post was not aimed directly at you, I nonetheless disagree. No one else has taken up the pink triangle flag and ran with it like you have. You've taken the time to quote all objectors in several long posts. That, my friend, is something who thinks he's a righteous defender.-I'm a she. And to stand up for what you believe in is a far cry from "running with the pink triangle flag".

Which, by the way, is also a strawman. It can be given a broader definition applying to any caricturization (not that that's a word, mind you) that is dismissive or faceticious. Traditionally I admit some people give it more narrow criteria -- I hope I clarified.

You can paint me as the sterotypical "pro-homosexual" (who comes up with these euphemisms? it reminds me of similar conservative tripe - "pro-abortionist") with my pink triangle* flag and a flaming sword, but this is not how I am. I own not a single "pride" piece and I don't plan to.

Again, there is no evidence that homosexuals (those who have a mutually exclusive orientation of sexual desire for the same sex) choose this orientation.

(But to play along for a moment.)To say they choose is to say people are innately bisexual in which case the only argument for heterosexuality over homosexuality is reproduction. I respect your more liberal interpretation of human sexuality, but why you decide homosexuality isn't right for you isn't a reason for all humans (bisexuals) to choose heterosexuality. (Oh wait, you aren't a bisexual?)

Yet you contradict yourself by saying you believe it to be a disorder -- since disorders are, assumedly, not conscious choices.

Incidentally, homosexuality doesn't fit the criteria for a disorder. Disorders are defined as out of the normal range of variability in a population (http://www.psychiatry.cam.ac.uk/BMU/SEMINARS/store/20011016bullmore.ppt a definition from a BRITISH authority and not the APA) but since homosexuality has so long been a consistent variation in our species (at a steady 8%, apparently) how is it not a normal variation?

As for it not being genetically fiscal to be homosexual (I mean, I can't mate with another girl, and quite unfortunately, too)-- I am cognizant and I have developed a loyalty to my consciousness beyond simply that of the survival of my species. I have the freedom to pursue my happiness especially when it does no others harm and is natural to me.

Yes, the sex is "unnatural" -- all types beyond vaginal intercourse are but by that logic birth control and non-vaginal heterosexual intercourse are also unnatural. This does not mean the desire to have it (or the pleasure found therein) is unnatural. Most of our leisure activities and pleasures aren't designed for our genetic fitness, after all.

I always forget how complex it is to explain sexuality and how easily people will pigeon-hole it with black and white terms. It's not simple, it's not easily explainable, yet it deserves someone to truly take the time to explain it -- even if I do not always do that well, I am trying harder now. I am very sorry for any vague statements that led you to a false conclusion about my arguments.

*An interesting point of trivia on where that triangle comes from, if you didn't know, is the Nazi Germany death camps. Also interesting is that after the Allies rescued the imprisoned Jews the homosexuals were left behind, turning a blind eye to their continued torture and murder.

As a way of turning a symbol of atrocity into triumph over opression, the pink triangle is now used just has it is popular for African Americans to call each other "niggaz".

Well, I don't care if other males think I'm attractive or not, how ever I don't like the idea of them try to hit on me, neither.-Why not? Just say, "I'm straight, but thanks for thinking I'm cute" and go on with your life.

Well, so we got different definitions of "homosexual" it seems. For me, there's the natural homosexual (or homophyl as someone stated earlier?) and the unnatural homosexual. So the same apply to heterosexuals. there are the natural ones and the unnatural ones (unnatural being "natural homosexuals" but maybe some tragic experience turn them into heterosexuals).-That makes no sense.

And I myself I can assure you I'm a natural heterosexual. You still put it like if "some" homosexual could be the result of tragic past experiences, then my heterosexuality "must" come from tragic past experience too. However the keyword is "some". some homosexuals are unnatrual, and I don't deny that "some" heterosexuals could be unnatural. However I cleared don't belong to that "some". Also since in "the natural population" heterosexuals are more than homosexuals, the case of "unnatural heterosexuals" would be quite small. Lets' say for everyone there's 10% chance of having a tragic past experience which swayed his/her sexual preferences. so if 87% of people are natural heterosexuals, and 13% of people are natural homosexuals, then there would be 8.7% of people are unnatural homosexuals, and 1.3% of people are unnatural heterosexuals...-Still, you have so many contradicting, confused definitions or orientation, preference, and pathological preference or orientation that your argument makes no sense.

