PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gay Rights Debates
     Gay - Nature or Nurture?
       What is the origin of homosexual orientation?

Topic Jump
Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Scooter at 5:53 PM on November 22, 2002 :
Sorry Alex... I was NOT the person who said that quote I wrote... Opps my bad! Lol


Yeah, the live and let live thing was probably from me. And by probably I mean certainly.

 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 02:18 AM on November 25, 2002 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Whether you believe in creation or evolution or big bang or whatever, it's obvious that every species, including humans, has a male and female "version."

The male and female are partners; and that's the way "nature" intended it.  To be gay/lesbian is to go against nature.

I don't believe in nor do I personally participate in persecuting or ridiculing homosexuals.

I think that people who choose to be gay do so because they are confused.  (mostly men)

I think with women it's just a distrust of men.  Perhaps something to do with their childhood.


-------
A just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry!
 


Posts: 110 | Posted: 03:51 AM on November 27, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

that was a wondefully ignorant post. here's a suggestion: don't post blind. first check out other people's posts; you may learn something. i feel forced to repeat myself now. in nature about half of all known species exhibit homsexuality (and not just pluggin the wrong hole, or being too horny), and even in many cases same-sex coupling for life. there is NO evidence to suggest homosexuality is against nature. you're statement about gays (mostly men, why????) is based on abosolute ignorance. instead of assuming a truth that fits the opinion you already have, why not try learning something. try talking to a gay person. i WAS confused, when i was working hard to enjoy dating, hooking up, and sleeping with people I wasn't attracted to. Can you, as a straight male, imagine how absurd it would be to, as a result of societal pressures, feel coerced to sleep with other men??? NOW, i am not confused. NOW, I am happy. I am very objective, very open to debate. but try to be informed. your comment on natural vs. unnatural has no evidence.


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 11:13 AM on November 27, 2002 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Alex, I am sorry to offend you so deeply.  But the fact that you were so defensive in your response shows me that maybe you ARE still a little confused about your homosexual lifestyle.

Nothing that I, or anyone else, say will likely persuade you that homosexuality goes against nature and is therefore wrong.  And even if someone did get through to you, you wouldn't openly admit it.

The truth is, as I could tell by your response, that you're in a constant battle with yourself; torn between the desires that you have and what you know is right.

As "ignorant" as this may sound, I still feel I have to say it again (a little more bluntly this time, though.)
Answer me this: Can 2 men, or 2 women, reproduce?  Regardless of what you think, Alex, the answer will always be "No."
And this should echo in your mind, as I know it constantly already does, that homosexuality does, in fact, go against nature.


-------
A just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry!
 


Posts: 110 | Posted: 12:53 AM on November 28, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you didn't offend me in the slighest. i am responding intelligently and objectively to your post. can u do the same? check out my other posts. i make clear, coherent arguments supported by fact, not sentiment. why are u dismissing my arguments as automatically wrong because i happen to be gay? there are plenty of heterosexual people on this forum who will give the same arguments. would you listen to them? instead of trying to psycho-analyze me, why don't you engage in a thoughtful debate? that is what this site is all about. i didn't call you ignorant because of your position on the issue; i was responding to the logical foundation of your argument. you didn't give me the same courtesy. you said unnatural, and I observed that homosexuality is quite common in nature. respond to that. can 2 men or 2 women produce??? of course not. how does that define natural? sex can lead to reproduction, but is certainly doesn't in all cases. all heterosexuals engage in sex for pleasure as well. now, if you refer to 'evolution' as natural, that is also misleading. evolution, please remember, refers to groups, not individuals within a species. so if one individual does not reproduce in his/her lifetime, it does not follow that they in no way contributed to the evolution of the group. please prove to me that you have more to ay intelligently on this subject besides trying to psycho-analyze someone from one post you read. my father is a psychiatrist, and I know for sure it is impossible to evaluate whether I am "torn between my desires and what I know is right" from reading a paragraph i wrote. so...please stick to debating the issue.


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 03:48 AM on November 28, 2002 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let me, at your request, respond to "homosexuality is common in nature."

Agreed! Some living organisms in nature do reproduce without having sex.  Some even experience homosexuality.

However!, your saying that "homosexuality is common" is misleading.  The truth is that "common" really means that, yes, it does happen SOMETIMES! (Actually, an extremely small fraction of any species experiences homosexuality.)

