Thread: Homosexuals And Society

i started a topic that sort of enflamed some feelings about the subject of homosexuals and their place in society and all that. what are yalls views?

i for one believe that everyone should do whatever they want unless it breaks the law or hurts someone else or something like that. but then that gets messy because of the laws against gay marriage and stuff like that. but i think they should be in charge of whatever they like. my church a long with every major religion (as far as i know) strongly disagrees with gay marriage and gay anything. what do you all think?

i wasnt quite sure what the question should be for the poll so i just chose a real generic kinda stupid one, but whatev. im sure i will get a lot of crap for doing this.

Ohhh, here we go.

Since i dont believe in god i really dont care if a dude likes a cock in his ass. I really dont care, and i dont consider it a sin.

Mairrage is a bond that is meant to keep two people together during the tests and trials of raising children. Raising kids is tough, so mairrage is there to keep everything together so one parent doesnt just walk away one morning (although it happens), sort of like a saftey harness.

I dont believe gays should get married because they cant have children, so the point of mairrage is, well, pointless. the only reason they want to be allowed mairrage is for acceptance from society (something homosexuals have never had) and tax exemptions.

Now we get into the "should gays have kids" argument. NO. Not because i think it will end of humanity due to no procreation (gays passing down their gay heritage to their children), but because of the life of the child. Imagine the life of that child

I wonder............

"HEY EVERYBODY LOOK, ITS BILLY, THE KID WITH TWO DADS!!! HAAAAAAA HAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAA. LETS KICK HIM IN THE TROUGHT AND THROW ROCKS AT HIM!!!!!!!!!"

Dont think for a second that that kid wouldnt be ridiculed and beat up everyday. All so two gay dudes can feel like parents? You know, we have laws about cruel and unusual punishment in this country

and o yea, you wont get any crap from me

Originally Posted by Hominus

Mairrage is a bond that is meant to keep two people together during the tests and trials of raising children. Raising kids is tough, so mairrage is there to keep everything together so one parent doesnt just walk away one morning (although it happens), sort of like a saftey harness.
[/b]

I disagree. Marriage also serves purposes other than the upbringing of kids. Not all married couples have kids. Rather, marriage is a multifaceted legal arrangement, with a whole bunch of ramifications, not just for bringing up children, but also for marital property, legal relationships between the couple, and a whole bunch of other stuff.

Originally Posted by Hominus

I dont believe gays should get married because they cant have children, so the point of mairrage is, well, pointless. the only reason they want to be allowed mairrage is for acceptance from society (something homosexuals have never had) and tax exemptions.
[/b]

Crap.

By your reasoning, we shouldn't allow ANYONE who doesn't want kids to get married. And that's rubbish. Bringing up children ISNT the sole, or agruably even the MAIN, purpose of marriage.

And EVEN IF the only reason gays and lesbians want to get married is for tax exemptions and societal acceptance?

So the fuck what?! Why shouldn't a gay/lesbian couple get the same tax exemptions as a straight couple? And also, why shouldn't they be allowed to use marriage to get society's acceptance? It COULD be argued that societal recognition of their union is a large part of the reason for STRAIGHT couples to get married. So why shouldn't gay/lesbian couples be allowed to use it for the same purpose?

Originally Posted by Hominus

Now we get into the "should gays have kids" argument. NO. Not because i think it will end of humanity due to no procreation (gays passing down their gay heritage to their children),
[/b]

Also complete crap. This is a complete misconception that is commonly held by many.

There have been NUMEROUS studies on this subject, ALL of which show that children brought up in a gay/lesbian household have the SAME incidence of homosexuality as those brought up in a straight household.

Originally Posted by Hominus

but because of the life of the child. Imagine the life of that child

I wonder............

"HEY EVERYBODY LOOK, ITS BILLY, THE KID WITH TWO DADS!!! HAAAAAAA HAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAA. LETS KICK HIM IN THE TROUGHT AND THROW ROCKS AT HIM!!!!!!!!!"

Dont think for a second that that kid wouldnt be ridiculed and beat up everyday. All so two gay dudes can feel like parents? You know, we have laws about cruel and unusual punishment in this country
[/b]

Also complete crap.

Black children brought up in predominantly white areas are likely to face discrimination similar to the form you just outlined above, from their schoolmates. So, should we stop blacks having children? No.

