I know there may have been others like this, but..

I want to know what people think about gay marriage and homosexuality.

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 43 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Gay Marriage and Homosexuality (43 votes.)

Gay Marriage and Homosexuality (Choose 1)
* I encourage people to, and think that people should do what they want. - 51% (22)
* I don't really care. - 28% (12)
* I don't think gay people should be able to get married or have relationships. - 21% (9)

I know there may have been others like this,Only a couple per month, don't worry. ;)

If you want my opinion, here it goes:

Homosexuality is an objective disorder in a person's sexual drive, causing him or her to feel attracted sexually to the same sex. The term is vague, various meanings ranging from attraction alone to sexual activities or even lifestyle. To be more precise, I prefer to speak about same sex attraction here.

Attraction alone is morally neutral, what's right or wrong is the way in which it's handled... or acquired. I mention acquired because I don't believe in the genetic theories. I think it may partly come down to personality defects and partly to environmental factors such as previous sexual experience.

Here I would like to make difference between people who love people of the same gender, whose love takes physical forms, and who act on the sexual attraction too; and people who simply seek new experience, giving themselves away to all sorts of sexual perversion. Neither is the right thing to do, but there is definitely some difference.

As for gay marriage, I'm opposed. I am not going to fight people because of that and I'd rather not tell them what to do with such an intimate aspect of human life, but a homosexual union is not a marriage. Regardless of the name, I will never be supportive of a homosexual union, at least not as anything more than a misguided friendship. Needless to say, I'm also opposed to homosexual adoption.

Next, I believe that homosexuality should stop being classified as an alternative orientation. There is no such thing as an alternative orientation: there are disorders and disorders need to be treated. Those people need help, not affirmation in their illness.

Further next, there is quite a lot of disinformation and various unproductive moods in the society. If you're male, you often can't even hug a male friend or you're labelled gay. Or you even feel like one for doing it. Back in the past, even in societies where homosexuality wasn't regarded as normal, friends were friends and there was nothing wrong loving your friends and hugging (sometimes even kissing) your friends, even if they were of the same gender (probably even more so than if they had been of the opposite gender, for a variety of prudential reasons). Something is a bit awkward here. For example, between my friends, it's normal to kiss on the cheek between the genders, between females too, but never two guys. Same goes for hugging and other such. It isn't sexual, or cross-gender friends wouldn't be doing it, so it theoretically should be no problem for two guys, but... no one does that. You would sooner see a male and female who are just friends kissing straight on the mouth, than two guys kissing on the cheek. So yeah, there's something strange in how guys have been scared out of displaying friendly affection.

Homosexuality is completely okay and I encourage those who are gay to be so openly and not live in a closet through their entire life. I don't find it to be a disorder nor do I find it to be a curable disease, it is something different from the standard yes but it's not harmful in any way towards anyone. I also fully support gay right for marriage and consider it to be pretty much a human right for two adults who love each other to marry each other no matter what their genders might be.

It's unfortunate that religious dogma and prejudice are still very dominant in most societies and homosexuality is not completely accepted anywhere as far as I know. The situation is improving though and I believe firmly that love and freedom will prevail in the end.

The poll should, imho, have been divided in two sub polls: Thoughts on marriage, thoughts on homosexuality...

I would say that people ought to do what is right for them. I don't know whether I would support chevs argument that homosexuality is a disorder. Gays might fall out of what one would call a normal life pattern, but so do I in some ways.
I do not encourage homosexuality, and I'm against such things as gay parade based on the foundation that ones sexual tendencies is ones private thing. I don't go out and wave my willie around shouting "I'm straight" to everyone who cares to listen, neither should gays!

When it comes to the question whether I support gay marriages, I would say yes and no.
Gay marriages performed in a Town Hall, signing a contract saying 'you're now husband and husband', yes. Gay marriages in churches; no.
As well as we should respect gay peoples right to be gays, we should also respect that most Christians do not believe in gay marriages as being acceptable.

That said; I voted for option #1, but I'm split somewhere between #1 and #2, but I do somewhat care.

I am against. The Church has only one responsability, which is to maintain itself faithful to it's principles, values and morality. It should never be hostage to "its times" or socio-political pressures from socialists.
Whoever is not satisfied with the position of the Church, is free to move out to a different faith that goes hand-in-hand to their own beliefs.
That said, homossexualism is biologically proved as a disfunction.

I am happy for the "Church" to be against homosexuality so long as they don't expect people who are not part of the "Church" to abide by that stance.

@ HB

Unfortunately, that is impossible in practice.

I am happy for the "Church" to be against homosexuality so long as they don't expect people who are not part of the "Church" to abide by that stance. Sure. After all, the State and the Church have been separated for quite a bit, huh?
By the way, I hope you realise the Church stance includes marriage as well, at least the religious one. Civil marriage is up to the State to decide.

We tend to over simply sexuality. It is complicated. Some people are attracted to the opposite gender and some to the same gender. Some to both. Afaik no one has come up with a simple answer as to why this is so and I don't think they ever will.

As to homosexual marriage I would prefer the term 'civil union'. Thus giving committed couples protection.

Controlling one's sexuality and repressing it are not the same thing.

I really think that gays and everyone should be able to love and marry anyone they want. Homosexuality, Imo, is NOT a disorder. You are born that way. Who ever said that God made us to only like the opposite sex? NO ONE knows the real truth.

@EI: Even if someone is born in such a way (and I don't think this is the case with homosexuality), it still doesn't mean it isn't a disorder. There are acquired disorders and there are innate ones. Doesn't make the innate ones normal.

As for love, I think God made us to like and love both genders. There is nothing wrong loving someone. Problem is when a person is sexually attracted to his own gender in such a strong way as to act on it.

I really think that gays and everyone should be able to love and marry anyone they want. Homosexuality, Imo, is NOT a disorder. You are born that way. Who ever said that God made us to only like the opposite sex? NO ONE knows the real truth.This opens up a can of worms. If you are able to marry and love anyone you want... then incest paedophilia, etc etc all becomes ok as long as both parties consent. After all they are born that way. Where do we draw the line, and who draws it?

Although i don't agree with incest, I don't think it should be outlawed. And is homosexuality is JUST a disorder, then people who have other disorders cannot get married? Such as Down-syndrome..

Society in general seems to agree that children should be protected. Children have limited consent and are influenced by the adults in their life. What happens between consenting adults is a different matter. Incest is frowned upon because of the genetic problems which can be passed to offspring.

Although i don't agree with incest, I don't think it should be outlawed. And is homosexuality is JUST a disorder, then people who have other disorders cannot get married? Such as Down-syndrome..Again, where do we draw the line, and who draws it? *shrugs* I wouldn't want to be the one making the decision. It's a whole can of worms.

[ September 12, 2005, 01:50: Message edited by: Tassadar ]

I...
/me reads Nakia's posts
...umm, what she said. :D

Dear God, not again!

I believe that...

- gay civil unions should be available through and protected by secular law;

- religious organisations should be free to decide whether or not they will perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples, free of lobbying or interference;

- what people do in their private life really shouldn't be a big issue for anyone else unless it directly affects them; and

- gay pride parades are somewhat annoying, occasionally offensive, and that people can celebrate in a less garish, outlandish and "in-your-face" way, since there are sections of the community who are deeply offended and indeed targeted for humiliation by some such activities (in other words, tone it down)

I voted #1, even though I probably don't care enough to be that supportive. Do what you feel you must, just don't hurt anyone else. I don't have many gay or bisexual friends, I find the whole concept of homosexual activity a bit stomach-turning, but it's not affecting my life, at all.

I see some good arguments were made. It is, indeed, a can or worms, but relativism preachers dont care for morality, so dont be surprised by their stances...
And yes, being born like that does not mean it is not a disorder. Where is the logic here? :rolleyes:
About gay parades, I remember the "sad" ending one had in Serbia some years ago. :D

I wouldnt be so quick to label homosexuality a dysfunction or mental disorder. In a similar thread I argued that science has some interesting things to say about homosexuality and its place in the schemes of evolution/procreation. Of course I was too lazy to come up with anything to back me up then. Now I turned to Google, and it came up with this (http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_homosexuality.html).

Perhaps those who think they are qualified to question the mental state of homosexuals should have a look at it? Its late here and I havent read through the whole material, especially since its too heavy to sift through just like that - but what I gleamed of it was interesting enough.
Intriguing, how our socio-biological potential seems to be quite flexible and diverse, whereas most of our modern societies are incapable of handling it.

I believe there is nothing whatsoever wrong with homosexuality. Thus, I'm pro-gay marriage.

Question answered.

Well, I don't *encourage* gay marriage or homosexuality as such, but I really, really don't see what the big deal is or why any government has a say in it. If people want to be gay and to marry, it's absolutely none of my business and none of the government's.

@EI: Try to look on it from this perspective: Homosexuals are not forbidden to marry in the secular law. As anyone else, they are allowed to marry anyone of the opposite gender. What isn't granted is redefining marriage so as to allow same sex marriage. But they are still no more forbidden from traditional marriage than anyone.

People with disorders may and sometimes should be forbidden to marry, depending on the nature and intensity of their problems. This is not to torment them, but to prevent the potential spouse and children from harm. Also, some disorders limit or even preclude consent.

None of the answers really do my opinion justice. I voted for #2, only because that came the closest. I think it is extremely presumptuous of anyone to "encourage" people to get married in any way, shape or form. That having been said, I don't really have a problem with homosexual marriage. Basically, it boils down to me not having any stake in the fight. I am not gay, I do not have any gay family members and I only know a few passing acquaintences who are gay - certainly no close friends. As such, I feel I have nothing to either gain or lose if homosexuals are allowed to marry. Because of this, I am more inclined to say it should be legal, but regardless, it doesn't really bother me one way or another.

While I am not really fond of gays, I agree with what Aikanaro says.

I will have to be contraversial and state that the worst thing that can happen to lots of gays (you can choose of this is a minority/majority) is that they are completely accepted by society.