When this (homosexuality) does occur, it is abnormal to nature.  It is a "glitch" in the organism that causes it to behave that way.
The same applies to humans!

If you enjoy "being with" other men, that's your business, and I certainly would not riducule you for being that way.

As I've said before, nothing I can say or do will likely cause you to change.
But perhaps you will at least consider this:

The goal of all living creatures is to ensure survival of its species. Homosexuals do not contribute to this process whatsoever.

You MUST admit, that that is true! By being a homosexual, you are not doing your share.

Just remember, heterosexuals are the ones that keep the homo sapiens from becoming extinct.

Tell me, what would happen if everyone in the world were gay? We would quickly become extinct!

That must pose such a paradox for you!  Because anyway you look at that question, you're forced to realize that homosexuality does, in fact, Go Against Nature.

Which way do you choose?
  1. Become extinct
If that's what you want, you're more confused about life than I thought.
  2. Realize that heterosexuality is the "right" more logical way of living.



-------
A just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry!
 


Posts: 110 | Posted: 01:33 AM on December 3, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok, i will address each point in turn...
how do you know what fraction of species engage in homosexual behavior? cite some evidence for me. I said almost half of known species demonstrate homosexual behavior. what figure do you have for me?
what evidence that it is a "glitch"? there are many characteristics in humans and other species that are rare, but we don't call them "glitches". the frequency of something does not denote a problem. an IQ of 180 is uncommon...is that a glitch?
who ever said the goal all living creatures is to ensure the survival of their species? what law is that? who decreed that? or are you just another person misinterpreting the natural phenomenon of evolution as having a "goal"?
homosexuals do not contribute to the survival of the species? really? i didn't know the only way to contribute to the survival of a species is through procreation. the man who decoded the Nazi code in WWII was gay (he killed himself because all the gaybashing in England made him depressed). did he not contribute to the survival of the species? in fact, one could say reproducing is a greater danger to the survival of the species, because one of the greatest threats to our continued survival is overpopulation.
what would happen if the whole world were gay? what a ridiculous question. the whole world isn't gay. it never will be. there is no logic to judging a set of behavior by wondering what would happen if everyone did it. for example, you don't say it is wrong to pour a bucket of water into your sink by saying what a catastrophe it would be if everyone in the world poured a bucket of water into your sink. they are both ridiculous scenarios and they have no logical bearing on a judgement.
in conclusion, think of this. the basic thrust of your post is that homosexuality fails to contribute to the longevity of the species, and thus is not "right". but in a world where the population is 6 billion, and in the next 30 years will be 10 billion, what has a worse impact on the potential for the species to survive: one more gay person or one more reproducing straight person?



-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 11:09 AM on December 3, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i think that all of you need to do some research on these topics before discussing them.  
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:24 PM on December 5, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As a matter of fact since...the 1980's it has been believed that homosexuality is 50-70% genetically based and the rest is biologically, endocrionlogically, or neuroanatomically influenced. It is not a choice or enviromentally influenced in that great of a way...even when homosexuality was punishable by death it still persisted.  

As for the bible stuff...the most commonly quoted phrase is from Leviticus: "one shall not lie with a man as he lies with a woman, it is punishable by death..."  Okay...sure, what many people dont know is that this was used thousands of years ago to try and stop the population DECREASE in the christian and jewish communities.  Now in 2002 we have a steadily growing population, and no problems keeping it that way.  On another note the bible also says that wearing clothing that doesn't cover your entire neck and legs is punishable by death...are we gonna start this debate also?  Come on people, why does it even matter?  

The real question is not nature vs. nurture, the real question is when the figure out what it is how is it going to be used agianst us???

Before you start attacking me think about that will ya...i might not be back for a while.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:32 PM on December 5, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Finally...
Archbishop Benjamin Tutu of South Africa probably makes the most cogent argument here:
    "someone has said that if sexual orientaion was indeed a matter of personal choice, the homosexual persons must be the craziest coots around to choose a way of life that exposes them to so much hostility, discrimination, loss and suffering."
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:57 PM on December 5, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i applaud your support, but I think your info is a little wishy washy. there are tons of theories about homosexuality, none of which are fully explained. i mean, just recently, they discovered enlarged hypothalamuses in gay sheep (i think that's the part of the brain they were talking about, i forget). so who knows? besides, i always thought the "it's not a choice" thing was stupid. it sounds like an excuse. even if it was a choice, the burden of proof still lies on the conservatives to show why it is a wrong choice. and although i think the Bible is a lot of BS, I doubt you'll get anywhere by reinterpreting Biblical passages. no one who thinks homosexuality is immoral is all of a sudden gonna go, "oh gee golly, you're right, God loves the homos too!"


