Homosexuality

[Onhell]

Aren't you all narrow-minded for not granting the possibility that homosexuality is a biological syndrome (going bald, born with a missing toe, pimple on the cheek...)?

I'm not, because that is actually the position I hold. I've explained that before in fact, but here it goes again. I personally think that homosexuality is natural however I do not think it is normal. It is natural to be born blind, deaf, cleft palate, etc. Is it normal? No. We were given to eyes to see, to ears to hear, etc. Every specie's goal is to reproduce and homosexuality impedes reproduction.

HOWEVER, I do not hate anyone of said persuation, I do not think them any less than anyone else, they are still people that deserve the same respect and rights as everyone else just as blinds, paraplegics, nerds, snobs and racists do. 

I think it is stupid not to give them rights just because of sexual orientation, because it is as stupid as denying rights to women because of their sex and to blacks because of their color.

Also, who cares what I think? Someone's sexual orientation is none of my business, and I'm not going to worry about it either.

 

[Cornfed Hick]

I personally don't agree with homosexuality.

Like Natalie, I'm not even sure what this is intended to mean.  Does Jordan mean he thinks that homosexuality is inherently wrong and should be persecuted?  If so, then I think virtually everyone on this board, myself included, would disagree.  Yet that has been the prevailing view throughout most of history until recently, and may still be the prevailing view.  This does not make it right, or wrong for that matter, it just places Jordan in the historical majority.  Or, less likely, does he simply mean that homosexuality just isn't for him, in which case I agree with him (although I won't look away if good-looking girls are making out with each other, that's for sure).  Or, does it mean that he thinks that it is deviant but harmless behavior between consenting adults that, while it should not be persecuted, also should not be encouraged by governments?  If so, then that is at least more nuanced, and frankly, not an indefensible position, whether we disagree with it or not.   Whatever he meant, I do think it is unnecessarily insulting to call him "narrow-minded" or a "homophobe" simply by expressing his view.  This is one of those issues that, like abortion, is polarizing yet not necessarily obvious, in that people take it personally and are convinced they are right, but the science is inconclusive and the line-drawing is problematic. 

From a legal and public policy perspective, I have found the California Prop 8 debates fascinating.  Personally, I am not convinced that a state's decision to ban gay marriage is unconstitutional.  Most states outlaw polygamy between consenting adults, though nothing prevents people from living happily in an unmarried menage a trois.  Yet no one seems to question anti-polygamy laws.  (Too often polygamy is practiced by cults that encourage marriage to minors, but that is a separate sub-issue.)  Why are anti-polygamy laws fundamentally different from laws banning gay marriage?  Whether a state chooses to recognize a certain kind of contract, but not another, for public policy reasons such as encouraging child-bearing seems well within state power.  Yet, on the other hand, it is universally accepted that a ban on interracial marriage is illegal.  So, is gay marriage more like interracial marriage or more like polygamy?  Perhaps the distinction Jordan draws is the critical one:  you can't change your race, because you are born with it, but one's sexual behavior is, at least in part, clearly a choice (though attraction and desire may not be).  Candidly, I don't know exactly where I stand on the constitutional issue, though I did vote against Prop 8, in part because I am uncomfortable generally with allowing a 50.1% majority amend the constitution (and, I always vote against propositions in California because I don't believe in direct democracy). 

 

[Jordan]

I don't think that they should be persecuted, no. I just believe that a person chooses to be a homosexual, over the ever so popular excuse, "I  was born that way." Please understand I am not trying to be insulting to anyone here, it's just what I think. And that's what an opinion is, an opinion.

 

[Natalie]

Well that's alright then. I disagree with your opinion to a certain extent, but you will find plenty of gay people (mostly women) who will tell you that it is a choice. I think sexuality is more complicated than black and white, there is a huge gray area.

 

[Jordan]

I can see your point there.

 

[Wästed The Great]

Well that's alright then. I disagree with your opinion to a certain extent, but you will find plenty of gay people (mostly women) who will tell you that it is a choice. I think sexuality is more complicated than black and white, there is a huge gray area.

I think that is the truest statement that can be made. 

---

@Jordan, I didn't mean to offend you-- I'm kinda like Foro: it seemed like intolerance, which I don't like (not trying to put words in your mouth, Foro).  However, it is possible that I was mistaken.

 

[Jordan]

No offense taken, friend. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, everything is cool with me.

 

[Deleted member 7164]

I'm not, because that is actually the position I hold. I've explained that before in fact, but here it goes again. I personally think that homosexuality is natural however I do not think it is normal. It is natural to be born blind, deaf, cleft palate, etc. Is it normal? No. We were given to eyes to see, to ears to hear, etc. Every specie's goal is to reproduce and homosexuality impedes reproduction.

Of course it's natural. It's not like somebody planted a chip in the brain. Most human conditions are nature-caused, be them harmless or fatal.