I mean I am a different race than most people, but you don't see me making a big deal about it.

I agree with Aldeth. The choices were so limited and stereotypical that I did not vote. Traditionally, marriage has foundations in religion which forbids homosexual unions. I understand the distain many have for allowing homosexual unions to be marriages. However, there is a real need to have a civil union for homosexuals -- you should be able to form a partnership with another individual legally.

Make all weddings by a justice of the peace a civil union, all church weddings marriages.

Why must Homosexuality be thrown in the face of the religious or ardently straight? Our core doctrine forbids homosexual activity using very strong terms, therefore it is a grave offense to most of us.

Ont more thing that needs to be clarified. There is a difference between Love and Sex. Just because you love someone does not mean that you are having sex with them.

Furthermore, attraction towards ineligible partners (already married, same gender, underage) is a temptation, not a disorder. This doesn't make it acceptable, nor can accountability be denied for any sexual sin (fornication, adultery, beastiality, incest, pedophilia, homosexuality).

Marriage is, in religious terms, stirctly defined as between a man and a woman. Calling it gay marriage instead of Civil unions is an offence to many Christians.

I voted don't care. I can't say that I encourage anyone to get married, though obviously I'm happy enough for them to do so. As others have mentioned, I would be happy as long as they are granted the same civil and legal rights as those enjoyed by married couples.

An aside:
The EU court of justice has just deemed the British law that in-laws are not allowed to be married is in breech of human rights.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4243420.stm

It is relevant from a biblical sense as, as well as the homosexual version, this is another of the laws laid down in Leviticus.

First off, Dendri:
Sorry, but that link holds no sway what so ever. One, it was just a theory without any real evidence cited to support it. Two, it assumed a number of facts that have never even come close to being proven, most notably that DNA has a significant and detailed impact on personality. Three, the very statement that the odds of a child becoming homosexual depends on the order of birth supports the MUCH simpler theory that homosexuality is a social phenomenon, not genetic. Sorry, but it just doesn't hold much weight in my book.

Now, everyone else:
There is a great deal of evidence to support that homosexuality is an unnatural state of being, whether a disorder or a perversion, or a destructive choice, or whatever. There is not, however, enough evidence to prove this, or else it wouldn't be much of an issue.
That said, I believe it can be any of the three unnatural states mentioned above and is sinful, whether we are talking about a purely sexual atraction or real sexual love.
As for marriage, insofar as it is the government's place to regulate and enforce morality (which it is to some degree), the government should support the people, whatever that prevalent opinion is. This is the job of government. As for marriage, church-supported marriages are out of the question. The Bible is rather clear, if taken in context, on the issue of homosexuality and it is a sin. I don't support state-sanctioned marriages or homosexual adoption of children, but see above about government and such.

There is a great deal of evidence to support that homosexuality is an unnatural state of being, whether a disorder or a perversion, or a destructive choice, or whatever. There is not, however, enough evidence to prove this, or else it wouldn't be much of an issue. So which is it? When is a "great deal of evidence" at the same time "insufficient" to convince people? Oh wait - I get it - it's like evolution - a great deal of supporting evidence and yet some people still disregard it.

I only know of one bit of evidence that homosexuality is unnatural. And that ignores a very important part of human sexuality. I wonder how many others understand the main difference in sexual behavior between humans and other mammals....

It is this difference which makes homosexuality almost unheard of in animals.

Is it that we make love T2Bruno? Well...not me and you specifically, but you understand...

You know, Construction Worker and Police Officer had nothing but a shared randy vice, but Indian Chief and Navy Seaman had a love that was both achingly deep and timelessly true.

@T2Bruno:
Not really. My (former) next door neighbor had two gay golden labs, who would sometimes start going at it right in their driveway, despite her near-constant efforts to discipline them for it. It was even somewhat funny to see the 'dominant' one occasionally get rejected by his partner simply sitting down. :lol:

Fel: Canine alpha males and females often show dominance in that way. It is a public display of 'who's the boss.' It is an act of power, not sexuality. Very, very rarely is the act consumated. As you observed, the incident ends when one of the participants displays proper deferance to the alpha and will either sit or lay down.

Being a cat person you may not have known....

I've seen a dog do it on a cat.

I saw Chev watching a dog do it on a cat.

@T2B:
Actually, I'm quite familiar with the dumber race. ;) The occasional sitting down would only happen if the 'submissive' dog didn't want it at the time. Usually they'd go at it until it was consumated (as you put it), and then simply separate as if nothing had happened. There was no deference shown, and if anything, the 'submissive' one had more power in being able to deny his partner by the simple act of sitting down before he even got started. The parallel it draws to male-female (or even male-male) relations in humans is what amused me the most.

@ NOG
No sway? No evidence? Then the extensive list of references provided by this article means so little to you? ;) Okay.

Where then is your evidence that homosexuality is what you make it out to be? Ah, got it - there is, by your own words, not enough evidence to prove this. Okay.

Aside that this is off topic (sort of), I feel its an *utter* waste of my time to discuss this with a person calling himself No Other God. No offense intended, but I know a lost cause when it presents itself.

It is this difference which makes homosexuality almost unheard of in animals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_practicing_homosexual_behavior

Just one or two species there then, and er... particularly apes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

http://www.subversions.com/french/pages/science/animals.html

Not convinced? How about National Geographic as a reasonably unbiased and scietific jounal?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Studies suggest 75 percent of bonobo sex is nonreproductive and that nearly all bonobos are bisexual. Frans de Waal, author of Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, calls the species a "make love, not war" primate. He believes bonobos use sex to resolve conflicts between individuals. From science news:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n1_v151/ai_19027025

Scientists have studied the sex drive and sexual orientation of domesticated and wild rams. A heterosexual ram with a strong sex drive will mount either other males or ewes. However, a significant proportion of domesticated males-up to 16 percent-never mate with females during a breeding season, Perkins says.

About 6 percent seem uninterested in any sexual activity. Another 10 percent are homosexual, choosing males even when females are available. Domesticated rams resemble their wild relatives, which scientists have also observed participating in homosexual relations. Ewes rarely engage in such activities.
On the other hand, there are plenty of texts on the net which dispute some of these findings. Alas, they all seem to be religious based and I have yet to find any of them with any scientific studies attached. One looked promising regading penguins in captivity, but they then went on to make lots of unsubstantuated claims about homosexuals being more likely to be criminals.

All I am disputing is anyone claiming that homosexuality is "unnatural". As homosexuality has been found in studies of animals in their natural environments then it is frankly laughable that anyone can claim otherwise.
Before anyone twists my words, the rightness or wrongness of natural behaviour is a different issue.

Medical studies showing it as a genetic trait, heavy going unless you're into genetics. I think I'm correct in reading that Homosexuality is genetically linked. Perhaps someone more biologically minded can clarify? (It's from John Hopkins Uni by the way)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=306995

Hamer et al. (1993) performed pedigree and linkage analyses of 110 families of homosexual men. Increased rates of same-sex orientation were found in the maternal uncles and maternal male cousins of these subjects, but not in their fathers or paternal relatives, suggesting X-linked transmission. The linkage to markers on Xq28 (I understand this to be a reference point on the X chromosone) had a multipoint lod (likelihood estimate) score of 4.0, indicating a statistical confidence level of more than 99% that at least 1 subtype of male sexual orientation is genetically influenced.

All I am disputing is anyone claiming that homosexuality is "unnatural". As homosexuality has been found in studies of animals in their natural environments then it is frankly laughable that anyone can claim otherwise.Rape and infanticide happen among animals sometimes. Is that natural, too?

Carc: very interesting articles. You've hit very close to my intent. The wikapedia list is a bit broad in that it includes 'sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting' all as homosexual acts. However, the other articles show the commonly used examples (which is really only a few species with a couple of lone observations added to it). These hardly refute the conservative 'it's unnatural' contingency -- as Chev pointed out, some species can do very bad things. There is even a famous case of cannibalism in primates documented by Jane Goodall. Most captive animals (and some domestic animals) show signs of serious neurosis which could explain 'abnormal' behavior.

The majority of cases you list involve homosexual activity with affection and bonding (except the Japanese macaques -- that one was new to me). It is the affection and bonding aspect I'm referring to -- just like LNT said, we make love.

Human females do not go 'in heat.' No pheromones are given off that signal to the males of the species. Sex is mainly for pleasure and building intimacy -- it is both emotional and physical. However, bonding is not limited to opposite sex. We all bond with same-sex and opposite-sex individuals. I know men who are closer to their drinking buddies than they are to theier wives (and those men are certainly not homosexual). I also know women who have divorced their husbands when that relationship interfered with non-sexual relationships with female friends. I, for one, bond strongly to my wife (even in my first marriage) and that relationship is more important than any friendship or even my own family. In a species where emotion and bonding is the most important part of relationship, it is easy to see why homosexuality is present (and, IMHO natural).

By the way, I do agree that homosexuality is probably genetic -- although it may also be chemical (which the anti-gay community jumped on with vigor claiming homosexuality as a chemical-imbalance issue, even though there is no evidence that any attempt to 'balance' the chemicals has any affect).

Rape and infanticide happen among animals sometimes. Is that natural, too? Well ... yes. Technically, if it's "from nature", then it's natural. It's still disgusting and wrong (and I'd beat the **** out of anyone I saw trying something like that :flaming: ), but it still can't be called unnatural.

EDIT: @chev:
Agree to disagree, then. :) IMHO, humans and their creations are the only unnatural things on the planet. (Not counting any possible interference by outside sources like aliens or deities, of course.)

[ September 21, 2005, 19:30: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

@T2Bruno:

Human females do not go 'in heat.' No pheromones are given off that signal to the males of the species. Sex is mainly for pleasure and building intimacy -- it is both emotional and physical.Ermm... there's still ovulation and scientists claim that women's sexual preferences shift towards more masculine men during that time.

