What leads to Homosexuality?

[Bakiryu]

It seems like most of today's society is composed of either gay men (it's always the cute ones *curses*) or lesbians.

What leads to Homosexuality or Bisexuality?

[SleepyWitch]

uh oh, Baki.. this thread has "locked" written all over it... I'm sure one of our hotheats will find a way to turn it into a nasty fight about politics or religion :lol:

i don't think "most" of today's society is composed of gays/lesbians... i read somewhere it's about 10% of the population, including closet homosexuals...

[Bakiryu]

Oh well, It just seems that way to me since only about 5 of my friends are straight ;)

[Logos]

What leads to Homosexuality or Bisexuality?
Nothing 'leads' to it...it just happens to be a little more socially acceptable today that people who happen to be born this way can live their lives honestly instead of having to hide it from persecutors and homophobes and generally ignorant and intolerant people.

[Stanislaw]

well, I'm not too sure, but I do know that it means less competition for me! :D :brow:

[Bakiryu]

well, I'm not too sure, but I do know that it means less competition for me! :D :brow:


and more for me. (so unfair!)

[Pensive]

I agree with Logos. It even happened in "older times" actually, but was kept hidden mostly because it wasn't much socially acceptable at that time.

[Lote-Tree]

What leads to Homosexuality or Bisexuality?

What leads to Asexuality?

But you question implies these kinds of things are Conditioned?

If so why such thing occurs in Animal World?

The question is it conditioned or is it genetics?

[Bakiryu]

In my country, drag queens are still been sent to jail. Homosexualiety is considered morally 'wrong' by most people even in these times.




The question is it conditioned or is it genetics?


I do wonder that too, can somebody please answer.

(Althought It would be strange to be tested for a 'gay' gene)

[Lote-Tree]

I do wonder that too, can somebody please answer.


If it is conditioned - what causes this conditioning in the Animal World?

[Bakiryu]

Well since humans are animals then It would probably be the same thing.

Genes?

[Muhammad Nadeem]

This has not been new to human nature as it is instinct of him. But what leads him to this type of sexuality is his ...insatisfaction in sex with partner...man with woman/woman with man. Here r many other factors those count a lot....proper sex education(what religions teach), food he takes, and the mind he uses for.... because a rebel nature is inside human, food (wine, bacon, ham, and pig) has direct effect on anybody's health and mind.
Even modern science proves that the food you consume has direct efect on body and mind.
let's take example of female pig, it has a nature to have sex with more than one male pigs at a time, so is the people doing who consume its meat in their food.
Secondly, take wine/alcohel that makes fully senseless after drinking. and there is no differenciation between sister or mother or somebody else rather man forgets all the relations and he is then mentally blind to think or decide positive.
Finally, comes the education or the codes of life or living provided by any religion(i won't limitize this education to any particular religion) because every religion teaches us some ethics, morality and codes of conduct, which are the base of living a positive life.
{edit}

[Bakiryu]

'excuse me?! So what you are saying is that homosexuality is just the result of an unsatisfied sexual appetitie?

[Stanislaw]

to go out on a limb: I think it may be a bit of both,

For some I believe it is genetic, but I also believe that for some others I believe it may be learned or encouraged behavior.

So I think it depends on the individual and the situation, but I do believe that people can be born homosexual, its not really a condition, but a state of being.

[papayahed]

Oh, here we go. Let me pull up a chair and get some popcorn.

[Bakiryu]

oooh, share p-hed!

[Pensive]

Secondly, take wine/alcohel that makes fully senseless after drinking. and there is no differenciation between sister or mother or somebody else rather man forgets all the relations and he is then mentally blind to think or decide positive.

Ummm...what has wine got to do with this discussion? Those who are homosexuals are not necessarily those who drink. :)

[Scheherazade]

This thread remains open in good faith of the Moderators that
it will not turn into a political or religious propaganda for any group.

Any posts/comments which indicate intolerance towards any other member(s) or group(s) will be edited/deleted with or without any further warning.

[Bakiryu]

I dunno Pensive. Maybe he/she was talking about when one's drunk one can't really see if it's male or female (?) *puzzled*

[Muhammad Nadeem]

off course it is an unsatisfied sex appetite which leaves the ways of nature aside a trying to find satisfaction in fake ways which are accepted by the wild natured members of this so-called society.

[Bakiryu]

You are making me quite mad. Most of my gay friends are underage teenage virgins, so sex has nothing to do with it.

[Lote-Tree]

Well since humans are animals then It would probably be the same thing.


Yes. And hence homosexuality, Asexuality are inherent in nature.



Genes


Aye lassie - it is genetics or else we would not observe this in the animal world and nothing to do with sining human beings.

[Muhammad Nadeem]

then here it applies to ther education provided by their school..i-e mother, father or the educational institutions....or their friends ..... but they r attracted by {edit} acts of their {edit}friends

[Bakiryu]

Do you mean to say them than devil worship has anything to do with sexuality?


Anyway, Lote asexuality is rarer than homosexuality and bisexuality both in the human and animal world.

Has the amount of asuaxals incrased now that sex isn't really neccesary for the repproduction of the species. (I mean, just because some abstain the whole species isn't going to die.)

[Muhammad Nadeem]

this shows rebel/uncontrolled nature of man

a man who does not want to limitize himself to his opposite sex but looking for some other ways to seek satisfaction

[Bakiryu]

What about people who ARE BORN gay?

[Turk]

Biggest reasons of homosexuality are messed up family system, messed up society, messed up economic system.

Why homosexuality is so high in west? Because both of parents are working and children growing up without being mature morally and they never have emotional satisfaction. Also lack of parental care, children growing up in need of care.

Especially boys needs so much care of their mother and also modal role of their father. If a boy grows up without these, he'll be more tendant to homosexuality, if a girl grows up without care of father and modal role of mother she'll probly be a someone who always in search of a man who'll be his father and lover in same time, and possible result of this is being *****y girl.

Also i agree with Stanislaw that homosexuality encouraged by mass media and capitalists too.

[Lote-Tree]

Anyway, Lote asexuality is rarer than homosexuality and bisexuality both in the human and animal world.


My point is this. Those kinds of varients are found in nature. It is natural that certain percentage of the population show asexual, homosexual and bisexual tendencies. This can only be down to DNA.



Has the amount of asuaxals incrased now that sex isn't really neccesary for the repproduction of the species. (I mean, just because some abstain the whole species isn't going to die.)

Has the amount of homosexuality increased? No. It has remained the same I believe but we live in a society that allows expression of such varients without fear of recriminations.

[Muhammad Nadeem]

ye sure a devil worship is not more than to follow his ways that leed to this kind of activities,
and if it continues, the day is not far to deminish the societies rather than the human species

[Bakiryu]

Most homosexuals (I know) come from nice catholic families, who go everyday to church and whose parents are still married.

Muhammad I don't even know any gay satanists! (except for my ex-boyfriend)

How does capitalism and mass media affect these people?

[Muhammad Nadeem]

i dont agree people are born gay, its their thinking that makes them so

'a mind is its own place, in itself
can make a hell of heaven and heaven of hell'

[Lote-Tree]

Why homosexuality is so high in west?


Read the book "Kite Runner".



If a boy grows up without these, he'll be more tendant to homosexuality


So you would have expected a HUGE INCREASE in homosexuality amongst the children of fathers who died in the first and second world world war? Right?

[Bakiryu]

Muhamad: I see. How do you explain them homosexuality in nature. Animals DO NOT THINK.

There are few, if any gay orphans. Growing up without a father doesn't really affect your orientation, I mean what has one thing to do with the other?!

[Pensive]

Why homosexuality is so high in west?

As far as I know, homosexuality is very common in my country as well (a South-Asian country), but it's not out there in the open because it's not socially/religiously acceptable here. Of course, I am not exact about the calculations whether it is higher here than in the West but I am quite sure there wouldn't be a very big of a difference.

[Bakiryu]

Yes, homosexuality is still not socially/religiously accepted in my country either. Most gay mean have to undergo estrenous psychological torture and usually land in jail just becuse of what they are.

[Logos]

Oh, here we go. Let me pull up a chair and get some popcorn.
*snort* would you like an ice-cold Coke or Orange Crush with that? :lol:
I'll have some unbuttered if ya got it

[Lote-Tree]

i dont agree people are born gay, its their thinking that makes them so


OK Muhammad - here is an experiment you can perform at home and quite safely. Think Yourself into being a Homosexual. If you can do that then there is a NOBEL PRIZE waiting for you. Think what an achievement would be for you? You would have over-turned hundreds years of scientific study - even the MIGHTY DNA itself into revealing its secrets :-)



'a mind is its own place, in itself
can make a hell of heaven and heaven of hell'

Mind locked into itself can only see darkness....

[Bakiryu]

Go Lote!!!

I don't know anyone who can think his/herself straight or gay. If people could do it don't you think they would?!

[SleepyWitch]

Biggest reasons of homosexuality are messed up family system, messed up society, messed up economic system.

Why homosexuality is so high in west? Because both of parents are working and children growing up without being mature morally and they never have emotional satisfaction. Also lack of parental care, children growing up in need of care.

Especially boys needs so much care of their mother and also modal role of their father. If a boy grows up without these, he'll be more tendant to homosexuality, if a girl grows up without care of father and modal role of mother she'll probly be a someone who always in search of a man who'll be his father and lover in same time, and possible result of this is being *****y girl.

Also i agree with Stanislaw that homosexuality encouraged by mass media and capitalists too.

well, my brother is gay/bi.. my mom is a housewife, she always looked after us, helped us with our homework, cooked for us, talked to us etc, fulfilled all of our emotional needs
.. my dad is the epitome of "masculinity": strong, authoritarian, the bread-winner of the family, i.e. a perfect role model for a boy in traditional terms...
so how come my brother's gay? according to your theory he should be as straight, as .. dunno what a lamp post?

[Bakiryu]

exactly! Your theory has some holes. 78% or so of gays, les and bi's comes from nice, suburban households.

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m302/im2godly4ne1/prettycolor.gif

[Turk]

Sleepywitch; i didn't say family is the only reason, but the main or basic of things because we start our lives in a family environment and our first modals are family members. Then we grow up and see the world, friends, teachers, family friends etc. And all of them are modals for us. Also don't forget mass-media. We all may have seeds of wrong tendencies, some has tendency to kill people, some has tendency to stealing, some has tendency to homosexuality, some has tendency to pedophili etc. All bad tendencies could stop while they are still a seed. But if mass-media keeps showing gay singers/artists etc. and make people think it's something natural, then people who have tendency to be gay would be encouraged, "BECAUSE THERE'S THOUSANDS OF GAYS OUR THERE, SO WHAT IF I WOULD BECOME TOO?". Nothing has only one reason.


As far as I know, homosexuality is very common in my country as well (a South-Asian country), but it's not out there in the open because it's not socially/religiously acceptable here. Of course, I am not exact about the calculations whether it is higher here than in the West but I am quite sure there wouldn't be a very big of a difference.

South Asia is a part of world which is dominated and exploited by West in past and now. Also as i know South East countries has no cultural/religious rules about homosexuality since (mostly) they never believed Judaism, Christianity or İslam.


Most homosexuals (I know) come from nice catholic families, who go everyday to church and whose parents are still married.

Well, most homosexual pastors are in Catholic churches. After saying this, i would like to say family is not economical organization. If a family built up on materialistic values then it's not a real family. Also i would like to ask a question; are these nice Catholic families you talking about; are they mostly high-average and high income level families?

And one last thing which is not about this topic (so i don't want to argue about it on forum) IN MY OPINION church's itself's root is evil since Jesus never wanted to build the church.


How does capitalism and mass media affect these people?

Capitalism is a value system which has not value. But money. Also mass media affect is one of the best i know, because 15 years ago Turkey just had state tv and around 20 years ago a capitalist movement started in Turkey. When i was younger there was almost no homosexual, it wasn't as common as today. But today although it's not as common as western countries homosexuality is raising in Turkey and especially in richer cities homosexuality is higher than other areas (because they are more affected by mass media and western values-capitalist values).

Remember story of Abel and Cain (Habil and Kabil), in that story, after killing Abel, Cain didn't know what to do and he learnt to bury dead body from a crow. MAN LEARNS. From environment, from other people. If environment is somewhere like Sodom then people of that environment will be like people of Sodom too.

[Lote-Tree]

MAN LEARNS. From environment, from other people. If environment is somewhere like Sodom then people of that environment will be like people of Sodom too.

Brilliant Logic - now Explain why there is homosexuality in the Animal World ;-)



Capitalism is a value system which has not value. But money. Also mass media affect is one of the best i know, because 15 years ago Turkey just had state tv and around 20 years ago a capitalist movement started in Turkey. When i was younger there was almost no homosexual, it wasn't as common as today.


There were homosexuals in non-capitalist soviet union. There are homosexuals in Religious theocracy of Pakistan and Iran etc.

[Pensive]

South Asia is a part of world which is dominated and exploited by West in past and now. Also as i know South East countries has no cultural/religious rules about homosexuality since (mostly) they never believed Judaism, Christianity or İslam.

Pakistan is an Islamic country. I mean the rules enforced here are very much Islamic, especially the rules considering homosexuality. It has got nothing to do with influence of West.

[SleepyWitch]

Sleepywitch; i didn't say family is the only reason, but the main or basic of things because we start our lives in a family environment and our first modals are family members. Then we grow up and see the world, friends, teachers, family friends etc. And all of them are modals for us. Also don't forget mass-media. We all may have seeds of wrong tendencies, some has tendency to kill people, some has tendency to stealing, some has tendency to homosexuality, some has tendency to pedophili etc. All bad tendencies could stop while they are still a seed. But if mass-media keeps showing gay singers/artists etc. and make people think it's something natural, then people who have tendency to be gay would be encouraged, "BECAUSE THERE'S THOUSANDS OF GAYS OUR THERE, SO WHAT IF I WOULD BECOME TOO?". Nothing has only one reason.




ok. the only problem is that my bro doesn't like the mass media. he never watched much TV and never followed any mass trends... none of our teachers were (openly) gay and before my brother came out, he didn't have any gay friends....

as for stealing and paedophiles.. thieves harm others. paedophiles harm little children..
how does homosexuality harm anyone, as long as it happens between consenting adults?

[Turk]

Brilliant Logic - now Explain why there is homosexuality in the Animal World ;-)

Homosexuality is really really rare in Animal World compared to "Human World". Also man's organ is to give woman's is to take. Anus is for poo, not sex. As you can see my brilliancy comes from understanding the most simple truths of life.


There were homosexuals in non-capitalist soviet union. There are homosexuals in Religious theocracy of Pakistan and Iran etc.

Pakistan is not a theocratic country. And in Muslim ****ries homosexuality is too low compared to other places of the world. But Communist moral is not so different than Capitalist moral, they both build on Materialism.


Pakistan is an Islamic country. I mean the rules enforced here are very much Islamic, especially the rules considering homosexuality. It has got nothing to do with influence of West.

Pakistan was ruled by Brits for long time when it was united with India. Though i was thinking you are from South Korea or Thailand since you said you are from South-east Asia, Pakistan is in almost center of Asia, close to central Asia. But anyway, compared to western countries homosexuality can't be as high as west in any Muslim country.


ok. the only problem is that my bro doesn't like the mass media. he never watched much TV and never followed any mass trends... none of our teachers were (openly) gay and before my brother came out, he didn't have any gay friends....



Well, i am not going to build my theories on your brother, because he's an individual and i don't know him. I am talking for general, if i had know your brother maybe then i could understand why he became gay, that's why stop telling me about your brother. If you believe he was born as gay, then you can keep believeing it, but i don't believe it's natural and i don't think God creates people as gay.


as for stealing and paedophiles.. thieves harm others. paedophiles harm little children..
how does homosexuality harm anyone, as long as it happens between consenting adults?

Who said your body and God doesn't have any rights on you? As being a homosexual you firstly betray your God-given body. Well, in my opinion thinking you are total owner of your body is a kind of arrogance and being arrogant against God.

[SleepyWitch]

Homosexuality is really really rare in Animal World compared to "Human World". Also man's organ is to give woman's is to take. Anus is for poo, not sex. As you can see my brilliancy comes from understanding the most simple truths of life.
that's good news for lesbians then, seeing as the parts of the body you mentioned are not involved there...



Who said your body and God doesn't have any rights on you? As being a homosexual you firstly betray your God-given body. Well, in my opinion thinking you are total owner of your body is a kind of arrogance and being arrogant against God.
i can see your point.. but this argument rests on the assumption that the only purpose of the body is reproduction... if humans were meant (by nature/God or whatever) to use their sexual organs exclusively for reproduction, why are they the only animals that actually enjoy sex? most animals don't enjoy it.. they are driven by an instinct that tells them it's time to mate.
humans can have intercourse for the fun of it or for bonding.. that includes heterosexual intercourse...
so in terms of reproduction, there is no difference between heterosexual intercourse that is done without the aim of reproduction and homosexual intercourse... both are done for fun/to express feelings/....

[Lote-Tree]

Homosexuality is really really rare in Animal World compared to "Human World".


It is not rare as you think:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321980.100-the-whole-worlds-out.html

But "Rare-ness" is not in the contention here. It is the fact that it Exists.



Also man's organ is to give woman's is to take. Anus is for poo, not sex.


Sex is more than just penetration - go and learn some.



As you can see my brilliancy comes from understanding the most simple truths of life.


I have given you this simple truth - Homosexuality exists in nature. Go and learn it.



Pakistan is not a theocratic country.


Whether you says it is not is not the contetion here. It exists.



And in Muslim ****ries homosexuality is too low compared to other places of the world.


Go and read the "Kite Runner".



But Communist moral is not so different than Capitalist moral, they both build on Materialism.


Homosexuality exists in Spiritual Morality. It is just that it can never expressed without recriminations.



Pakistan was ruled by Brits for long time when it was united with India.


Thats why it has some homosexuals? This is silly logic.



But anyway, compared to western countries homosexuality can't be as high as west in any Muslim country.


Victorians thought this too of England.

[Pensive]

Pakistan was ruled by Brits for long time when it was united with India. Though i was thinking you are from South Korea or Thailand since you said you are from South-east Asia, Pakistan is in almost center of Asia, close to central Asia. But anyway, compared to western countries homosexuality can't be as high as west in any Muslim country.

Yes, Pakistan was ruled by British people but at that time even in Britain, homosexuals had not much rights.

According to wikipedia:


Section 377, a law introduced by the British government in 1860 criminalizes "carnal knowledge of any man against the order of nature", with a penalty of anywhere from 2 to 10 years.

Now, look at this:


Islamic law was re-introduced in 1990. Pakistani civil law punishes those who have gay sex with two years to life in prison, while Islamic law, which also can be enforced legally, calls for up to 100 lashes or death by stoning.

You can see by this that even British had made it illegal.

And you can't even be sure about this that "Homosexuality in a Muslim country would be much less than in a Western country." You see the laws (which have it banned) are totally against it, but they do it in the hidden. When something is not acceptable in a society, people find ways of doing it in hidden. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist in that society.