HOWEVER, I do not hate anyone of said persuation, I do not think them any less than anyone else, they are still people that deserve the same respect and rights as everyone else just as blinds, paraplegics, nerds, snobs and racists do.

Completely agreed.

 

[SinisterMinisterX]

I don't think that they should be persecuted, no. I just believe that a person chooses to be a homosexual, over the ever so popular excuse, "I  was born that way." Please understand I am not trying to be insulting to anyone here, it's just what I think. And that's what an opinion is, an opinion.

Opinion?
Sure.
And you can also have the "opinion" that 2 + 2 = 7.
And that "opinion" would be just as WRONG.

In fact, your "opinion" is so obviously WRONG that I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to say that.
Let me try and explain this in small words for you.

I presume you're heterosexual.
Tell me - did you make that choice?
Did you say to yourself: "Hmm, I could like girls or I could like boys. Which shall I choose?"
No. You didn't make that choice. Your preference was instinctive, without any choice on your part.

And what makes you think gays would get a choice of preference which was denied to you?
If you didn't choose to be straight, then they didn't choose to be gay.

And let me be clear about one thing...
On this forum, we (the moderators) normally don't tolerate insults like me calling you horribly stupid.
But in my opinion, there are times when the stupidity displayed is so massive that it must be corrected.
You are such a case. You have posted the stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
Use your brain before posting.

 

[Jordan]

Opinion?
Sure.
And you can also have the "opinion" that 2 + 2 = 7.
And that "opinion" would be just as WRONG.

In fact, your "opinion" is so obviously WRONG that I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to say that.
Let me try and explain this in small words for you.

I presume you're heterosexual.
Tell me - did you make that choice?
Did you say to yourself: "Hmm, I could like girls or I could like boys. Which shall I choose?"
No. You didn't make that choice. Your preference was instinctive, without any choice on your part.

And what makes you think gays would get a choice of preference which was denied to you?
If you didn't choose to be straight, then they didn't choose to be gay.

And let me be clear about one thing...
On this forum, we (the moderators) normally don't tolerate insults like me calling you horribly stupid.
But in my opinion, there are times when the stupidity displayed is so massive that it must be corrected.
You are such a case. You have posted the stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
Use your brain before posting.

Was that attack really necessary? All I did was say that I do not agree with homosexuality and you blow up on me? I could choose to like guys if I wanted to, so would that be making a choice? Hmm...

 

[Albie]

Jordan, it may have been a little harsh but as SMX stated (and making the same assumption that he made that you are heterosexual), did you choose to be so? It simply isn't a choice.

Yes you could choose to like guys, or not, but that is not the same as finding you are homosexual.

 

[Forostar]

give the guy a chance.

I do, I am not screaming (yet) for persecution.

however I do not think it is normal.

Onhell, what is your definition of normal?

@Jordan: Alright, let me ask you some questions to learn more about your opinion.

1. What do you imply with "I do not agree with it"? Will you live your whole life in dissatisfaction? Are you going to do something with your disagreement, whatever it means?

2. What does it mean when you say you find it "a choice"? What's the value of this expression? What are the consequences, what are the results of your thought patterns, connected to this subject?

 

[Perun]

I could choose to like guys if I wanted to, so would that be making a choice? Hmm...

No, you couldn't.
You could spend a lot of time telling yourself that you like guys, and then even start to believe it, but deep inside, you would remain attracted to women. There are elements of your subconsciousness which you cannot disable.
Several people told me about how they found out about their homosexuality, and in each case I tell you, it was a surprise to them. They were usually shocked and disgusted at first, but then just allowed it to happen. Many at first claimed they were bisexual and still tried to cling on the opposite sex, but as time passed, they admitted that they were only attracted to their own sex.
And then I met people who like you, claimed that they could choose to be homosexual or not. Those people tried to tell themselves that they're homosexual, but ended up being outright appalled by the idea of intercourse with someone of their own sex.
And allow me to ask you another question: If it was somebody's choice to be homosexual, then why are there so many who keep quiet about it? Why are there so many closet gays, who are ashamed of themselves?

I agree with SMX. Sometimes, what someone considers an opinion is just the assumption of wrong facts.

 

[Forostar]

Here one for the ones who choose to think that homosexuality is a disease:

If it is a disease then why can’t a homosexual call into the work and say “Sorry boss, I can’t work come today, I’m still a homo”

 

[Deano]

I think I might be able to clear this up a bit, assuming that I am reading minds correctly.

To be totally homosexual (or heterosexual) is, like mentioned, something you are born with and is how you are wired, no choice there.

What I think may be being discussed here, and I can only speak for trends in America, is the tendency for people to experiment with same sex encounters in certain situations. There are many cases where in certain atmospheres (i.e. college) or in more liberal locations such as California or Florida, people that are wired heterosexuals will experiment with the same sex. In America, this is beginning to happen a lot with women in particular. People that engage in these acts (if classification is really necessary) would at most be considered bi-sexual. In a large percentage of these cases, I wouldn't even say that, as it is often a one time thing.