I know men who are closer to their drinking buddies than they are to theier wives (and those men are certainly not homosexual). I also know women who have divorced their husbands when that relationship interfered with non-sexual relationships with female friends.Those friends don't even have to be of the same gender. I have a female friend who's closer and cares more than any gf ever has. I could think of one or two girls who were closer to me than her bfs at some point, even neither I nor they were interested "that way".

In a species where emotion and bonding is the most important part of relationship, it is easy to see why homosexuality is present (and, IMHO natural).It doesn't have to take sexual forms, though. What you describe fits perfectly in the brotherly, sisterly or even platonic love scheme. Sex is not intrinsic to it, it's added to it. Sex is also impossible in the absence of sexual drive. Remove sex from the picture and you'll have what used to be normal for same gender or even cross-gender friends before the gay issues popped up. Funny thing, it was perfectly normal for two males to kiss on the mouth or hold hands back in the ancient times. It was less normal between friends opposite genders but perfectly all right for a brother and sister. I can think of regions in Europe where it was in custom even in the 19th century and I've seen it in my life, as well. People loved their best friends, not just liked, but there was no sex in it.

@Felinoid:

Well ... yes. Technically, if it's "from nature", then it's natural. It's still disgusting and wrong (and I'd beat the **** out of anyone I saw trying something like that ), but it still can't be called unnatural.I think you have a universalistic vision of what's natural. That is, if something happens in nature, it's natural. However, we humans are also a part of nature and thus whatever we do would have to be natural regardless and the whole natural-unnatural dispute would be pointless. Personally, I'm leaning towards the somewhat thomistic vision of natural or not being defined by proper use. In this example, of sexual organs. Homosexual sex only emulates heterosexual sex and can't achieve the same result even if it makes a doomed attempt. Therefore, the use is not proper. It's not the way it was intented in nature. Of course, further observation and statistics will still be useful, though more as a means of induction than deduction.

Question arises if, even if it is unnatural, the society or the government has any right to intervene. Personally, I don't believe in criminal punishment for sexual behaviour if there is full knowledge and consent. I'm only into harsh punishment for those who go around the knowledge and consent part, from rape to using deception to get laid. If I were to punish any consensual, informed and private (no public flaunting) sexual activity, it would probably be adultery (BTW, it's still a crime in the US Army and some states in the US, don't know about other countries).

I believe the state does have the right to intervene because the benefits of marriage are defined and accorded by the state and legal recognition of factual circumstances is also a matter of the state.

Rape and infanticide happen among animals sometimes. Is that natural, too? OK, this is well off topic, but you asked so I'll respond.

Simply speaking, yes. Sorry, I haven't got time to do any research so this is from memory/deductive reasoning.

Rape. I'm only aware of males raping females. Why is it natural? Because "nature" requires animals to pass on their genes. The natural instinct of some males is to do that, even if it means rape. Gang rape by dolphins is the prime example I can think of, where young male dolphins, turned out of a pod, will group together and gang rape a female - it's their only chance of procreating. Another one that pops to mind is troupes of monkeys in India - again the young males are thrown out when they become a threat to the dominant male.

Infanticide. What definition of Infanticide are you using? In Britain, I believe the legal definition is limited to mothers and their own young, though it could be expanded to the murder of young by members of their own species.
I can think of two different examples.

Firstly, as witnessed in a study with rats, the parents (and predominantly mothers) eating their own young. If I remember correctly this was seen to occur in overcrowding situations with a lack of food supply, and is a natural means of controlling population. There is not much point in the mother starving to death as the infants would not suvive afterwards. Another example is with mice, where a new constant danger becomes apparent (e.g. a cat), if she is unable to move them to safety, the mother will eat the young and move on herself. It "naturally" increases the chance of her being able to procreate in the future rather than her and all her brood perishing.

Secondly, is where fathers eat their young when otherwise a food supply is plentiful. I may be wrong, but I think it is predominantly the male ofsping that are consumed and it is a natural means of the father to ensure that he is the only one able to mate (and now the naturalness of "incest" creeps in for debate) with available females, so increasing the chances of his own genes being distributed.

Infanticide outside of family members is equally a means of ensuring that it is "your" genes that get passed on, and not someone elses.

So basically, yes they are natural. They may not be nice to our minds, but they are natural instincts for self preservation and/or procreation.

The obvious response to this is "Ah but look, you've just argued that the wish to procreate is natural so homosexuality can't be"
Sorry, but the one being true does not make the other any less so.

Just out of interest, in a court of law which definition of "natural" do you think the court would follow (biases notwithstanding) I would think you are more likely to get expert witnesses

I don't know if one can put forth a definition of "natural", without incorporating some type of societal value/religious belief into the equation. Surely, there are examples we can find of animals doing all sorts of things. Then there are things that we will only find humans doing. So what's the criteria here? Is being "natural" something that must be caused by instinct alone?

Is something "natural" only if animals do it in addition to humans? That doesn't make any sense either. In that case, something like reading would be considered "unnatural". So any arguement regarding what is and what is not natural must start from some societal norm or some religious belief, and we're never going to get into agreement on which one specific definition we can use here.

The obvious response to this is "Ah but look, you've just argued that the wish to procreate is natural so homosexuality can't be"
Sorry, but the one being true does not make the other any less so. Only the one that fits you? Sorry, but this is the most basic rule of logic: Two opposing things can not be both true or false.
That is why relativism is so stupid. It is illogical to begin with.
That said, the assertion that "humans are naturally prone to procriate" and "non-procriation behaviour is part of human nature" can simply not cohexist.
Thus, there is a mistake in the building of your standpoint.
--------------------------------------------------

I don't know if one can put forth a definition of "natural", without incorporating some type of societal value/religious belief into the equation. That is why we have Science for. It is mostly a scientific matter to determine what is natural and which is not.

Actually you could argue that all things are natural.

Actually you could argue that all things are natural. You could argue anything. The hard part is proving them.

Sorry, but this is the most basic rule of logic: Two opposing things can not be both true or false.

That said, the assertion that "humans are naturally prone to procriate" and "non-procriation behaviour is part of human nature" can simply not cohexist. True, but only if you are using the assertion in the same context both times, and clearly, Carcaroth was not. (Incidently, I believe the correct spellings are procreate/procreation.) Taken at a species level, it is most definitely true that procreative behavior is necessary for the survival of the human species and thus, part of human nature. We wouldn't be here today to discuss this if that were not true. However, it is equally true that on an individual level, procreative behavior is not required for the survival of the species, and thus, individually, not part of human nature. One thing that your logic does prove however, is that non-procreative behavior would be detrimental if it was both widespread and simulataneously practiced exclusively in a given population. Any study I have seen shows the homosexual population to represent fewer than 10% of the total population, so that criteria doesn't fit here.

You could argue anything. The hard part is proving them. Well how is this for an admittedly oversimplified proof: Actions taken by natural creations are considered "natural". All humans are natural creations. Therefore actions taken by humans are considered "natural".

That is why we have Science for. It is mostly a scientific matter to determine what is natural and which is not. Believe me, as a chemist, I am very much of a supporter of science being used as a determining factor in a great many areas. However, I don't think science can help us here. I think this falls outside of the realm of what science does. Based on my very simple proof above, one can see how almost any action could accurately be defined as "natural", and no amount of science can show us where we should draw the line between "natural" and "unnatural".

EDIT: Actually, the more I think of this, how could it even be possible for science to articulate such a claim as to what is or is not natural? That seems like a pretty bald assertion the more I look at it. Could you perhaps explain how you envision this could take place?

[ September 22, 2005, 18:28: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

I've allways found the "homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural" argumentation amusing and equally absurd. There is not much natural in the industrialized capitalistic society today so I find it completely ridiculous for someone who lives in an industrialized society to use unnaturality as an argument. It's just an lame excuse for some religious fanatics to try and find unreligious arguments for legistlating their religious dogma.

Natural or unnatural -- wouldn't that be like the 4 out of 5 dentists thing....

A group of scientists sitting around...

'Look's natural to me.'
'Yeah, me too.'
'Let's vote on it -- all believing this is natural say yea...'
'YEA.'
'Opposed...'
'Nay'
'Harold said nay.'
'Why in the Sam Hill would you say nay to THAT?'
'He's just a bloody physisist, what does he know about natural. I'M A BIOLOGIST, I KNOW NATURAL.'
'Well, it just doesn't look like it's natural to me.'
'Fine. Four for. One against. It's final then, four out of five scientists find it natural.'
'Bad enough having a damned physisist in this, those creationist nuts would really make this process difficult....'

I think gay people should be able to do what they like in private, but I am totally opposed to gay marriage. It says in the Bible that the purpose of marriage is to procreate, and obviously gay people can't procreate, so God evidently thinks it's not normal either.
I just wonder how far the liberals are going to go-what's next? Before you know it paedophiles will be allowed to marry young children

Shell, the pedophile comment is a bit of a stretch.

Thank you shell for introducing the second absurd aspect in many of those who speak against homosexuality. They usually start yelling around how it will soon end up in society accepting marrying animals, children or inanimate objects. Of course this sort of argumentation in itself is allready the wrong way to go. Claiming that issue X can't be allowed because then they'd go further and require us to allow issue Y is fundamentaly wrong, because no such conclusion can really be drawn unless they allready require us to allow issue Y which they in this case most certainly don't.

Paedophiles can't marry childern because the childern are victims and can't marry with full consent until they are fully grown, and when they are fully grown they have the full right to marry a paedophile if they want. Homosexual marriage is a union between two grown adults who can make their own decisions and have full responsibility over themselves, if you can't see a difference then there is something seriously wrong with your thinking.

Agreed Morgoroth. Plus, if we're only going by the Bible, then maybe only Christians shouldn't be allowed to enter into a gay marriage. Of course, even if we allowed gay marriage, it's not like churches would be required to abide and marry two members of the same sex.

I'm kind of wondering if it wouldn't be better to completely re-work the government institution of marriage. Rename, re-law-ify, or, whatever. You know, just screw the idea of a government sanctioned religious institution like marriage and make all 'marriages' something else. If a religious couple wants to get married by their religion's definition of marriage, then let them go to their religious officials for it.