[kilted exile]

**bites tongue very tightly and certainly makes no mention of how insanely ridiculous it is to use wide sweeping generalisations in order to determine why an individual acts in a certain way, however thinks of definetely suggesting some reading and learning is required - before considering that it would be no use as people hold views and despite the evidence to the contrary it would not matter**

[kathycf]

*snort* would you like an ice-cold Coke or Orange Crush with that? :lol:
I'll have some unbuttered if ya got it

If we are putting in requests, I think I would like Diet Coke and maybe some of those cut up vegetables for dipping. Oh, and of course dip.

I was going to post a bunch of more relevant stuff, but .... decided not to enter the fray after all. :lol:

[Lote-Tree]

If we are putting in requests, I think I would like Diet Coke and maybe some of those cut up vegetables for dipping. Oh, and of course dip.


Diet Coke is Evil Thing - it turns people into homosexuals ;-)

Just kiddin :-)



I was going to post a bunch of more relevant stuff, but .... decided not to enter the fray after all. :lol:

Coward ;-)

[kathycf]

Diet Coke is Evil Thing - it turns people into homosexuals ;-)

Just kiddin :-)



Coward ;-)
Are you flaming me!!! :p :lol: :D

[SleepyWitch]

If we are putting in requests, I think I would like Diet Coke and maybe some of those cut up vegetables for dipping. Oh, and of course dip.

I was going to post a bunch of more relevant stuff, but .... decided not to enter the fray after all. :lol:
hehe, why not? it's fun :)
on the other hand, I think I'll join the spectators and sit back with a nice bottle of vanilla coke...
hang on, vanilla coke isn't natural... I'll go for eau-du-tap then, just to be on the safe side.

[Bakiryu]

I want a moccha fappuchino latte! and oatmeal cookies!

[Logos]

If we are putting in requests, I think I would like Diet Coke and maybe some of those cut up vegetables for dipping. Oh, and of course dip.
Sure, refreshments and snacks for all, courtesy of the LitNet Mod's Literature and General Recreation Discussion Forums Good-Will Lobby :lol:

[Lote-Tree]

Are you flaming me!!! :p :lol: :D

LOL :-)

Only with the Spirit of Amusement :-);-)

[SleepyWitch]

Pakistan was ruled by Brits for long time when it was united with India. Though i was thinking you are from South Korea or Thailand since you said you are from South-east Asia, Pakistan is in almost center of Asia, close to central Asia. But anyway, compared to western countries homosexuality can't be as high as west in any Muslim country.


Pensy said South-Asia... I know it's confusing.. in Geography Pakistan and India are called South Asia, even though there are other countries that are further south and are also situated in Asia.
I think those South/Middle/East/South-East terms are used differently in different languages. E.g. in English, Indians can be called "Asians" while in German "Asians" refers primarily to Chinese, Japanese etc...

hehe, Logos, we are all perfectly peaceful and good-willed :)

[Bakiryu]

I believed that homosexuality is a genectic thing. It can't be controlled. You can't make somebody gay.

I come from a country where there are only two television chanels, 1 national newspaper and little to no conctact with the outside worl. People are still gay.

It doesn't matter where you're from or how you living condiotns are. If you're gay you're gay. And the gods have nothing to do with it.

[kathycf]

hehe, why not? it's fun :)
on the other hand, I think I'll join the spectators and sit back with a nice bottle of vanilla coke...
hang on, vanilla coke isn't natural... I'll go for eau-du-tap then, just to be on the safe side.
Lote contends that Diet Coke leads to homosexuality....I wonder what Vanilla Coke would lead to?! :eek: Better stick to water, young Sleepy!


Sure, refreshments and snacks for all, courtesy of the LitNet Mod's Literature and General Recreation Discussion Forums Good-Will Lobby :lol:
Excellent! You should lobby Cookie to provide all the baked goods. :)

Just as an aside...from a psychology students point of view. Years ago the American Psychiatric Association used to list homosexuality as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). This classification was removed in 1973. This of course has no bearing on people's personal views on homosexuality, nor is my stating it an attempt to sway anybody's thinking.

I actually believe trying to change anybody's mind regarding an issue they have firm and entrenched opinions about is relatively fruitless.

[Bakiryu]

I've never like coke, what would your comments be about....................GRAPE SODA?!

[Lote-Tree]

Lote contends that Diet Coke leads to homosexuality....


LOL :-)

The contention was in the Spirit of Amusement :-)



I actually believe trying to change anybody's mind regarding an issue they have firm and entrenched opinions about is relatively fruitless.


Nay it is not Fruitless...because every time someone tries to reply - they do something thinking on the words you wrote...so at least you have made them think... ;-)

Idea is not make anyone change their views...that would be an arrogance stance ;-) but to make them think...

[Bakiryu]

Nevertheless changing anothers beliefs is deficult. That's why there should be no beliefs, only ideas.

[SleepyWitch]

I've never like coke, what would your comments be about....................GRAPE SODA?!

grapes are purple, thus they lead to bi-sexuality :)

[Bakiryu]

No! So It was the soda, all this time! 'If I'd known earlier, but it's now too late'!

[Lote-Tree]

grapes are purple, thus they lead to bi-sexuality :)

LOL :-)

[Turk]

i can see your point.. but this argument rests on the assumption that the only purpose of the body is reproduction... if humans were meant (by nature/God or whatever) to use their sexual organs exclusively for reproduction, why are they the only animals that actually enjoy sex? most animals don't enjoy it.. they are driven by an instinct that tells them it's time to mate.
humans can have intercourse for the fun of it or for bonding.. that includes heterosexual intercourse...
so in terms of reproduction, there is no difference between heterosexual intercourse that is done without the aim of reproduction and homosexual intercourse... both are done for fun/to express feelings/....

{edit} But according to me goal of sex is much closer to continuing human generation than "having fun". Also having fun or expressing feelings should be in the border of limits, then we should accept those perverts who have sex with animals as normal people too. If homosexuality is normal then many {edit} action should be considered normal.


It is not rare as you think:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...orlds-out.html

But "Rare-ness" is not in the contention here. It is the fact that it Exists.

That's not even a full article and unnatural things may also happen in animal world too, but that doesn't mean it's a common thing.


Sex is more than just penetration - go and learn some.


{edit}From Erich Fromm to Freud tons of psychologists says it's homosexuality is not normal.


Go and read the "Kite Runner".

If i count you books i have read {edit} many. A book is a book. Anyone can write a book. And you can find a book about everything. So if you have thoughts or comment tell, if you don't stop keep giving same book as reference.


Homosexuality exists in Spiritual Morality. It is just that it can never expressed without recriminations.

Since when? Oh my... Is someone wrote "The Bible Of Homosexual" in your country? And also what's "Spiritual Morality" a new religion? Talk clear, say Christianity, Judaism or İslam. I don't know a belief called "Spiritual Morality".


Thats why it has some homosexuals? This is silly logic.

I didn't say that's why. If you would understand what i said, you would be realized i am telling it may have been one of reasons.

Pensive; i simply told my last word to you; no Muslim country has western percentage of homosexual in fact it's rare compared to west. And homosexuality doesn't makes you more modern or civilized.


I believed that homosexuality is a genectic thing. It can't be controlled. You can't make somebody gay.

I come from a country where there are only two television chanels, 1 national newspaper and little to no conctact with the outside worl. People are still gay.

So do you believe if we burn people who have "homosexual genes" we would finish this problem? Well, Nazis were thinking like this too. In fact it's a social problem mostly created by society. Also i wonder this little country you came from.

[kathycf]

LOL :-)

The contention was in the Spirit of Amusement :-)
I know. :lol:


Nay it is not Fruitless...because every time someone tries to reply - they do something thinking on the words you wrote...so at least you have made them think... ;-)

Idea is not make anyone change their views...that would be an arrogance stance ;-) but to make them think...
Well, I phrased that incorrectly then. What I should have said was I get too frustrated trying to respond to what I feel are complete misconceptions and misinformation. I am making what therapists refer to as an "I" statement...rather than a "you" statement...thereby "owning" my point of view. ;) [/end psychobabble talk]

So in the interests (purely selfish) of not wanting to give myself a bruise by banging my head against the wall...I am refraining from further input. I am totally enjoying the spiffy snacks though. :lol:

[Bakiryu]

So do you believe if we burn people who have "homosexual genes" we would finish this problem? Well, Nazis were thinking like this too. In fact it's a social problem mostly created by society. Also i wonder this little country you came from.

I don't believe we should burn gays. I stand and fully support GAY MARRIAGE AND GAY RIGHTS!!!

And I am a pround CUBAN!

[kilted exile]

Well, I tried to hold my tongue, tried to be nice - however disrepectful people deserve no respect in return.

Turk, your rampant homophobia is not only repulsive (if that was the only issue I would quite happily write you off as another insane bigot) the reasons you are giving for homophobia are just flat out incorrect, wrong & quite frankly stupid. You really should go and do some proper reading on the subject, maybe see the world a little, talk to people who are homosexual, and stop looking at this like a western problem caused by us infidels - which lets face it is what you are really trying to say.

[Lote-Tree]

That's not even a full article and unnatural things may also happen in animal world too, but that doesn't mean it's a common thing.


You have to go to your library chappy and read the whole thing.
{edit}


From Erich Fromm to Freud tons of psychologists says it's homosexuality is not normal.


Normality is not in the contention here. It is whether it exists or not.



If i count you books i have read donkeys of your country won't be able to carry them.


This is not about counting books. It is about whether it Exists or not.



A book is a book. Anyone can write a book. And you can find a book about everything. So if you have thoughts or comment tell, if you don't stop keep giving same book as reference.


You should then stop repeating the same thing;-)



Since when? Oh my... Is someone wrote "The Bible Of Homosexual" in your country? And also what's "Spiritual Morality" a new religion? Talk clear, say Christianity, Judaism or İslam. I don't know a belief called "Spiritual Morality".


OK. Let's do this again. Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Is that better? But there are other spirituality in existence - hence the use of word "Spiritual" as oppose to materiliasm you mentioned previously.



I didn't say that's why.


That was the implication. You should write more clearly.

[Bakiryu]

Go Kilted exile and Lote-kun!!!


I was trying to be nice but that Turk dude exasperates me with unfounded beliefs and unproved ideas.

[Turk]

I don't believe we should burn gays. I stand and fully support GAY MARRIAGE AND GAY RIGHTS!!!

And I am a pround CUBAN!

Well, gay marriage ha? Whenever i think of this, it made me laugh. Two men but one of 'em is wife. Acting like a woman of the household. Well, maybe they both are wife or husband? Oh well, i am confused homosexuality is so complex for me that i can't understand the beauty and deep philosophy of it. :(

See, i guarantee you, after Leninist government falls Cuba will be a huge brothel for rich western tourists. Also after establishment of mass-media all kinds of immoral things will make an explode. You will see that.

[kathycf]

Well, who are you? Government paid sex teacher? From Erich Fromm to Freud tons of psychologists says it's homosexuality is not normal.
Hi Turk. :) Just a quick point before I completely bow out of the discussion.

I respectfully but completely disagree with the contention that "tons" of psychologists say homosexuality is "not normal". While I can't speak for the practice of psychology in other countries, homosexuality is not considered a mental disorder in the US. I posted that earlier that homosexuality was removed as a disorder in 1973 from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) which is published by the American Psychiatric Association. This is an official manual used by psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists, social workers and other mental health clinicians across the US.

This is merely to point out that thinking regarding homosexuality in psychiatric circles has changed since the days of Freud and Fromm.

[kilted exile]

Oh well, i am confused homosexuality is so complex for me that i can't understand the beauty and deep philosophy of it.

Well I think you have managed to make that abundantly clear.

[Bakiryu]

Well, gay marriage ha? Whenever i think of this, it made me laugh. Two men but one of 'em is wife. Acting like a woman of the household. Well, maybe they both are wife or husband? Oh well, i am confused homosexuality is so complex for me that i can't understand the beauty and deep philosophy of it. :(

See, i guarantee you, after Leninist government falls Cuba will be a huge brothel for rich western tourists. Also after establishment of mass-media all kinds of immoral things will make an explode. You will see that.


Jeez, if you cannot understand two people loving and wanting to be with each other than all your relationships must suck. No one has to be the woman or the man, is a healthy mature commitement.


And for your information Cuba is already a brothel for rich western turists. But it's also one of the most beautiful paleces in the world.

[ulvmane]

As always i choose to blame the ALA for haveing a banned book list and not informing people about anything, because of that no one knows the the mind altering effects of grape soda =P

[Bakiryu]

As always i choose to blame the ALA for haveing a banned book list and not informing people about anything, because of that no one knows the the mind altering effects of grape soda =P

I know, and to think I've been a faithful consumer all these years. My, I'm outraged!

[Turk]

Lote-Tree; except personal things you've said, i am done with you because almost all of your last coments are wrong significantly things you've said about 3 religion and existence; existence of something doesn't mean it's correct. If it's your point then you can stay with your point where you won't advance even a step. Existence of something doesn't mean it's right. That's all.

Kathycf; hi, then you should research why it's removed too, because of public pressure or what? Because 1973 is not a so old date and quite late times of science of psychology, also it is not a kind of science that suddenly changeable. We also know homosexual marriage was banned and it's getting legal in many places just because PUBLIC PRESSURE.

KiltedExile; as you said i am a "rampant homophobic" that's why i don't have any homosexual friends, so i will never have that chance. Unless you are any other can explain me in this forum why they choosed homosexuality.

[Bakiryu]

Ok, you're a dude right? Did you CHOOSE to be attracted to females?
No it's something you were born already knowing.

It's the same with gay, bisexual people and you shouldn't judge them by their choice of sexual or romantic partners.

[kilted exile]

Ok, Turk this last post and then I'm out of here.

First I want to address the public pressure part you mentioned in your reply to Kathy, as if this is the reason why homosexuality was removed from the DSM & the allowance of gay marriages.

Yes, there is public pressure to allow gay marriage. However, the loudest people on the subject are the people who are opposed to it. The reason it is being allowed is because this is the 21st century, these are 2 consenting adults who love each other, and it causes no harm to anybody.


Now, your comment about wanting other people to explain to you why people are homosexual before you will have any as friends:

You will get a far better understanding of why people are homosexual by talking to people who are homosexual (not even saying you have to be their friend). They are the people who understand it. Me attempting to give you the reason would be incredibly presumptious, and would by no means cover everyone. At least then you would have an informed opinion instead of the pseudo-sociological mumbo-jumbo you are currently portraying as the truth

[Bakiryu]

I your friends have to explain themselves to you before you accept them as friends you must be a lonely person indeed. Friendship is above such petty concerns as sexual orientation.

[BibliophileTRJ]

**bites tongue very tightly and certainly makes no mention of how insanely ridiculous it is to use wide sweeping generalisations in order to determine why an individual acts in a certain way, however thinks of definetely suggesting some reading and learning is required - before considering that it would be no use as people hold views and despite the evidence to the contrary it would not matter**

Well said Kilted Exile.

As a proud card-carrying homosexual, I find this thread VERY amusing.

I am no authority on the subject, and I can only speak for myself; but I for one was BORN GAY.

Both my parents were just as homophobic and SURE that homosexuality is wrong as Muhammad Nadeem and Turk are, so they didn't put the idea in my head. Growing up I didn't have access to a television until I moved out of my parents house at 16, so it wasn't culture/media. I never met another gay person (that I knew of) until after I moved out, so I wasn't "recruited" by the gay community.
What were the other posted reasons?.....
Religion - Raised Roman Catholic - In the view of the church I am "ABOMINATION"
Economics - we were dirt poor (I don't know what that proves or who's argument it supports.... but if that's the reason I'm queer then all of those developing nations where the average income is a dollar a day must be the gayest places on earth

All I can tell you is that when I was 6 or 7 my Dad took me to "Father-Son Night" at my school where a child psychologist explained where babies come from to all the boys in my class. I was, at the time, too naive to keep my mouth shut and when the "teacher" asked if there were any questions my hand was one of the few that went up. The first kid didn't understand that girls have more orifices than boys, the second didn't understand the concept of foreplay, I asked how all this works if there is no girl involved. The teacher didn't understand.... I had to ask again.... "How do 2 boys do it .... or 2 girls?" Looking stunned the teacher said I had to ask my parents.... Class dismissed!! (the next 9 years of schooling were quite miserable for me)
On the ride home Dad was FURIOUS!! Screamed at me at the top of his lungs for a very long time.... "How could you ask such a thing? I'm so embarrassed! Now the whole town will be talking!! I can never show my face at the general store again!!" et cetera. That was the last time that my father ever spoke to me in full sentences. From that day to this one, all I ever get from him is grunted one-word answers to direct questions.....IF I'M LUCKY.... normally he just pretends that I don't exist.

So, you see, I knew I was gay before I ever knew what gay IS. I knew I had no use for girls before I knew what their use is. (now now ladies, calm down, I'm not saying that sex/reproduction is your only use... just in the context of this thread)

As for it being a choice......HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! If I had a choice I'd be as straight as a ruler. On a couple of notable occasions I made the choice to be dead rather than gay.... fortunately my attempts at suicide were as successful as my attempts at heterosexuality..... which is to say NOT AT ALL. (but I have some interesting scars to show for it)

If there are any other questions you want answered (about my personal experience) feel free to ask. I'm thrilled that all you "breeders" are taking an interest in this topic...... the more it's discussed the less "hidden" it becomes. The less hidden it is, the less taboo it becomes.

[Niamh]

Well said Biblio!

Here is my little contrabution. We were once lead to believe that the world was flat and had edges... that turned out to be false. Does that not also mean that Freud could be false? words of psychologists should not be taken as gospel.

[Bakiryu]

Go Bibblio!!!

I wonder thought, how did you get the courage to tell your parents?

[SleepyWitch]

Well, gay marriage ha? Whenever i think of this, it made me laugh. Two men but one of 'em is wife. Acting like a woman of the household. Well, maybe they both are wife or husband? Oh well, i am confused homosexuality is so complex for me that i can't understand the beauty and deep philosophy of it. :(

See, i guarantee you, after Leninist government falls Cuba will be a huge brothel for rich western tourists. Also after establishment of mass-media all kinds of immoral things will make an explode. You will see that.

heheh, well, my boyfriend and me live together (I'm a girl, which makes us a heterosexual couple) and he's the "woman of the household". he does the laundry, shopping, cleaning..all the chores except cooking, actually. does that make him a pervert?

as for perverts having sex with animals, I totally agree that this is over the top. we don't know if animals have free will and we can't ask them what they think. so we can't know if the animal would consent. so for all intents and purposes we must assume that it would not consent, which makes sex with animals rape.FULLSTOP

[Pensive]

Pensive; i simply told my last word to you; no Muslim country has western percentage of homosexual in fact it's rare compared to west. And homosexuality doesn't makes you more modern or civilized.

Hah, who said homosexuality makes one more modern or civilized? It existed before and still exists. There is nothing "modern" about it. That's a funny way to put it. Trying to play straw man fallacy, eh?

As for the percentage, I don't know about that but all I know is there are many people who practice it over here as well. You can't say it's all there only in West.

[Bakiryu]

actually homosexuality is more documented in european and asian countries. It was well known in India and written about in books. It also was know in greece, where the word sapphos (a sapphist is a lesbian) comes from.