And plus, how would the kids' schoolmates even KNOW?! I dunno about you, but when I was at school, my classmates never had much to do with my parents at all. If I HAD have had gay oparents, they wouldn't have even known.

A kid is FAR more likely to get picked on for being fat than for being gay. Now, while it hasn't been proven that homosexuality is hereditory, it HAS been proven that there is a genetic predisposition towards obesity. So, should we stop fat people from having kids?

Originally Posted by Hominus

Ohhh, here we go.

Since i dont believe in god i really dont care if a dude likes a cock in his ass. I really dont care, and i dont consider it a sin.

Mairrage is a bond that is meant to keep two people together during the tests and trials of raising children. Raising kids is tough, so mairrage is there to keep everything together so one parent doesnt just walk away one morning (although it happens), sort of like a saftey harness.

I dont believe gays should get married because they cant have children, so the point of mairrage is, well, pointless. the only reason they want to be allowed mairrage is for acceptance from society (something homosexuals have never had) and tax exemptions.

Now we get into the "should gays have kids" argument. NO. Not because i think it will end of humanity due to no procreation (gays passing down their gay heritage to their children), but because of the life of the child. Imagine the life of that child

I wonder............

"HEY EVERYBODY LOOK, ITS BILLY, THE KID WITH TWO DADS!!! HAAAAAAA HAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAA. LETS KICK HIM IN THE TROUGHT AND THROW ROCKS AT HIM!!!!!!!!!"

Dont think for a second that that kid wouldnt be ridiculed and beat up everyday. All so two gay dudes can feel like parents? You know, we have laws about cruel and unusual punishment in this country

and o yea, you wont get any crap from me
[/b]

You are really really ignorant. You sound like you don't even know what you are talking about, man. First of all, marriage is not all about procreation. Actually, that is the last reason one would have to get married. Being married is a symbol of your love and committment to someone else. When straight couples get married, they are not jumping for joy about their meaningless fucking tax exemptions...Second, why is it so wrong for gay people to raise children? They just have different points of view than straight people, and being brought up with different values is the least of the worries that society has. I mean, obviously you are homophobic, so I shouldn't be too hard on you, but you should really really consider stop being so prejudiced against others. What does it matter to you anyway? Nobody's focing you to be in a gay marriage are they?

Originally Posted by Gwendolyn

You are really really ignorant. You sound like you don't even know what you are talking about, man. First of all, marriage is not all about procreation. Actually, that is the last reason one would have to get married. Being married is a symbol of your love and committment to someone else. When straight couples get married, they are not jumping for joy about their meaningless fucking tax exemptions...Second, why is it so wrong for gay people to raise children? They just have different points of view than straight people, and being brought up with different values is the least of the worries that society has. I mean, obviously you are homophobic, so I shouldn't be too hard on you, but you should really really consider stop being so prejudiced against others. What does it matter to you anyway? Nobody's focing you to be in a gay marriage are they?
[/b]

I dont feel like getting in this conversation but I disagree with your view of marriage

I once had a best friend whom I loved so much I wanted to share my life with her, to be committed to her. Did I want to have sex with her? No. Im straight. And asexual at that.

Romance has made it so that marriage looks like its about love and commitment. I am against this idea as all it says is you can not love or be committed whom you do not have sex with, and whom you do not marry, and well, thats very ANTI love. If being married is a symbol of your love and commitment to someone else, why is that someone else ALWAYS someone you have sex with, or even, why are you only committed to ONE. Are not LOVING parents also COMMITTED to their children? Are not true best friends, committed platonic lovers? Sex does not decide love or commitment, peroid. If sex doesnt then decide either of those things, why do we not have vows of love for our platonic and committed relationships? We dont becuase society is close minded and no longer conciders friendship as what it used to be *YES, once upon a time we DID have platonic vows of love - but no longer becuase society doesnt concider platonic love worthy enough of having a vow or being celebrated*

Historically speaking, anthropology speaking, you are wrong. Marriage for the majority of humankind, was a right to bear children. A RIGHT to bear children. Meaning, no children outside of marriage, and that once married children are to be expected. Its wonderful, that now love is finally in the mix of marriage, saving women from being property. But a tragedy that people now think that this marriage love is some how greater than other forms of love in this world. It is NOT. For centuries, love was not even apart of marriage.

What has always been apart of marriage? Sex.

