Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Still Waters

Stephen Fry: "only humans are homophobic"

152 posts in this topic

I hate it when a straight guy acts and thinks in the same way.. Ohh look another part of human nature at it's most greedy and idiot stage...Animals the lot of em lol

Gay or straight, men are pigs.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen Fry has denounced critics of same sex marriages claiming there are 260 animal species that have gay tendencies but only humans are homophobic.

The author, actor and presenter also accused the Church of England of caving in to “screeching” extremists who he claims have spread lies about gay marriage.

Fry, who is gay, spoke out in a new video, for the Out4Marriage campaign, which has persuaded a string of celebrities and politicians to back its calls for reform.

During a three minute monologue, he says gay people “used to be regarded as villains because we were so bohemian and outrageous and we eschewed family values, but we’re not.

"We’re human beings like everybody else and we believe first and foremost in love.

http://www.telegraph...homophobic.html

So is this an attempt to reduce us down to being mere animals by Mr Fry?

Humans have a spiritual dimension which animals dont and thats why people are against homosexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, no. In Latin, Homo means "man, human, self", sure.

In science, however, Homo means "same" and hetero means "different", i.e. homogeneous and heterogeneous, homosexual, heterosexual.

There is no such thing as "natural human behavior", as the phrase is used today, to edify. Unless you were born before thousands of years before the advent of civilization, you mean "human cultural behavior". Big distinction.

I missed your last comment, last time round This is not quite true. Some behaviours are genetic such as our sexual orientation/behaviour. Some are evolved biological responses such as the fight or flight mechanism.

Certainly some behaviours are cultural or more specifically they arise from our human self aware sapient state. Ie we know cause and effect, we undertaand the nature of time; and so we do things like hide a crime, put off immediate gratification for greater later gratification.

And we create societal laws and rules around all three of these responses and possibly others. Eg a human can't just follow a biological impulse as other animals do, which causes problems for others, and say, "My biology made me do it" Or "she made me angry so i killed her. "

We cant just say our genes made us do it either, if it harms others. And we cant justify anti social behaviour which we chose, if it harms others.

So sex is a natural human behaviour, as is eating and breathing. It is biologically driven. The forms of sex we undertake as humans may be driven by our genes, our biology, or our aquired tastes and cultural norms. Not all forms of sex are eqaully productive, safe, or equal in outcomes.

That is true in biological terms, genetic terms and cultural terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've missed the whiole point of the original comment. The natural part was addressed at homophobic people that say 'homosexuality is unnatural'. Hece, that was what the comment was aimed at.

Personally I find nature a rather odd thng to argue. Homophobic people certain shouldn't use 'it's unnatarural' as a valid arguement since our lives are filled with things that are unnatural. It's funny how the people that say 'it's unatural' are more than willing to benefit from or use other things that are unnatural if it suits them.

As others have said the pre-fix 'homo' has two different meanings. That shouldn't really come as a surprise, many words have different meanings depending on the situation in which they're used (one of the reasons that makes English a tricky language to learn). Also, since there have been many languages in the world, it's hardly surprising that the same word can have completely different meanings in other languages.

Whether the term grates on you personally makes no difference to the actual meaning of the word.

The oddest thing about you is that you use pretty much the same logic as a homophobic person does and come up with the opposite conclusion. ie a homophobic sees a gay person as different and thus reason to hate them, you see a gay person as difference and thus reason to pity/love them. Is that better? Yes and no. Yes because, well love is better than hate, but no because (all things being equal) you see homosexuality with a degree of negativity. Don't believe me? Look at the comparison you constantly make to infertility. You constantly compare homosexuality to something which is negative, why? And how is that much better than homophobic that compare homosexualty to pedophilia?

I absolutely see homosexuality as a negative thing. But i dont see it reflecting on the nature of the person who is, by no choice of their own, a homosexual. Thats not logical i see it as a form of genetic disability and something which limits and restricts humans affected by it. That is because, viewed logically, rationally, and dispassionately, it is.

One only has to look at the negative statistics in every area of homosexual life, compared to a similar cohort of heterosexuals. Much of this data comes from homosexual health and other sites. Eg Homosexuals often find it almost impossible to find a hiomosexual doctor or health professional with a personal understanding of the issues they face That makes them both more reluctant to seek help and less likely to be given the best and most helpful advice. This affects health outcomes.