Of course I don't know how much that would actually solve anything. Ok, forget that, put it before the people as a proposed constitutional amendment. If it passes, that's the will of the voters. If it doesn't, that too is the will of the voters.

Thank you shell for introducing the second absurd aspect in many of those who speak against homosexuality. They usually start yelling around how it will soon end up in society accepting marrying animals, children or inanimate objects There is a man in our town who married his dog, and divorced it :)

As absurd as marrying animals now seems, marrying a person of the same gender used to seem. We just haven't reached that stage of progress. :rolleyes: Remember when it was impossible for humans to fly or to record motion? :p We've already heard voices in favour of lowering or removing the age of consent and decriminalising zoophilia and necrophilia.

Shell, you're just loving this aren't you? Big, fat cheshire cat grin wondering who's going to be spun up the most.... :D

True, but only if you are using the assertion in the same context both times, and clearly, Carcaroth was not. (Incidently, I believe the correct spellings are procreate/procreation.) Taken at a species level, it is most definitely true that procreative behavior is necessary for the survival of the human species and thus, part of human nature. We wouldn't be here today to discuss this if that were not true. However, it is equally true that on an individual level, procreative behavior is not required for the survival of the species, and thus, individually, not part of human nature. One thing that your logic does prove however, is that non-procreative behavior would be detrimental if it was both widespread and simulataneously practiced exclusively in a given population. Any study I have seen shows the homosexual population to represent fewer than 10% of the total population, so that criteria doesn't fit here. That is not the point. Both assertions can not be at the same time "natural". The two of them can be "true" in the sense that both happen in the real World, but one has to be the norm, and the other one has to be the deviation.
Plus, I think your differentiation between individual and colletive behaviour does not proceed. There is no such a thing that is natural when considered collectively, and neutral in individual level. It only means the individual is a deviation of the standard, or, in other terms, un-natural.

Well how is this for an admittedly oversimplified proof: Actions taken by natural creations are considered "natural". All humans are natural creations. Therefore actions taken by humans are considered "natural". This is pure syllogism! Things dont work like that.
Regardless, not all human behaviour can be considered natural. This is the whole point of the argument. I think homosexuality is un-natural.


Believe me, as a chemist, I am very much of a supporter of science being used as a determining factor in a great many areas. However, I don't think science can help us here. I think this falls outside of the realm of what science does. Based on my very simple proof above, one can see how almost any action could accurately be defined as "natural", and no amount of science can show us where we should draw the line between "natural" and "unnatural". Yes, but yourself being a scientist, you should know syllogisms have no bearing in any decent scientifical thinking.
The line can be drawn, which is what we have Science for.


EDIT: Actually, the more I think of this, how could it even be possible for science to articulate such a claim as to what is or is not natural? That seems like a pretty bald assertion the more I look at it. Could you perhaps explain how you envision this could take place? A biologyst is more up to the task than I am. However, I can firmly say the Universe is structured in such a way that is quite clear there is a natural order to things. We only need to use our logic to unveil it's unique truth and order. The fact our logic does not grasp the whole of it, does not mean this order is nonexistant, but rather that we are not evolved enough to reach it.
--------------------------------------------------

I've allways found the "homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural" argumentation amusing and equally absurd. There is not much natural in the industrialized capitalistic society today so I find it completely ridiculous for someone who lives in an industrialized society to use unnaturality as an argument. It's just an lame excuse for some religious fanatics to try and find unreligious arguments for legistlating their religious dogma. You are confusing things. Just because we live in a industrialized society it does not mean naturality is no more.
You seem to have a big problem with "religious fanatics", who seem to be everyone who does not comply with your NWO agenda.

Thank you shell for introducing the second absurd aspect in many of those who speak against homosexuality. They usually start yelling around how it will soon end up in society accepting marrying animals, children or inanimate objects. Of course this sort of argumentation in itself is allready the wrong way to go. Claiming that issue X can't be allowed because then they'd go further and require us to allow issue Y is fundamentaly wrong, because no such conclusion can really be drawn unless they allready require us to allow issue Y which they in this case most certainly don't. This is the common argumentation the likes of you use. However, things dont pass as smoothly in the real world.
I can certainly see in the future relativism advocates supporting pedophilia, zoophilia, etc.
People dont learn with History, that much is clear. Both Nazism and Communism are products of minds which thought everything is ok. However, neither came out of the blue, but were rather consequences of a particular line of thinking, which you seem to share with.
Plus, I am fairly sure most relativism supporters dont go out deffending pedophilia, zoophilia - among other things - because it is still too much for our society, but as things get even worse, they will slowly get out of their closets.


Paedophiles can't marry childern because the childern are victims and can't marry with full consent until they are fully grown, and when they are fully grown they have the full right to marry a paedophile if they want. Homosexual marriage is a union between two grown adults who can make their own decisions and have full responsibility over themselves, if you can't see a difference then there is something seriously wrong with your thinking. Marrying a pedophile? Well, if you are old enough to marry, then you are free to do so, but then he would not be a pedophile anyway...

---------------------------------------------------

Agreed Morgoroth. Plus, if we're only going by the Bible, then maybe only Christians shouldn't be allowed to enter into a gay marriage. Of course, even if we allowed gay marriage, it's not like churches would be required to abide and marry two members of the same sex. You are talking about civil union between two people of the same sex then?

[ September 23, 2005, 03:11: Message edited by: Svyatoslav ]

You seem to have a big problem with "religious fanatics", who seem to be everyone who does not comply with your NWO agenda. I think it's pretty obvious from my posts that I support a secular society where we have a decent separation of church and state and this separation is constitutionally protected. If you want to live in a theocracy then I'm not going to stop you from voting to live in one, just don't expect us to follow your example.

However, things dont pass as smoothly in the real world. I can certainly see in the future relativism advocates supporting pedophilia, zoophilia, etc.

As absurd as marrying animals now seems, marrying a person of the same gender used to seem. We just haven't reached that stage of progress. I really don't get what the problem is in understanding the difference between two grown adults agreeing upon a legal agreement of partenrship known as marriage (as I've said earlier the Church has no monopoly on the term) and an agreement where you only have the consent of one part. The first is an mutual agreement, the second might as well be slavery.

People dont learn with History, that much is clear. Both Nazism and Communism are products of minds which thought everything is ok. However, neither came out of the blue, but were rather consequences of a particular line of thinking, which you seem to share with. Ain't it allways easy to shrug off the arguments of others and instead just call them nazis and commies? It makes the whole thing so much easier don't you think? Now considering that both communism and nazism are totalitarian systems I find it strange that I who advocate a liberal society would be sharing similar line of thinking which nazis or commies. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate exactly how you came to that conclusion?

Marrying a pedophile? Well, if you are old enough to marry, then you are free to do so, but then he would not be a pedophile anyway... No? Then explain to me why some of the pedophiles caught here and elsewhere around the globe have been married men? Marriage offers no magical cure to the urges you know.

I believe this one is relevant ONTARIO, Calif. -- A 14-year-old student was expelled from a Christian
school because her parents are lesbians, the school's superintendent said in
a letter.

Shay Clark was expelled from Ontario Christian School
<http://www.ocschools.org/> on Thursday.

"Your family does not meet the policies of admission," Superintendent
Leonard Stob wrote to Tina Clark, the girl's biological mother.

Stob wrote that school policy requires that at least one parent may not
engage in practices "immoral or inconsistent with a positive Christian life
style, such as cohabitating without marriage or in a homosexual
relationship," The Los Angeles Times reported in Friday's edition.

Stob could not be reached for comment by the newspaper. Shay and her parents
said they won't fight the ruling.

School administrators learned of the parents' relationship this week after
Shay was reprimanded for talking to the crowd during a football game, Tina
Clark said.

Clark and her partner have been together 22 years and have two other
daughters, ages 9 and 19.

That is not the point. Both assertions can not be at the same time "natural". The two of them can be "true" in the sense that both happen in the real World, but one has to be the norm, and the other one has to be the deviation. Plus, I think your differentiation between individual and colletive behaviour does not proceed. There is no such a thing that is natural when considered collectively, and neutral in individual level. It only means the individual is a deviation of the standard, or, in other terms, un-natural.I don't think that is true either. There are all sorts of behavior, traits, etc., that we see in nature - many due to genetics - that are readily observable, outside the normal behavior of the species, and yet wouldn't be considered unnatural. However, you seem to be of the opinion that some deviant behavior is natural while others are not natural, without providing a basis for why some are and some are not.

Go to any zoo where they have a bunch of the same type of animal in a cage together. You can readily spot one that is acting differently from the others. Now just because this action may be considered deviant from what the others are doing, are you going to consider it unnatural?

How about a real life example. It has been observed in nature that some monkeys will wash their food before eating it, if there is a readily available water source. However, the vast majority of monkeys will not. So if we have a group of 20 monkeys, and two stop to wash their food before eating it, are these two individuals deviant and therefore acting unnaturally? While can't both actions (although totally opposite of one another) both be considered natural?

I can firmly say the Universe is structured in such a way that is quite clear there is a natural order to things. We only need to use our logic to unveil it's unique truth and order. The fact our logic does not grasp the whole of it, does not mean this order is nonexistant, but rather that we are not evolved enough to reach it. Perhaps you feel that the Universe is very structured and ordered, and that to you there is a natural order to things, but that is simply your own opinion. I am of the opinion that there is always going to be an aspect of what is considered the societal norm when making any kind of value judgements (like what is natural and what is not) and thus this places it outside the realm of science. As such, since such a question is outside the realm of science, no amount of species evolution can ever lead to giving a scientific answer to a non-scientific question.

That is not the point. Both assertions can not be at the same time "natural". The two of them can be "true" in the sense that both happen in the real World, but one has to be the norm, and the other one has to be the deviation.
Look at the example of the Bonobo chimps. Approximately 75% were found to be bisexual, therefore even by your definition, the natural behaviour of a bonobo chimp is to have sexual relations with members of both sexes.