Marriage has always been a thousand times more about a vow of sex than anything else. Romantic people hate me for this but...until someone can prove to me why its WRONG to love outside of a marriage and why its OK to have sex outside of a marriage I hold to this idea.

Originally Posted by juroara

Historically speaking, anthropology speaking, you are wrong. Marriage for the majority of humankind, was a right to bear children. A RIGHT to bear children. Meaning, no children outside of marriage, and that once married children are to be expected. Its wonderful, that now love is finally in the mix of marriage, saving women from being property. But a tragedy that people now think that this marriage love is some how greater than other forms of love in this world. It is NOT. For centuries, love was not even apart of marriage. [/b]

I'm wondering what meaning the history of marriage has on how we define it today? As you said, it used to be about the man, in effect, owning the woman - historically speaking, you are wrong if you think marriage does not imply male ownership of female(s).

Of course history has nothing to do with it, as the times have changed drastically. Men don't own women anymore, and people frequently get married without having children. Hell, even gay people can get married in some places now *gasp*.

What has always been apart of marriage? Sex.

Marriage has always been a thousand times more about a vow of sex than anything else. Romantic people hate me for this but...until someone can prove to me why its WRONG to love outside of a marriage and why its OK to have sex outside of a marriage I hold to this idea.[/b]

Married couples do not (and never have) had a monopoly on sex. Why shouldn't it be ok for someone to have sex outside of marriage? And anyway, sex doesn't imply children anymore - so it doesn't really matter.

Originally Posted by juroara

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Neruo &#064; Mar 8 2007, 10&#58;13 PM) [snapback]426765[/snapback]

Hmmm, what you said did make me think. A down side to getting raised by gay people is that some people might find it weird, and in somehow tease you when you are young. But I get once you get older, it doesn&#39;t matter. [/b]

I&#39;m quite sure that most people, especially kids, would find it weird and tease you and throw rocks at you and generally make your life unpleasant. As you get older though, like you say, no-one really cares any more.
[/b][/quote]Thats not a down side to getting raised by gay people - it&#39;s a downside of getting raised near bigots and their children. If anything, its an argument against letting stupid people raise kids.

Originally Posted by spoon

Married couples do not (and never have) had a monopoly on sex. Why shouldn&#39;t it be ok for someone to have sex outside of marriage? And anyway, sex doesn&#39;t imply children anymore - so it doesn&#39;t really matter.
[/b]

I totally agree there, I mean sex is a big thing in my relationship, it&#39;s not only a way of expressing my love for my girlfriend, it&#39;s also a major part of my male make up. I need sex, and if the sex isn&#39;t satisfying (not just physically, but emotionally as well) then the relationship would eventually sour. So, if I couldn&#39;t have sex with my girlfriend until marriage, then it might well end in divorce eventually if we can&#39;t express in that way.

Originally Posted by spoon

Thats not a down side to getting raised by gay people - it&#39;s a downside of getting raised near bigots and their children. If anything, its an argument against letting stupid people raise kids.
[/b]

I&#39;ve always believed that you should pass a test before being allowed to raise kids, because your mom and dad really fuck you up. And yes, stupid people should definitely not be raising kids, especially kids who aren&#39;t intelligent enough to deal with it on their own.

And sadly, it doesn&#39;t matter where you go, there are going to be bigots around. The only downside to being raised by gay people (if you exclude ridicule by peers) is walking in on them having sex when you&#39;re 5 years old

Originally Posted by spoon

I&#39;m wondering what meaning the history of marriage has on how we define it today? As you said, it used to be about the man, in effect, owning the woman - historically speaking, you are wrong if you think marriage does not imply male ownership of female(s).

Of course history has nothing to do with it, as the times have changed drastically. Men don&#39;t own women anymore, and people frequently get married without having children. Hell, even gay people can get married in some places now *gasp*.

Married couples do not (and never have) had a monopoly on sex. Why shouldn&#39;t it be ok for someone to have sex outside of marriage? And anyway, sex doesn&#39;t imply children anymore - so it doesn&#39;t really matter.