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 9:32 PM on December 5, 2002 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A little 'wishy-washy' I would agree!

As for as research, there isn't near enough out there on the origin of homosexuality.
If there were, I would be quoting it, you can believe that.

Alex, whether or not you ever change my mind or I change yours, it has been an interesting, even fun, experience.  I just want you to know that I am hearing what you're saying, and even taking it into consideration.

I would just ask that you do the same, and don't just dismiss what I'm saying because you think that I'm "Bashing" you. Because I'm not.

Peace


-------
A just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry!
 


Posts: 110 | Posted: 8:10 PM on December 6, 2002 | IP
sourbubblegum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i believe that something had to have turned someone gay and they cant just be born gay. It could be because of various reasons.


-------
Our days are numbered. Live each day to the fullest because there may not be a tomorrow.
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 9:58 PM on December 31, 2002 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do most animals have free will? Most scientists don't think so. Animals are guided by instinct, so it must be a genetic glitch or confusion that causes them to exibit such behaviors. The main purpose of animals usually is to reproduce, so what sense would it make for them to exibit those tendencies?

The reason why there are men and women is so that they can make more men and women. Be it genetic mistake or confusion, the said behavior wouldn't make sense occurring in nature, would it?


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 10:22 PM on December 31, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

what you religious PeoPle are saying here is very dangerous because it means that i can start  killing everyone that annoys me as long has i have faith, because i can allways be forgiven if i have faith...so why should i be a "good" Person?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:11 PM on March 15, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In fact all the sPecies that seParate sex from having babys exibit homosexuality! Look at the bonobos, they are all bisexuals and they are geneticaly very close to humans...In their society they use sex to keeP Peace and sPecificaly, they use homosexual sex to increase the bonds between them wich contributes greatly for their survival! I belive Homosexuality is a sexual diversity that Presents advantages to the sPecies where it exists and that's why mother nature has kePt it...
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:54 PM on March 15, 2003 | IP
Scientificman

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Homophobia is a sub-animal trait that only humanoids exhibit, mostly due to societal pressure.  If our society didn't breed homophobia as much as it does,  plenty of homophobes who are sexually confused wouldn't have a problem with it.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 04:58 AM on March 16, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Bonobos are the closer to humans genetically than any other animal.

Also, I have heard that dolphins, also exhibit homosexuality, but I don't have valid sources on that one. However, I do have multiple many and bundles of info on bonobos, if anyone is interested in refuting that one.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:29 PM on April 28, 2003 | IP
StormCrow

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

well that's a good point...animals do it, why can't we? Hey let's follow the monkeys and pick bugs off one another. That's a good idea. These are the same animals that eat their own vomit, roll around in the mud, eat their own young, and so forth. I bet bonobos wear condoms and regularly get tested for STD's, cause in all this casual gay sex, they wouldn't wanna spread anything. If you people honestly justify human behavior by looking at animals you're totally off your rocker. There aren't any animals that ONLY have same gender sex. They still reproduce. A dog will hump your leg too...hell my dog tried to hump a cat one time, so hey, let's endulge in bestiality too. Get real.


-------
"The Way of the Warrior is the two-fold path of pen and sword. Even if a man possess no natural inclination he may be a warrior by sticking assidously to both divisions of the Way."

-Shinmen Musashi
 


Posts: 112 | Posted: 4:50 PM on April 29, 2003 | IP
SnowWhite85

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

CoolHandDave  I would just like to let you know that I think your patience and understanding is a wonderful and rare quality.  I admire a person who does not judge others.  That takes incredible security. You guys could lear a thing or two about tolerence from this guy.  And why is it such a big deal anyway, why people are and aren't gay? Can't you just let us get on with our lives? Are we not people too?  I hate to say it but I do not hate anything or anyone, even those who hate and detest me.  I would never wish that upon anyone, becasue I have been through  hate and it is a sad place.  And I dont think discriminate people have any idea of what its like to suffer.  I pity them.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 9:11 PM on November 28, 2003 | IP
SnowWhite85