"Natural" is plainly not defined in terms of commonality. That is like saying that having red hair is not natural. There are, after all, fewer people with red hair than there are homosexuals (assuming the 10% figure is even remotely close). OK, red hair is a physical characteristic rather than a behaviour, but they both would appear to be genetically coded and inherited traits (albeit homosexuality being indirectly inherited).

- gay pride parades are somewhat annoying, occasionally offensive, and that people can celebrate in a less garish, outlandish and "in-your-face" way, since there are sections of the community who are deeply offended and indeed targeted for humiliation by some such activities (in other words, tone it down)
Yeah, imagine the outrage in the gay-community, if there was a "I´m heterosexual, and I´m proud of it!"- parade. :)

- gay pride parades are somewhat annoying, occasionally offensive, and that people can celebrate in a less garish, outlandish and "in-your-face" way, since there are sections of the community who are deeply offended and indeed targeted for humiliation by some such activities (in other words, tone it down)
Have you thought (and here's hoping you are acting on rational thought not reacting with fear) that the reason they are so in your (society's) face, is because you (society) want to shove them under that rock in the dark corner so that you don't have to deal with them.

I really do not understand (religious) people taking offence from the fact that someone is homosexual.

As long as they don't force it up on me or create uncomfortable situations I don't see the problem.

And Christians, explain something to me. What happened to the "God loves all people"? If God loves all people, why don't his followers?

For the record: I am not gay, but have many aquantances who are. Furthermore the question to the Christians on this board is not intended to offend anyone, I am just curious.

This is the common argumentation the likes of you use. 'likes of you' -- whoa partner, them's fightin' words....

I'd like to echo Drugar's enquiry why is it that christianity a religion based on the principles of tolerance and fraternal love, breeds such discontent, disharmony, narrow-mindedness and outright bigotry.

If you were standing in that square with Mary Magdalene could any of you throw that first stone ?

Have you thought (and here's hoping you are acting on rational thought not reacting with fear) that the reason they are so in your (society's) face, is because you (society) want to shove them under that rock in the dark corner so that you don't have to deal with them. Hey, I couldn´t care less, as long as it´s legal for gays to marry, be my guest... And it is actually legal in some places.

You see, the problem is not so much about rights as it is about recognition, acceptance. Those people who go to parades want us to affirm them in their belief that what they are doing is normal and right. In short, as a crude parallel, they want us to pat them on the back and say it's okay. Why? Logic suggests you need support for your confidence when your confidence can't hold it on its own. So, it's a confidence issue. A security thing. Flaunting it around to make it feel more normal and natural to themselves in the first place, before the rest of the world.

If you were standing in that square with Mary Magdalene could any of you throw that first stone ?Just to point out, there's no evidence the harlot was Mary Magdalene. It's just alleged by some theologians and also that she was a harlot at all (at least not a paid one -- she was rich, after all, so she didn't need that money).

Anyway, the point of that Biblical scene is not only "don't throw rocks" but also "go and sin no more". Jesus didn't give the woman a leave to have her sins. He said He wasn't going to change a iota in the law, either, and He didn't in her case. He said He didn't condemn her but she wasn't to sin anymore (and the verb was "sin", not "do what you were doing").

Basically, that's what a gay Catholic would hear from a priest in Confession nowadays. He would be absolved of the sin of homosexual carnal acts, given regret and desire to engage in those no more.

If the woman had raised her chin and told Jesus in the face, "Everyone has his quirks and I have mine, leave me alone!" what do you think the reaction would be? Or, "It's my body and I can do what I please with it?"

I really do not understand (religious) people taking offence from the fact that someone is homosexualI'm not offended by that. More like I think how hard it would be if it happened to me and, believing what I do, I had to deal with it.
What offends me is an act that goes against nature, though it's hard to keep offended when you see two people who think they love each other (or even really do) "this way" and you're telling them it isn't right... It's hard. Nonetheless, those people deserve better than to be told that their problem is not a problem.

And Christians, explain something to me. What happened to the "God loves all people"? If God loves all people, why don't his followers?Loving someone doesn't mean agreeing with his lifestyle. The godhatesfags site looks like someone really hates gay people as persons. However, I don't, and I still disagree with what they do. I love my relatives but if one of them attempted to do something wrong in my presence, I would tell him what I think, and I have. Does this mean I don't love the person? No. Sometimes love is painful and you have to say what (you believe) the person needs to hear rather than wants to hear. Telling people what they want to hear and allowing them to do all they want is love but of oneself. It's taking the easy, false we-all-get-along path that gives a delusional sense of well-being by avoiding confrontation and tough decisions.

Christianity (at least the version I practice) loves all people but does state that people should follow the laws of God. The example of the woman taken in adultery was recently brought up -- Christ told the killers that "he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone." The men departed.

He then turned to the woman and said "where are those who did condemn thee?"

"They have gone" she replied (this is a paraphrase of the biblical text.)

HIs reply was (I think this quote is accurate) "Neither do I condemn thee -- go, and sin no more "

The point of this little quote is that love does not preclude the fact that people can sin, or do something wrong.

Anyone who says "God wants all Gays dead" is clearly not very loving or Christian in approach. But the people who say "Homosexual behaviour is something that God has told us not to do, and those who do it are wrong" are neither hate mongers of hypocrites -- they are people who believe the tenets of their religion.

I write this as a response to the people who brought up the Christian issue -- I am well aware that not everyone is a Christian or wishes to follow its tenets, so please take this response in the specific context it is written in.

I think it's pretty obvious from my posts that I support a secular society where we have a decent separation of church and state and this separation is constitutionally protected. If you want to live in a theocracy then I'm not going to stop you from voting to live in one, just don't expect us to follow your example.It might come as a surprise to you, but we already live in a secular society.
Last time I checked, if we live in a society where the church and the state are separated, there should be no outside pressures to force the church to accept marriages, which is what most "libertarians" do.

I really don't get what the problem is in understanding the difference between two grown adults agreeing upon a legal agreement of partenrship known as marriage (as I've said earlier the Church has no monopoly on the term) and an agreement where you only have the consent of one part. The first is an mutual agreement, the second might as well be slavery.Marriage is a religious concept, yes. You might argue civil union, but not marriage.
So, do you think a 16 years old can not consent a sexual relation with a 45 years old pervert?

Ain't it allways easy to shrug off the arguments of others and instead just call them nazis and commies? It makes the whole thing so much easier don't you think? Now considering that both communism and nazism are totalitarian systems I find it strange that I who advocate a liberal society would be sharing similar line of thinking which nazis or commies. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate exactly how you came to that conclusion? Yes, it is a pity it is "libertarians" like you who go out labeling everyone not in touch with the NWO as a nazi.
That said, you are not very good at understanding arguments, because I did not say you share a lot with either of them, but rather I said your line of thinking can easily scale to such a system. No, I dont mean libertarianism, but imorality and relativism.
Not only that, but I am skeptical about your kind of libertarianism. NWO supporters are very "tolerant", to their own beliefs.
It gets even more interesting when "libertarians" such as you demand state intervention to guarantee the "rights" of group X or Y.

No? Then explain to me why some of the pedophiles caught here and elsewhere around the globe have been married men? Marriage offers no magical cure to the urges you know. Marrying does not make someone not a pedophile, but I meant your argument had no bearing to the discussion at all. Marrying is not a pedophile's behaviour, which means one could not be regarded as such by getting married. In order to be labelled as a pedophile, one has to practice pedophilia, in which case he should be jailed; thus, he could not get married.
You should attend a logics course.
----------------------------------------------------

I don't think that is true either. There are all sorts of behavior, traits, etc., that we see in nature - many due to genetics - that are readily observable, outside the normal behavior of the species, and yet wouldn't be considered unnatural. However, you seem to be of the opinion that some deviant behavior is natural while others are not natural, without providing a basis for why some are and some are not.

Go to any zoo where they have a bunch of the same type of animal in a cage together. You can readily spot one that is acting differently from the others. Now just because this action may be considered deviant from what the others are doing, are you going to consider it unnatural?

How about a real life example. It has been observed in nature that some monkeys will wash their food before eating it, if there is a readily available water source. However, the vast majority of monkeys will not. So if we have a group of 20 monkeys, and two stop to wash their food before eating it, are these two individuals deviant and therefore acting unnaturally? While can't both actions (although totally opposite of one another) both be considered natural?Once again you are confusing things. The monkey behaviour you described seems perfectly fine to me. Two different modus operandi that ensues the same result in the end, and neither compromise the survival of the species.
It is not the case of homosexuality. We have the majority behaviour, which ensues both procreation and the survival of the species - which are both, undeniably, natural. In the other hand we have a behaviour that is against both procreation and the survival or the species; it can not be anything other than un-natural, unless self destruction is also natural to you?

Perhaps you feel that the Universe is very structured and ordered, and that to you there is a natural order to things, but that is simply your own opinion. I am of the opinion that there is always going to be an aspect of what is considered the societal norm when making any kind of value judgements (like what is natural and what is not) and thus this places it outside the realm of science. As such, since such a question is outside the realm of science, no amount of species evolution can ever lead to giving a scientific answer to a non-scientific question. Oh, I wish I could be the one so bright as to be the creator of such a theory. Fortunately - or unfortunately - those are not my words, but what the greatest scientific minds have concluded so far.
Actually, if you think about it, it is very logical. There could be no existance, no life forms, if there was not a natural order to things. No one can live in chaos, we live because we are part of a whole that is structured in such a way that enables us to live. Procreation is certainly one of the pre-requisites for that.
If there was not a natural order to things, Science could never exist.

[ September 23, 2005, 18:51: Message edited by: Svyatoslav ]

Quote from Chevalier:
"Loving someone doesn't mean agreeing with his lifestyle. The godhatesfags site looks like someone really hates gay people as persons. However, I don't, and I still disagree with what they do."

Can you explain to me WHAT it is exactly you disagree on in regards to people being homosexual and having a relationship? YOU do not have to do it! They don't bother you with it, so why do you still disagree with what THEY do? The only thing the homosexual people close to you expect is respect, acceptance and love, just like everyone else.