So? the same could be argued that those homosexuals that could be "cured" are actually natural bisexuals, and just had a preferential sex... so changing them to heterosexuals just make them change their preferential sex thus they can reproduce better?-Why change it if they're happy?

Well, as you stted earlier, since there's no clear evidence whether homosexuality is caused by genes, or a certain pattern of genes / genome or somehting totally different. But if it has anything related to genes/genome, it means the children of homosexuals (if that's possible...hmm.. maybe a lesbian get artificially inseminated by the sperm from a gay?) should be more likely to be homosexuals since they contain the genes/genome from their parents...-Studies have shown homosexual parents are more likely to have a child who is heterosexual than heterosexual parents are. Besides, the genetic evidence points to a mutuation during individual pregnancies -- not a gene that is passed on from the parent.

Hmmm... I'm not sure, I guess a lot of people just want some natural, normal grandchildren (especially in eastern culture) or that artifical insemination are considered an affront to God (especially in western culture). Speaking of which, why shouldn't we allow the homosexuals to make children from their own genes by the use of cloning technology? I see no reason why artificial insemination is allowed while clone is banned for the homosexuals. We can just get two eggs (or two sperms) from the homosexuals and make them a true child of their own.-Artificial insemination is extremely different from cloning. And your definition of cloning is in this language dramatically incorrect. I'm afraid the language barrier is going to make this discussion difficult if not impossible.

Not everyone, but "some". "some" is still the keyword here. So for some they have to either change their sexual preference or change their feeling for genetic links (as far as I can tell, this link is especially more present and stronger in females...) to be happy. But both aspects are natural and by your argument should not be changed, so are they the unfortunate one deemed to be unhappy? Of course all problems will be solved if we allow cloning technology used for homosexuals.-...What?

And lastly, there is a problem concerning adopted children. I mean, you seems to overestimate the power of instincts and natural factors and underestimate the power of outside influences and educations. Why people speak different languages? Why there are things called cultural differences? Why people have differnet religions and beliefs? Why some ancient cultures consider women to be no more than livestocks? That's not their intrinsic differences, but rather from the society and education and such. So a child adopted by homosexual parents, will there really be no problem at all for the child? I'm not sure on this issue myself though...-Again, studies done show despite some problems (caused by external homophobia) do not cause major problems for the children. They grow up healthy, well-adjusted, and for the most part, heterosexual.

PS: sorry for the poor English but it's not my first language...-Yeah, I'm afriad in a discussion with so many advanced English words in it you might not be able to properly participate. I don't think your thought was getting across as you wanted it to and I'm sorry we can't speak in the same language and understand each other better.

Why change it if they're happy?Since my English is poor let me try tackling on some simple matters. Although this question of yours will inevitably lead to other questions that are not so simple...

So your question is "Why change it if they are happy?" Well, what do you consider to be the meaning of our lives? Do we live to be happy? Do we live just to enjoy ourselves? Do we live to contribute to the society and a better good? Do we live to reproduce thus continue the human race? That's a question that no one can fully answer as far as I know.

So if you think we live so we could be happy, so we could enjoy our lives, then there's absolutely no reason to change. However if you think continuing our bloodlines is also one of the (many) reasons that we live, then changing to a heterosexual is preferable. I mean if a bisexual can live happily as a homosexual or as a heterosexual, however being a heterosexual means he/she has more chance to continue his/her bloodline, that could be a reason to change.

Of course that fully depends on what they think and their own desicions. I made it totally clear that I don't think we should try to change their sexual preferences if they themselves don't want to.

And I know a lot of Christians who thinks that artificial insemination an affront to God (of course some of them also think homosexuals are affront to God, so...) and you seems to draw the line between artificial insemination and cloning humans, while I think both are okay as long as they are not used for evil purposes.