[SleepyWitch]

speaking of lesbians, let's dig at the root of this "problem" (i don't mean homosexuality, which i don't regard as a problem.. i mean this discussion)
Turk, you've ranted a great deal about homosexual males so far. What's your opinion about lesbians?

[BibliophileTRJ]

Go Bibblio!!!

I wonder thought, how did you get the courage to tell your parents?

I never needed to tell them.....I was too stupid to hide it...... after that "Father/Son Night" they KNEW.

I did make a formal declaration of my homo-ness when I was moving out but it was no surprise to them (or anyone) as it was common knowledge throughout the town.

Some villages have idiots....... I was the village queer.

[kathycf]

Kathycf; hi, then you should research why it's removed too, because of public pressure or what? Because 1973 is not a so old date and quite late times of science of psychology, also it is not a kind of science that suddenly changeable. .
I have been studying psychology so I have heard all about the "why" the manual was changed. Yes, one reason was because of public pressure from gay protestors. Equally valid as a reason is that the manual was changed because the classification of something as a disorder simply because the behavior itself is seen as something undesirable in the context of a society was incorrect. To use a rather clumsy analogy, many children today are slapped with the label of having ADHD or of being hyperactive, simply because they are energetic and may inconvenience parents or teachers with their energy. Their behavior is seen as undesirable so the inclination is to pathologize it. That is wrong, IMO.

I also disagree with psychology being not suddenly changeable. Any science "soft" or otherwise uses current research and data. Psychology is a social science. I know some folks have no use for psychology, but be that as it may current thinking for most (although not all) mental health professionals (in the US anyway) is that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

Whether someone thinks or believes homosexuality is wrong, or immoral ...well, we are all entitled to our beliefs. However, I strongly condemn lumping gay people in with people who ought to be...well condemned. People who commit crimes, people who hurt others, people who care nothing for their fellow human beings except as to how they can exploit them...those are all people I personally vilify as "bad". I don't hate or dislike or think someone is a bad person on the basis of their sexual orientation alone.

I'm not saying anybody here is doing that...I am making one of those "I" statements again. :) I am only speaking for myself.

[Bakiryu]

I never needed to tell them.....I was too stupid to hide it...... after that "Father/Son Night" they KNEW.

I did make a formal declaration of my homo-ness when I was moving out but it was no surprise to them (or anyone) as it was common knowledge throughout the town.

Some villages have idiots....... I was the village queer.

Lol, I'm lucky i live in such a large city, that and everyone i know is gay.
__________________

[ulvmane]

Some villages have idiots....... I was the village queer.

thats what my cousin has to deal with and me and him really close so i know what you mean to an extent. Travis (my cousin) lives in a town of less than 500 so everyone knows everyone and its also a very...well...they still never heard that the civil war ended and that there was a 14th amendment...so he gets treated like crud. I'm from a bigger city and am alot more rounded than them so I understand him more. I wish that the world would open up it's eyes and accept everyone.

[BibliophileTRJ]

Lol, I'm lucky i live in such a large city, that and everyone i know is gay.

Bakiryu...... everyone you know is GAY!?!?!? What city do you live in? It's time for me and my partner to move there!!

[littlewing53]

hey cap..as always your humor shines thru everything...you've been missed around here..

[Bakiryu]

cape coral. But I meant my school friends, and my stepfather. They're pretty open-minded here.

[BibliophileTRJ]

I wish that the world would open up it's eyes and accept everyone.

An admirable wish!! I hope with all my heart that it comes true. If more people felt like that the world would be a better place.

[SleepyWitch]

Some villages have idiots....... I was the village queer.
hey The Village Queer.. wouldn't that be a great title for a book?

[ulvmane]

hey The Village Queer.. wouldn't that be a great title for a book?

ya know...your right! step aside heather has two mommies!!!!!!!

[Bakiryu]

Yeah, maybe I should change the tittle of my book. Except that there's no village. I need more ideas!

[Niamh]

Or the Queer fella but Brendan Behan got there first!

[Bakiryu]

The tittle of my book is *blush* 'Rainbow'.

[ulvmane]

The tittle of my book is *blush* 'Rainbow'.

i read a short story called 'somewhere under my rainbow'....it had an interesting ending to say the absolute least

[Bakiryu]

was it a yaoi-romance sci-fi story?

[BibliophileTRJ]

Some villages have idiots....... I was the village queer.


hey The Village Queer.. wouldn't that be a great title for a book?


ya know...your right! step aside heather has two mommies!!!!!!!

O.K. So now I've got the title of my autobiography...... just have to find someone to ghost-write it for me!!


hey cap..as always your humor shines thru everything...you've been missed around here..

Such a sweetheart!! I didn't know I made enough of a contribution that I COULD be missed. I only play in a few of the game threads on occasion. (much more of a "lurker" than contributor)

ENOUGH OUT OF ME....... no need to hijack this thread any more than I already have.

[Taliesin]

Well said Biblio!

Here is my little contrabution. We were once lead to believe that the world was flat and had edges... that turned out to be false. Does that not also mean that Freud could be false? words of psychologists should not be taken as gospel.

Actually, Freud is considered to be more a philosopher than a phychologist nowadays - we have moved away from his theories.
We like the saying that Freud was a man who let all others know about his subconcious very well.

As for the topic, may it be protocolled that hereby we gave full support to kilted and all other non-homophobes and that we opposed Turk.

[Lote-Tree]

Lote-Tree; except personal things you've said


What personal things have I said that offended you? Point them out and I shall correct them.



i am done with you because almost all of your last coments are wrong significantly things you've said about 3 religion and existence; existence of something doesn't mean it's correct.


Chappy lets get this first thing first. OK? Let's accept that it Exists OK?

Then we shall discuss the Right or Wrong bit OK?

So do you agree that it Exists?

I shall wait your answer.

Regards,
Lote

[Bakiryu]

Hey Lote, what personal things is he talking about? *Curious*

[Lote-Tree]

Hey Lote, what personal things is he talking about? *Curious*

I have no idea. But I shall wait for him to point it out so that I can correct them :-)

[Pensive]

Well, gay marriage ha? Whenever i think of this, it made me laugh. Two men but one of 'em is wife. Acting like a woman of the household. Well, maybe they both are wife or husband? Oh well, i am confused homosexuality is so complex for me that i can't understand the beauty and deep philosophy of it. :(

Everyone has different standards of beauty. Perhaps what you find beautiful doesn't seem beautiful to others. I don't think there is anything wrong with letting other enjoy the beauty in that thing he finds beauty in, when that person is not hurting you. :)

[SleepyWitch]

hey this thread is great.. there's so much activity. we should talk about homosexuality more often :)
how's about renaming this forum "the GAY literature network"? *JOKING*:D

[Bakiryu]

"Acting like a woman...."

How the hell is a woman supposed to act anyway?.


SleepyW you're right, nobody had answered any of my threads as much as this one *surprised*

[Turk]

On the ride home Dad was FURIOUS!! Screamed at me at the top of his lungs for a very long time.... "How could you ask such a thing? I'm so embarrassed! Now the whole town will be talking!! I can never show my face at the general store again!!" et cetera. That was the last time that my father ever spoke to me in full sentences. From that day to this one, all I ever get from him is grunted one-word answers to direct questions...

Isn't this overreacting and seeing you "lost" while you are just 6-7 years old. Wasn't your dad's and your environment's behave against you unfair?

And to let you know; i don't hate any people but bad people, even though some people declared me as "homophobic" i am not. I clearly told it's a psychological problem in my opinion. I don't like people who advertise and defend something just because system tught them to do. They even don't know what are they talking about, they are just talking in a way because that's proper way of acting in this time.

I would also like to ask if you would think it's something good and should advertised on TV's?

By the way i told it as a choice because there's many people who turned to homosexuality after spending their first adult ages as straight men.


heheh, well, my boyfriend and me live together (I'm a girl, which makes us a heterosexual couple) and he's the "woman of the household". he does the laundry, shopping, cleaning..all the chores except cooking, actually. does that make him a pervert?

No, that makes him henpecked if he's doing those works all the time and you keep commanding him. In fact according to İslam a wife doesn't have to serve her husband, if she doesn't want she doesn't and husband can't force her to serve him. But that's completely unrelated to subject, i just said imagining a gay marriage is funny, because one of 'em would probly take on the wife role.


as for perverts having sex with animals, I totally agree that this is over the top. we don't know if animals have free will and we can't ask them what they think. so we can't know if the animal would consent. so for all intents and purposes we must assume that it would not consent, which makes sex with animals rape.FULLSTOP

If we would live in Germany 60 years ago you would say same things for homosexuality. Now you think animal rape is pervert, if 50 years later they would legalize "animal marriage" would it make it understandable and right? No. But in that time your son/daughter will defend that's right. If you understand.....



Hah, who said homosexuality makes one more modern or civilized? It existed before and still exists. There is nothing "modern" about it. That's a funny way to put it. Trying to play straw man fallacy, eh?

Yes, there's nothing "modern" about it. But there's something modern in defending it. If you follow the thread you see now i am the bigot and undereducated of the topic. I just told it to clarify this.


speaking of lesbians, let's dig at the root of this "problem" (i don't mean homosexuality, which i don't regard as a problem.. i mean this discussion)
Turk, you've ranted a great deal about homosexual males so far. What's your opinion about lesbians?

Emotionally dissatisfied women may search emotional satisfaction in same sex. Although they will never be able to find that. Because a man is a man and a woman is a woman. A man can never give what woman can give to man, and a woman can never give what a man can give to a woman. Man and woman are different.

And Kathycf; come on, you are 16 how much you've studied about psychology? If reading few is studying then i studied many things from agriculture to Buddhism. But i would like to tell you; this is typical capitalist view; they don't hurt someone so it can be free. Well same mentality makes gambling free too. And with same logic we should let animal marriage free too.

[BibliophileTRJ]

hey this thread is great.. there's so much activity.


SleepyW you're right, nobody had answered any of my threads as much as this one *surprised*


Reading this thread; I'm having more fun than an electric eel in a public bath!!

[Pensive]

Yes, there's nothing "modern" about it. But there's something modern in defending it. If you follow the thread you see now i am the bigot and undereducated of the topic. I just told it to clarify this.

I will defend what I feel is right. It has got nothing to do with being "modern".

[Bakiryu]

And to let you know; i don't hate any people but bad people, even though some people declared me as "homophobic" i am not. I clearly told it's a psychological problem in my opinion. I don't like people who advertise and defend something just because system tught them to do. They even don't know what are they talking about, they are just talking in a way because that's proper way of acting in this time.

I would also like to ask if you would think it's something good and should advertised on TV's?

By the way i told it as a choice because there's many people who turned to homosexuality after spending their first adult ages as straight men.






I do not defend gay marriage because I see it on TV or hear it on the radio and yes I believe there should be gay cartoons, soap operas, series, sitcoms. A homosexual relationship and a heterosexual relationship are pretty much the same. and about those men who turned gay like you say, they were already gay, they just got tired of hiding it and came out.





No, that makes him henpecked if he's doing those works all the time and you keep commanding him. In fact according to İslam a wife doesn't have to serve her husband, if she doesn't want she doesn't and husband can't force her to serve him. But that's completely unrelated to subject, i just said imagining a gay marriage is funny, because one of 'em would probly take on the wife role.




How do you know? Instead of defining things by husband/wife and viceversa they could have a mature relationship where they share all the work.
and her boyfriend is a cool dude by helping out instead of refering to it as 'woman's work'.






Yes, there's nothing "modern" about it. But there's something modern in defending it. If you follow the thread you see now i am the bigot and undereducated of the topic. I just told it to clarify this.




{edit}What's so MODERN about defending YOURS or OTHERS orientation? We should all love and accept each other, a concept that has been around since the time of Jesus of Nazareth.



Emotionally dissatisfied women may search emotional satisfaction in same sex. Although they will never be able to find that. Because a man is a man and a woman is a woman. A man can never give what woman can give to man, and a woman can never give what a man can give to a woman. Man and woman are different.



I happen to know several lesbians living very fullifiling relationships, they know with another woman intimacy they could never know with a man. Both Woman/women or man/man couples find happiness in their own way and that's all that matters.



:crash: Now Turk I've heard your opinion in both gays and lesbians, What do you think then, about Bisexuals?

[Pensive]

If we would live in Germany 60 years ago you would say same things for homosexuality. Now you think animal rape is pervert, if 50years later they would legalize "animal marriage" would it make it understandable and right? No. But in that time your son/daughter will defend that's right. If you understand.....


What makes you say that? No offence meant but this is a ridiculous thing you have just said now. What her son/daughter would say in future is none of her business now. If your son in the future says, "Kill everyone in this world!" You wouldn't be responsible for that. If you understand... :)

[Turk]

I have no idea. But I shall wait for him to point it out so that I can correct them :-)

I know you have no idea;


You have to go to your library chappy and read the whole thing.

Ordinary joe bloggs who has experience of Sex. And who are you?

You should then stop repeating the same thing;-)

That was the implication. You should write more clearly.

Thats why it has some homosexuals? This is silly logic.

These are few examples; and i don't expect you to correct them, because you can't correct yourself within few minutes.

[SleepyWitch]

If we would live in Germany 60 years ago you would say same things for homosexuality. Now you think animal rape is pervert, if 50 years later they would legalize "animal marriage" would it make it understandable and right? No. But in that time your son/daughter will defend that's right. If you understand.....

pulling the Nazi card, are we? 60 years ago Sleepy would have been an evil Nazi killing gays, eh?
oh.. sorry.. i need to go and practice goose-stepping... and I've got a war to prepare on top of that... and a concentration camp to build... speaking of which, I've neglected shouting "Heil Hitler" for a while, maybe i should practice that too...



And Kathycf; come on, you are 16 how much you've studied about psychology? If reading few is studying then i studied many things from agriculture to Buddhism. But i would like to tell you; this is typical capitalist view; they don't hurt someone so it can be free. Well same mentality makes gambling free too. And with same logic we should let animal marriage free too.
kathy is 16???

about my boyfriend, I don't command or henpeck him. he does all these things on a voluntary basis because he happens to be the one who likes everything to be neat and tidy. i like chaos... so even if I want to clean, he's always first and there's no chance i could do any chores

[Turk]

What her son/daughter would say in future is none of her business now. If your son in the future says, "Kill everyone in this world!" You wouldn't be responsible for that.

Oh, congratulations for enlightening me. You should be a really deep philosopher to find out this truth.

[Bakiryu]

I should brush up on my german, hope it's not as bad as my french.

I should get a mustache too, And a funny little hat.

I'm bringing swastika back! (watch out justin t!)

[Turk]

pulling the Nazi card, are we?

about my boyfriend, I don't command or henpeck him. he does all these things on a voluntary basis because he happens to be the one who likes everything to be neat and tidy. i like chaos... so even if I want to clean, he's always first and there's no chance i could do any chores

Oh.. What Nazi card!? Let's say 100 years ago, i am telling completely different thing.

And your relationship with your bf is completely unrelated to things i've said about gay marriage.

[Pensive]

Oh, congratulations for enlightening me. You should be a really deep philosopher to find out this truth.

I don't know what truth you are referring to. As for my reply to your previous post, it was based on an "if situation like that of yours.

[Bakiryu]

Turl, what is exactly your point?

[SleepyWitch]

Oh.. What Nazi card!? Let's say 100 years ago, i am telling completely different thing.

And your relationship with your bf is completely unrelated to things i've said about gay marriage.

nope it's completely related. becaues you said in a gay marriage one of the gay men would play the wife and do 'woman's work' (you did not say that literally, I know) and you gave this as an argument against gay marriage or a reason why you think gay marriage is ridiculous.
so in my relationship with my boyfriend he's the wife in terms of housework. you may find this ridiculous, but I'm sure you'd agree it's a heterosexual relationship and there's nothing perverted about it.
--> so what's wrong with one of the gay partners playing the wife's part?
by the way, as far as I understand it, this doesn't happen in all gay marriages.

[samercury]

Well, that was interesting

[Bakiryu]

Throw a bone? *snorts*

you never did answer my question: what do you think about bisexuals?


and I did not relate all things said under my thread with Jesus, I merely said the knowledge of homosexuality goes that far back and we should learn to accept each other like it says in the BIBLE, KORAN and the TORAH.

[SleepyWitch]

Oh.. What Nazi card!? Let's say 100 years ago, i am telling completely different thing.



sorry if i got you wrong. :) shake hands on this point?
just make sure you don't mention "60 years ago in Germany" in connection with homophobia again

[BibliophileTRJ]

Isn't this overreacting and seeing you "lost" while you are just 6-7 years old. Wasn't your dad's and your environment's behave against you unfair?

Yes, it was an entirely unfair overreaction. How would YOU react if your son came home today and told you that he's in love with another boy?


And to let you know; i don't hate any people but bad people, even though some people declared me as "homophobic" i am not. I clearly told it's a psychological problem in my opinion. I don't like people who advertise and defend something just because system tught them to do. They even don't know what are they talking about, they are just talking in a way because that's proper way of acting in this time.

"in my opinion" being the operative phrase in that sentence; I can accept it as your opinion. But, at the same time, you are condemning homosexuality just because your "system" social or religious taught you to do so. YOU don't know what you're talking about any more than they do..... (unless you've had some homosexual experiences that you've not mentioned in this thread)...... and are talking the way you are because it's proper for you at this time.


I would also like to ask if you would think it's something good and should advertised on TV's?

It is good and right FOR ME. But, you've missed my point.... advertising would do no good because there is no CHOICE involved. Every billboard in the world could advertise "QUEER: It's The Way To Be" as of tomorrow and it wouldn't convince one single straight boy to be ostracized and vilified for the rest of his life. And believe me when I tell you that there is no "conversion" procedure..... I couldn't go straight when I tried, nor could I get the straight boys that I had the unfortunate habit of falling in love with to come over to the "gay side"


By the way i told it as a choice because there's many people who turned to homosexuality after spending their first adult ages as straight men.


I personally know many men like this...... more than a dozen...... every one of them will tell you (and HAVE told me) that they were homosexual all along and that they felt forced by religious/societal/family pressures to conform and that living the lie nearly killed them.

[Bakiryu]

I agree with you bibliophile. I've read several books (before adolescence) and met several people and they always say they tried to do what was 'normal'. It's never been a choice, no more than you can choose your gender or hair color.

[Turk]

--> so what's wrong with one of the gay partners playing the wife's part?
by the way, as far as I understand it, this doesn't happen in all gay marriages.

If you understand i didn't say it literally why are tiring me. :) I just said imagining it is funny. Actually before this subject i was considering to write a story about a couple guy who married as mistake, and their funny situation. Answering your question; there's nothing wrong with one of the gay partners playing the wife's part after because i think after cutting a tree there's nothing with cutting a branch of it too, after breaking a part of a glass there's nothing wrong with breaking all glass. So i think gay marriage is wrong, but i don't say "there's something wrong with one of the gay partners playing the wife's part" cuz they already done the bigger mistake. I just said it's funny.


sorry if i got you wrong. shake hands on this point?
just make sure you don't mention "60 years ago in Germany" in connection with homophobia again

Ok.


and I did not relate all things said under my thread with Jesus, I merely said the knowledge of homosexuality goes that far back and we should learn to accept each other like it says in the BIBLE, KORAN and the TORAH.

