Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Until science can prove that people can be born a homosexual, then I think it's purely by choice. I still don't agree that someone can go homosexual after being married and having 3 kids. They're bisexual, if anything.
And no, I am not homophobic either. If someone falls in love or has sex with another person of the same sex, that is their business alone. More power to them.
That's all I would ask, and that society and the law treat my relationship the same no matter whom I love.
I think most gays are born that way and for some others it is some sort of sensual experiment and some others may feel a sexual attraction for people of either sex. It just should not matter. If they are in a committed relationship they should be able to make it legal and to have the same rights and privileges afforded the conforming majority of Americans.
That's the real crux of the debate, isn't it? You think it's normal and fine, because it's become part of your everyday lifestyle in whatever corner of the world you live in. And because YOU don't see it as abnormal, you think the rest of the planet should just fall in line and let you live your life. All based upon the overly simplified logic of "It's not hurting anyone else."
This cuts both ways. In your world, homosexuality is morally wrong, no matter what, because the people in your inner circle say it is and that's what you've probably been told by the people who you trust for your whole life. You don't want to give that kind of thinking up because it would turn your world upside down (or so you think). Right?
Maybe, but it should also be noted that the stigma can be removed without this data too. Discovering there is a genetic element to it is not the only path open to us. Pointing out that stigmatising people for it is entire baseless for example is another such path open to us. Pointing out the biases that lead people to stigmatise it, and stigmatise those biases instead is yet another. There are more.
As with most issues, all directions of attack should be taken in parallel.
Quote:
I see no insanity in working against the stigmatisation of people who are not actually doing anything wrong. Especially in a world so full of people who actually are.
"working against the stigmatisation of people" is a back-pedal from what you said above. And what you said above represents the problem I have with your agenda. (And, by the way, you can spend the next 100 years trying to "stigmatize" those who refer to your agenda....makes no difference to me. I'll continue to refer to it because it is there and it is real. And feebly trying to deny it exists is central to it.)
Attempting to control what men think about men having sex with men is a game you are never going to win - ever. To the majority of men, it is perverse, it is repulsive, and literally sickening. Some men add a religious component to their argument as well, but many of us don't and our feeling has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.
There is nothing wrong with the way we think and feel - morally or otherwise. And we resent your unrelenting assault upon it. You are in the thought police business and swimming diametrically upstream of mother nature. Many of us simply have little patience left for it.
This PC era that is a microscopic dot of aberration on history's timeline has a crash and burn ending near in our future. Because of this bizarre short-lived experiment, and only because of it, you have made some small progress upstream against a straight-jacketed PC populace. If you hold out hopes that last few years have any bearing on what the future holds, you are going to be very disappointed.
Nobody cares what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes. Nothing more need be said.
I encourage people to think for themselves and do their own research.
Unlike the rabid anti-gay groups whose sole agenda is to spew continual lies, myths and misrepresentations about homosexuality and gay people. They know the sheep who follow their lead would never bother to check their sources for veracity.
You have a long track record here and I have seen many of your posts. What you encourage is for people to march in lock-step behind you.
I've been wondering this for a long time- do people really believe that gays are born gay? If so, is there really enough scientific evidence to support this theory?
I don't believe that people are born gay, or with any particular sexual preference- why is that so wrong for me to believe it's a combination of predisposition to certain things, coupled with the environment?
For example, some people are predisposed to be more sensitive/emotional than others- if they are raised in an environment that is very insensitive/emotionally invalidating, it can be disastrous for that person.
I don't hate gays- I don't believe they should be hated for what they do/who they're attracted to, but I just don't see how it's wrong/hateful to believe that sexual attraction to things is NOT GENETIC.
Do you believe that people who are sexually attracted to children (pedophilia) are born sexually attracted to children, too? Is there also a pedophile gene? What about people who are sexually attracted to animals? Is there a gene for that, too? I'm mostly interested in men of certain races- does that mean I was born attracted to those races, too?
I am very interested in psychology, and I know well that environment is very important in shaping people in various ways- why is this overlooked and discounted so much when we discuss sexual orientation?