PS: Kinda wonder how to say the technology that creates human fetus from two eggs or two sperms. Maybe it should not be called clone, but it's not really artificial insemination, so what should it be called?

After doing the celebrity test, I would say Homosexuality is definately good. As Joacqin so perfectly states. More for us straight ones :D

From a purely biological view - homosexuality has probably evolved out of necessity... there are too many humans living on the planet... victims of our own success in medical technology.

Homosexuality may well be a natural mechanism of nature to help decrease populations. It has been observed in other species such as chimps, dogs and birds.

Forget your fear fairy stories of the Bible, Qu'ran or any other outdated sexist racist homophobic nonsense of 'religion' (ugh!); simply accept it! At least 5%, probably 10% of people are gay in general... and in women, 40% have had some sort of lesbian/bisexual relationship by the time they are 30.

I am not gay, but I have one gay male friend and several bisexual female friends!
:D :rolleyes: :p

Hey Shadowhunter, hey Sprite! You are sweet to notice. I've been... disenchanted and ghosting but may now be back.

But if Kooran isn't going to read her pm's, I guess I'll post it here.
_______________________________
posted September 12, 2002 18:43
Dear Kooran:

In case you don't read the thread -- I wasn't laughing at you, only at the inability of biologists to make themselves understood by normal people. The god, I fancy, had no intention of coming out against homosexuality, nor do I. If it is a choice, it is a courageous one considering all the ignorance in the world. If it is inborn, it is still a courageous choice to stand up for who you are and to pursue happiness in the face of people who want everyone to be as loveless and unhappy as they are. (Why else would anyone worry where consenting adults find love?)

Young as you are, you've made that choice. Made it, knowing it to be a choice, as all our actions are. I decided to be straight only after exploring all my options, just as I decided to be an atheist after exploring the major religions. It is my belief that you can't knock it til you try it, but most people are too cowardly, I think, to do that.

Shralp has courage, too, which I respect -- but yours is greater. I had to let you know that. Far be it from *me* to condescend to *you*.

Methylviolet
_____________________

(Hey Methylviolet -- tell us what you really think!)

All this about genes is so irrelevant, in my view. Though I am a biologist, I will try to explain my views.

I myself express the Bigbutt phenotype, or physical characteristic affected by genes. This, while not a disorder, does certainly interfere at times with my success in mating. (Though not with Sir Mix-a-Lot.)

I also smoke, and am obnoxious -- two behavioral, non-genetic, characteristics that limit my pool of available mating partners.

However, unlike most of you, I have two healthy children who seem likely to survive to be fertile adults. So in biological terms,
Methylviolet: 2, Kull: 0.
As biologists see it, mine is a reproductively successful collection of genes. Therefore, I am a wonderful person and a credit to humanity, and all of you should be just like me.

Oh -- wait.

The god is sending me a psychic IM.

He says that reproductive success only determines the contribution of an individual to future generations' gene pool, not their worth in moral or societal terms. Huh?

Oh -- now I am getting another psychic IM -- from Shralp.

And he says that we judge others' worth by their actions, not their genetics, and while he loves me kiss kiss kiss, my obnoxiousness is deliberate, and not a trait worthy of emulation.

OK. So I am obnoxious, smoke, and have a big butt. Reproductively speaking, I have most of you beat, but as a credit to humanity, perhaps not. Do I get to be how I am -- both the chosen and inborn aspects? Am I deviant? Do I have a disorder? Indeed, some of you like my obnoxiousness -- but would those of you who don't have me discriminated against for a bank loan?

Obviously, those who don't like smokers, obnoxious people or big butts don't have to be my friends, but it is that not the *sum* of their just power to suppress me?

Methyl, I have to say I truly admire your courage. You live in California, and you smoke!! As a fellow smoker, I want you to know that you have my *full* support :p

P.S. Nice to see you back ;)

In case you don't read the thread -- I wasn't laughing at you,-Okay, cheers.

only at the inability of biologists to make themselves understood by normal people. The god, I fancy, had no intention of coming out against homosexuality, nor do I.-Understandable.