I hope you understand where I'm getting at. I haven't read a single argument here from people disagreing with homosexuality that can't be countered with a "But why" question.

No offence intended Chev, you just had a good example.

Let me see if I can field that one, Drugar. Religious people like myself believe that homosexuality is not part of God's plan, and is thus wrong or sinful. Sin affects not only the sinner but the society in which the sinner lives.

Homosexual urges may exist, but that does not make them right. All of us have felt urges to do all sorts of things (run over someone annoying, steal something cheap, slander a colleague to get a raise, etc) but that does not mean these urges or desires are acceptable or right.

People can say "but why doesn't God want people to be gay?" -- and a person who believes in God as seen by many Christian churches will answer "he has told us he wishes for people to not engage in Homosexual activity -- He tells us that it is a sin, and that we will be happier if we obey his law." Since we believe he is infinitely wise, we trust his judgement.

So, do you think a 16 years old can not consent a sexual relation with a 45 years old pervert? I'm not sure why you are asking this question. It totally depends upon where you live. The age of consent varies from state to state in the U.S., and country by country worldwide. I don't know where you live, so I cannot answer that question for your case. I live in Maryland, where the age of consent is 16, so the answer from my location is "yes".

The monkey behaviour you described seems perfectly fine to me. Two different modus operandi that ensues the same result in the end, and neither compromise the survival of the species. Ah, now we're getting somewhere! :D You are showing your mettle with this statement. I showed how frequency of an action cannot be the basis for determining if something is natural or not. By this statement, you have stepped up to the challenge and clearly articulated a definition of natural devoid of any reference of frequency. Essentially, you state any action that compromises the continued viability of a species could not possibly be natural. Good job! :thumb:

It is not the case of homosexuality. We have the majority behaviour, which ensues both procreation and the survival of the species - which are both, undeniably, natural. In the other hand we have a behaviour that is against both procreation and the survival or the species; it can not be anything other than un-natural, unless self destruction is also natural to you? OK, I agree with most of this too. I don't think any reasonable arguement can be put forth stating that procreation is not necessary for the survival of the species. If every member of the species stopped procreating, that would be the end of the species as existing members died.

So the challenge here, going with your definition of natural, would be to show how the possibility of homosexual behavior would not compromise the continued viability of the species. Actually, I think the challenge has to be taken a step further. Not only would it be necessary to show that it doesn't compromise the survival of the species, but also provide some benefit to the species under certain conditions.

And, I must admit, that you have me here. I can think of only one benefit that homosexual behavior could have on a given population, and even that is conditional. Homosexual behavior would be beneficial to a population in danger of out-stripping it's food supply. It would serve as an effective form of population control. Of course, there is a strict condition that the population is in danger of out-stripping it's food supply.

This theory is easily testable, but I'm completely unaware if any studies have been done on the subject. For this theory to hold water, we would have to observe animal populations world-wide and find two pieces of information: 1.) Species that have some prevalence of homosexual behavior in them. Obviously, if there is no evidence of homosexual behavior in a species, it provides no benefit or refutation of my theory. 2.) Of those species that DO show some evidence of homosexual behavior, is the frequency of such behavior increased when faced with population pressure?

Now the first point is easily answerable with a "yes". There have been studies conducted that show that some animal populations show signs of homosexual behavior. Unfortunately (for me, not for you), I know of no studies ever conducted to answer the second point. So, I'm basically saying my theory could amount to pure bupkis.

I'm only going to briefly comment on the end of your post, because I think this is simply a difference of opinion that neither of us are going to be capable of overcoming. While I do agree that there is some level of natural order in the world around us, and that science can help explain some of these phenomenon (examples would include Newtonian physics, relativity, natural selection, ecology (the biological, not political definition of the term), gravity, conservation of mass, et. al.) that it cannot answer what is or is not natural. I don't see how any test can be applied to it - or more specifically a controlled test accounting for variables. The uncontrollable variables have been the nadir of many studies in genetics and evolution, and a major reason why some of the outcomes have not been universally accepted. Sadly, I think that specific actions by individuals in a larger population goes beyond the scope of any genre of science.

Last time I checked, if we live in a society where the church and the state are separated, there should be no outside pressures to force the church to accept marriages, which is what most "libertarians" do.
Actually, you are wrong here. Most proponents of gay marriage want the STATE to recognize their relationship, not the CHURCH. It is the state that provides certain rights to spouses as a matter of course. No one can force any church to recognize any marriage performed by another religious institution or by a secular entity such as the state -- while most churches do recognize those relationships, they don't have to because they have no impact on the church itself. The church can regulate its members and has oversight over religious observances, nothing else.

While I am sure that there are proponents of gay marriage who want all institutions to recognize the marriage, they are as out-there as the guys on the other side of the equation. You cannot force a religious institution to recognize and give credence to a ceremony, rite or secular proceeding. For example, if two Orthodox Jews were to get married by a justice of the peace, they could not then go and force their local temple to acknowledge that they are married within their religion -- because they aren't unless the temple/rabbi says they are.

It might come as a surprise to you, but we already live in a secular society.
Last time I checked, if we live in a society where the church and the state are separated, there should be no outside pressures to force the church to accept marriages, which is what most "libertarians" do. Well no. I doubt most libertarians want to force a religious institutuion to accept homosexual marriage and neither do I. Dmc pretty much allready answered this quite throughly so I won't bother to repeat the same rant.

Marriage is a religious concept, yes. You might argue civil union, but not marriage.
So, do you think a 16 years old can not consent a sexual relation with a 45 years old pervert? Marriage is a religious concept, yes I can probably accept that, and if we have a Church (there are a few as far as I know) that accepts gay marriage they are allowed to use the term then right? Anyway the fact that the origins of marriage come from religion does not mean it should have to remain so.

16 year olds are entitled to their own free sexual life where I live and it can't be called paedophilia if a 45 year old sleeps with a 16 year old, it would in fact not be criminal.

Yes, it is a pity it is "libertarians" like you who go out labeling everyone not in touch with the NWO as a nazi. I did not call you a nazi nor thit I imply that you your thinking is similar to one. It was you who brought up the nazism, remember? I find it strange that now you're trying to turn it against me. Also I'm not very fond of this NWO crap and I don't know what you're trying to pull with it. I have my own political ideology which is very well implemented in my country, there are exceptions of course since in a nation of 5 million inhabitants it's nearly impossible to get the nation shaped fully into your liking unless you're a dictator of course and I have no intention of being one.


That said, you are not very good at understanding arguments, because I did not say you share a lot with either of them, but rather I said your line of thinking can easily scale to such a system. No, I dont mean libertarianism, but imorality and relativism. Morality is a very subjective thing, what might be immoral to you might not be immoral to me, so don't start with the holier than thou attitude. I don't find myself supporting relativism either, I support gay marriage but it does not automatically make me a relativist now does it? Or if it in your mind does then your sight must be even more narrower than I would have thought it to be.

Not only that, but I am skeptical about your kind of libertarianism. NWO supporters are very "tolerant", to their own beliefs. I tend to consider myself as tolerant to all sorts of beliefs even those that I don't agree with. A functioning democracy needs political diversity in order to work, so I'm not trying to smoke out those who oppose gay marriage or anything like that.

It gets even more interesting when "libertarians" such as you demand state intervention to guarantee the "rights" of group X or Y. It's the very core of libertarian beliefs actually. In the ideal libertarian system (which I don't support since I don't consider myself to be a libertarian anyway) the government's sole and most important duty is to secure the rights for all groups, it's not the same thing as anarchy you know.

Marrying does not make someone not a pedophile, but I meant your argument had no bearing to the discussion at all. Marrying is not a pedophile's behaviour, which means one could not be regarded as such by getting married. In order to be labelled as a pedophile, one has to practice pedophilia, in which case he should be jailed; thus, he could not get married.
You should attend a logics course. Marrying is not a pedopihile's behaviour? How would you know? You know exactly what a pedophile's behaviour is? Humans are more complex than that and some pedophiles have indeed been married even if it's more often that they're not. One can also be a pedophile without being labelled as one by the society, just like one can be homosexual without having gay sex.

Further more I don't see the need for a logic course just because I don't agree with your logic. Logic tends to be a subjective thing too. ;)

@LKD

"Homosexual urges may exist, but that does not make them right."

But it doesn't make it wrong either. Is there a passage in the bible or religious text that teaches against homosexual urges? I'm no religious man, so I do not have any knowledge of any religious texts.

I just think that everyone should make out for themselves what influence a homosexual has on your own life. I am not affected by the fact that some of the people I work with and are in my social circle are gay. If I where religious and the community around me thinks otherwise, I wouldn't be tempted to change my view. What I am trying to say is don't let others influence your opinion on people that are "different" than you are.

I'm not sure why you are asking this question. It totally depends upon where you live. The age of consent varies from state to state in the U.S., and country by country worldwide. I don't know where you live, so I cannot answer that question for your case. I live in Maryland, where the age of consent is 16, so the answer from my location is "yes".I asked that to Morgoroth, because he mentioned personal consent vs forced enslavement. I wanted to make a point someone can be old enough to have a formed mindset and autonomous responsability by the age of 16, giving her own consent, but it would still be disgusting nonetheless that a 45 years old pervert would have sex with her.
If morality is not something he cares about, I could lower her age to 14, making it illegal to have sex with her, even though by the age of 14 someone would be old enough to have a personal notion of what can be done or not.
My point is that even though consent might exist, the action could still be wrong.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere! [Big Grin] You are showing your mettle with this statement. I showed how frequency of an action cannot be the basis for determining if something is natural or not. By this statement, you have stepped up to the challenge and clearly articulated a definition of natural devoid of any reference of frequency. Essentially, you state any action that compromises the continued viability of a species could not possibly be natural. Good job! [thumbs up] Yes. It was not my intention to imply frequency = naturality. I am sorry if I gave that impression.