Please, you may think i am so stupid, or ignorant, uneducated bigot. Whatever you want. But i don't want to discuss anything with you. {edit}

[Bakiryu]

Please, you may think i am so stupid, or ignorant, uneducated bigot. Whatever you want. But i don't want to discuss anything with you. {edit}

{edit} I don't want to say anything more because It's not worth it. {edit}

[Lote-Tree]

These are few examples; and i don't expect you to correct them, because you can't correct yourself within few minutes.

OK Let's go through these one by one.



You have to go to your library chappy and read the whole thing.


That NewScientist Magazine is only available to subscription users. Therefore you need to go to your library for the printed version of the magazine.



Ordinary joe bloggs who has experience of Sex. And who are you?


You said "Who are you?"

And I just told you.



You should then stop repeating the same thing;-)


You said I should stop giving the same reference.



That was the implication. You should write more clearly.


That was a advice for clarification.



Thats why it has some homosexuals? This is silly logic.


But it is silly logic if you connect British ruling India and homosexuality.



These are few examples; and i don't expect you to correct them, because you can't correct yourself within


I think you should carefully read what people write.

Cheers.

[kiobe]

It seems like most of today's society is composed of either gay men (it's always the cute ones *curses*) or lesbians.

What leads to Homosexuality or Bisexuality?

Most??? Is it possible that it might be easier for a gay/lesbian person to be themselves in today's society? I grew up with a friend that told us that he knew he was gay when he was five years old, or more accuratly, knew he was different because he like-liked boys. We never knew until he told us at the age of about thirty. He would date "beards" to toss us off the trail and keep his true feelings locked away....what a way to live. I'm glad that things are changing, however slowly, that will allow people to be who they are. I don't believe that it's a choice. Who would choose a life so frought with potential hardships? Granted, the hardships are due to acts by people that are obsessive and controling, but the potential hardships are still very real.

[Bakiryu]

I totally agree with you Niobe.

[Turk]

Yes, it was an entirely unfair overreaction. How would YOU react if your son came home today and told you that he's in love with another boy?

You've said it's when you are 6-7 years old. And for the story you've told your father's behaviour was overreaction. But if it would happen when you were 18 then his behaviour would be more understandable. And for the question about me, i hope i don't have a son who'll become homosexual and i hope may God protects me sorrows of future; but on the other hand i would probably be more gentle and try to convince my son for that's completely wrong. I told you i think it's curable or at least people can avoid it.


"in my opinion" being the operative phrase in that sentence; I can accept it as your opinion. But, at the same time, you are condemning homosexuality just because your "system" social or religious taught you to do so. YOU don't know what you're talking about any more than they do..... (unless you've had some homosexual experiences that you've not mentioned in this thread)...... and are talking the way you are because it's proper for you at this time.

I didn't have any sexual experiences. If that would happen i wouldn't tell these thoughts of mine, because i am not hypocrit. Also i would like to say religion and system are different. I am talking about the system created in west. Think about system in 1984; their thoughts was shaped by government. YOU CAN'T CHOOSE THE GOVERNMENT OR SYSTEM THAT YOU GROW IN BUT YOU CAN CHOOSE YOUR RELIGION. So there's a huge difference between choosen things or not choosed things. I choosed my religion had to chance changing it, but i don't have any chance to change the system i live in. Also i would like to clarify that we don't have to experience everything to have comments about it. It's like saying "you can't say lying is bad" to a person who never lied.


It is good and right FOR ME. But, you've missed my point.... advertising would do no good because there is no CHOICE involved. Every billboard in the world could advertise "QUEER: It's The Way To Be" as of tomorrow and it wouldn't convince one single straight boy to be ostracized and vilified for the rest of his life. And believe me when I tell you that there is no "conversion" procedure..... I couldn't go straight when I tried, nor could I get the straight boys that I had the unfortunate habit of falling in love with to come over to the "gay side"

There's no GOOD AND RIGHT FOR YOU. And you know it. That's why you typed it FOR ME. There's universally good and right things, and you know i asked that. So do you confirm in universal meaning that mass-media should advertise it? And believe me people may affected from advertises more than you think; not just advertises but also movies, tv series and etc.


I personally know many men like this...... more than a dozen...... every one of them will tell you (and HAVE told me) that they were homosexual all along and that they felt forced by religious/societal/family pressures to conform and that living the lie nearly killed them.

Exactly that's why i said it's something you can choose. They were straight till those ages, but they "choosed" to become gay. Some born with violence tendencies, some born with stealing or lying tendencies, and some born with homosexuality tendency. But everyone can avoid those things, and a good society is the one which tries to help people to block their bad tendencies. Nobody borns as homosexual; there's no gender between male and female; you born as a man and may choose to be a homosexual.

[Bakiryu]

They did "choose" they were already GAY!!! They were trying to be straight but they couldn't hide what they truly felt!

[Scheherazade]

Wow! 136 posts in 8 hours; might be a new Forum record (OK, maybe a few more posts, including the deleted ones!)


Please do not personalise your arguments

and

avoid posting your views if you don't want anyone to challenge them.

[Bakiryu]

Yay! I'm a record-breaker baby! *let's party!*

[papayahed]

Wait, I need to go get another cocktail.

[papayahed]

Ok, we can resume.

[DeathAngel]

Oh boy, very contreversal, the simple answer is:
LOVE,
no matter wht religion, family, sex, or whatever, it's love
we're more open about it becuase it's not something people should be ashamed of anymore, more and more are starting to realize this, more are accepting it (and there are always people who dont), and it is something people SHOULDN'T be ashamed of...

i'm done!

[kathycf]

And Kathycf; come on, you are 16 how much you've studied about psychology? .
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Sorry, not laughing at you, Turk, but you must have me confused with somebody else. I might be 16 ...doubled plus a couple of years. I am 40. :thumbs_up So, in my defense...I have studied psychology for several years, not counting what reading I have done over the last two decades for my own enrichment.

Whether or not we agree or disagree, fine, but please don't dismiss what I say out of hand because you think I have not studied. :)

So...I think the refreshment comittee ran out of beverages. I need some coffee! :p

[Turk]

Oh sorry, i mixed you with Mirn, since i played chess with her on gameknot and since you both are in my buddy list. :)

[SleepyWitch]

Oh boy, very contreversal, the simple answer is:
LOVE,
no matter wht religion, family, sex, or whatever, it's love
we're more open about it becuase it's not something people should be ashamed of anymore, more and more are starting to realize this, more are accepting it (and there are always people who dont), and it is something people SHOULDN'T be ashamed of...

i'm done!

very well said DeathAngel. this is one of the most relevant posts so far :)

Turk, as for systems and governments: most of our politicians over here are only slowly coming around to completely accepting homosexuals.
E.g. the mayor of Berlin is gay and another prominent German politician (leader of the Liberal Democrat Party, liberal as in economically liberal, NOT morally liberal) is gay as well.
but that's still the exception rather than the norm.
homosexuality was certainly not promoted by past governments.. homo rights is something that was fought for AGAINST the resistance of the government and the churches (mainly the Catholic one)
i suppose it was an even tougher fight in the U.S. ... the U.S. are a very weird country in that they have the most progressive, liberal, modern developments on the one hand but also the most conservative conservatives and the most bigoted bigots..
I mean, can you seriously imagine any U.S. president or top politician recommending or promoting homosexuality?
even those politicians who favour gay marriage do it because they are concerned about equal rights for all citizens regardless of their race, age, creed, sexual orientation, abilitiy/disability.... it's not that they are particularly keen about homosexuality as such



maybe you could explain what is BAD about homosexuality in your opinion? so far I haven't found any convincing arguments. you seem to take it for granted that homo relationships are bad but you don't have any evidence or supporting arguments.

[Moira]

I haven't seen this thread until today ........

I trully believe homosexuality is something you are born with and the only 'modern' thing about it today is that people for a change started to listen to other people and try to understand without making hasty judgments.

Biblio's posts say a lot and i must admit his posts were the ones i enjoyed the most when i first discovered this site. He is always so honest (or at least that’s the impression he’s given me so far) and also sooooo funny ……

[Stanislaw]

an aside: I'm really suprised that the thread has lasted! It's kind of nice to see that all of our members are mature enough to discuss this topic (without too many problems) :thumbs_up

[Niamh]

YOU CAN'T CHOOSE THE GOVERNMENT OR SYSTEM THAT YOU GROW IN BUT YOU CAN CHOOSE YOUR RELIGION. So there's a huge difference between choosen things or not choosed things.

Saying what! Have you ever heard of damocracy? You vote for who you want to govern you country, therefore you can CHOOSE you government. And can i just say that the "system" in western countries does not influence our thinking. Last time i cheaked freedom of speach, to speak your mind with out the fear of persecution, was not a bad thing and is not inflenced by what our government tell us.


There's no GOOD AND RIGHT FOR YOU. And you know it. That's why you typed it FOR ME. There's universally good and right things, and you know i asked that. So do you confirm in universal meaning that mass-media should advertise it? And believe me people may affected from advertises more than you think; not just advertises but also movies, tv series and etc.
"There's no GOOD AND RIGHT FOR YOU. And you know it."
Sorry but i think this is not a very nice thing to say Turk, to me its slating a fellow litnetter. He's a nice guy, and he's probably more aware of who he really is than most of us will ever be.

As for media. I dont think it has an affect on our sexuality and i have no problem with gay relations being on tv etc. one of the most popular tv programmes in my part of europe in the 90's was Queer As Folk.Its apart of our world and always has been. Just accept that it always will. It cant be changed.



Exactly that's why i said it's something you can choose. They were straight till those ages, but they "choosed" to become gay. Some born with violence tendencies, some born with stealing or lying tendencies, and some born with homosexuality tendency. But everyone can avoid those things, and a good society is the one which tries to help people to block their bad tendencies. Nobody borns as homosexual; there's no gender between male and female; you born as a man and may choose to be a homosexual.
I think you need to reread Biblios quote. he said they didnt choose, just tried to hide it. You are born with it. It is not cureble because its not a medical condition.

[BibliophileTRJ]

Oh boy, very contreversal, the simple answer is:
LOVE,
no matter wht religion, family, sex, or whatever, it's love
we're more open about it becuase it's not something people should be ashamed of anymore, more and more are starting to realize this, more are accepting it (and there are always people who dont), and it is something people SHOULDN'T be ashamed of...

i'm done!

Too bad you're done, DA..... that was a very sane, succinct, and thoughtful post. I wish I could cut to the heart of a matter like that.


maybe you could explain what is BAD about homosexuality in your opinion? so far I haven't found any convincing arguments. you seem to take it for granted that homo relationships are bad but you don't have any evidence or supporting arguments.

Excellent point, Sleepy. We've heard lots of condemnation; but no reasons for it.



Biblio's posts say a lot and i must admit his posts were the ones i enjoyed the most when i first discovered this site. He is always so honest (or at least that’s the impression he’s given me so far) and also sooooo funny ……

Flattery will get you .... well ..... anything you want from me.

The honesty just comes as a by-product of refusing to hide the fact that I'm different from most ... I make no secret of any aspect of my life.

Is that funny - Ha Ha Ha..... or funny - peculiar?

[Moira]

That was not the funny part i've mentioned:), that was the part i admire...

You just managed to insert the HA HA HA parts even when you were talking about such difficult experiences....

[SleepyWitch]

one thing I don't like about terms like homeSEXUAL or heteroSEXUAL is that it reduces people to their sexuality. lots of people associate the term sex with crude penetration, nothing more and nothing less...
so these words kinda reduce people to copulating animals and don't take their feelings into account at all...
the sad part is, that many homoSEXUALS seem to have taken over this terminology and behave/view themselves as people who are extremely interested in sex (in this case with same-sex sex ;) stupid word). e.g. I have this gay friend who keeps changing his boyfriends at the rate other people change their socks and he never talks about feelings, only sex sex sex...
this is kinda said, in my opinion. i mean, if people choose to be promiscuous, that's generally up to them (whether they are gay or straight). but i find it kinda sad that there are so few steady relationships between gays. i think if they were allowed to marry, they'd be treated like any other couple....
i mean, when we see a hetero couple, we just think of them as man and wife who have breakfast together, do the chores, live together... we don't talk about what they do in bed...
but when we see gay couples we immediately think of what they do with their rear ends...

[Virgil]

Sleepywitch seems to be talking a lot about sex today. :p Weren't you just talking about sex on a different thread? What's on your mind today? ;) On that other thread it was about how some people don't know how to do sex, on this one it's that everyone does it too much. :lol: :lol: :p :p

[kathycf]

Oh sorry, i mixed you with Mirn, since i played chess with her on gameknot and since you both are in my buddy list. :)
I thought that might have been it. :) I haven't been over to gameknot for a while....I got sick and my games timed out and I got too frustrated. :(

[SleepyWitch]

Sleepywitch seems to be talking a lot about sex today. :p Weren't you just talking about sex on a different thread? What's on your mind today? ;) On that other thread it was about how some people don't know how to do sex, on this one it's that everyone does it too much. :lol: :lol: :p :p

hahah :) read the whole thread first...
actually my opinion about sex is that it's totally overrated and there's way too much attention paid to it in society... i mean, there are lots of other interesting topics and loads of more pressing problems in the world...
personally, I don't care what people do in their bedrooms and who they do it with as long as everyone involved is happy with it.
trouble is, lots of groups (e.g. bigots, homophobes, religious zealots etc) apparently have nothing better to do then sticking their nose in other people's bedrooms.

[kathycf]

actually my opinion about sex is that it's totally overrated and there's way too much attention paid to it in society... i mean, there are lots of other interesting topics and loads of more pressing problems in the world...
personally, I don't care what people do in their bedrooms and who they do it with as long as everyone involved is happy with it.

Hear, hear! :thumbs_up

I would add as long as everybody is of legal age, too. I hate thinking of kids (even teenagers) being pressured into sex too early. But I guess that is a topic for another thread. :)

[Virgil]

hahah :) read the whole thread first...
actually my opinion about sex is that it's totally overrated and there's way too much attention paid to it in society... i mean, there are lots of other interesting topics and loads of more pressing problems in the world...
personally, I don't care what people do in their bedrooms and who they do it with as long as everyone involved is happy with it.
trouble is, lots of groups (e.g. bigots, homophobes, religious zealots etc) apparently have nothing better to do then sticking their nose in other people's bedrooms.

I was not making any point, just poking fun at your thoughts for the day. :D For the record i don't care what consenting adults do in their bedrooms either.

[SleepyWitch]

I was not making any point, just poking fun at your thoughts for the day. :D For the record i don't care what consenting adults do in their bedrooms either.

i know you were only making fun of me :D :D but why should i skip an opportunity to contradict you? :):D
hehe, actually my thoughts today mainly revolved around collocations, idioms, lexicography etc because i had to give a presentation together with another guy in an exam preparation course (Linguistics)....
so I needed an outlet :)

[Turk]

Saying what! Have you ever heard of damocracy? You vote for who you want to govern you country, therefore you can CHOOSE you government. And can i just say that the "system" in western countries does not influence our thinking. Last time i cheaked freedom of speach, to speak your mind with out the fear of persecution, was not a bad thing and is not inflenced by what our government tell us.


Yeah i heard of democracy. I am living in a democratic country. And every five years i have to vote for one of those things; a pineapple, a banana, a chair, a toothbrush, a balloon. Last time my glorius nation choosed a balloon as prime minister. I expect they will choose a toothbrush next time. And i can see USA is not so different than my country too, only difference is you don't have choice as much as we do {edit} Also freedom of speech has no meaning, as i always said; democracy is a system which gives the right of bark as much as you want. Also expect dictatorships and fascist regimes (such as China) you have right of speech in everwhere.


"There's no GOOD AND RIGHT FOR YOU. And you know it."
Sorry but i think this is not a very nice thing to say Turk, to me its slating a fellow litnetter. He's a nice guy, and he's probably more aware of who he really is than most of us will ever be.

As for media. I dont think it has an affect on our sexuality and i have no problem with gay relations being on tv etc. one of the most popular tv programmes in my part of europe in the 90's was Queer As Folk.Its apart of our world and always has been. Just accept that it always will. It cant be changed.

I didn't write it to be harsh or rude against Bibliophile. I just wanted to point a line of my words. Not shouting.

Also i don't think any of you realized power of media. It's a power which can change values of a nation in very short time, it's a power which can make people a king or a dirt in one night.


I think you need to reread Biblios quote. he said they didnt choose, just tried to hide it. You are born with it. It is not cureble because its not a medical condition.


If you keep saying somethin like it's genetical. Then i say you clearly telling it's a genetical disorder since naturally a man should be a man and a woman should be a woman. And if it's genetical THEN it's curable by changing genes.

I don't want to talk more about homosexuality; everyone told their opinions, mine didn't change yours didn't change. I just would like to learn (if there's any true Christians left), Bible's opinion about it.

[Niamh]

Yeah i heard of democracy. I am living in a democratic country. And every five years i have to vote for one of those things; a pineapple, a banana, a chair, a toothbrush, a balloon. Last time my glorius nation choosed a balloon as prime minister. I expect they will choose a toothbrush next time. And i can see USA is not so different than my country too, only difference is you don't have choice as much as we do {edit}Also freedom of speech has no meaning, as i always said; democracy is a system which gives the right of bark as much as you want. Also expect dictatorships and fascist regimes (such as China) you have right of speech in everwhere.
{edit}but hey i Aint american.



I didn't write it to be harsh or rude against Bibliophile. I just wanted to point a line of my words. Not shouting.
Sorry but i wasnt accusing you of shouting. I just thought that your words werent very polite. Like you were saying that he wasnt intitled to say what was right or wrong.


Also i don't think any of you realized power of media. It's a power which can change values of a nation in very short time, it's a power which can make people a king or a dirt in one night.
i am aware of how powerful the media is. I have to look at its slander every day.




If you keep saying somethin like it's genetical. Then i say you clearly telling it's a genetical disorder since naturally a man should be a man and a woman should be a woman. And if it's genetical THEN it's curable by changing genes.

I don't want to talk more about homosexuality; everyone told their opinions, mine didn't change yours didn't change. I just would like to learn (if there's any true Christians left), Bible's opinion about it.
I've grown up in a country where over the last few decades Christianity and catholicism have lost the power to influence our beliefs. And this is only because they turned out to be the biggest hypocrates of them all and i dont think it should be used as a referance or a bases for beliefs when it comes to a topic like this.

[Turk]

:thumbs_up

[Niamh]

Sorry Scher!:blush:

[Lote-Tree]

actually my opinion about sex is that it's totally overrated and there's way too much attention paid to it in society


I think society has always paid too much attention to sex. But sex overrated? I don't think so. It is quite enjoyable thing.



... i mean, there are lots of other interesting topics and loads of more pressing problems in the world...


With sex you can forget about those pressing problems of the world :-)



personally, I don't care what people do in their bedrooms and who they do it with as long as everyone involved is happy with it.


And legal?



trouble is, lots of groups (e.g. bigots, homophobes, religious zealots etc) apparently have nothing better to do then sticking their nose in other people's bedrooms.