Homosexuals have a higher rate of depression and suicide because of the social isolation they face especially in rural communities They have higher rates of cancer of various types, some cause by the forms of sexual activity forced upon them, and inpart because of the lifestyles forced on them by being a very small minority.

I compare it to infertility because; first genetically it is very similar and creates similar issues, and secondly to illustrate why it should not be used to fear hate discriminate etc against a person forced by the genes to be homosexual We dont fel this way about peole whose genes make them infertile. Why on earth should we feel this way about people whose genes give them an attraction to the same sex.

Homosexuality, without any prejudice or discrimination, is still a dangerous and limiting condition. First because of all the physical and social disadvantages which come form being part of a very small minority group, and in part the real health problems especially for men, which come from same sex, because of huma biology.

It distresses me that, understandably, many people exist in a state of denial about the efects of homosexuality on themselves and other homosexuals. To adress a problem one has to be honest and open abouthe nature of the problem and firt s to admit tha there is a problem. Homosexuals need not just a lot of exra love but a lot of extra care and support. Even then they cannot live a life equal to hetero sexuals in many respects, just as an infertile person can't live a life equal to a fertile one, and enjoy the same outcomes.

We all learn to deal with our nature, and it may even make us stronger and more resilient if we face hard times and difficulties. That doesnt make it a good thing to have to face those issues. It destroys, or at least damages in many ways, as many as it toughens up.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double post

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely see homosexuality as a negative thing.

Then congratulations, as I've long suspected you're just like those homophobc people, despite claims to the contary.

As I've stated many times, most of the other issues you state can be resolved by improving social conditions. Things are better than they were in the 90's and that will continue to happen. However, you're trying to use those the fact those negative outcomes exist as an excuse to further negativity.

It distresses me that, understandably, many people exist in a state of denial about the efects of homosexuality on themselves and other homosexuals. To adress a problem one has to be honest and open abouthe nature of the problem and firt s to admit tha there is a problem.

Your language 'distresses' me, as it's the sort of language 'gay cure' people use. First admit homosexuality is a problem, then seek treatment.

We all learn to deal with our nature, and it may even make us stronger and more resilient if we face hard times and difficulties. That doesnt make it a good thing to have to face those issues. It destroys, or at least damages in many ways, as many as it toughens up.

Your attitude is rather foolish. We all face hard times and difficulties. Every single person does. There is no way around it. Those issues have to be faced, not ignored or dismissed. Yes, some people do get damaged by those difficulties, but that's the same as pretty much anything. For instance, you can get damaged by crossing the street, that doesn't mean we should stop crossing the street because of that possibility.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Walker can apparently argue in favor of rape but not homosexuality... :blink:

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The world really is a strange place

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then congratulations, as I've long suspected you're just like those homophobc people, despite claims to the contary.

As I've stated many times, most of the other issues you state can be resolved by improving social conditions. Things are better than they were in the 90's and that will continue to happen. However, you're trying to use those the fact those negative outcomes exist as an excuse to further negativity.

Your language 'distresses' me, as it's the sort of language 'gay cure' people use. First admit homosexuality is a problem, then seek treatment.

Your attitude is rather foolish. We all face hard times and difficulties. Every single person does. There is no way around it. Those issues have to be faced, not ignored or dismissed. Yes, some people do get damaged by those difficulties, but that's the same as pretty much anything. For instance, you can get damaged by crossing the street, that doesn't mean we should stop crossing the street because of that possibility.

Im not homophobic. You lhave to take my word for it but i love all people equally and i dont fear or feel squeamish about homosexual peole or their behaviour. Sex per se doesn't bother me.

Homsexaulity creates some very negative outcomes in humans that have NOTHING to do with prejudice or discrimination and everything to do withe nature of the condition It would be logicllyy wrong of me to accept something whaich does harn to a human being.

That relates to your last point. Sure life is hard. That doesn't mean we should desire the hardness and harshness of life, we should work to ameliorate it. We do this with every others aspect of humanlife. We don't, for example, say "infertility is your lot. It is a natural part of humanity. You were born like it, so adapt and live with it. Make the most of it and seek the advantages within it." . No we do something about it wherever we can.There is nothing inherently good about being forced to live a life of disadvantage, risk, and less than optimal outcomes, even if you want to make a virtue of it.

If a gay person wanted to become a straight person and it was scientifally possible i'd say go for it but it would be wrong to expect a person comfortable with their sexual identity to chance it You dont have any more right than i do to compell another person to adopt a sexual identity which they do not want.