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You know something thats funny, my friend Miriam can actually turn men gay!  Isn't that weird?  Like, every guy she dates becomes gay...
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 9:52 PM on November 28, 2003 | IP
step314

|        |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In a way it is a little misleading to ask whether people are born homosexual. Female/female intimacy I really think is a totally different phenomenon than male/male intimacy. I have no problem with the former, and as for the latter, it disgusts me not because it involves homosexuality, but because (as typically defined when using the term homosexual) it involves sodomy, by which I mean behavior that introduces semen into the digestive system. Sodomy is only partly a homosexuality issue. Doubtless many more females than males are sodomized, so actually sodomy is more of a female issue than a gay issue, but to be sure the homosexual movement is mainly a male homosexual movement, which is basically a pro-sodomy movement. To understand whether male homosexuality is innate or an addiction, one must understand whether sodomy is addictive

I'd say that the average person is rather disgusted by sodomy. Male homosexuals want to make their behavior seem primarily a gender-preference issue as opposed to a question of whether people should have the right to sodomize. Sodomy is not a pretty picture to most people.

In the nineteenth-century, standard opinion was that sodomy was an immoral addiction. Thus, the anti-sodomy laws that existed in all the states. Here is the opinion of Charles MacKay, in his Extraordinary Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, on how sodomy helped James I to screw-up:

"Robert Kerr, a Scottish youth, was early taken notice of by James I., and loaded with honours, for no other reason that the world could ever discover than the beauty of his person. James, even in his own day, was suspected of being addicted to the most abominable of all offences; and the more we examine the history now, the stronger the suspicion becomes. However that may be, the handsome Kerr, lending his smooth cheek even in public to the disgusting kisses of his royal master, rose rapidly in favour. In the year 1613, he was made Lord High Treasurer of Scotland, and created an English peer by the style and title of Viscount Rochester. Still further honours were in store of him."

This view of James I's homosexuality having been standard perhaps also explains why many of the anti-sodomy laws in England (can't remember where I read this) date from the Cromwellian period of English history. Indeed, the sentiment that led to the English Civil War started as a reaction to the decadence of James I (the father of the similar Charles I, whom the Roundheads beheaded).

A few reasons it seems reasonable to me to view sodomy as a likely enslaving addiction:

1. Semen contains chemicals that could well be addictive. For instance, human seminal vesicles produce more E- and F- type prostaglandins than the rest of the body combined. Many of these are known to be important neuromodulators, affecting mood. Moreover, there has been some evidence that increased PGE levels in particular are associated with the narcosis of alcohol addiction. (A study was done showing that drunk rats who were given PGE inhibitors were able to right themselves quicker than other drunk rats, and it is also well known that alcohol temporarily increases PGE levels in the brain.) Apparently, accordingly to Dr. Lani Burkman, semen (like chocolate) also contains anandamide, the neurotransmitter whose receptors marijuana affects to produce its high. It is true that the chemistry of addiction is very poorly understood (in fact, alcohol addiction is not even understood well), but given that sodomy happens, that semen contains chemicals which have (poorly understood) effects on the brain suggestive of addiction, and that males have quite an evolutionary advantage in addicting females into wanting to have sex with them, it would I think to anyone stepping back and looking dispassionately at the situation in fact be surprising if sodomy were not chemically addictive.

2. Semen contains chemicals that could increase the terror with which concomitant physical abuse is viewed, thereby increasing the power of the abuser to gain domination over his victim. Indeed, aspirin and similar analgesics work to block sensitivity to pain by blocking prostaglandin E2, which exists copiously in semen. Since men are often physically abusive in relationships, it is reasonable to suppose that semen contains these pain-sensitizing algesics because these abusive men have an evolutionary advantage to their abuse being especially terrifyingly controlling. Algesics such as PGE2 in semen supports the notion that sodomy is about enslavement.

3. The recognized female erogenous zones, namely the clitoris and the G-spot, are located anteriorly in the female sexual apparatus. Presumably, males who hate sodomy do from fear of putting a square peg into a round whole, so to speak, tend to be anterior when having sex, trying to make sex as far away from sodomy as possible. If sodomy is addictive, it is clear that females would evolve to be sexually aroused by sex that suggests it was desired by her own nature as opposed to just adventitiously as a result of having been sodomized, so sodomy being addictive furnishes an explanation for the locations of the female erogenous zones.