That is their job - they are the Morality Police? (rightly or wrongly)

[SleepyWitch]

hehe, Lote, old teaser, you know what I mean :)
of course it's enjoyable.. i meant overrated as in there's too much attention paid to it in society...sorry if i picked the wrong words :)

[EAP]

Okay. What is wrong with sex? Please explain, because I sure as hell don't get it...

should we also ask what leads to asexuality, bisexuality, trisexuality, heterosexuality, the tendency to favour bovine species etc?

[Countess]

hahah :) I don't care what people do in their bedrooms

Oh I do, but that's because I'm a voyeur. :lol:

I'm just joking--unless, of course, I could choose the two guys--and then maybe I wouldn't be. ;)

[Redzeppelin]

What leads to Homosexuality or Bisexuality?

Here comes a politically incorrect post:

Homosexuality may be due to a number of things, but it is not due to genetics. The media likes to speak as if homosexuality is an in-born thing, but science has yet to establish such a thing. There is no "gay gene," and, in the absence of compelling evidence to support such an idea, we may have to consider the fact that homosexuality may very well be a chosen behavior.

[Idril]

... we may have to consider the fact that homosexuality may very well be a chosen behavior.

I just have a really hard time accepting that. I think of my cousin who came out several years ago. I think of what she went through when deciding it was time for her to come out knowing how people would react, knowing that she might very well be disappointing her parents and other family members, that she could be risking losing them and their respect and love, that she would live with a constant stigma attached to her, the descrimination and judgements...I just can't imagine she would choose that if she had the ability to change her mind. There is such a thing as experimentation and that is a choice but for those people, like my cousin, it's not about choice, it's about accepting who you are.

[kiobe]

Here comes a politically incorrect post:

Homosexuality may be due to a number of things, but it is not due to genetics. The media likes to speak as if homosexuality is an in-born thing, but science has yet to establish such a thing. There is no "gay gene," and, in the absence of compelling evidence to support such an idea, we may have to consider the fact that homosexuality may very well be a chosen behavior.

There is mounting evidence that a "homosexual gene" does exist and is passed down to a son from the mother's side. One reason for the lag in imperical evidence is that up until the early 90s all investigative study was being done within the psychological community rather than the biological community, where it is being studied now. There are tons of papers writen on this subject and available on line. Like finding out that the earth is round -there are a few folks that still hang on to a flat earth concept.

[Redzeppelin]

There is mounting evidence that a "homosexual gene" does exist and is passed down to a son from the mother's side. One reason for the lag in imperical evidence is that up until the early 90s all investigative study was being done within the psychological community rather than the biological community, where it is being studied now. There are tons of papers writen on this subject and available on line. Like finding out that the earth is round -there are a few folks that still hang on to a flat earth concept.

There are plenty of other studies that say that there are numerous other factors that could play into homosexuality; once we make homosexuality genetic, then why not every alternate form of sexual expression? Are you willing to suggest that pedophilia, beastiality, bigamy, incest, et al - are all genetic in nature? Why not? Once we decide that non-heterosexual monogamous sex is less a choice or desire and more of a "programming" then what's to stop us from arguing determinism for all forms of sexual expression?

[Turk]

There are plenty of other studies that say that there are numerous other factors that could play into homosexuality; once we make homosexuality genetic, then why not every alternate form of sexual expression? Are you willing to suggest that pedophilia, beastiality, bigamy, incest, et al - are all genetic in nature? Why not? Once we decide that non-heterosexual monogamous sex is less a choice or desire and more of a "programming" then what's to stop us from arguing determinism for all forms of sexual expression?

:thumbs_up

[papayahed]

It just makes no sense. I can't help the people I'm attracted too, I don't believe anyone else can either so if it's not harming you and everybody invovled is consentual why is it an issue?

[Jay]

It just makes no sense. I can't help the people I'm attracted too, I don't believe anyone else can either so if it's not harming you and everybody invovled is consentual why is it an issue?
:thumbs_up

[kiobe]

There are plenty of other studies that say that there are numerous other factors that could play into homosexuality; once we make homosexuality genetic, then why not every alternate form of sexual expression? Are you willing to suggest that pedophilia, beastiality, bigamy, incest, et al - are all genetic in nature? Why not? Once we decide that non-heterosexual monogamous sex is less a choice or desire and more of a "programming" then what's to stop us from arguing determinism for all forms of sexual expression?

Is hetrosexuality a sexual expression, or is it just who you are? Lets leave the "act" out of the discussion for the time being because sex between heterosexual married persons does not define thier marrige or who they are, just as the "act" between gay and lesbian people does not define who they are unless the person judging the situation only sees the "act". You have made some interesting comparissions between homosexuality and acts of control and power that can and will land a person in jail because of thier obvious misuse of trust purpetrated on an otherwise innocent victim. Even if it were a choice, it is a choice brought about by two concenting individuals, not victims. Again it's not an "expression" of self. We, over the many years of our lives change and morph from one thing to another. Republicans over time may change to Independents, motorcycle riders in thier later years get interested in something else. The one thing we are, throughout our entire lives, is our sexual identity. There is no possible way for millions of gay and lesbian people to fake who they are for an entire lifetime. Try this test. I would like you to fake being a Brittish professor of geology for just 30 days. But every second of every day you must try to be that person that you are not. I am betting that you won't last 2 entire days. By the way, monogamous sex is a choice.

[kiobe]

I just have a really hard time accepting that. I think of my cousin who came out several years ago. I think of what she went through when deciding it was time for her to come out knowing how people would react, knowing that she might very well be disappointing her parents and other family members, that she could be risking losing them and their respect and love, that she would live with a constant stigma attached to her, the descrimination and judgements...I just can't imagine she would choose that if she had the ability to change her mind. There is such a thing as experimentation and that is a choice but for those people, like my cousin, it's not about choice, it's about accepting who you are.

Really well put.

[Turk]

There is no possible way for millions of gay and lesbian people to fake who they are for an entire lifetime.

I told i don't want to discuss about homosxuality anymore. But i would like to say this is a preassumption which can't answer the question "why?". edit

History is full of evidences that non-sensible things may happen all the time. So just because millions of people prefers/believes/accepts something that doesn't mean that's right and true.

[kiobe]

edit
History is full of evidences that non-sensible things may happen all the time. So just because millions of people prefers/believes/accepts something that doesn't mean that's right and true.

This is a really odd comparision. I would like to comment but we can't get political here. The question wasn't why but, what leads to homosexuality. I know a lot of gay and lesbian people and thier not faking it. It's, for them, as normal as heterosexuality is for, I assume, you.

[Turk]

You may find it bizarre or extreme comparison. But you may find other examples too; the point is just because millions of people prefers/believes/accepts something that doesn't mean that's right and true.

[Moira]

You may find it bizarre or extreme comparison. But you may find other examples too; the point is just because millions of people prefers/believes/accepts something that doesn't mean that's right and true.

You can dismiss everything people believe in with this explanation and i am not going to give examples.
You don't have a point here....

[kiobe]

You may find it bizarre or extreme comparison. But you may find other examples too; the point is just because millions of people prefers/believes/accepts something that doesn't mean that's right and true.

Thank you Turk, you just made my point for me. Just because millions of people prefer/believe/accept that homosexuality is a choice doesn't mean it's true.

[BibliophileTRJ]

the point is just because millions of people prefers/believes/accepts something that doesn't mean that's right and true.

Isn't the inverse of that statement true as well?

Just because millions of people say/believe a thing is wrong or bad that doesn't mean that it IS wrong or bad.

There was a time when one would have been jailed or executed for espousing the belief that that the Earth was NOT the center of the universe.

[Lote-Tree]

the point is just because millions of people prefers/believes/accepts something that doesn't mean that's right and true.

I thought rightness and wrongness is not the issue here. The issue is that Homosexuality Exists.

Do you accept this?

[kiobe]

I thought rightness and wrongness is not the issue here. The issue is that Homosexuality Exists.

Do you accept this?

It seems that on the side of choice, sit minds that see the world in black and white, good or bad, off or on. Peter Singer wrote a great book on this topic. The inability to see shades of gray seem to be at the genetic level. Ironic to say the least.

[SleepyWitch]

There are plenty of other studies that say that there are numerous other factors that could play into homosexuality; once we make homosexuality genetic, then why not every alternate form of sexual expression? Are you willing to suggest that pedophilia, beastiality, bigamy, incest, et al - are all genetic in nature? Why not? Once we decide that non-heterosexual monogamous sex is less a choice or desire and more of a "programming" then what's to stop us from arguing determinism for all forms of sexual expression?


It just makes no sense. I can't help the people I'm attracted too, I don't believe anyone else can either so if it's not harming you and everybody invovled is consentual why is it an issue?

that's exactly what I've said before. pedophilia is not consentual, beastiality is not consentual.
bigamy... well, I think in general one of the wives/husbands will get hurt emotionally, but IF each of the 3 partners involved is happy with it, why ever not?
homosexuality, when it happens between 2 consenting human adults, does not harm anyone FULLSTOP. if those two consenting human adults decide they want to have sex, it's entirely up to them. if they were to hurt each other emotionally through rows, adultery, meanness etc(as can happen in any relationship, including hetero ones), it's entirely their own problem, as well.


Once we decide that non-heterosexual monogamous sex is less a choice or desire and more of a "programming" then what's to stop us from arguing determinism for all forms of sexual expression?
if this were to be decided, it would first have to be proven. scientists would have to locate the beastiality gene or the paedophilia gene.
even if a beastiality gene or paedophilia gene exists (maybe it does?) the difference to homosexuality would still be that those harm animals and children respectively.
in my opinion, the criterion for legalising different forms of sexual behaviour should be whether it harms anyone or not. --->
1. homosexuality (whatever its causes) does not harm anyone
2. beastiality and paedophilia (whatever their causes) do

hm,.. seeing as we can't seem to agree to discuss the original question (what leads to homosexuality) let's start from scratch.

looking at consentual homosexuality between adults just in itself (NOT comparing it to beastiality and paedophilia), what exactly is wrong or bad about it?
this is mainly a question for those who thin homosexuality should not be legal or is unnatural or whatever.
what exactly is bad about homosexuality in itself?
I don't want to know what is bad about paedophilia or beastiality or polygamy. that's not my question.

[Turk]

This approach may be right with pedophilia (even though "genes" would make it understandable problem with your approach). But on the other hand, if it's between two adults, a man and a 5 years old horse for example. If they are happy with this. It should be ok and understanable too. And don't forget horse wouldn't care it, because it's a horse and their genital places are back of them so she wouldn't even realize who's having sex with her. Also we can't understand those beastilic people because we never tried it just like we never tried homosexuality. If they telling they like animals, who can stop them? It's like that since they born. And who can tell animals can't fall in love with men if those beastilitic people claims animals likes that too? Everything should be free, unless you steal someone's money (because money is the most important thing) or you hurt someone. Oh by the way; about pedophilic people; let's say there's 13 years old girl named Lolita and she's having sex with an old pedophilic guy, but she likes it, so can we say then it's their decision?

[SleepyWitch]

This approach may be right with pedophilia (even though "genes" would make it understandable problem with your approach). But on the other hand, if it's between two adults, a man and a 5 years old horse for example. If they are happy with this. It should be ok and understanable too. And don't forget horse wouldn't care it, because it's a horse and their genital places are back of them so she wouldn't even realize who's having sex with her. Also we can't understand those beastilic people because we never tried it just like we never tried homosexuality. If they telling they like animals, who can stop them? It's like that since they born. And who can tell animals can't fall in love with men if those beastilitic people claims animals likes that too? Everything should be free, unless you steal someone's money (because money is the most important thing) or you hurt someone. Oh by the way; about pedophilic people; let's say there's 13 years old girl named Lolita and she's having sex with an old pedophilic guy, but she likes it, so can we say then it's their decision?

exactly.. we can't know if animals like it and since we don't know whether it's a choice for them, we'd better assume they don't like and don't consent. that way we're on the safe side.
but with human adults, we can ask them whether they like it and consent and they can say "yes" or "no" in words we can understand.

as for Lolita, yep you are right, not every young girl/boy who has sex with someone older would consider themselves a victim. from their perspective, they might even say they like it.
but our laws generally assume these people to be under age and incapable of a mature choice. and this goes not only for sex but for all areas, including politics/voting, bank accounts. That is, our laws declare them immature in all aspects of life (for their own protection) and this does not only apply to sex.
The point is, we consider them too immature to decide for themselves for their own good, to protect them from harmful decisions.
but once they are mature, we have to let them make their own choices (to the extent that they don't harm others!!!) in all areas of life.
If a person is old enough to vote, drink, drive, work etc, they are old enough to decide who they want to have sex with.

[Petrarch's Love]

I'll first state that I personally believe that homosexuality is something you are born with. I base this partly on gay people I have known who, like Idril's cousin, have no motive for choosing to be gay, in fact have every reason to choose not to be, and partly on my own certainty that it would be impossible to convince me that I was attracted to women rather than men.

That said, I'm not at all sure that we're really addressing the right question by asking whether it a choice or not, because that is then being taken up as the sole justification for accepting and tolerating gay people. As Turk and Redzepplin have pointed out, there are some problems with using the "born that way" response as the sole justification for acceptance. It seems to me that, whether genetic or chosen, the real question that we're circling around is whether or not homosexuality is harmful to society, and I agree with the many people here who have said that it is not harmful. It is simply a relationship between two consenting adults that doesn't affect anyone else. I'll address this post to better show what I mean:


There are plenty of other studies that say that there are numerous other factors that could play into homosexuality; once we make homosexuality genetic, then why not every alternate form of sexual expression? Are you willing to suggest that pedophilia, beastiality, bigamy, incest, et al - are all genetic in nature? Why not? Once we decide that non-heterosexual monogamous sex is less a choice or desire and more of a "programming" then what's to stop us from arguing determinism for all forms of sexual expression?

If the sole basis for accepting homosexuality is that it is genetic, then Redzepplin has a point. It's entirely possible that genetics predisposes people to things such as pedophilia (I don't know anything about this, but given the difficulty in getting pedophiles to change I suppose it's in the realm of possibility). Thus, if that were true and if the argument was that anything you're genetically predisposed to is acceptable, then the argument is opening onto dangerous territory.

However, if the argument is not simply that a behavior that is genetically engineered is acceptable, but that a behavior that does no harm to others is acceptable, then I think it's much harder to prove what the problem is with letting two adults have a homosexual relationship. If you enlarge this to state that a behavior that does no harm to others and encourages love between people is not only acceptable but good, then I find it very hard to see where the problem is. "Do no harm" is a fairly simple moral rule, common to all major religions, and I fail to see how homosexuality breaks this rule, while I can certainly see how some anti-homosexuals have.

Edit: I see that Sleepy has similarly and more succinctly stated the case above while I was called away from the computer. Thanks Sleepy.

[SleepyWitch]

It seems to me that, whether genetic or chosen, the real question that we're circling around is whether or homosexuality is harmful to society, and I agree with the many people here who have said that it is not harmful.

I've got another argument...
some people claim that homosexuals are harmful to society because they don't reproduce and thus the population will dwindle. I don't know if any of the opponents of homosexuality on this forum hold this view.. but here's my counter-argument anyway:
1/3 of married couples (heterosexual) in Germany don't have children. Not because they are infertile but because they don't want children. I.e. they have decided against having children.
so if not having children was harmful to society, how would homo couples and those married couples differ in this respect? each would be equally harmful to society, wouldn't they?
but would any opponent of homosexuality argue that these couples should be divorced or that they have no right to live together because they don't have children?

[Bii]

If the sole basis for accepting homosexuality is that it is genetic, then Redzepplin has a point. It's entirely possible that genetics predisposes people to things such as pedophilia (I don't know anything about this, but given the difficulty in getting pedophiles to change I suppose it's in the realm of possibility). Thus, if that were true and if the argument was that anything you're genetically predisposed to is acceptable, then the argument is opening onto dangerous territory.

I think even the exploration of what causes homosexuality is dangerous, what happens when the 'cause' is discovered? Do we invent a pill to cure it? The same could be said for paedophelia, if a genetic cause for paedophelia is found do we 'cure' it? Where is the line drawn between what it's acceptable to 'fix' and what is not? For the most part I'd imagine that what most homosexuals want is acceptance of who they are, without a drawn out emotional debate about what's 'gone wrong' with them. (Sorry Petrarch - this is not an assault aimed at you, just that you've raised an interesting point about genetics, and where we go with it!)



However, if the argument is not simply that a behavior that is genetically engineered is acceptable, but that a behavior that does no harm to others is acceptable, then I think it's much harder to prove what the problem is with letting two adults have a homosexual relationship. If you enlarge this to state that a behavior that does no harm to others and encourages love between people is not only acceptable but good, then I find it very hard to see where the problem is. "Do no harm" is a fairly simple moral rule, common to all major religions, and I fail to see how homosexuality breaks this rule, while I can certainly see how some anti-homosexuals have.

I'm not a religious person but as I understand it, for many (but not all) religions the purpose of sex is to procreate, and that is not possible through homosexual acts. As such sex between homosexuals becomes blasphemous as their sexual act is purely for pleasure, not procreation. The same would be true for a hetrosexual couple who practice birth control, albeit that attitudes seem to have moved on a little more quickly in that respect (but not in all religions!).

[SleepyWitch]

heheh, for the edification of those among us who still don't know the difference between people and beasts after I (and other members) have explained it about ten times :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

these are sheep; they say "bah bah bah" (in this pic you can see the, presumably, heterosexual female with her lamb)
http://wild-und-bunt.de/images/img_2684.jpg

and this is a drawing of a male of the species homo sapiens sapiens
he says "I want cookies." "Cogito ergo sum." "Give us a kiss." "I like guys" "I like girls" "Beer!" among many other things
http://onemansblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/human.jpg

[kiobe]

The secret to life is to be at peace with who you are and with those around you. It's like driving thru McDonalds and NOT checking the contents of the bag. Just be happy with what you get and half the time it's a surprise. Wheee.

[Redzeppelin]

It just makes no sense. I can't help the people I'm attracted too, I don't believe anyone else can either so if it's not harming you and everybody invovled is consentual why is it an issue?

Right - so fathers who are sexually attracted to their teenage daughters can say the same thing, right? "I can't help the people I'm attracted to." Really? Is it people, or a particular form of sexual expression? The "I can't help it argument" is risky, because once we say homosexuality gets to claim it, why not other forms of sexual expression?


Is hetrosexuality a sexual expression, or is it just who you are? Lets leave the "act" out of the discussion for the time being because sex between heterosexual married persons does not define thier marrige or who they are, just as the "act" between gay and lesbian people does not define who they are unless the person judging the situation only sees the "act".

The idea that homosexuals "are who they are" begs the question of their sexual identity. Upon what do homosexuals base their feeling that being gay is who they are? There are a lot of different things I can feel attracted to in terms of sexual expression - because love is not solely concerned with sexual expression; it is possible to deeply love someone and not have sex with him/her. So - let's leave love out of the picture for the moment, OK?