If it is a choice, it is a courageous one considering all the ignorance in the world.-Well, I'm not a good poster child for the choice issue either way because I don't find my preferencial view of women as a choice either, but yeah. I mean, I also like black hair and blue eyes -- I find find gender almost as arbitrary.

I'd like to be able to say "Yes I am definately a homosexual and I can tell you it's x,y,z" but I'm not and I can't. I do my best to present the evidence I found through years of struggle and depression that I kept overwhelmingly to myself -- so it must be further excused if I am ever emotional.

If it is inborn, it is still a courageous choice to stand up for who you are and to pursue happiness in the face of people who want everyone to be as loveless and unhappy as they are. (Why else would anyone worry where consenting adults find love?)-I don't know. It's actually remarkably easy to get swept up in self-hatred and denial. In retrospect on times where I contemplated suicide because I felt I was pathological I find that it was easy to believe when people told me I was sick or evil or wrong.

That's not because I'm impressionable either -- because I like to think I'm not. It's more that with something as fragile, complicated, and confusing as sexuality it's easy to get swept up into a vicious dichotomy.

Young as you are, you've made that choice. Made it, knowing it to be a choice, as all our actions are.-Beats killing myself.

I decided to be straight only after exploring all my options, just as I decided to be an atheist after exploring the major religions. It is my belief that you can't knock it til you try it, but most people are too cowardly, I think, to do that.-Yeah, I've never been so sure about being an atheist since I started my Bible as Literature class. I don't think it applied to my sexuality as much, but hey, props to being open minded.

Shralp has courage, too, which I respect -- but yours is greater. I had to let you know that. Far be it from *me* to condescend to *you*.-Well, thanks.

Well, looks like I'm about to butt into a rather intense debate here...(without having read most of the posts, since I simply don't have the time right now to sit and read for an hour or 2)
I am against homosexuality, for a few reasons; it grosses me out for one, it strikes me as incredibly...wrong, and a friend of mine once backed it up with a biblical quote (which seems similar to the one Viking posted, but which also compares male gay sex to bestiality, but I could be wrong, as it's been about 6 years since my friend showed me the passage).
Viking brought up a good argument (except for 7, the hair-cutting one, which is overruled in one of Paul's letters), though I recommend you take that up in more detail with Mathetais, who could likely come up with something better than my blank stare...
Personally, I have nothing against gay people who act like normal people, but it's those people at the gay pride parades that piss me off. Crossdressers and the like... :flaming:
I have also developed a burning anger towards effeminate men, whether gay or not (though most of those I meet are indeed gay) that I haven't been able to explain...
That's pretty much it for now, though I don't imagine it'll be very hard for anyone to shoot down my comment soon.

Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Fearus!!

/me waves silly with hands, talking with a ****** up voice

Well, looks like I'm about to butt into a rather intense debate here...-Always hard to get a word in, isn't it?

(without having read most of the posts, since I simply don't have the time right now to sit and read for an hour or 2)-Fair enough.

I am against homosexuality, for a few reasons; it grosses me out for one,-My parents having sex grosses me out, that's hardly a logical reason for me to be against a healthy expression of their relationship...

it strikes me as incredibly...wrong, and a friend of mine once backed it up with a biblical quote-If you want to discuss the (reasonably false) interpretation of homosexuality as a sin (the sin of Sodom, the unclean Cainanite practice, the dog priests and prostitutes...) we can do that in a new topic. Just as a start, consider the fact the word "homosexual" has only been around for a little over 100 years.

(which seems similar to the one Viking posted, but which also compares male gay sex to bestiality, but I could be wrong, as it's been about 6 years since my friend showed me the passage). -There's more than one. Romans, Corinithians, Leviticus, Genesis...

Viking brought up a good argument (except for 7, the hair-cutting one, which is overruled in one of Paul's letters), though I recommend you take that up in more detail with Mathetais, who could likely come up with something better than my blank stare...-I think I missed something.