[/b]

I do understand the ownership part, I mentioned some where in my post how women are no longer property.

but im not sure I understand what you mean by it being ok to have sex outside of marriage? I wasnt talking about BEFORE marriage, I was talking about once married. I have yet to meet a married couple who was ok if their partner had sex outside of marriage. that was the &#39;monopoly&#39; of sex I was talking about

FOR THE MOST PART, most married couples expect sex to stay in their marriage. that was why I said marriage is more of a sexual vow than a love vow. becuase married couples freely love outside of their marriage - but sex? no.

and I think it DOES matter that sex doesnt imply children anymore. why? becuase its retarded to see a teenager flabergasted when shes &#39;suddenly&#39; pregnant. take children away from sex and we teach our own children that they can suddenly have all the sex they want and never worry about making their own kids - which is a lie.

but, thats an entirely different subject&#33; so, ill be quiet

Originally Posted by Hominus

cRAP
[/b]

So hetrosexual people that do not want children or cannot Get children allso shouldn&#39;t be allowed to maridge? If they will not get children, what is the point, right?

riiiight.

-

Aslong as I don&#39;t see any penises, gay may do whatever they want.

First of all, Blue Meanie, READ MY FUCKING POST&#33;&#33;&#33;

I said its NOT like i believe it would be the end of humanity.

How would other kids know the dude had two dads? Easy. The kid makes some friends, although they are not too loyal. He takes them home to his house and they see the kid has two dads. The other kids tell their mommies and dadies, and it spreads like wildfire. You dont honestly think the secret would last grades kindergarden- 12th grade? Please. What would parent-teacher conferences be like.

About the comparison to black children and gay children.

DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT HAPPENED RIGHT AFTER THE DESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS, AND THE FOLLOWING 15 YEARS????
You think those black kids didnt see hell every day they woke up? Think before you say stupid shit like that.
Racism has passed (for the most part), but the gays with kids shit hasnt.
you obviously havent been to high shool in a WHILE, or you are just stupid.
People get made fun of for having a pimple or having ugly hair. And thats like a 2 on the rictor scale. Having gay parents is like an 11.3

Originally Posted by Hominus

First of all, Blue Meanie, READ MY FUCKING POST&#33;&#33;&#33;
[/b]

I did.

Originally Posted by Hominus

I said its NOT like i believe it would be the end of humanity.
[/b]

Not exactly. You said "Not because i think it will end of humanity due to no procreation (gays passing down their gay heritage to their children)".

There&#39;s TWO ways that sentence can be read. The first is that you Do believe that gays will pass on their heritage to their children, but that this is not the reason you are against gay marriage. the second way it can be read is to say that you do NOT believe that gays will pass their homosexuality down.

I read it the first way. However, it seems you intended the second interpretation. So sorry, in this case, I misunderstood you.

Originally Posted by Hominus

How would other kids know the dude had two dads? Easy. The kid makes some friends, although they are not too loyal. He takes them home to his house and they see the kid has two dads. The other kids tell their mommies and dadies, and it spreads like wildfire. You dont honestly think the secret would last grades kindergarden- 12th grade? Please. What would parent-teacher conferences be like.
[/b]

Perhaps this comes down to societal differences. In the country I come from, homosexuality is perhaps far more accepted. (I&#39;m from NZ). So, in NZ schools, if one child had gay parents, the "news" wouldn&#39;t really spread like wildfire. A few parents and kids might find out, but beyond that, it just wouldn;t be much of an issue.

Originally Posted by Hominus

About the comparison to black children and gay children.

DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT HAPPENED RIGHT AFTER THE DESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS, AND THE FOLLOWING 15 YEARS????
You think those black kids didnt see hell every day they woke up? Think before you say stupid shit like that.
Racism has passed (for the most part), but the gays with kids shit hasnt.
[/b]

Yes. I know full well what happened after desegregation. And, that&#39;s EXACTLY my point. In fact, it seems that here, YOU are the one who has not read MY post properly.

My POINT was that we shouldn&#39;t prevent black parents having kids because of racist bullying to the kids, and LIKEWISE, we shouldn&#39;t prevent homosexuals having kids because of homophobic bullying.

Well, i guess we have cultural differences.

Lets agree to disagree, and leave it at that.............

UNLESS ANOTHER PERSON TRIES TO CHALLANGE MY OPINION&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#3 3;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

I think that gay people are entitled to marriage or at least the homosexual equivalent of it (since the far right wants to play silly semantic games with this issue). But let&#39;s be realistic about what Hominus Feralis said about what children raised by gay parents will go through. I believe that if a person has a child and later wants to get into a gay marriage, it should be allowed. However, I don&#39;t think gay couples make ideal adoptive parents. They beat the Hell out of an orphanage and the ongoing foster parent scramble, but they have a disadvantage in comparison to heterosexual adopters. Children who grow up in those situations will be figured out very quickly, and they will be blasted on the playground and in the locker room over it. Even if not, hypothetically, they will still live in such petrified anticipation of it that it will be terrible for them emotionally. It cannot be fairly compared to black children at white schools or fat kids at school.