Doing something aout the condition which only affects the as yet unborn is a difernt issue We kill millions of unborn each year. Altering many apsects of their genetic make up to improve outcomes is not inherently a bad idea.

Edited by Mr Walker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is this an attempt to reduce us down to being mere animals by Mr Fry?

Humans have a spiritual dimension which animals dont and thats why people are against homosexuality.

That's just egocentrism.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed your last comment, last time round This is not quite true. Some behaviours are genetic such as our sexual orientation/behaviour. Some are evolved biological responses such as the fight or flight mechanism.

Certainly some behaviours are cultural or more specifically they arise from our human self aware sapient state. Ie we know cause and effect, we undertaand the nature of time; and so we do things like hide a crime, put off immediate gratification for greater later gratification.

And we create societal laws and rules around all three of these responses and possibly others. Eg a human can't just follow a biological impulse as other animals do, which causes problems for others, and say, "My biology made me do it" Or "she made me angry so i killed her. "

We cant just say our genes made us do it either, if it harms others. And we cant justify anti social behaviour which we chose, if it harms others.

So sex is a natural human behaviour, as is eating and breathing. It is biologically driven. The forms of sex we undertake as humans may be driven by our genes, our biology, or our aquired tastes and cultural norms. Not all forms of sex are eqaully productive, safe, or equal in outcomes.

That is true in biological terms, genetic terms and cultural terms.

Many animals other than humans understand cause and effect and can put off imidiate gratification for greater later gratification.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many animals other than humans understand cause and effect and can put off imidiate gratification for greater later gratification.

That is untrue at anythng like a human level Some animals can use primitive tools like twigs or rocks which suggests some learned understandings. It has usually been found that one individual dscovered this skill and passed it on to others who imitated that individual. it does not mean they have any conceptual understanding of what they are doing. One individual primate apart from humanss has been observed ot do something along these lines (storing up rocks to throw at other apes later on) But animals do not have the symbolic or other consceptual abilities to understand things like the passage of time or even the difference betwen self and others. This attribute only appears in humans between the ages of 2 an d 4 and only when language and thought improves to the point which separates us from animals.

Without language, for example, it is impossible to develop the sophistication of thought and symbolic conceptualisation to think like a human. If an animal could understand cause and effect in the way a human does, it could/should, be charged with murder when it knowingly kills another animal of its own species.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not homophobic. You lhave to take my word for it but i love all people equally and i dont fear or feel squeamish about homosexual peole or their behaviour. Sex per se doesn't bother me.

You make that claim, but your attitude tells a different story. You think homosexuality is a disadvantage, like homophobic people. You thin homosexuality should be gotten rid of just like homophobic people. You use any increased negativity against gay people against them, just like homophobic people. So sorry, I'm done with taking your word that you're not with an attitude such as that.

Homsexaulity creates some very negative outcomes in humans that have NOTHING to do with prejudice or discrimination and everything to do withe nature of the condition It would be logicllyy wrong of me to accept something whaich does harn to a human being.

Again, many problems can be helped by social conditions improving. Let's take sex education. At school, we had a morning of sex education one day. We were taught about the importance of condoms and all the usual stuff, but there was not one word about gay sex or how to do that safely. Taat's just one example. There are of course others (depending on which outcomes you mean). The shocking thing I find about you though, is that some of those negative outcomes can so easily be worked back to prejudice or discrimination but because they're not directly the cause, you shrug them off as reasons.

That relates to your last point. Sure life is hard. That doesn't mean we should desire the hardness and harshness of life, we should work to ameliorate it. We do this with every others aspect of humanlife. We don't, for example, say "infertility is your lot. It is a natural part of humanity. You were born like it, so adapt and live with it. Make the most of it and seek the advantages within it." . No we do something about it wherever we can.There is nothing inherently good about being forced to live a life of disadvantage, risk, and less than optimal outcomes, even if you want to make a virtue of it.

In some ways you're right, in others, you're not. The big problem I have with your attitude here is this. Instead of trying to improve things, to make things less hard or harsh for gay people as a whole, you'd prefer to take the easier path. This path involves not making things easier for them, but making things harder for them and encouraging them to 'change' to live a 'better' life.

That's what I find most disturbing about you,the ease in which you do that.