OK, I agree with most of this too. I don't think any reasonable arguement can be put forth stating that procreation is not necessary for the survival of the species. If every member of the species stopped procreating, that would be the end of the species as existing members died.

So the challenge here, going with your definition of natural, would be to show how the possibility of homosexual behavior would not compromise the continued viability of the species. Actually, I think the challenge has to be taken a step further. Not only would it be necessary to show that it doesn't compromise the survival of the species, but also provide some benefit to the species under certain conditions.

And, I must admit, that you have me here. I can think of only one benefit that homosexual behavior could have on a given population, and even that is conditional. Homosexual behavior would be beneficial to a population in danger of out-stripping it's food supply. It would serve as an effective form of population control. Of course, there is a strict condition that the population is in danger of out-stripping it's food supply. Yes, that is the only scenario possible, but Thomas Mathus have long been disproved. :)
That said, I dont see nothing benefitial with homosexualism.

This theory is easily testable, but I'm completely unaware if any studies have been done on the subject. For this theory to hold water, we would have to observe animal populations world-wide and find two pieces of information: 1.) Species that have some prevalence of homosexual behavior in them. Obviously, if there is no evidence of homosexual behavior in a species, it provides no benefit or refutation of my theory. 2.) Of those species that DO show some evidence of homosexual behavior, is the frequency of such behavior increased when faced with population pressure?

Now the first point is easily answerable with a "yes". There have been studies conducted that show that some animal populations show signs of homosexual behavior. Unfortunately (for me, not for you), I know of no studies ever conducted to answer the second point. So, I'm basically saying my theory could amount to pure bupkis. Yes, I did not dig deep into such scenario, because as I said, economical laws already disproved the possibility of over population and sortage of food. But I see your point.


I'm only going to briefly comment on the end of your post, because I think this is simply a difference of opinion that neither of us are going to be capable of overcoming. While I do agree that there is some level of natural order in the world around us, and that science can help explain some of these phenomenon (examples would include Newtonian physics, relativity, natural selection, ecology (the biological, not political definition of the term), gravity, conservation of mass, et. al.) that it cannot answer what is or is not natural. I don't see how any test can be applied to it - or more specifically a controlled test accounting for variables. The uncontrollable variables have been the nadir of many studies in genetics and evolution, and a major reason why some of the outcomes have not been universally accepted. Sadly, I think that specific actions by individuals in a larger population goes beyond the scope of any genre of science. But dont you agree that if the universe is structured in a rigid form, with natural laws and order, then it is only the logical next step to assume there is one thruth and naturality to things? And if we fail to reach it, with our limited knowledge, or if we conclude opposing results with different researches, this is due to our own ignorance and not because a natural order does not exist?
Anyway, sorry for my half assed reply, but now it is friday night. :)

I will reply to the others tomorrow.

There is a genetic basis for homosexuality. If you take a two identical twins raised in the same household, the chance they will both be homosexual is far greater than the chance two fraternal twins raised in the same household will be homosexual. (Also, environment seems to play a little part in homosexuality.)

The natural response is probably to say that if homosexuality were genetic, a species would not have survived. Not necessarily true. A "gay gene" (this term really, really oversimplifies genetics) that, say, increases an organism's sexual attraction to males could be located on the X chromosome. Females have XX, males have XY.

See the picture? Females with the gene would benefit here, since they would have a greater drive to have offspring. Then the females' daughters would carry on this trait.

As for the males? Well, they're screwed. But not really. That's like saying deer are screwed because a cheetah has learned to run fast. Males will also evolve things on their Y chromosome that allow them to, say, increase sex drive (thereby impregnating more females, thereby making sure that more Y chromosomes are produced).

Don't think of genomes as happy-go-lucky adventuring parties with cooperative clerics and meat shield fighters. It's really every gene for itself. The X and Y chromosome genes will be, yes, working against each other. This is sexual antagonism. It's in human beings, and explains certain genetic disorders, but hey, we're still here. Sexual antagonism doesn't screw a species over any more than a genetic arms race between wasps and spiders screws over a population of such insects.

The flaw in your argument is that women do not possess a Y chromosome and yet there are plenty of butch lesbos. And lipstick lesbians as well. I prefer the lipstick lesbos myself, at least in sexual fantasies.

Edit...

Although...perhaps female attraction is partially located on non-sexual chromosomes and even upon the X chromosome that we all possess. Hmm...pure speculation and over-simplification...

Well no. I doubt most libertarians want to force a religious institutuion to accept homosexual marriage and neither do I. Dmc pretty much allready answered this quite throughly so I won't bother to repeat the same rant. This reply goes for DMC as well.
I have seen lots of protests from homos wanting to be married in their own churchers, and leftist thinkers are always bashing the church for not allowing homosexual marriage.
I would not downplay their will to be get married in the church.

Marriage is a religious concept, yes I can probably accept that, and if we have a Church (there are a few as far as I know) that accepts gay marriage they are allowed to use the term then right? Anyway the fact that the origins of marriage come from religion does not mean it should have to remain so. Yes, it should remain a religious institution. We will not allow leftist like you destroy all our institutions, rest assured.


16 year olds are entitled to their own free sexual life where I live and it can't be called paedophilia if a 45 year old sleeps with a 16 year old, it would in fact not be criminal.
Read my response to Aldeth the Foppish Idiot

I did not call you a nazi nor thit I imply that you your thinking is similar to one. It was you who brought up the nazism, remember? I find it strange that now you're trying to turn it against me.You did imply I am a religious fanatic. I wonder how long till it got to nazi, fascist, intolerant. :rolleyes:

Also I'm not very fond of this NWO crap and I don't know what you're trying to pull with it. I have my own political ideology which is very well implemented in my country, there are exceptions of course since in a nation of 5 million inhabitants it's nearly impossible to get the nation shaped fully into your liking unless you're a dictator of course and I have no intention of being one.NWO stand for New World Order. It is not a simple issue for someone not aware of it, but it is a "movement" that has been going for decades now. It's agents basically want to destroy everything which is White, Christian and Traditional. They want to create an internationalist society without borders, be them ethnical/cultural or economical. They want to replace millenia old values for false and corrupt un-values. I could give you a few examples of NWO agents: Soros, Chomsky, Moore, Rockfeller Institute, most western politicians - Clinton, Schirrac, etc - and the list goes on and on. Of course not all of them act in the same way, but their intent is quite clear. Almost all of them share a socialist ideology.
By the way, before you call me a wacko or something, do a little research and you will realise NWO is far from being a term I coined myself. It is a widespread phenomenom.

Morality is a very subjective thing, what might be immoral to you might not be immoral to me, so don't start with the holier than thou attitude. I don't find myself supporting relativism either, I support gay marriage but it does not automatically make me a relativist now does it? Or if it in your mind does then your sight must be even more narrower than I would have thought it to be. LOL! Oh my! I dont mean to be rude, but that is why I dont like to discuss with amateurs. Morality yes subjective, and yet you are not a relativist?! How stupid is that? Do you even know what relativism is? You should know what it means before you run your mouth.
But I can help you. Relativists basically say everything is subjective - morality included - and as such moral judgements - what is right and wrong - and quality judgments - what is better/worse and superior/inferior - can not exist, because everything is a result of social standards and convenience, and none bear the monopoly over thruth.
Of course relativism is a very frail concept, and can be easily debunked. To begin with, while they claim there is no thruth, their self righteous talk betrays them. Their thruth is "there is not thruth".
Second of all, relativists are always running their mouthes to stand for primitive societies, claiming we can not apply our own moral/cultural standards to them, on the basis that there is no better/worse, but the mere different.
However, if you ask anyone in which historical society - including our own - they would wish to live, they would chose one - not necessarily ours, but one nonetheless. By the time someone choses a given society to live, he is basically meaning this society holds the superior values/culture to them. So, as you can see, relativists also have their own standards of judgement, despite their empty rhetoric to convince the masses.
Not to mention relativism throws logic in the trash, by claiming there are several opposing thruths and rights.
Anyway, you are not a relativist because you are pro homosexual marriage, but because you think morality is a "very subjective" thing. :rolleyes:

I tend to consider myself as tolerant to all sorts of beliefs even those that I don't agree with. A functioning democracy needs political diversity in order to work, so I'm not trying to smoke out those who oppose gay marriage or anything like that. That is what everyone claims. I will not accuse you of saying that falsely though, as I dont know you.
By the way, you should review your concept of Democracy, because it is long surpassed. But maybe you think Western social democracies are great beacons of Democracy? But that is a different discussion that I would be willing to conduct in a different thread.

It's the very core of libertarian beliefs actually. In the ideal libertarian system (which I don't support since I don't consider myself to be a libertarian anyway) the government's sole and most important duty is to secure the rights for all groups, it's not the same thing as anarchy you know. I am sorry, but if you keep commiting such illiterate mistakes I wont see the need to continue this, because a high level discussion requires that both discussers know what they are talking about.
I explained to you what relativism means, now I will explain to you what libertarianism means.
Firstly, you should read John Locke, as he is the most classical liberal.
Anyway, libertarianism stands for a small goverment, that does not intervene in civil society - unless the minimal necessary of course. The justification for that is that the human being is both rational and free enough to guide his own life without the need of a state ruling out his life. Liberalism assumes men should have personal autonomy and self responsability to the point he himself should be blamed/praised to whichever deeds he has accomplished. Meaning we dont need the state for anything other than security and some minimal order.
Let me give you a real life example of what would be the response of a liberal to something that happens commonly in our society: In those cases someone sues a cigarretes company because he got cancer after smoking for say 30 years, a liberal would say, "who cares, he/she knew what he/she was doing, the state has no place in demanding the company to pay any compensation". Again, the most important concept here is personal autonomy and maturity. An interventionist state assumes people are mentally infantile and can not rule over their own lives.
That said, it is amazing how leftists and NWO agenst twisted the concept of what libertarianism means. While it always stood for small goverment and autonomy to civil society, now libertarianism stands for an immensely interventionist state that do so to garantee the "rights of all groups".
It is, at the same time, a subtle but yet a 180 degrees change of the term.
So, basically, these new age "libertarians" support a civil society with no autonomy, a society in which members have no freedom of action or behaviour because the state has the "duty" to secure the "rights of all groups". Of course the only way for the state to do that is by meddling in our lives and severing the freedom of "oppressing groups".
It assumes a bunch of state burocrats have a better understanding of how to solve civil society dilemma than it's own members.
I could keep on for pages and pages regarding this matter, but my initial purpose was merely to point out to you how your deffinition of "libertarianism" is deeply misguided and twisted, and that, in the end, the only thing it ensues is totalitarism. I am always appalled how these leftists - who are all totalitarians despite their false rhetoric - turn concept X into Y and vice versa by a subtle modification in it. It requires a keen eye to keep up with their lies and misinterpretion.
Anyway, back to the topic.