For those of you who aren&#39;t familiar with my state, it has been known for many decades as the epitome of racist territory. Movie after movie has slammed my state for its racist history, most of which is accurate. I went to public schools in Mississippi, and I also went to private schools. I went to schools with a very high percentage of black students, and I went to schools with a very low percentage. I even went to one with 0 %. I have seen how black students are treated in all of those situations. I have also seen how those suspected of being gay have been treated. I have seen how fat kids are treated. I have seen it all. With all of that said, let me assure you that having gay parents was the be all end all of grounds for psychological torture. Nothing came close.

In schools where black students were abundant, nobody dared to show their racism against black people because they were scared to death of being mauled by large numbers of black students. Such stuff didn&#39;t exist. The schools where I went that had just a few black people were, in my particular experiences, almost devoid of outward racism. At least some of the popular kids at those schools were black. Also, there were always a few popular fat kids. But guess what... NOBODY suspected of being gay had the slightest bit of social power at school back in those days. In elementary school and junior high, the ultimate insult was not that somebody is black or fat, but that they have two fathers, only slightly ahead of having two mothers. Anybody in such a real situation would have been terrified of people finding out about it. It was the unthinkable. No kid deserves to have to deal with that. But like I said, it beats orphanages and foster waffling.

But to answer the big question, NO, homosexuals are not sinners. I am an atheist and don&#39;t believe in the literal interpretation of "sin". I also don&#39;t think there is anything wrong with homosexuality. Preference is not even a choice in the first place. And gay people should be allowed to be married. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (in the U.S.) guarantees the right, and logic says that it is fair.

This is a very complicated topic.
My stance seems to brings out an auto response from people of immediate disgust. Leading them to believe i am against -"gay"
I am not&#33; But here me out. You most likely have heard my view before. (sorry for the redundancy)

I need to walk a thin line. When all is said and done if people would try to relate to what I say it would in all probability HELP gay people.

The main provoking issue - Gays should be considered to have a disorder.
Why. Can you argue that it is anatomically correct to not be able to reproduce?

It does not matter whether it is nurture or nature. examples
nature imposes many disabilities in mind and body. Autism, crones diseases, mental retardation, a limb missing, ADHD, schizophrenia, SAD, Depression, anxiety.

There is no need to parallel gay with any of the above, just as you would not compare anxiety to another disorder.

But by admitting and distinguishing that homosexuality is a disorder, then operate measures can be made.
1. It separates gays from the religious tie that has been out upon them.
Allowing gay marriage. (We would see it inappropriate for other disorders to not be able to be married.

2.As we have seen with many categorized disorders (like personality disorders) they are beginning to be more socially accepted. With that in mind, they too could be recognized and accepted.

3.Perhaps more research could be generated to understand homosexuality. I don&#39;t think most gay men and woman lead a fulfilling life. This is an assumption.

Is this an obscure view? I really do not mean to offend anyone. And I have nothing against gay people. But if thinking that it is a disorder cast me in a realm of insanity, then I need more counter arguments.

I did not just come up with this over night.
And YES. I have had feedback from gay people.

Originally Posted by Howetzer

This is a very complicated topic.
3.Perhaps more research could be generated to understand homosexuality. I don&#39;t think most gay men and woman lead a fulfilling life. This is an assumption.
[/b]

won&#39;t even say anything about the statement quoted (if I did, it would be a major offence)


people, believe me, homosexuality is NOT a choice.. Why would someone choose to be homosexual, knowing all the prejudice there would be against them?


also, homosexuality is defined not when someone is 15-16 year old.. what happens is that, mostly, a gay person only has courage to assume their sexuality when they are at that age.
I recall liking boys since I was around 7 years old.. and I don&#39;t think that I could have made such a major decision when I was 7


about the religion thing. people whose religion is against homosexuality are allowed to disapprove of homosexuality. NOT condemn it, nor hang them or throw stones at them. I do also hate religious people, but I don&#39;t go mad with saying that religious people are all unnatural weirdos (just like religious people do to homosexuals)


about marriage - YES, allowed. Marriage, to my eyes, is a symbol of love and affection. (for all the ones who think that gay people don&#39;t have love in their hearts, and that all they think about is sinful sex, then %&#036;%&#036;% %&#036;%¨%&#036;¨%#&#036;% yourselves, narrowminded zealots)
Since marriage is a sign of affection, there would be no reason why marriage should be illegal.