Here is where choices are made and what may be the perception, in that regard, of some people.

To be totally homosexual however, is not a choice. It is a genetic disposition that is within certain people at birth.

This, like race or gender, should not be persecuted or feared. You cannot help who you are and should live as equally as anyone else.

Unless you are a total asshole of course.

 

[Deleted member 7164]

Onhell, what is your definition of normal?

I don't know what Onhell has to say about this, but here's my opinion.

If you're in a group with 99 ravers on a techno party with a long hair and Maiden t-shirt, you aren't normal in that domain. So it's not a bad thing being abnormal. It basically equals to being different, but somewhat in regard to statistics, where the referent group has only a few possible properties. To put it in example, if you're a Japanese in the middle of multi-cultural city, you're different than others because there are a lot of properties for that group (white, black, indian, chinese, hispano, etc...). If you are Japanese in Reykjavik, you aren't normal for that group, because 99% of the population there are nordic.

Abnormal maybe a tough word, but i consider myself an educated person and i don't judge words just like that, without putting the whole sentence in the right context. So if i was in Kenya, and someone came to me and said, "mate, you aren't exactly normal type of guy in this environment", i'd say, "yeah, i ain't".

So if it's nature's way to create two sexes, tie them together so we can procreate the natural way and prolong the species, and if vast majority of the world is hetero, homo isn't normal.

I also don't agree with Jordan about homosexuality being a choice. I never had a choice, i was always attracted to girls and that's it. However, i also don't agree that it's someting you are born with. I think it appears somewhere around puberty.

P.S. i envy homos in one thing. I had so much trouble in my relationships because of man - woman differences. They're spared.

P.S.2

If it is a disease then why can’t a homosexual call into the work and say “Sorry boss, I can’t work come today, I’m still a homo”

Disease interferes with normal life flow. Homosexuality doesn't, therefore it's not a disease. It's a biochemical condition.

 

[Deano]

I'd just love him to quantify it instead of just saying "I don't agree with it".

Good statement Nat, quantification is what is needed here.

For a heterosexual, a statement like this is a given. I am heterosexual and don't agree with homosexuality either .... by definition. How you see and treat people of differing orientation is the issue here. I don't agree with homosexuality but have absolutely no problem with people that are. I think I have mentioned this before in this thread but I personally have 3 relatives that are homosexual, I love them no matter what and I am very upset that they have to live with persecution and unequal rights.

 

[Forostar]

I don't know what Onhell has to say about this, but here's my opinion.

If you're in a group with 99 ravers on a techno party with a long hair and Maiden t-shirt, you aren't normal in that domain. So it's not a bad thing being abnormal. It basically equals to being different, but somewhat in regard to statistics, where the referent group has only a few possible properties. To put it in example, if you're a Japanese in the middle of multi-cultural city, you're different than others because there are a lot of properties for that group (white, black, indian, chinese, hispano, etc...). If you are Japanese in Reykjavik, you aren't normal for that group, because 99% of the population there are nordic.

Abnormal maybe a tough word, but i consider myself an educated person and i don't judge words just like that, without putting the whole sentence in the right context. So if i was in Kenya, and someone came to me and said, "mate, you aren't exactly normal type of guy in this environment", i'd say, "yeah, i ain't".

So if it's nature's way to create two sexes, tie them together so we can procreate the natural way and prolong the species, and if vast majority of the world is hetero, homo isn't normal.

I also don't agree with Jordan about homosexuality being a choice. I never had a choice, i was always attracted to girls and that's it. However, i also don't agree that it's someting you are born with. I think it appears somewhere around puberty.

P.S. i envy homos in one thing. I had so much trouble in my relationships because of man - woman differences. They're spared.

P.S.2

Disease interferes with normal life flow. Homosexuality doesn't, therefore it's not a disease. It's a biochemical condition.

So to be part of a minority is not normal? Such toughts often lead to xenophobia.
To be born "with" something is something else as "to appear" from the outside or inside.

edit:

I don't agree with homosexuality

@D&N:  What do you imply with "I do not agree with it"? Please explain it better.

 

[Deano]

What I am trying to do here is quantify other people's statements.

"I do not agree with homosexuality."

Well, I guess it depends on how you define "agree" in the sentence. The definition I am using is, as a heterosexual man, I do not agree with lying down with another man. I am, by definition, heterosexual and would not "agree" with that. If I personally "agreed" with homosexuality, then that would make me homosexual or at least bi-sexual. I would find it "agreeable" to be with another man. See what I mean?

If you define "agree" as "tolerate" or "accept" it takes on a different context though. That would imply that I do not agree with other people being engaged with the same sex, which is not the case, nor do I believe it to be the case for some others here who have made the statement.

 

[Albie]

Onhell clearly defined what he meant by normal.