Marrying is not a pedopihile's behaviour? How would you know? You know exactly what a pedophile's behaviour is? Humans are more complex than that and some pedophiles have indeed been married even if it's more often that they're not. One can also be a pedophile without being labelled as one by the society, just like one can be homosexual without having gay sex. ... Dude, let me repeat it once more. A pedophile can get married, but getting married is not what makes one a pedophile. To one being a pedophile he has to commit pedophilia - or have urges, depending on how you view it.
Thus, by getting married there is no way to accuse one of being a pedophile - on the marriage account alone - but if he is a known pedophile - on the account that he has commited pedophilia - he could not get married, because he should be in jail.
I guess the logic course still stands in need. ;)

Further more I don't see the need for a logic course just because I don't agree with your logic. Logic tends to be a subjective thing too. LOL! God give me strenght! Now logic is a subjective thing too? And you said you were not a relativist? Well, now that I explained to you what relativism means I hope you see the faulty of your thinking.
Despite, whether you are a relativist or not does not matter here. Claiming logic is a subjective thing is going a step further than the typical relativist lunacy and schizophrenia.
Logic is, always was and shall be an essencially objective concept.

Edit: By the way, I forgot to mention, but if you want to understand how the NWO works, and how we are going through a masked process "totalizating" the state, you should read the fabian communists and mainly Antonio Gramsci, who is the main thinker behind the idea of a totalitarian state that acts in a subtle and most effective way. Both were concerned with the implementation of a communist state that would be far more effective than the violent method of the bolsheviks.

[ September 24, 2005, 17:03: Message edited by: Svyatoslav ]

Svyatoslav: You may want to check out the rules for posting in AoDA. You're hurling a lot of insults in your posts. A lot of the topics are deeply personal, but we usually try to keep it civil here (admittedly I have been guilty of going overboard on occasion).

Yes, it should remain a religious institution. We will not allow leftist like you destroy all our institutions, rest assured. I'm not even a leftist. It would be nice if you stopped labeling people while you discuss and instead concentrate on the issues and not on the person. Needless to say, I'm not even wanting to destroy you or your religious institution. I don't live in your country so I don't care much what you do in there. In here on the other hand the institution is different and you'll just going to have to accept that too.

You did imply I am a religious fanatic. I wonder how long till it got to nazi, fascist, intolerant. Probably never actually. Sad that you see it that way.

By the way, before you call me a wacko or something, do a little research and you will realise NWO is far from being a term I coined myself. It is a widespread phenomenom. Interesting. Anyway I don't believe in this NWO crap on basis of what you've said. I don't think the west european governments are there to destroy everything that is christian and white and I find believing so extremely absurd. A silly conspiracy theory in my opinion, nothing more.

Morality yes subjective, and yet you are not a relativist?! How stupid is that? Do you even know what relativism is? You should know what it means before you run your mouth. I don't believe in myself being relativist no, but on the other hand I can hardly go and claim the existance of one true moral code, which leads me to believe that morality indeed is subjective atleast to an certain extent. I for one do not see homosexual activity as immoral and you obviously do, which means that either one of us is immoral or we have a different moral code. The second seems like the more likely alternative to me, to you it obviously ain't so.

I am sorry, but if you keep commiting such illiterate mistakes I wont see the need to continue this, because a high level discussion requires that both discussers know what they are talking about.
I explained to you what relativism means, now I will explain to you what libertarianism means. I am well aware what libertarianism is. A small government is not the same thing as an nonexisting government. The libertarian government's greatest duties is the justice system. Libertarianists are most often against social engineering too, now I can't say that I know what Nozick would say about gay marriage, perhaps he would turn in his grave and shake his head but the point being that discouraging homosexual behaviour is social engineering. I know the basics only of these kinds of things, I'm not really into philosophy I've had a couple of courses of it but not read any extra books about it so I have just the basic knowledge. The thing is though that I don't think there is anyone around who is willing to implements Nozick's ideals in its purest without quite a lot of adjustment.

- on the account that he has commited pedophilia - he could not get married, because he should be in jail. I can't say I know what the law says in there but in here people can get married even when they're imprisoned. Additionally I never claimed marriage to make someone a pedophile I merely said that it won't remove the urges, and as long as those urges exist. So no I still don't see the need for a logic course. ;)

Despite, whether you are a relativist or not does not matter here. Claiming logic is a subjective thing is going a step further than the typical relativist lunacy and schizophrenia.
Logic is, always was and shall be an essencially objective concept. Yes I might have been wrong there by saying that logic is subjective, probably should have said that the inteprenting of what is logical and what is not is very subjective. As I said I'm not an expert in philosophy and try to avoid such topics in general but this has been steered there very much against my own will.

[ September 24, 2005, 18:15: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

Let's get back on topic, shall we... and I'm sure Svyatoslav will be reading up on the AoDA rules before he posts again so that we don't have to issue further warnings about rule violations.

Ok, I just read the guidelines of this forum, and although I admit I broke the rules in that thread about turkey, I really did not now.
I called Morgoroth leftist and amateur, but neither are name-calling, by any stretch of imagination. The first once is my perception of his political stance, and the second is a constatation of his lacking knowledge in a given matter.
So I suppose the only wrong thing I did was to go off topic, for which I am sorry. I will open a new thread right now to discuss the current matters.

The flaw in your argument is that women do not possess a Y chromosome and yet there are plenty of butch lesbos. And lipstick lesbians as well. I prefer the lipstick lesbos myself, at least in sexual fantasies.Well, a genetic basis for homosexuality is not an argument. There is considerable proof for it. (But let us not oversimplify genetics to the point where we say that there is some kind of "gay gene.")

That aside, sexual antagonism occurs in both sexes, Y chromosome or no. Female humans will have to be picky about their mates because unlike males, having offspring is a laborious, long, painful thing. Many female organisms are going to be picky about their mates. Throw social factors in there, and lesbianism could ensue.

Also remember that while it is usually very hard to alter sexual orientation, it is relatively easy to alter sexual behavior. Perhaps for much of civilization true lesbians felt little joy in having sex or a relationship with a male, but had to go through with it because of societal factors.

Is there any such thing as a sexual orientation at all? It sounds like a modern concept, created to smuggle some ideas by under the guise of a wise and professional sounding term. There is sexual drive and disorders therein, there is sexual behaviour, but orientation? Naaah. That's hardly scientific, it's a social construct and more of a pre-agreement than observation of fact.

There's also a number of other genetic disorders and diseases. Doesn't make them alternative versions of human organism functioning. Even if they do find something close to a gay gene, it still won't make homosexuality a perfectly biologically normal pattern of behaviour on par and in the same league with heterosexual behaviour.

What if a gay person is happy they are gay? There are benefits you realize...

What if a gay person is happy they are gay? There are benefits you realize... We were talking about social benefits...

What if a mental patient is happy with his friends only he sees?

I suppose that would actually be quite okay. Unless he of course is a danger for others and I'm sure you don't think homosexuals are a serious threat to you now do you? Mental patients however usually are and more often than not can't live without some sort of treatment, if one could then it would be okay. In here no one can be forced to treatment unless he is considered to be a danger for others.

EDIT: Actually now that I think about it most mentally ill probably live without treatment, depression probably being the the most common problem and one that people rarely seek treatment for.

Okay, but do we deliver mail to his imaginary friends? If the thinks up a bride for himself, do we perform the ceremony? Not talking about straight jackets and stuff.

Probably not since the friend does not actually exist and the amount of trouble in serving someone who does not exist would be quite a burden. I however fail to see what this has to do with accepting gay marriage since that requires you to make no compromises in your life.

Chev, I hope you have a son who is a world-class flamer. You know, floppy wrists, rolling eyes, the works. And you'll love him anyway. And then when you see how truly happy some equally strange "disordered" individual makes him, then you'll understand.

@chev:
You mean like letters to Santa (or God)? :heh: Maybe we should all be locked up. (An imaginary bride could easily be handled by a imaginary priest.)

Not really like those, since if any adult writes letters to Santa, it's a funny thing and nothing else. However, imagine a person says his bride is real but it's just we who don't see her. And he demands to be married to her. Then other people follow his steps and a couple of organisations stands up for his rights, the left side of the parliament prepares a bill, and so on.

Isn't this somewhat going to the extremes?
where would we, if being gay is marked as a disorder and acquainted with the ilk schizophrenia, set the lines? There's loads of other sexual related tendencies, which extends even further beyond what one would classify as being "normal".

Chevalier wrote:
Then other people follow his steps and a couple of organizations stands up for his rights, the left side of the parliament prepares a bill, and so on.This somewhat resembles paranoia to me, though I guess you were giving the extreme example here. I can understand why one couldn't allow a gay couple to be wed in a church, based on religious arguments; but what harm would it do to simply let gay people be gay people, as long as they're happy with that, and it isn't anything that hinters them from being able to live a normal, functioning life? A delusional or schizophrene person could easily end up hurting either him-/herself or others, which can't necessarily be said about a gay person.

A don't see any harm in gayness as of such, unless it evolves to orgies in public places (which is not something entirely associated with gayness as of such, but also a tendency heterosexual people practice's).

Probably not since the friend does not actually exist and the amount of trouble in se