Also, apart from tax exemptions, married people have additional rights (eg, if your partner dies or something, you have the right not to go to work, without risking being fired or something similar; of course this is an extreme example)


so basically that&#39;s my opinion.. if you disagree, feel free to post your own thoughts about it

PS: forgive me if I made silly grammatical mistakes, haven&#39;t slept for around 20 hours lol
PS2: yes, there is another gay person adding up to this discussion: me
PS3: sorry for bringing up this topic again, I just HAD TO express my opinion about it

Originally Posted by Kromoh

won&#39;t even say anything about the statement quoted (if I did, it would be a major offence)
people, believe me, homosexuality is NOT a choice.. Why would someone choose to be homosexual, knowing all the prejudice there would be against them?[/b]

its more of a combination of choice and genetics the way i see it. they choose to act on the emotions they have. if thwy were actually aftraid of the prejudice as you said, they would try not to act on those emotions. but if you believe in something you stick with it. if they believe it then i dont think they would choose not to be a homosexual.

Originally Posted by FluBB

its more of a combination of choice and genetics the way i see it. they choose to act on the emotions they have. if thwy were actually aftraid of the prejudice as you said, they would try not to act on those emotions. but if you believe in something you stick with it. if they believe it then i dont think they would choose not to be a homosexual.[/b]

That would be like saying - try not to act upon your ambitions towards a female.

I can&#39;t imagine it is just a choice. It is how they feel, just how heterosexuals feel. Desire

Originally Posted by Howietzer

That would be like saying - try not to act upon your ambitions towards a female.

I can&#39;t imagine it is just a choice. It is how they feel, just how heterosexuals feel. Desire[/b]

like i said... "its more of a combination of choice and genetics the way i see it."

FINE&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; LET THE GAYS GET MARRIED I REALLY DONT CARE&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;& #33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;& #33;&#33;
BUT NO CHILDREN&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&# 33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

you are blind to the world if you think that kid wouldnt go through hell every single day.

its not the parent&#39;s or the child&#39;s fault. It is the fault of society where people get ridiculed for something like this. If we were a more accepting society, i would have no problem with it. NONE AT ALL. The mental development of a child is FAR more important than satisfaction of would be parents, without question or denial.

Think, just think of the life of that child

I have heard so many theories about gay people. I have heard that they are born that way, or they are made that way. ANYWAY. The inability to reproduce is something we call "natural selection". If there is a "gay gene", it will be weeded out over time and there will be no more gays left.

Now before you start bitching about what i said. Genetic disorders dissapear over time because the bloodline dissappears. If the gay gene exists, it will dissappear eventually. Now this is where i dont believe the shit about being born gay.

My GUESS is MOST gay people had some sexual abuse in their past that altered their views on sex as a whole, especially when a role model commites the assault. Others turn gay simply because they are too femenine or masculine to attract the opposite sex, leaving them only one option.

If there is a gay gene and you have proof, show me an article about it.

alright, i dont have an article, i know there is one, but i cant find it. its not really a gay gene. but it prooves that everyone has some gay tendencies and actually finds it fun. i found this really cheesy site... http://rainbowallianceopenfaith.home.../Science3.html
and it talks about gay animals. from the animals we can tell that being gay is an almost natural thing that happens to a lot of people. wether or not its genetic no one really knows. i dont think your genetically predisposed to being gay. and i dont see anything wrong with it really. in the article that i found a while ago that i cant find, it talked about all these different animals like mountain goates that live in "gay herds" where they basically just have fun having anal sex and all that wierd stuff. so maybe its just fun? i really dont know much. im just glad i started this subject, its fun.

Originally Posted by Howetzer

The main provoking issue - Gays should be considered to have a disorder.Why. Can you argue that it is anatomically correct to not be able to reproduce?[/b]

It is only very recently that homosexuality has been declassified as a disorder. The american psychological association is in a position to judge disorders I&#39;d say:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("apa.org")</div>

Over 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself,is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information.[/b]

So I guess, while you could class it as a disorder, why would you? The professionals don&#39;t. You do mention some benefits to classing it as a disorder, but I don&#39;t think any of them require it to be classed that way.