I don't think feelings of love or attraction or infatuation (which, by the way, human beings have a notoriously difficult time distinguishing between) should decide what kind of sexual expression is a legitimate one, because there are lots of forms of sexual expression that mainstream society regards as pretty deviant (I assume I'll get no argument on that point). Now, if you asked any individual who had a particular fetish or preference for a particular form of sexual expression, would you really buy it if s/he said it was "who I am"? Tell me, is it not even slightly possible that the old-fashioned definition of homosexuality as a "perversion" (a distortion of natural sexuality) still holds? Why are other forms of sexual expression "perversions" (incest, beastiality, group sex) but homosexuality "normal"? Because people feel a certain way? Because people feel sexually attacted to the opposite sex?


You have made some interesting comparissions between homosexuality and acts of control and power that can and will land a person in jail because of thier obvious misuse of trust purpetrated on an otherwise innocent victim.

Not always and in all ways. There can be consensual incest, adultery, bigamy, and even pedophilia (becasue the age of consent varies from state to state - in some places as low as 13-14); as for beastiality - well, the animal doesn't really have a say now, does it? Besides, any relationship - hetero or homo - with a serious gap in age or economics could be said to be about "power" or "control" and nobody seems to mind too much about that (say, when a 20-something woman marries a wealthy 50-year old man). You assume that there was a misuse of trust - that may not always be so.


Even if it were a choice, it is a choice brought about by two concenting individuals, not victims. Again it's not an "expression" of self.

I agree - I think it is an expression of preference.


We, over the many years of our lives change and morph from one thing to another. Republicans over time may change to Independents, motorcycle riders in thier later years get interested in something else. The one thing we are, throughout our entire lives, is our sexual identity.

Incorrect - you have no evidence that babies are born "gay." Our sexual identity is confirmed by our design - that we can "tweak" ourselves to desire things like animals, dead bodies, children, multiple partners or the same gender does not equal "identity." Again, is a pedophile's preference his "identity"? How can you say no for him but not homosexuals? Because they experience pain in accepting their identity and struggle often to deny it? Do you honestly believe the pedophile or the person engaged in incest is not deeply troubled at heart at his/her desire? Why can't they simply "accept who they are" and carry on?


There is no possible way for millions of gay and lesbian people to fake who they are for an entire lifetime. Try this test. I would like you to fake being a Brittish professor of geology for just 30 days. But every second of every day you must try to be that person that you are not. I am betting that you won't last 2 entire days. By the way, monogamous sex is a choice.

The challenge you have issued is not comparable. The professor exhibits characteristics of a persona he takes on - his job is not his identity. As well, I would never be so trite to suggest that homosexuals don't strongly, strongly feel their desires for the same gender. Their attraction is real - I don't doubt that - but the "reality" of an attraction doesn't legitimize it. Society strongly suggests that if I have an inclination to have sex with 12 year old girls that I suppress that urge or face serious consequences. I suggest that homosexuals have entered into a lifestyle through a series of choices - the first of which was not "I think I'll be gay" (any more than a skid row drug addict says "I think I'll become a drug addict"; yet, we would agree that the drug addict got to skid row through a series of choices). I think homosexuality could easily be as powerful as any sexual preference - but that doesn't mean it's in-born.

[Turk]

exactly.. we can't know if animals like it and since we don't know whether it's a choice for them, we'd better assume they don't like and don't consent. that way we're on the safe side.
but with human adults, we can ask them whether they like it and consent and they can say "yes" or "no" in words we can understand.

as for Lolita, yep you are right, not every young girl/boy who has sex with someone older would consider themselves a victim. from their perspective, they might even say they like it.
but our laws generally assume these people to be under age and incapable of a mature choice. and this goes not only for sex but for all areas, including politics/voting, bank accounts. That is, our laws declare them immature in all aspects of life (for their own protection) and this does not only apply to sex.
The point is, we consider them too immature to decide for themselves for their own good, to protect them from harmful decisions.
but once they are mature, we have to let them make their own choices (to the extent that they don't harm others!!!) in all areas of life.
If a person is old enough to vote, drink, drive, work etc, they are old enough to decide who they want to have sex with.

So if animals enjoying it, beastality is not a pervert behaviour. Let me say something; animals doesn't have our IQ, so they probably enjoying physical effect of sex, and probably doesn't even realize a man is having sex with them. And i don't think there's a "concept" named "rape" in animal kingdom. So if animal is ok with this; does it make beastiality a normal behaviour but not pervert? Or assume science proved animals are ok with beastiality; would it make it legal?

Also you just said you can decide for animals because they are not able to talk; but what about human? Just few sentences later you decide for teenagers/children too; why? They are able to talk. Will you say; "but they are immature"? Well individualism is your point; not mine, so according to individualism we should leave 13 years old Lolita free in her decisions too; because according to individualism we can't know how a person feel, or how much she/he developed. From this point it's even possible to extend your argument to the line of individual anarchism*. Also i have a question about your argument; "should we send children/teenagers with gay tendencies to psychologists"?


I've got another argument...
some people claim that homosexuals are harmful to society because they don't reproduce and thus the population will dwindle. I don't know if any of the opponents of homosexuality on this forum hold this view.. but here's my counter-argument anyway:


I'm not a religious person but as I understand it, for many (but not all) religions the purpose of sex is to procreate, and that is not possible through homosexual acts.

Wrong; religion rejects homosexuality because it's against nature of man and creation of God. Since the beginning of this topic you keep insulting God in different ways; according to you God's creation is not perfect, even absent, like he can't decide what to create and just create men with women feelings.

[papayahed]

Right - so fathers who are sexually attracted to their teenage daughters can say the same thing, right? "I can't help the people I'm attracted to." Really? Is it people, or a particular form of sexual expression?


hey, if a father and daughter are of age and are attracted to each other, I may find it icky, what the heck do I care.


The "I can't help it argument" is risky, because once we say homosexuality gets to claim it, why not other forms of sexual expression?

If all the parties are consenting and aware then why not?


The point I was trying to make is that you can't pick who your attracted to, as a thinking human being one is able to decide when to act on those attractions and when it is inappropriate. If the parties involved are happy with their decisions why is it my concern?

[Redzeppelin]

hey, if a father and daughter are of age and are attracted to each other, I may find it icky, what the heck do I care.

"Icky" implies a value/moral judgment - why would you morally judge two consenting adults' decision to engage in a sexual relationship? If I said homosexuality was "icky" there's a good chance that someone would call me either a) intolerant, or b) a homophobe.


If all the parties are consenting and aware then why not?

Are you really prepared to make consent the basis of the legitimacy of sexual expression? Is that's all that's necessary for society to accept a form of sexual expression?



The point I was trying to make is that you can't pick who your attracted to, as a thinking human being one is able to decide when to act on those attractions and when it is inappropriate. If the parties involved are happy with their decisions why is it my concern?

But you can pick with whom you have sex with. We may not expect pedophiles to not have thoughts of sex with children, but we certainly expect them to resist acting on those urges, don't we?

Your final question also presupposes the idea that personal happiness is some sort of legitimizer as well - is that so? As long as two people agree to a certain behavior and are happy doing it, we should have no problem whatsoever? Really?

[SleepyWitch]

hey,Red, have you red any of our posts?
judging from your latest post, I'm inclined to think you haven't.

where's the harm in homosexuality?
I've explained about why accepting homosexuality does not automatically lead to accepting beastiality and paedophilia.

the idea of consent was mentioned by several members...

sorry if I'm rude but some people (not only you, Red, so please don't take it personally) just don't seem to read others' posts thorougly and keep making the same arguments all over again.

now, can you answer the question I asked above?
"looking at consentual homosexuality between adults just in itself (NOT comparing it to beastiality and paedophilia), what exactly is wrong or bad about it?
this is mainly a question for those who thin homosexuality should not be legal or is unnatural or whatever.
what exactly is bad about homosexuality in itself?
I don't want to know what is bad about paedophilia or beastiality or polygamy. that's not my question."



Also you just said you can decide for animals because they are not able to talk; but what about human? Just few sentences later you decide for teenagers/children too; why? They are able to talk. Will you say; "but they are immature"? Well individualism is your point; not mine, so according to individualism we should leave 13 years old Lolita free in her decisions too; because according to individualism we can't know how a person feel, or how much she/he developed. From this point it's even possible to extend your argument to the line of individual anarchism*. Also i have a question about your argument; "should we send children/teenagers with gay tendencies to psychologists"?
that's not my opinion, it's the legal situation and those laws are there for a reason. It's not what should be done in my opinion, but what's already done on the basis of legislation.

in fact, I'm not arguing for individualism here, rather the opposite is true... even if little Lolita was exceptionally mature or liked sex with the old man better than other 13 years old would, she's still be a 13 y/o before the law.

[Moira]

Is there another answer to Sleepy's question rather than the one you already mentioned that 'religion rejects homosexuality because it's against nature of man and creation of God'? Can you find something plausible 'against' it without religion interfering? Because that seems to be a dead end for the discussion.

[SleepyWitch]

Turk, the last quote in your post was not by me. please don't quote my posts out of context.

nobody in here has been insulting God. maybe some of us are atheists or don't believe religion has any role to play in answering this question, but no one has used blasphemeous language etc...

and even if they did.... how do you know God doesn't like diversity? why would he have created thousands of different types of trees, flowers and incects but only one type of man (as in both men and women)?

besides, you argued that we are blinded by the messages our so-called system teaches us. i.e. in your opinion we parrot what our governments and media say. why doesn't the same argument apply to religion? why and how is parroting religious leaders better than parroting governments (which we don't do anyway)???


"Icky" implies a value/moral judgment - why would you morally judge two consenting adults' decision to engage in a sexual relationship? If I said homosexuality was "icky" there's a good chance that someone would call me either a) intolerant, or b) a homophobe.



Are you really prepared to make consent the basis of the legitimacy of sexual expression? Is that's all that's necessary for society to accept a form of sexual expression?
YES. why not? what else should be the basis? if two people are grown up, they are considered old enough to make their own decisions. they are considered mature enough to vote (here their choice affects the whole country, not only themselves), drive, work, have their own bank account, travel freely without a guardian and many more. If they are old enough to have these rights, why should they not be old enough to decide whether they prefer men or women?

your argument makes it sound as if either society has to be protected from gays, or gays have to be protected from the consequences of their own decisiosn. adult people do not have to be protected. they can look after themselves and make their own decisions as long as these decisions don't hurt anyone else (---> cf. consent)



But you can pick with whom you have sex with. We may not expect pedophiles to not have thoughts of sex with children, but we certainly expect them to resist acting on those urges, don't we?

Really?

yes, we do and we can. everybody here agrees that paedophiles should not be allowed to act on their thoughts.
that's where consent comes in. children are considered too young to consent, they cannot; legally speaking give or deny their consent... so their out of bounds. FULLSTOP.

[Bii]

So if animals enjoying it, beastality is not a pervert behaviour. Let me say something; animals doesn't have our IQ, so they probably enjoying physical effect of sex, and probably doesn't even realize a man is having sex with them.

What about the potential health implications of bestiality, and the possibility of transfer of disease into the human population via this method? Is this not a sufficient reason why bestiality would be wrong? Consider a similar implication with homosexuality - by forcing homosexuals to deny their sexuality then (if there is a homosexual gene, which I doubt) you force them to enter into heterosexual relationships which then perpetuates the issue. Bear in mind that, in the animal kingdom, bisexuality is in evidence (lions being a good case in point) - doesn't this imply that perhaps, at least, bisexuality is the norm?



Wrong; religion rejects homosexuality because it's against nature of man and creation of God. Since the beginning of this topic you keep insulting God in different ways; according to you God's creation is not perfect, even absent, like he can't decide what to create and just create men with women feelings.

Actually Turk, that was me, and I don't consider the comment in any way to be an insult to God. And there is a glaring inconsistency in your argument. In one breath you say that 'according to you God's creation is not perfect', which implies that you believe that God's creation is perfect. In the next moment you state that homosexuality is against nature, yet homosexuality has existed as far back as we can trace through history, as well as within the animal kingdom (via bisexuality) therefore mustn't it be in nature, and therefore part of God's creation? As such, should it be accepted?

Much commentary has been made about sexual relations between adults and 'children' in respect of paedophelia. However, much of this debate has centred around the modern interpretation of what constitutes a 'child' and I think, if you take into account the history of this, protecting 'children' against sex up to the age of 16 or 18 is a fairly modern phenomenon. Take things back to the time of Jane Eyre, or Pride & Prejudice, it was quite normal for 13 year old girls to marry, and in fact this practice exists in some countries even now. It makes sense (on a physiological level) to protect children until the age of sexual maturity, but after that it is a social issue whether to protect (if protect is the right phrase) them further. In many societies a decision has been taken to protect children beyond the age of sexual maturity, largely because they are at risk of being exploited, or may not be emotionally mature enough to make that decision yet. Also, no 13 year old really wants to be lumbered with a child, or the child lumbered with a 13 year old parent. On a similar point, relations between parent and child would also be considered improper because, again at a physiological level, there are greater risks of birth defects due to the close genetic make up of both parties.

In many cases, what society considers to be sexually deviant has it's basis in biology. In some respects society has taken things further than this for reasons which, in some cases, may be slightly obscure but we accept them because that's what living in a society is all about. That doesn't mean that certain aspect of society should be vilified because their nature is different, unless by their nature they cause harm or injury to others. I don't believe that in any way it could be said that homosexuality causes harm or injury to others, so why have a problem with it.

[Mrs. Dalloway]

What leads to Homosexuality or Bisexuality?

What do you mean??

Of course nothing. What leads to heterosexuality? What leads to be hungry or thirsty? It's not genetic and it's not related to society. It just happens and that's all.
Why do you fancy girls or boys (regardless of "reproducing" purposes)? Why boys but not girls or viceversa? If you talk about heterosexuality you don't ask that question of "What leads to..." because it is seen as a natural thing. But we can see a kind of homosexuality in some animals and it's something that you can see in some tv programmes.
It's useless to ask yourself about what leads to homosexuality or whatever...

[Turk]

where's the harm in homosexuality?
I've explained about why accepting homosexuality does not automatically lead to accepting beastiality and paedophilia.


Yeah you've explained it brilliantly; "beastility is wrong because we can't ask animal's opinion".:yawnb:


that's not my opinion, it's the legal situation and those laws are there for a reason. It's not what should be done in my opinion, but what's already done on the basis of legislation.

Bravo! Laws ha? Not long time ago laws was saying "homosexuality is wrong" too. Well then how can you decide those laws were wrong, but today's laws are right? Or let's say laws changed tomorrow and laws said "pedophilia and beastility are legal", would that make them right? Also you don't answer my questions too, if you read my other posts.


in fact, I'm not arguing for individualism here, rather the opposite is true... even if little Lolita was exceptionally mature or liked sex with the old man better than other 13 years old would, she's still be a 13 y/o before the law.

In fact you are arguing for individualism or you don't know what you are talking about. Sorry but i'm following this thread since it's begun, and it's what i see. It's normal you reject it because you realized if you would defend A you wouldn't B, Lolita example is a good example of this. Until now you defended individual rights and individualism but now you defend laws. And you didn't answer my question about if we should psychologically treat teenagers-children who have homosexual tendencies too. If i had say that you would call me something like "enemy of human rights" or "homophobic" but now you don't show respect to little Lolita's rights too.


"looking at consentual homosexuality between adults just in itself (NOT comparing it to beastiality and paedophilia), what exactly is wrong or bad about it?
this is mainly a question for those who thin homosexuality should not be legal or is unnatural or whatever.
what exactly is bad about homosexuality in itself?
I don't want to know what is bad about paedophilia or beastiality or polygamy. that's not my question."

This question is not asked to me but i will answer shortly; you can't just pick a part of something just to make yourself right. In fact as i can see RedZeppelin's arguments written in a very wide point of view, and he's not just talking about homosexuality but also your methodology in defending homosexuality while you just want us to accept something and pretend us to not see other facts related to your incoherent methodlogy. Of course it's my opinion.


nobody in here has been insulting God. maybe some of us are atheists or don't believe religion has any role to play in answering this question, but no one has used blasphemeous language etc...

Oh really? Do you really believe that or you just acting like you believe that? Ok, maybe nobody here has been insulting Shiva, Brahman or Odin, but from Jewish, Christian and İslam's point of view defending homosexuality's itself is insulting God. You are indirectly telling "God created some people absent" or "He couldn't decide what to create and just created man with woman soul".

If it comes to Atheism; yes you are right. Atheists are free to believe nothing. Nobody can't force people what to believe. IN FACT THE BIGGEST PROBLEM SINCE BEGINNING OF THIS THREAD IS THAT YOU PEOPLE WHO DEFENDS HOMOSEXUALISM, ACTS LIKE IT'S A UNIVERSAL, SCIENTIFIC TRUTH AND EVERYONE SHOULD ACCEPT IT. I or Redzeppelin (apologize to talk for his name btw) never said or behaved like "you have to accept homosexuality is wrong!" but since beginning you all acting like it's a universal truth and people who doesn't believe that are backward and underdeveloped. All i was doing is showing incoherences and clashes in your arguments and methodolgy. And in religion based arguments i just explained according to religion it's wrong and insultagainst God.


and even if they did.... how do you know God doesn't like diversity? why would he have created thousands of different types of trees, flowers and incects but only one type of man (as in both men and women)?

Have you ever seen an apple tree who acts like a pineapple tree?


besides, you argued that we are blinded by the messages our so-called system teaches us. i.e. in your opinion we parrot what our governments and media say. why doesn't the same argument apply to religion? why and how is parroting religious leaders better than parroting governments (which we don't do anyway)?

There's a wrong comparison again; you can't compare religion and government. Because believers believes religion sent by God; but no government sent by God. Also believers doesn't parroting religious leaders, believers says what it says in their Holy Books. No matter which religion i would talk about; your comparison is still wrong.


YES. why not? what else should be the basis? if two people are grown up, they are considered old enough to make their own decisions.

Read again what he said.


Turk, the last quote in your post was not by me. please don't quote my posts out of context.


I know, sorry i didn't mean that's yours, i just posted those two together, because those some people you mentioned about was mostly religious people i thought.

Bii;


What about the potential health implications of bestiality, and the possibility of transfer of disease into the human population via this method? Is this not a sufficient reason why bestiality would be wrong?

Now you started to talk in common sense. I agree what you are saying. But if we would leave everything on individual opinions; then beastiality should be free too.


In the next moment you state that homosexuality is against nature, yet homosexuality has existed as far back as we can trace through history, as well as within the animal kingdom (via bisexuality) therefore mustn't it be in nature, and therefore part of God's creation? As such, should it be accepted?

Well the point is; they are animal and they don't have a soul or free will. We are human, not just a biological existence but a spirit. There's quite big difference. Animals may have homosexual relations (though i didn't see homosexual animals under normal conditions*), it's an abnormality in nature and as i know very rare. But animals acts based on their instincts. They don't have free will. As i told before; everyone may have some tendencies; some may have be tend to pedophilia, some may be tend to homosexuality etc. the point (i am talking for religion) is to block those tendencies.

Notes: Just for sake of learning; i have never heard lions are bisexual (i know young males leaves their families after they get mature and hunt together until they build their own families) where did you learn it?