4 A distinguishing characteristic of mammals (with very few exceptions) is that they have separate openings for the terminus of the digestive system and the reproductive system. An obvious explanation for why this characteristic (otherwise rather disadvantageous as requiring the products of the kidneys to be dissolved in water, which is not always easy to come by) evolved is that in cloacal animals (such as reptiles) sex itself is substantially addictive much as sodomy is addictive in mammals, and clearly sexual selection is harmed by sex being addictive. This would help explain why, on the whole, mammals have done as well as they have.

5. Paleontology suggests that in human evolution, upright stance evolved prior to increased brain size. This was surprising to scientists, who thought upright stance became useful only after man became smart enough to make and use tools, thereby requiring him to have freer use of the hands. A simple explanation given by the addictiveness of sodomy is that hominid females are more protected from sodomy if they have sex from the front as opposed to the back. Protection from sodomy leads to meaningful sexual selection, which leads to increased selection for intellectual qualities.

6. Biology suggests that sodomy would be more addictive than sex. Histology tells us that the rectum, unlike the vagina, is lined by simple epithelial tissue, the sort of tissue commonly associated with absorbing chemicals well. Also, much of the venous system from the rectum (unlike the venous system from most of the rest of the digestive system) bypasses the liver, allowing chemicals to go directly into the main bloodstream without having to suffer what pharmacologists call the first-pass effect, i.e., the tendency of drugs to be decomposed by the liver into inactive byproducts before they can reach the target organ (that is mainly why some drugs are given rectally as opposed to orally).

7. It is known that prostaglandins are decomposed by the lungs (and to a lesser degree, by the liver). This would explain the tendency of sex to suggest heavy breathing in the popular imagination. It would also explain why deep breathing has religious significance to the Hindus. Moreover, it is well known that a popular practice in sexual deviant circles is to try to increase sexual desire by restricting breathing during sex. In fact, there was an infamous mass murderer in the Midwest (donít remember his name) who killed not because he wanted to kill his victims per se but because he so much liked to hold his male sodomy partners underwater while he was sodomizing them that large numbers of his partners drowned to death. And it is well known that murderous child molesters and your other sexual-deviant-type killers disproportionately kill by strangulation (I heard this from an FBI or ex-FBI agent on one of those crime shows, probably Investigative Reports on A&E).

8. Scientists have never really investigated whether sodomy be addictive (periodically I go to search engines and search these studies, and I never find anything) in the chemical sense that ordinary people tend to use when they use the word addictive in a useful sense (i.e., not as a synonym for pleasant). On the other hand, many scientists have tried to show that desiring sodomy (or male homosexuality, at any rate) is genetic, and they have failed. For instance, the much heralded gene study turned out to be not reproducible by other scientists Doubt Cast on Gay Gene. And the reports of brain structure being different in gays shows nothing inasmuch as it is known that alcoholics also have brain structure different from that of non-alcoholics. Of course, not that the tendency to sodomize or to not have strong defenses against being addicted to sodomy is not largely genetic even if the tendency to want to be sodomized is addictive. People can have a genetic predisposition to become alcoholics, yet clearly alcoholism is not genetic. No one who never ingested alcohol ever became an alcoholic.

Female/female intimacy I think is actually tied up with bisexual feelings. Sperm that goes back-and-forth between females selects for sperm able to survive such travel, and only sperm that has had studly ancestral sperm well-loved by females is likely to have evolved the ability to survive such back-and-forth sex. Thus, female bisexuality tends to select for children with characteristics especially well-loved by females, which are thus likely to be extra desirable. It is a totally different phenomenon from male homosexuality. Iíll post about it if people are interested and I donít get banned first for having spoken hatefully of male homosexuals. (From experience I know that this post or similar posts would be deleted or occasion my being banned in most of the forums purporting to offer intelligent discussion of homosexuality.) †

Woops, I see right after posting this that this forum has moved to 4Forums.com. Accordingly, I have posted this in a new thread, here, and suggest you respond there.

(Edited by step314 11/30/2003 at 9:01 PM).
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 6:22 PM on November 30, 2003 | IP
Rage

|        |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"he made both man and woman specifically so they could be partners and be married. if he wanted everyone to be gay, then he never would have created woman." - fallingupwards84

Just gotta pick on ya here, because it's funny..  firstly I think all that stuff about why he made man and woman is a little second to the obvious one, to be able to make more of them.  =P and also for the second part, what if God wanted to see gay men AND lesbians? lol.