But by admitting and distinguishing that homosexuality is a disorder, then operate measures can be made.
1. It separates gays from the religious tie that has been out upon them.
Allowing gay marriage. (We would see it inappropriate for other disorders to not be able to be married.

2.As we have seen with many categorized disorders (like personality disorders) they are beginning to be more socially accepted. With that in mind, they too could be recognized and accepted.

3.Perhaps more research could be generated to understand homosexuality. I don&#39;t think most gay men and woman lead a fulfilling life. This is an assumption.
[/b]

1. There was a large religious problem with interracial marriage a few centuries ago. It did not need to be reclassified as a disorder, why should gay marriage need this? People came to their senses and accorded other races rights, and people will (and already are) coming to their senses and giving homosexuals the same rights as the rest of us.

2. Homosexuality is already recognised and accepted in many places. In fact, it is only since it was declassified as a disorder that this acceptance has come. I fail to see how classifying it as a problem would make people accept it more.

3. A completely baseless assumption at that. Is there any evidence for this? I&#39;m betting that the proportions of homo/hetero lives that are fulfilling are very similar. Especially if you discount the effects of views like "homosexuality is a disorder" on their lives (afterall, you can&#39;t justify calling it a disorder because of the effects of calling it a disorder).

Originally Posted by Howetzer

its not the parent&#39;s or the child&#39;s fault. It is the fault of society where people get ridiculed for something like this. If we were a more accepting society, i would have no problem with it. NONE AT ALL. The mental development of a child is FAR more important than satisfaction of would be parents, without question or denial.[/b]

So you&#39;re saying that they shouldn&#39;t be accepted, because of the impacts of not us accepting them? As the blue meanie already pointed out - by this logic we still wouldn&#39;t let interracial couples have kids. Afterall, they&#39;d just get teased right?

I have heard so many theories about gay people. I have heard that they are born that way, or they are made that way. ANYWAY. The inability to reproduce is something we call "natural selection". If there is a "gay gene", it will be weeded out over time and there will be no more gays left.[/b]

There&#39;s no such thing as a single gene that can determine something as complex as sexuality. It would probably be more like a combination of many biological factors. The gay "gene" will never be weeded out because of this. Person A and B could both be 100% heterosexual, yet their biological info combined might get the right mix for a homosexual.

Now this is where i dont believe the shit about being born gay.

My GUESS is MOST gay people had some sexual abuse in their past that altered their views on sex as a whole, especially when a role model commites the assault. Others turn gay simply because they are too femenine or masculine to attract the opposite sex, leaving them only one option.[/b]

That&#39;s just what it is. A guess. You&#39;ll find that any objective empirical study done wont substantiate it. Abuse is no more prevalent in people who group up gay or straight. And as for being too feminine/masculine to attract a mate - homosexuals aren&#39;t the caricatures you obviously have in your head of them. There are incredibly girly lesbians, and there are very manly gay guys. Just like there is the opposite in heterosexuality.

Your appearance does not make you have to have sex with someone of the same gender. It&#39;s more that, *gasp*, you&#39;re naturally attracted to them.

If there is a gay gene and you have proof, show me an article about it.[/b]

There&#39;s lots of information about the biological causes of homosexuality. Google it. An example.

Should gay couples be allowed to marry each other? Yes.

Is being gay a sin? No.

I don&#39;t believe in religion, though I do believe in some spiritual aspects, such as reincarnation. I don&#39;t "do" this, I just believe, that there is something.

And to the top second post: being gay isn&#39;t all about "cock in ass". It&#39;s way more than that. I know some gay people, who don&#39;t even do anal sex, because they think it&#39;s nasty. A person who is gay, is attracted to the same sex. That means not only the dick and butthole, but the entire body.
I find your comments very ignorant. Have you ever been talking to a gay person? They are just like other people. No difference, at all.

If you use IRC, I&#39;d like you to go to the server Enter The Game, and try speaking to some of the people in #FragBu and #BufUnite

About the children raised in gay couple issue. Well yeah, you&#39;ve got a point, but if gay couples have to become accepted, we&#39;ll have to start from somewhere and that somewhere, is to have gay couples with children. Your point is most likely just a cover for your hetz against gay people.