*I personally observed homosexual attempts when i was herding; though all animals (cow) in flock were males and there was no female cow. And even though some bulls tried to attempt to have homosexual relation; none of other bulls let each other to do that. :)

Edit: Grammar, absent words shown in red.

[Moira]

:D To release the tension ........


'I'm a supporter of gay rights. And not a closet supporter either. From the time I was a kid, I have never been able to understand attacks upon the gay community. There are so many qualities that make up a human being... by the time I get through with all the things that I really admire about people, what they do with their private parts is probably so low on the list that it is irrelevant.' ~Paul Newman

'In itself, homosexuality is as limiting as heterosexuality: the ideal should be to be capable of loving a woman or a man; either, a human being, without feeling fear, restraint, or obligation.' ~Simone de Beauvoir

'Labels? Okay, fine. I'm bisensual. Heteroflexible. And life-curious. That about covers it.' ~Morgan Torva

'The next time someone asks you, "Hey, howdja get to be a homosexual anyway?" tell them, "Homosexuals are chosen first on talent, then interview... then the swimsuit and evening gown competition pretty much gets rid of the rest of them." ~Karen Williams


But i also enjoyed this one:), a lot

'Have you ever seen an apple tree who acts like a pineapple tree?':thumbs_up

[papayahed]

"Icky" implies a value/moral judgment - why would you morally judge two consenting adults' decision to engage in a sexual relationship? If I said homosexuality was "icky" there's a good chance that someone would call me either a) intolerant, or b) a homophobe.


I think homosexuality is "icky". I don't understand it, but I'm not going to stop people from engaging in it or condem them.



Are you really prepared to make consent the basis of the legitimacy of sexual expression? Is that's all that's necessary for society to accept a form of sexual expression?


Society has nothing to do with what happens in my bedroom. Are you suggesting that I need to get permission to strap on some leather and whip my partner?




But you can pick with whom you have sex with. We may not expect pedophiles to not have thoughts of sex with children, but we certainly expect them to resist acting on those urges, don't we?

Of course. Again, I'm talking about consenting adults. There is a huge difference between consenting adults and children being coerced/forced. Can you at least admit that?



Your final question also presupposes the idea that personal happiness is some sort of legitimizer as well - is that so? As long as two people agree to a certain behavior and are happy doing it, we should have no problem whatsoever? Really

uhhhhhhhh, Yeah. Sound a little something like "the pursuit of happiness" if you ask me.

Now I'm sure your going to try to bring up something like "Well if two people enjoy killing other people it should be allowed". No, that's people enforcing their will on others.

[Bii]

Now you started to talk in common sense. I agree what you are saying. But if we would leave everything on individual opinions; then beastiality should be free too.

I agree, if the only issue is individual opinion then surely anything goes? However, I don't think that individual opinion alone should be the determining factor. Taking religion aside (as religious rules are specific to individual religion, and are therefore probably too many and varied to get into here) surely the question should be a matter of simple biology. In matters of 'sexual deviance' it makes sense to pose the question (first), is there a biological reason why this type of intercourse should not occur? This would then deal with:

1. Parent having sexual relations with their own child - biologically unsound as it creates a greater risk of birth defects.
2. Sexual relations between man and beast - increases the risk of developing cross species diseases and, potentially, wiping out the human race.
3. True paedophelia (i.e. intercourse with a child who is not yet sexually mature) - I'm not entirely on solid ground with my biology here but using a leap of reason I'd suspect that it is biologically inappropriate to attempt sexual relations until such time as a person has reached sexual maturity - i.e. the body isn't ready for it.

Secondary, but no less important than the above is the next question - would such sexual relations be injurious, cause harm or damage to either party? This would then address issues of:

1. 'Minors', or mentally handicapped persons, being coerced into sexual relations by older persons.

However, I don't believe than homosexuality falls into either of the above categories. It is neither biologically unsound (taking apart the procreation point, as Sleepywitch pointed out this is as much an issue with hetrosexual couples these days), nor injurious providing both parties consent. It may seem alien a concept to a hetrosexual person, but that doesn't make it unnatural.

From a religious perspective, it is equally important to be similarly open minded (i.e. towards religious choice). Religion, in these days, is largely a matter of choice and if you choose to believe it, and you choose to live by it, again providing this doesn't interfere with the two doctrines above then it should be accepted. I accept that many faiths are offended by homosexuality, and presumably if you are a staunch Catholic you wouldn't also choose to be homosexual. I'd imagine if you were in such a position, and found yourself to have homosexual tendancies, that this would create a great deal of disquiet. That being said, equally as we should not force homosexual people to change against their will, neither should we expect religion to accept it, if it goes strongly against their faith. Can't have it both ways, so to speak. However, society as a whole should encourage tolerance, even if true acceptance may not be possible.



Well the point is; they are animal and they don't have a soul or free will.
I think this is a debatable point, but as there's no way we could possibly ever know this it seems reasonable to assume that they don't have 'consciousness' in the way that humans experience consciousness. (I'll be honest, I'm a little on the fence as to whether humans have a 'soul' or free will for that matter.). Leastways it makes it a little less difficult to eat meat if we assume that animals do not have consciousness.


As i told before; everyone may have some tendencies; some may have be tend to pedophilia, some may be tend to homosexuality etc. the point (i am talking for religion) is to block those tendencies.

I think you have a valid point here, but the question is, where do you draw the line between what people should suppress and what they should not. I'd agree that people should suppress tendancies which are in any way biologically unsound or injurious to others. Beyond that and we could be getting into the realms of oppression. There was a time when left-handedness was considered an inappropriate tendancy. I'm glad I now live in times where I'd no longer be burned as a witch, or forced to go against my nature and learn to write with my right hand.


Notes: Just for sake of learning; i have never heard lions are bisexual (i know young males leaves their families after they get mature and hunt together until they build their own families) where did you learn it?

This was on a BBC wildlife programme. If I remember rightly it was the young male lions who lived together in a pride relieving their needs, and also, I believe, a certain degree of ingratiation to the dominent lion.

[Lote-Tree]

It seems that on the side of choice, sit minds that see the world in black and white, good or bad, off or on. Peter Singer wrote a great book on this topic. The inability to see shades of gray seem to be at the genetic level. Ironic to say the least.

What does that mean?

[SleepyWitch]

Bravo! Laws ha? Not long time ago laws was saying "homosexuality is wrong" too. Well then how can you decide those laws were wrong, but today's laws are right? Or let's say laws changed tomorrow and laws said "pedophilia and beastility are legal", would that make them right? Also you don't answer my questions too, if you read my other posts.
no, it would not make them right. the reason being, that whether beastiality and paedophilia are legal or not, they are not consentual and thus harm one of the beings involved.
I've said this time and again, and if you want me to repeat it a couple more times, I'll gladly do so:) sorry if this argument bores you, but just because it's boring doesn't mean it's wrong.
[/QUOTE]


Until now you defended individual rights and individualism but now you defend laws. And you didn't answer my question about if we should psychologically treat teenagers-children who have homosexual tendencies too. If i had say that you would call me something like "enemy of human rights" or "homophobic" but now you don't show respect to little Lolita's rights too.
no we should not treat them, because they don't suffer from any psychological condition or illness. but we (parents, teachers, politicians, churchmen etc) should advice them to consumate their relationship only when they are of age. The same goes for heterosexual youths. Parents should advice them not to get involved in sexual relationships until they are mature enough.
of course, in reality both heterosexual and homosexual youths often have sex before they are 18/21/..
in my personal opinion, if both kids are the same age, e.g. 16 and they want to have sex and their parents allow it, then it's OK.
If one of them is 9/13/16 and the other is 18 or 25 or 50 then it's not OK.
this goes for both heterosexual and homosexual youths, it has nothing to do with the question of beastiality/paedophilia vs homosexuality.
as for the law protecting children: it might very well be the case that the 13 year old Lolita you mentioned is mature enough to decide for her own. Let's assume 30% of 13 year old are mature enough. Those don't need protection. You could allow them to make their own decision.
But then there are 70% of 13 year-olds who are not old enough. It is those children that need to be protected.
But who is to decide which particularly kids are mature enough and which aren't? so the law protects all of them according to their age in year. It may often over-protect, but that's better than underprotecting.

I will sum up my "law" argument:
1. children need protection. That is why some things are forbidden for them, e.g. sex, smoking, drinking, driving
2. adults do not need protection. that is why sex, smoking, driving etc are not forbidden for them
3. beastiality harms beasts; paedophilia harms children --->because of that they will always be wrong in my opinion, no matter what the law says.
4. homosexuality between consenting adults/youths of the same age doesn't harm anyone ----> it has never been wrong and will never be wrong, no matter what any law says





but from Jewish, Christian and İslam's point of view defending homosexuality's itself is insulting God. You are indirectly telling "God created some people absent" or "He couldn't decide what to create and just created man with woman soul".

no, it's not. there are different types of Christian churches and not all of them agree on this issue. In Germany, 30 % of people are Catholic and 30% Protestant. Many Protestant churches have nothing whatsoever against gay couples and even perform blessing ceremonies for them. And we are not talking about an obscure religious cult here but one of Germany's two leading churches. Even some Catholic grass roots movements are open-minded about homosexuality. They do not think it offends God or their religion. Of course, the Pope disagrees with those movements.

I never said you were underdeveloped or anything. All I said is, that some people do not read others' posts and ignore their arguments alltogether.

Yep, humans have spirit, not only instincts. They have souls and emotions. This is why people can love each other, man+woman, man+man, woman+woman.
To me, homosexuality actually proves that humans can really love.
why?
look at heterosexual couples (including myself, so if any heterosexuals should be offended by my argument, keep in mind that I'd offend myself): they can be said to "love" each other.
But what is the biological purpose of their union? --> children.
what is the economic purpose?´---> family members have to support each other financially
what is its social purpose? ---> to produce children of the same nationality and culture as the parents and to transmit the cultural values of this society to the children so that the society can survive

---> their love may well be "pure" love in terms of their emotions (by the way, the notion of romantic love is a relatively new, Western concept) but it also serves a biological and a social purpose
----> apart from the personal aspect, hetero marriage has a more absolute purpose


now look at homo couples:
they can't have children ---> their union has no biological purpose
socially, it does not help replenish the population of a country
----> their relationship has no absolute purpose (except in home marriage, course, where they support each other financially, legally etc)

but they have the same feelings of love, caring etc as hetero couples.
---> doesn't this kinda imply that humans can do things that don't serve any outside purpose? isn't his kind of love (I'm not talking about casual sex done for fun, but about steady relationships) kinda "pure" in that it does not pursue any other purpose?
I know this is a provocative idea and there are many weak points in my argument....

anyway... once again, leaving relgion, beastiality and paedophilia aside, what is wrong with homosexuality? How do homosexuals harm others or society? How do they offend heterosexuals or make life hard for heterosexuals? Why should heterosexuals be bothered about what homosexuals do with their partners at all? How does what they do in their bed affect our lives negatively?
maybe we can strike a deal to make this discussion work? Lote and the natural sciences gang will NOT use the animal kingdom as an argument and Turk and Red etc will not use religion as an argument? Let's talk about humans only?


What do you mean??

Of course nothing. What leads to heterosexuality? What leads to be hungry or thirsty? It's not genetic and it's not related to society. It just happens and that's all.
Why do you fancy girls or boys (regardless of "reproducing" purposes)? Why boys but not girls or viceversa? If you talk about heterosexuality you don't ask that question of "What leads to..." because it is seen as a natural thing. But we can see a kind of homosexuality in some animals and it's something that you can see in some tv programmes.
It's useless to ask yourself about what leads to homosexuality or whatever...

:) good point, Mrs Dalloway :)


I think homosexuality is "icky". I don't understand it, but I'm not going to stop people from engaging in it or condem them.



this is one of the best comments in this whole thread in my opinion. :thumbs_up
:)

if we we're to argue that everything we find weird or icky personally is unnatural or should be illegal, there wouldn't be much left for people to do :)
some may find tea icky, while others don't like coffee. Some of us are Catholics, some are Protestants, some are Muslims, but does this mean that the respecitve other religions should be forbidden? some people don't eat meat, but does this mean everyone should be forced to be a vegetarian? nope...

I think it's very important to distinguish clearly between one's personal tastes or dislikes and more general principles.

about the "pursuit of happiness", I'm glad you quoted that papaya... i was going to dig out my U.S. and German constitutions and give a tiring impromptu lecture about the principles free societies are built on.

[Redzeppelin]

YES. why not? what else should be the basis? if two people are grown up, they are considered old enough to make their own decisions. they are considered mature enough to vote (here their choice affects the whole country, not only themselves), drive, work, have their own bank account, travel freely without a guardian and many more. If they are old enough to have these rights, why should they not be old enough to decide whether they prefer men or women?

I suppose now would be a good time to clarify my position a bit. First, consent cannot be the sole legitimizer of behavior because I'm sure I or someone else could come up with some behaviors that people might mutually consent to that we would find abhorrent. Second, when you say "old enough" I assume you realize that the age of consent is an arbitrary number that varies around the world and even among states here in the U.S. As such, there's much opinion as to when "old enough" is - some states say 13-14. Are you OK with a 40 year old man having sex with a 14 year old girl if the state says she's of the age of consent? My third point will be addressed below when I respond to Papayahead.


your argument makes it sound as if either society has to be protected from gays, or gays have to be protected from the consequences of their own decisiosn. adult people do not have to be protected. they can look after themselves and make their own decisions as long as these decisions don't hurt anyone else (---> cf. consent)

In a sense, I am saying both. Homosexuality has negative effects - both on the practitioners and the community. Those effects are sometimes obvious, sometimes less so. You're right: adults do not need to be protected, but children do - and what society condones or restricts affects children - and as such, consenting adults may do things that are not OK because of the potential effects on children.


yes, we do and we can. everybody here agrees that paedophiles should not be allowed to act on their thoughts.
that's where consent comes in. children are considered too young to consent, they cannot; legally speaking give or deny their consent... so their out of bounds. FULLSTOP.

But why should pedophiles be denied the full expression of their sexual desires? Children are sexual beings too - right? The body is ready at 13 so why not?

I already pointed out that the age of consent is a rather arbitrary number. If a girl can give consent legally at age 14 somewhere in the U.S., then why not everywhere in the U.S.?


I think homosexuality is "icky". I don't understand it, but I'm not going to stop people from engaging in it or condem them.

Neither am I going to try and stop them. I think "condemn" is a strong word - I'd prefer "moral objection," personally. And, in terms of "condemn" - why can't I condemn behavior that I know to be immoral and harmful? Do you condemn drinking and driving? Murder? Drug dealing? Cheating? Lying? Incest? Prostitution? Bigamy? Pedophilia?


Society has nothing to do with what happens in my bedroom. Are you suggesting that I need to get permission to strap on some leather and whip my partner?

No, I'm not - provided that the behavior stay behind closed doors. However, if you and like-minded people start advocating that such behavior ought to be socially acceptable and then I start seeing characters on network TV acting out such behavior, and school curriculums start teaching that such behavior is perfectly normal and healthy and suddenly I start getting labled "intolerant" if I say "Hey, that behavior is not acceptable" - well, then yes - I do have a problem with that.

In other words: it is not homosexual behavior that I have the issue with as much as homosexual advocate groups' insistence that society embrace their lifestyle as a natural and normal alternative to heterosexual monogamy. It's not. Period.

And: the government is already in our bedrooms because it prohibits all types of alternate forms of sexual expression.


Of course. Again, I'm talking about consenting adults. There is a huge difference between consenting adults and children being coerced/forced. Can you at least admit that?

Not all children in sexual relationships with adults were forced or coerced. Many willingly engaged for whatever reason was driving them. In fact, few pedophiles actually force their victims - it is generally manipulation (which occurs in all sexual relationships).



uhhhhhhhh, Yeah. Sound a little something like "the pursuit of happiness" if you ask me.

The "pursuit of happiness" clause does not mean I can do whatever I wish that makes me happy. Happiness is not the highest value for which individuals should strive.


Now I'm sure your going to try to bring up something like "Well if two people enjoy killing other people it should be allowed". No, that's people enforcing their will on others.

How about two adult people who both want to die who mutually consent to kill each other? Ought that to be socially acceptable? Should TV shows condone such behavior? Ought school children be informed as to this alternative to living? Why not?

[kilted exile]

Homosexuality has negative effects - both on the practitioners and the community.

I am really interested in what these negative effects are exactly - with the obvious exception of not gaining entry to whatever afterlife you believe to exist. Religions are just as much a self interest group as homosexual rights groups are.

[Lote-Tree]

Homosexuality has negative effects - both on the practitioners and the community.


What about Asexuality?

[Turk]

no, it would not make them right. the reason being, that whether beastiality and paedophilia are legal or not, they are not consentual and thus harm one of the beings involved.
I've said this time and again, and if you want me to repeat it a couple more times, I'll gladly do so:) sorry if this argument bores you, but just because it's boring doesn't mean it's wrong.


There's no scientific prove about that beastility hurts someone. Also i do believe pedophili is pervert and sick, just showing your methods and arguments to defend homosexuality are not valid, if we go with your individualist way; let's assume Lolita says she's happy with her life and it doesn't hurt her, then how can we decide for her if your standart is hurting someone? Legal or not; if she's happy then it should be free too (i also believe in future even that may be "legal" in west, not for sure, but after looking west's historical development, everything seems possible to me). Also i am not bored of discuss, but i am sick of writing for pages, it's tiring.


no we should not treat them, because they don't suffer from any psychological condition or illness. but we (parents, teachers, politicians, churchmen etc) should advice them to consumate their relationship only when they are of age.

If you say Lolita shouldn't be free because she's so young to decide what's best for her; then how can you say 13 years old homo buddy knows best for himself? From your point it should be right to send those homo buddies to psychologist, because they don't know what's best for them, and they are immature too.


as for the law protecting children: it might very well be the case that the 13 year old Lolita you mentioned is mature enough to decide for her own. Let's assume 30% of 13 year old are mature enough. Those don't need protection. You could allow them to make their own decision.
But then there are 70% of 13 year-olds who are not old enough. It is those children that need to be protected.
But who is to decide which particularly kids are mature enough and which aren't? so the law protects all of them according to their age in year. It may often over-protect, but that's better than underprotecting.

RIIIGGGHHHTTT! For protecting %70 who's still child, we have laws. Now think about your arguments again.


1. children need protection. That is why some things are forbidden for them, e.g. sex, smoking, drinking, driving
2. adults do not need protection. that is why sex, smoking, driving etc are not forbidden for them
3. beastiality harms beasts; paedophilia harms children --->because of that they will always be wrong in my opinion, no matter what the law says.
4. homosexuality between consenting adults/youths of the same age doesn't harm anyone ----> it has never been wrong and will never be wrong, no matter what any law says

This is not directly related to subject; and it's also your comments. I will just say;
1. agreed but methods you've used under this subject to defend homosexuality were in clash with this (children needs protection; here you describe it in common sense, doesn't care about Lolita's choice; but when it's about homosexuality it's suddenly changing and turning to individual choice). 2. Adults needs protection too. That's why using heroin or drunken driving etc. banned.
3. I do believe beastility is pervert and wrong; but if we just trust science (like you people do) there's no evidence that beastility hurts animals. And about pedophili, i do believe it's harmful for all children either they think it's or it's not, but if we go with individual way (those are 2 ways you mostly used to defend homosexuality) then we should say this way; "pedophili hurts some children".
4. I don't care if some homos wants to (edit* you know that:lol: ) each other it's their problem. I don't care. But here again; just like the beginning of thread you saying; "it has never been wrong and will never be wrong" in a behave like it's a universal truth, but in fact it has been wrong, and it's still wrong and it will be wrong always according to people like me. I repeat it; if they wants to do that; it's their choice; i can't block people doing that. All i can say is we don't believe it's right and religion condemns it, also it shouldn't be advertised on TVs, media etc. That's all. If you accept that; just because you said something it doesn't have to be universally and scientifically right, then this may be a more normal conversation and we can reach a final.


no, it's not. there are different types of Christian churches and not all of them agree on this issue.