I sincerely apologize if this is not really 'Great Debates' worthy- and this is not a topic to encourage hatred toward anyone, because I don't believe in that sort of thing- but I am legitimately curious about the 'gay gene' theory, what basis for it there is, and if it applies to other sexual 'orientations' as well. If not, why?
Yes, I believe people are born gay, and bi. No, it is not wrong if you don't believe they were born gay.
"working against the stigmatisation of people" is a back-pedal from what you said above.
No it is not a "back pedal" it is precisely my position as it always has been, still is, and likely will be for some time. Simply calling it a "back pedal" does not magically make it one.
If someone is being stigmatized for no reason I will work against that. If someone deserves to be stigmatized I will work for that.
I find there is no reason to stigmatize gay people. So I work against that. I find that people who stigmatize people for no reason should themselves be stigmatized so I work for that.
That is my position plain and simple. No back pedaling involved. Especially when people like "Couldabeenacontender" above show that there are no arguments against homosexuality and so they are forced to simply make some up instead. If you find that the arguments against someone are all entirely invented then alarm bells should be going off. I am happy to nail my colors to the mast of those who are being indicted despite doing nothing wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95
To the majority of men, it is perverse, it is repulsive, and literally sickening.
So what? That is their problem, not mine, nor the problem of gay people. No one is asking the "majority of men" to have gay sex. So if it repulses them then they have to deal with it, not us. If they were being admonished to engage in gay sex themselves I would happily take your point. They are not however and their repulsion is being used to indict people who are not actually doing anything "wrong".
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95
Nobody cares what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes. Nothing more need be said.
If only that were true. However both reality, and your own words above of what the "majority of men" think... beg to differ. It seems people very much care what others do in privacy. They even make up gods and claim those gods are watching you all the time and do not like certain things... all in an attempt to control what you do in private. Books and states like 1984 and North Korea are based on thought control and controlling what people do and even think in privacy. There is simply no reason on offer to me to consider your line above true on any level. So a lot more than "nothing more need be said" on such issues.
You have a long track record here and I have seen many of your posts. What you encourage is for people to march in lock-step behind you.
I keep presenting information from reputable peer reviewed sources, and exposing the myths, lies and misrepresentations in the deliberate "misinformation" by those with an anti-gay agenda. Anyone can check the sources, educate themselves and come to their own conclusions. Have you ever bothered to read any of the studies and peer-reviewed papers on homosexality? If not, then I'm not sure what your point is.
I came across this article. Obviously, if born as a homosexual, he was developmentally delayed in his sexuality.An Interview with Loren Olson, M.D., on Finally Out - LGBT Homosexuality And Bisexuality Meanings Do people get bored? Maybe involved with porn and introduced to same sex, yuck, whatever? Maybe he had patients that were homosexual and listening "turned" him more than "on". It just seems with all the pondering over what their sexuality encompasses that "being born gay" is not a realistic notion.
I don't care if someone is born gay or not. It's not for me to tell someone who they should or should not be attracted to. But I'll say this: the amount of absolute ridicule, disdain, judgment that gay people go thru, they are either very stupid if they "choose" (as so many people like to assume) to be gay or very brave.
I came across this article. Obviously, if born as a homosexual, he was developmentally delayed in his sexuality.An Interview with Loren Olson, M.D., on Finally Out - LGBT Homosexuality And Bisexuality Meanings Do people get bored? Maybe involved with porn and introduced to same sex, yuck, whatever? Maybe he had patients that were homosexual and listening "turned" him more than "on". It just seems with all the pondering over what their sexuality encompasses that "being born gay" is not a realistic notion.
Thank you for the link. Although I'm not sure how you reached some of your ideas after reading it?
How did you come to your conclusion that "obviously he was developmentally delayed in his sexuality"? He grew up in the 50's during the McCarthy era in an environment where being gay is seen as "sick and perverted", as well as illegal. It seems his awareness of his sexual orientation was "delayed" because of this. It would take a lot of courage for someone back then to admit to themselves that they might be gay let alone live outwardly gay.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Quo