Personally, I have nothing against gay people who act like normal people, but it's those people at the gay pride parades that piss me off.-Wow we need to have a talk about this. Gay people are normal people. Those that become overimmersed in a homosexual identity (which is often sterotypically gender atypical and therefore threatening to a heteronormative society) I do lament.

Your sexuality is definately an infinitely important part of your identity but you shouldn't take it on as all of your identity-- whether you are homo, hetero, or bisexual.

At any rate, pride parade marchers are not a very accurate cross-section of homosexuals, or bisexuals. I don't own a single piece of pride gear, hell, I'm in the closet most of the time.

Crossdressers and the like...-The vast majority of transvestites are heterosexual, masculine men in their mid to late thirties or forties.

I have also developed a burning anger towards effeminate men, whether gay or not (though most of those I meet are indeed gay) that I haven't been able to explain...-A ways after I'd figured out I wasn't straight I developed the most fierce, terrifying hatred of gay people. I wanted to beat them, torture them, and kill them. I had to bite my tongue from shouting fag at the mere sight of one.

As time passed I had to come to painful realization that it was just a reaction to the hatred I felt towards myself. I won't assume that's your reason, but if it is, please do feel free to talk to me sometime.

Either way, your hatred is irrational and needless, let it go.

That's pretty much it for now, though I don't imagine it'll be very hard for anyone to shoot down my comment soon.-If you recognize the weakness of your arguments why not better them yourself?

Methyl:

No one can argue with sheer numbers and hard facts... That´s why I like your brain!

P.S.:

Listen to this woman!

She may let you know a thing or two!

methylviolet: xxx (kiss kiss kiss, not an expletive) :love:

Methyl... WE LOVE YOU GIRL !

:love:

You're always right on the money honey !

:money:

If only more women thought like you

:(

Knock it off you bozos; you especially Shadowhunter.

PM is your friend in cases such as the previous 3 posts.

Faerus, you really should try arguing with facts instead of things like "it's wrong because it grosses me out."

"me grimlock no bozo, me king!"

-transformers the movie (but message understood bta).

-I think I missed something. -Indeed, Kooran, I'm glad you did, 'cause if you didn't I'd be freaked (meaning to say, there was no overruling, that was a mistake on my part)

-My parents having sex grosses me out, that's hardly a logical reason for me to be against a healthy expression of their relationship... -Good point, but the logical argument to that would be that your parents having sex can produce children (unless either or both of your parents have been sterilized, in which case there is no logical argument that I can think of)...Although, you are right, being "grossed out" is not a good reason to be against homosexuality, and my last post was likely a result of my impulsiveness (as is this one, most likely)

If you want to discuss the (reasonably false) interpretation of homosexuality as a sin (the sin of Sodom, the unclean Cainanite practice, the dog priests and prostitutes...) we can do that in a new topic. Just as a start, consider the fact the word "homosexual" has only been around for a little over 100 years. -Again, good point, but this thread was started to discuss whether homosexuality is right or wrong, and the "interpretation of homosexuality as a sin" is discussing whether it is right or wrong, correct?

Wow we need to have a talk about this. Gay people are normal people. Those that become overimmersed in a homosexual identity (which is often sterotypically gender atypical and therefore threatening to a heteronormative society) I do lament. -Again, you are right, but what I meant by normal (which I neglected to write, and I apologize for not stating this in my previous post) was "indistinguishable"(Sp?) from society in general, for example, there are 2 gay guys at my school (that I know of), one of them, I would have bet my left and right arms that he was gay before he came out of the closet, while the other, I had no clue until a friend of his told me...the latter I would consider "normal" while the former would be (by my crude definition) "abnormal or distinguishable from society in general."

A ways after I'd figured out I wasn't straight I developed the most fierce, terrifying hatred of gay people. I wanted to beat them, torture them, and kill them. I had to bite my tongue from shouting fag at the mere sight of one.

As time passed I had to come to painful realization that it was just a reaction to the hatred I felt towards myself. I won't assume that's your reason, but if it is, please do feel free to talk to me sometime.

Either way, your hatred is irrational and needless