Okay, I guess I'll finally introduce myself.  I go by Rage DeRuin online usually, although I sometimes go by it in real life.  Just fyi, I am female and bi, if it's at all relevant in this topic.  

Alexander, if you looked objectively at the downfall of having gays in the world, you would see theres only one, and it isn't really one most would care about, except for of course conservative christians.  Procreation.  Namely that they usually don't do it.  Not always, though, just less, percentage-wise.  I just figured I'd mention that, since really, in the times of Jesus, humans were still in moderate numbers, and naturally, if a group of people were trying to write laws that sounded divinely instructed, they'd have to include something to ensure their own survival.. namely, procreate (and of course preach, so far as the sect of christianity goes.)

Which brings me to another point.. Not trying to attack anyone's religious concivtions, but it's just an observation I've made.  Wouldn't you think God would put more sensible commandments than go forth and multiply in a book if it really was written by him/her?  Something more like, "Go forth and multiply, but not like bunny rabbits, because then you might, in the process ravage the world to try and sustain your insane numbers, and all eventually die of overpupulation?"  I mean, really.  It doesn't take debating all the various weird subjects of the bible to poin out that there are some major common sense issues.

My favorite quote as of late would have to be,  "You use religion to abdicate [abandon]  your responsibility to be thinking human beings."

Let's hope no one here does that.  Oh, and I suppose I could actually put in my opinion on nature vs nurture, which is both, because I know for a fact some people choose to be gay, but the only way it really works is if the person already had the potential to be or was bi.  Then  there are times when I KNOW that someone did not make a choice in the matter.  So, yeah.  there ya go.  ^_^;


-------
"My responsiblity to this earth to be a living creature and do no harm to the planet is greater than all you self-dillusions, denial, and ignorance put together." - Rage
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 05:44 AM on January 3, 2004 | IP
77752

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In my opinion, sexuality is a genetic quality.

I beleive that the idea of sexuality being a concious choice is an idea that Far right wing Christian Conservatives use to make Homosexuals look more "sinful" and wrong.

If sexuality was a genetic quality in the opinions of these Christians, then it would weaken their arguement that homosexuality is a sin, the idea of it being a choice gives off the idea that it is the fault of the homosexuals, and so they deserve the disrespect and bigotry that they get, much like stealing, as it is a choice, it is frowned upon, but if someone was threatened with their life if they did not steal, and they stole something, they would be cut some slack.

The Bible in my opinion, whether true or not, isn't perfect, if it was then it would be foolproof against misinterpretations, if it was perfect, then there would be no Christian Soldiers, Killers, Rapists, Theifs, there would be no Ku Klux Klan, and so on.

The Bible is about teaching people to become nice, good hearted, kind to others and loyal to God, but if this is the case, then why do we have people out there who are willing to go to extreme lengths to hurt, wound, mame or kill Homosexuals.

I am posting this because my younger brother who is Homosexual just yesterday was found dead by a river a few days after having his testacles chopped off and being stoned to death, the killer(s) haven't been identified, but he was attacked when he was coming home after clubbing at a gay bar.

Although no-one has been identified as suspects yet, the police beleive that he was a victim of a hate-crime, because he was Gay, I have since looked up Hate Crimes on the internet and have found pictures of Homosexuals being hung, bigots holding up signs saying things like "I hate faggots, but I love AIDS" and "Thank God for 9 11".

Seeing this sort of behaviour makes me want to cry, we live in a society that was once perceived as the country of opportunity, where anyone can prosper, but now, we live in a country where people use their freedom of religion to impose their beleifs onto others and take away their freedom from them, where pharmacists are denying women the morning after pill when they have been raped because the pharmacist beleives that signing a form for the morning after pill is taking a life, where people like my brother are being brutally murdered for something that isn't even their own fault, this is 21st century America, and we need to solve the problems that we are presented with, not make them worse.

Before I stray so far off the subject I start talking about wallpaper or something else bizzare, consider this, if sexuality is a choice, then it is possible that we are all bisexual, we are all capable of liking both genders, not just what genders we would like to like.


-------
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. Richard Armour
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 02:25 AM on August 27, 2006 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

©†YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.