I don't know about different churches (it's impossible to know too; as i can see whoever gets bored they are going and starting a church in west). This should be explained by Christians; all i can say i certainly know it's banned and condemned in İslam, also i know it's banned and condemned in Judaism and Christianity too.


But what is the biological purpose of their union? --> children.
what is the economic purpose?´---> family members have to support each other financially
what is its social purpose? ---> to produce children of the same nationality and culture as the parents and to transmit the cultural values of this society to the children so that the society can survive

---> their love may well be "pure" love in terms of their emotions (by the way, the notion of romantic love is a relatively new, Western concept) but it also serves a biological and a social purpose
----> apart from the personal aspect, hetero marriage has a more absolute purpose

Ok what about this (if it's right to create thoughts just based on personal assumptions);

1. Homos needs to have sex too.
2. Homos have emotional needs too (everyone needs a friend, husband whatever).
3. That's why they marry.
4. Their marriage has no reason but just satisfying their needs, also they can't produce children too, so their marriage is meaningles but just selfish.

Come on... This is getting more and more stupid (no personal offend); you just said homosexual marriage is supreme than hetero marriage. What's next?

Bii;


1. Parent having sexual relations with their own child - biologically unsound as it creates a greater risk of birth defects.
2. Sexual relations between man and beast - increases the risk of developing cross species diseases and, potentially, wiping out the human race.
3. True paedophelia (i.e. intercourse with a child who is not yet sexually mature) - I'm not entirely on solid ground with my biology here but using a leap of reason I'd suspect that it is biologically inappropriate to attempt sexual relations until such time as a person has reached sexual maturity - i.e. the body isn't ready for it.

I. We don't have to trust only scientific approaches; as Einstein said; science without religion is crippled, and religion without science is blind.
II. If we accept science as only guide; here's answers;

1. Science can block them having children; in fact they may just use modern birth controls.
2. Beastilitic people can use modern precautions too.

[Lote-Tree]

as Einstein said; science without religion is crippled, and religion without science is blind.


Religion is one man's vision of the world.
Science - accumulative efforts of whole humanity.

[SleepyWitch]

In a sense, I am saying both. Homosexuality has negative effects - both on the practitioners and the community. Those effects are sometimes obvious, sometimes less so. You're right: adults do not need to be protected, but children do - and what society condones or restricts affects children - and as such, consenting adults may do things that are not OK because of the potential effects on children.

thanks for the clarification.
but this argument only hold when you assume that homosexuality is something negative.
If children need to be protected from knowing about homosexuality, there has to be a reason why they need to be protected. If it is OK, they do not need to be protected from knowing about it.
so, as far as I understand your argument at all, you are still saying, homosexuality is not acceptable (to you/ in general?)


No, I'm not - provided that the behavior stay behind closed doors. However, if you and like-minded people start advocating that such behavior ought to be socially acceptable and then I start seeing characters on network TV acting out such behavior, and school curriculums start teaching that such behavior is perfectly normal and healthy and suddenly I start getting labled "intolerant" if I say "Hey, that behavior is not acceptable" - well, then yes - I do have a problem with that.
I agree with this argument up to a point. but in my opinion, if homo behaviour needs to be banned from TV shows, then so must hetero behaviour.
shows featuring hetero flirt, kissing, touching, sex etc may induce children to immitate this behaviour. I work with kids and "this one time at [summer] camp", this nine year old boy and a 9 year old girl were found naked in bed togehter. The boy said he "saw it on TV"....
so if the acting out of sexual behaviour on TV needs to be banned, this goes for all forms of sexuality, including hetero.


Second, when you say "old enough" I assume you realize that the age of consent is an arbitrary number that varies around the world and even among states here in the U.S. As such, there's much opinion as to when "old enough" is - some states say 13-14. Are you OK with a 40 year old man having sex with a 14 year old girl if the state says she's of the age of consent? My third point will be addressed below when I respond to Papayahead.
yes, I'm perfectly aware of the arbitrariness of those numbers and I'm not happy with it, but this arbitrariness has nothing to do with homosexuality.


I suppose now would be a good time to clarify my position a bit. First, consent cannot be the sole legitimizer of behavior because I'm sure I or someone else could come up with some behaviors that people might mutually consent to that we would find abhorrent.

can you give an example? what kind of abhorrent behaviour do you mean?
e.g. sexual asphyxia (voluntary suffocation/ strangling during sex)?
personally I find that quite abhorrent... I think this is a borderline case...
- on the one hand you could argue that people do physical harm to themselves and their partner/ commit suicide when they do this.
actually, when one of the partners is about to suffocate and the other doesn't prevent his death, it's a case of criminal negligence/ failure to render assistance/murder (?)
there is legislation regarding that independent of the sexual context.
- on the other hand, if they both agree and both suffocate... good riddance (heheh, don't take this seriously, I'm just being nasty)


In other words: it is not homosexual behavior that I have the issue with as much as homosexual advocate groups' insistence that society embrace their lifestyle as a natural and normal alternative to heterosexual monogamy. It's not. Period.
it is. Period. :D. see, this line of argument won't take us anywhere. you still haven't made it clear WHY you think it is not normal....

as for "natural"... I don't like this word (neither from your side nor from Lote's or others who argue in favour of homosexuality)...
I mean, what is natural? for example, monogamy is not "natural" from the male perspective but it is from the female one: biologically, it is natural for the man to spread his semen far and wide, to make sure at least some of his offspring will survive.
for the woman, it is sensible to be monogamous, because this way there is no question as to the parternity. this way the male will know that the woman's child is actually his child and will provide food for it (vs. the lion who often mistakenly kills his own babies because he thinks they are another male's offspring)
so which is more natural? monogamy or promiscuity?

also, most of the things we do today are not "natural" in that they were neither done in prehistorical times nor in the Garden Eden.
e.g. Coke... is Coke natural? it's made from natural resources, but they undergo "unnatural" processes before they become Coke. should we therefore not drink Coke?
Governments are not natural. In Eden, there was neither democracy, nor monarchy (except if you see God as a king), nor communism. Should we therefore abolish governments?
There were no cars either in Eden or in the Stone Age (I'm using these terms to cater for both Christians and those who believe in Evolution etc). are they therefore "unnatural"? shouldn't we use them?


for me, the question is what kind of behaviour and lifestyle do we want to accept, not "is it natural or unnatural". Humans life both in nature and in culture and it is notoriously difficult to find out what is due to "nature", what is due to "culture" and what is due to both.

[Turk]

No, I'm not - provided that the behavior stay behind closed doors. However, if you and like-minded people start advocating that such behavior ought to be socially acceptable and then I start seeing characters on network TV acting out such behavior, and school curriculums start teaching that such behavior is perfectly normal and healthy and suddenly I start getting labled "intolerant" if I say "Hey, that behavior is not acceptable" - well, then yes - I do have a problem with that.

In other words: it is not homosexual behavior that I have the issue with as much as homosexual advocate groups' insistence that society embrace their lifestyle as a natural and normal alternative to heterosexual monogamy. It's not. Period.


:thumbs_up

[SleepyWitch]

If you say Lolita shouldn't be free because she's so young to decide what's best for her; then how can you say 13 years old homo buddy knows best for himself? From your point it should be right to send those homo buddies to psychologist, because they don't know what's best for them, and they are immature too.


nope, I did not say there should be different standards for homo kids and heterokids...
what I meant is this:
with Lolita and her sugar daddy, there an age difference which needs to be taken into account.
with the two 13 year old "homo buddies" as you call them, I said: legally they are not considered to be of age. which means, they cannot consent.
in reality, what happens is that they will have sex. in reality, the same is true about 13 year old girl+ 13 year old boy. they will have sex, no matter what the law says.
but I did not say that this is a good thing. Personally, I don't think 13 year old children (boys or girls) should have sex. But it happens anyway.
neither homo buddy nor Lolita should have sex with anyone at that age.
the difference between homo buddy and Lolita is that Lolita's boyfriend is 40. We generally assume older people to manipulate children, to talk or coerce them into "consenting"

whereas if you have a 13 y/o girl and a 13 y/o boy, or two 13 y/o homo buddies, they are the same age and we do not assume one to manipulate the other. according to the law, however, 13 y/o cannot have sex.

I'm not saying that I agree with those laws 100%. Of course a 13 y/o girl can manipulate a 13 y/o boy in reality, just like a 40 year old man can manipulate a young girl.
but generally it's considered easier for the old man to manipulate the young girl.

I don't 100% agree with these laws, I'm just trying to explain the reasoning behind them.


Legal or not; if she's happy then it should be free too (i also believe in future even that may be "legal" in west, not for sure, but after looking west's historical development, everything seems possible to me). Also i am not bored of discuss, but i am sick of writing for pages, it's tiring.

of course laws can change. sometimes they can seem arbitrary. lots of times they seem arbitrary to me.
but I don't think paedophilia or bestiality will ever be legalized in the West. why not? because of what I and many others have said over and over again: because it is harmful to other humans/harmful to animals.
even if there is no scientific proof that it is harmful to animals, people in the West believe that it is and will always believe so.


I don't know about different churches (it's impossible to know too; as i can see whoever gets bored they are going and starting a church in west). This should be explained by Christians; all i can say i certainly know it's banned and condemned in İslam, also i know it's banned and condemned in Judaism and Christianity too.
no, not in my country. there may be a great variety of different Protestant Churches in the U.S., but not in Germany.
We have, roughly speaking, only 2 kinds of Protestant church and they differ mainly in the way they do their rituals, not so much in their views (as far as I know).
It's not easy to start a church in Germany at all. You can start all kinds of religious movements/cults, but they are not allowed to call themselves a church.


1. Homos needs to have sex too.
2. Homos have emotional needs too (everyone needs a friend, husband whatever).
3. That's why they marry.
4. Their marriage has no reason but just satisfying their needs, also they can't produce children too, so their marriage is meaningles but just selfish.

Come on... This is getting more and more stupid (no personal offend); you just said homosexual marriage is supreme than hetero marriage. What's next?
hehehhe, no I did not say that :) I was just playing with the thought to provoke responses :) I think hetero and homo marriage are equal, none of them is supreme :)


so their marriage is meaningles but just selfish.
yes, it is. So is hetero marriage.
the purposes of hetero marriage are
1. to have a partner
2. to have someone who supports you financially and looks after you when you are sick
3. hetero couple can have children.
but what is their motivation behind having children? Why do they want to have children?
to serve society? to increase their nation?
No. People have children because
1. they enjoy the idea of raising children
2. they need someone who will look after them when they are old
3. they want to pass on their knowledge, experience, way of living, hobbies and interests to someone. this way, when the parents die, the children will remain as their living monument
4. they need someone who will take over their business when they die
etc etc etc

these are all entirely selfish motives.
so if homo marriage is selfish and hetero marriage is selfish, too, that means both of them are selfish. therefore both of them are equal :)


"it has never been wrong and will never be wrong" in a behave like it's a universal truth, but in fact it has been wrong, and it's still wrong and it will be wrong always according to people like me. I repeat it; if they wants to do that; it's their choice; i can't block people doing that. All i can say is we don't believe it's right and religion condemns it, also it shouldn't be advertised on TVs, media etc. That's all. If you accept that; just because you said something it doesn't have to be universally and scientifically right, then this may be a more normal conversation and we can reach a final.

yep, exactly, according to people like you :) so it's one opinion pitted against another.
yours is based on religion, while mine is based on human rights or Sleepy's Home-Made Logic or whatever.

about universalist attitudes... is homosexuality legal or illegal in your country?
if it is illegal, that's OK with me. in this case, it is/ would be up to Turkish homosexuals to change this situation. if they can/ could gather enough support among the population to change these laws, that's good. If they can't, that's their problem.
I would never argue that e.g. the U.S. government or the German goverment should tell the Turkish goverment what to do about homosexuality in Turkey. This needs to be sorted out by the Turkish population. (hello mods, I hope this isn't current politics... I was speaking hypothetically)

On the other hand, if it's legal there, then it's none of my business either.
I'm talking about what the situation is in my country. But I do not think that my country should impose its standards on any other country.


edit: Turk, the reasons why I keep arguing are
a) because I like arguing with people whose views are opposed to mine. it keeps my brain active. I don't mean to say that my opinion is better than yours or that you are totally wrong.
b) I'm trying to explain my logic and the logic behind laws in my country. I don't mean to say that this logic is the only valid one.
what I don't like about your way of arguing is that you don't give any reasons for it. I'd like to know your reasons for thinking X, Y or Z.
if "religion" is your only reason, OK... but it can be argued that "religion" is nothing more than a system of laws. so using "religion" as an argument is the same as using "law" as an argument for me. religion is not superior to law. they are both two different sets of laws.

[Bii]

I. We don't have to trust only scientific approaches; as Einstein said; science without religion is crippled, and religion without science is blind.
II. If we accept science as only guide; here's answers;

1. Science can block them having children; in fact they may just use modern birth controls.
2. Beastilitic people can use modern precautions too.

Phew, make your mind up! One minute it's 'lets draw a line in the sand' and the next it's 'use precautions'. It make sense to draw a line somewhere and the biological line (which has largely been identified through observation of effects rather than understanding of DNA/Biology as such) seems to be a sensible place to draw it. I appreciate that modern precautions will protect against 1 and 2 above, but that being said, modern precautions are not infalible, hence the spread of AIDS (which is preventable by modern precautions), and unexpected pregnancies despite using birth control. Better to not go there at all than to trust people to be sensible. My, if we could trust people to be sensible there'd be nothing left to debate!

It's not a matter of science v religion here, and that's not the purpose of my argument. All of the examples quoted are, in a sense, a precursor to my point 2 (not being injurious to others) but more basic than that, as in the act itself is potentially damaging to the human race due to the risk of defects or disease or physical damage. You might as well say you need religion to avoid getting the chickenpox. Observation shows this not to be so.

[Turk]

hehehhe, no I did not say that :) I was just playing with the thought to provoke responses :)

What should i say? "Well done you are so smart even you think you play with thoughts by telling things which is opposite to your thoughts"?:yawnb:


yep, exactly, according to people like you so it's one opinion pitted against another.
yours is based on religion, while mine is based on human rights or Sleepy's Home-Made Logic or whatever.

Yeah, you are defender of universal truths, rights, human rights and you are able to think and comment while we stuck on a smelly dogma and not able to think anything...:sick: You just did same thing that i was pointing since this thread begun. Actually thanks for that, nobody told it as clear as you did, and you corrected me by telling;yep, exactly, according to people like you so it's one opinion pitted against another.
yours is based on religion, while mine is based on human rights or Sleepy's Home-Made Logic or whatever.. But i should remind you something; you still don't have any evidence that your opinion is universal truth and right. A mosquito landed on a piece of straw which floats over a little pool of donkey pee, and he thought he's the captain of a ship and pee is an immense ocean. What can i do other than leaving the mosquito alone?

[SleepyWitch]

What should i say? "Well done you are so smart even you think you play with thoughts by telling things which is opposite to your thoughts"?
no thanks:) actually I'm quiet daft and I don't mind being stupid. I'm glad I'm stupid :) If I were smart I would have to take a PhD and that would involve a lot of work :D


What should i say? "Well done you are so smart even you think you play with thoughts by telling things which is opposite to your thoughts"?:yawnb:


Yeah, you are defender of universal truths, rights, human rights and you are able to think and comment while we stuck on a smelly dogma and not able to think anything...:sick: You just did same thing that i was pointing since this thread begun. Actually thanks for that, nobody told it as clear as you did, and you corrected me by telling;yep, exactly, according to people like you so it's one opinion pitted against another.
yours is based on religion, while mine is based on human rights or Sleepy's Home-Made Logic or whatever.. But i should remind you something; you still don't have any evidence that your opinion is universal truth and right. A mosquito landed on a piece of straw which floats over a little pool of donkey pee, and he thought he's the captain of a ship and pee is an immense ocean. What can i do other than leaving the mosquito alone?

hahaha, nope, my opinion is an opinion just like yours. it's not better. it is based on some ideas called "human rights", but I do not considere these human rights to be 100% universal.
personally speaking, I think they should be universal. but on a more abstract level, I think they are an invention of the West and the West often tries to impose these values on other societies.
Personally, I think "human rights" is a good idea, but the West should not try to impose them on other countries.
if other countries WANT "human rights", they have to introduce them themselves. if they don't want them, that's none of my business.

what I'm driving at is this: my opinion is just an opinion. it is not universal. it happens to be based on an argument called "human rights". but i don't think human rights is universal.
your opinion is an opinion as well. it is based on religion. religion is not universal, either.
---> both of our opinions have the same status. each is based on SOMETHING. this SOMETHING is not universal. neither my SOMETHING nor your SOMETHING. both of them are just personal opinions based on personal believes.
nevertheless I enjoy listing my arguments and learning others' arguments :D

[BibliophileTRJ]

This thread has turned into the same vitriolic sniping that characterized my teen years and made them nearly unbearable.

So far I've been equated with bestiality & incestuous pedophilia, judged as immoral & "icky", and deemed abnormal and unnatural.

For the record, I do not advocate homosexuality for anyone other than myself (& my partner, lest I get lonely); there is no recruitment effort. I do not ask that anyone embrace, adopt, or even accept my way of life.... all I ask is that I not have to fear for my life & limb whenever I go out in public. It would be nice to be treated like a human being - without disdain - but I fear that is WAY TOO MUCH to ask.

I don't want to interrupt, end, or even change the nature of the debate; but I won't be participating or even following along from this point forward.
(Note to Mods: DO NOT lock up this thread because of me..... IT IS IMPORTANT that this sort of debate take place.... it just hits too close to home for me)

I thank the many that have shown support for me & my queer brethren.

[Logos]

This thread remains open in good faith of the Moderators that
it will not turn into a political or religious propaganda for any group.

Any posts/comments which indicate intolerance towards any other member(s) or group(s) will be edited/deleted with or without any further warning.

oops!!! a mod warning on the second page, a number of edited and or deleted posts, topic now closed because things start to not make sense any more when they're edited so much.




(Note to Mods: DO NOT lock up this thread because of me..... IT IS IMPORTANT that this sort of debate take place.... it just hits too close to home for me)

No, really, not closed because of your post ;) you just happened to get the last post in a nanosecond before I hit the "Close Topic" button :p But I think it's rather fitting and I wish some people here could show more tolerance/compassion/respect towards each other and oh yeah, the forum rules.