And please oh please, would you stop using all those capital letters? Please? You are making our eyes bleed.

I don&#39;t think there&#39;s anything inherently wrong with being gay or with gay marriage. There is plenty of evidence in history and in animals that point to homosexual behavior being a normal practice for certain individuals, if not for ALL individuals.

What I do find interesting is that current US society sees homosexuality as something that a person does wholly or not at all. That&#39;s simply not how it&#39;s worked in the past or in other cultures. Take ancient Greece for example, where men having homosexual relationships was completely accepted and expected, and heterosexual relations were also expected. One did both... it wasn&#39;t like you were gay and therefore never had sex with a woman. That&#39;s just not how it worked. That&#39;s also not how it always works here and now. Plenty of people have sexual relations with persons of both sexes throughout their lives, perhaps getting married and having kids, but remaining attracted to members of their own sex or even both sexes.

Of course, we&#39;re leaving out all of the people who don&#39;t fit nicely into the male-female categorization, but to make things slightly simpler, I&#39;m not going to go into that unless it comes up beyond what I"m saying right here...

So what is homosexuality? It&#39;s being physically attracted to someone of the same sex as yourself, right? Well, what&#39;s wrong with that? From a Christian standpoint even, what is inherently wrong with the attraction? With the love that might be part of a relationship that grows? Seems to me that particular religion preaches love, so what&#39;s wrong with loving someone of your sex? Is the ACT even that "wrong?" What&#39;s wrong with it when it&#39;s done between two consenting adults who love each other?

Is it the inability to procreate? Well, then heterosexual couples should not be allowed to have intercourse unless the woman is ovulating and there is no birth control involved. Oh, and women who have passed menopause can&#39;t have sex either. Nor can women or men who are infertile. Does anyone REALLY think that all humans only have sex for reproductive purposes?

The same goes for marriage. If procreation is the only reason to get married, why get married at all? People have children out of wedlock all the time, some married couples don&#39;t have children at all. What about couples whose children have all grown and left the house? Should they automatically get divorced because their marriage no longer has a purpose?

Now consider the arguments against homosexuals having children. First of all, why the heck not? Is it because both a man and a woman are necessary to raise a sane child? Bullshit. If that&#39;s the case, then why do so many children raised by single parents do just fine? What about kids who are raised by a grandparent or what-have-you? Should a parent lose custody of their child just because they have a same-sex partner? How fair is that? And adoptions... shouldn&#39;t a financially and mentally and emotionally stable couple be able to adopt a child regardless of their sexual orientation?

It&#39;s not going to mess with the child&#39;s life any more than any other child&#39;s life is messed with because of any number of other reasons. Some people might have to deal with more trouble than others because of their location or surroundings or whatnot, but I really doubt it would be that much of an issue.

The arguments used against homosexuals and homosexual marriages are just ridiculous... put that same argument to the rest of society and you have some big problems.

A person wishing to make legal vows to another person should be allowed to do so, regardless of their sexual orientation. Homosexuals should also be allowed to adopt children or gain custody of children regardless of thier sexual orientation.

To discriminate against homosexuals is equivalent to stating that homosexuals are not people, not worthy of the same rights and priviledges as other citizens.

By the way, the way to make homosexuality look like a disorder, is like telling a person: Can rocks fly by them selfs? No&#33; Can you fly by your self? No&#33; Then you&#39;re a rock.

Originally Posted by dreammask

So what is homosexuality? It&#39;s being physically attracted to someone of the same sex as yourself, right? Well, what&#39;s wrong with that? From a Christian standpoint even, what is inherently wrong with the attraction? With the love that might be part of a relationship that grows? Seems to me that particular religion preaches love, so what&#39;s wrong with loving someone of your sex? Is the ACT even that "wrong?" What&#39;s wrong with it when it&#39;s done between two consenting adults who love each other?
[/b]

untrue. well in my religion it is impossible to get to the highest degree of heaven if you do not have a partner to be married to, and to have kids with, so it makes it impossible.

Originally Posted by dreammask

The same goes for marriage. If procreation is the only reason to get married, why get married at all? People have children out of wedlock all the time, some married couples don&#39;t have children at all. What about couples whose children have all grown and left the house? Should they automatically get divorced because their marriage no longer has a purpose?
[/b]

very untrue, when i leave and go away its not like i am automatically going to be an adult. parents will be parents until the day they die.