This also shows the key problem here with your constant comparison to infertility. It's a bad comparison simply because ask an infertile person. Would they rather be fertile? Chances are the answer you recieve would not only be yes, but they'd be willing to submit to treatment to become fertile (or acctively seek it out). Now if you ask a gay person if they'd rather be straight? The opppsite wuld be the case. Not only would most say they wouldn't want to be straight, but they'd be against anything labelled as a 'cure' and not just not want to submit to it, but find it deeply ffensive and want it stopped.

So there's a big difference there. If you want to compare homosexuality with something, at least attempt to do it with something where people have the same attitude.

If a gay person wanted to become a straight person and it was scientifally possible i'd say go for it but it would be wrong to expect a person comfortable with their sexual identity to chance it You dont have any more right than i do to compell another person to adopt a sexual identity which they do not want.

The problem with that is that a lot of people right now are being compelled to do that. By family, by religion. They are being compelled to change their sexuality.That's a problem and I'm not going to entertain it as a possible solution simply because there are systems in place now which take advantage of and essentially torture young, vulnerable people. These people don't have a choice, not really and they're being forced into it. The situation you propose would be just as readily abused by the same exact people.

Doing something aout the condition which only affects the as yet unborn is a difernt issue We kill millions of unborn each year. Altering many apsects of their genetic make up to improve outcomes is not inherently a bad idea.

We've been down this path before.I'm against such alteration on this issue because it's unethical, because it sends out a negative message and (and I've tried to get this through to you plenty of times now) it would increase discriminatin, prejudice and every social problem gay people face.

Edited by shadowhive
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make that claim, but your attitude tells a different story. You think homosexuality is a disadvantage, like homophobic people. You thin homosexuality should be gotten rid of just like homophobic people. You use any increased negativity against gay people against them, just like homophobic people. So sorry, I'm done with taking your word that you're not with an attitude such as that.

Again, many problems can be helped by social conditions improving. Let's take sex education. At school, we had a morning of sex education one day. We were taught about the importance of condoms and all the usual stuff, but there was not one word about gay sex or how to do that safely. Taat's just one example. There are of course others (depending on which outcomes you mean). The shocking thing I find about you though, is that some of those negative outcomes can so easily be worked back to prejudice or discrimination but because they're not directly the cause, you shrug them off as reasons.

In some ways you're right, in others, you're not. The big problem I have with your attitude here is this. Instead of trying to improve things, to make things less hard or harsh for gay people as a whole, you'd prefer to take the easier path. This path involves not making things easier for them, but making things harder for them and encouraging them to 'change' to live a 'better' life.

That's what I find most disturbing about you,the ease in which you do that.

This also shows the key problem here with your constant comparison to infertility. It's a bad comparison simply because ask an infertile person. Would they rather be fertile? Chances are the answer you recieve would not only be yes, but they'd be willing to submit to treatment to become fertile (or acctively seek it out). Now if you ask a gay person if they'd rather be straight? The opppsite wuld be the case. Not only would most say they wouldn't want to be straight, but they'd be against anything labelled as a 'cure' and not just not want to submit to it, but find it deeply ffensive and want it stopped.

So there's a big difference there. If you want to compare homosexuality with something, at least attempt to do it with something where people have the same attitude.

The problem with that is that a lot of people right now are being compelled to do that. By family, by religion. They are being compelled to change their sexuality.That's a problem and I'm not going to entertain it as a possible solution simply because there are systems in place now which take advantage of and essentially torture young, vulnerable people. These people don't have a choice, not really and they're being forced into it. The situation you propose would be just as readily abused by the same exact people.

We've been down this path before.I'm against such alteration on this issue because it's unethical, because it sends out a negative message and (and I've tried to get this through to you plenty of times now) it would increase discriminatin, prejudice and every social problem gay people face.

So how would you feel a about a gay person or persons who actually wanted to be made straight? Who are desparately sad /unhappy that they were born gay? (if that was possible)You shouldnt make assumptions based on your own beliefs, perceptions and choices, and apply them to everyone

Thats what you accuse me of doing. When one truly cares about others, one wants what is best for them.

But also one has to accept that not everyone seeks the best or optimal outcomes. That is every hiuman beings right. But to asume that all gay people are happy being gay and would not rather have been born straight is ingenous.

When a condition is bad enough to drive people into depression and to suicide then that conditionis not healthy. And i dont accept that the best thing to do is to try and make people happy with the way they are if we can change the way they are.

Now you cant do that for homosexuall people, because at the moment we cant manipulate such genetic conditions. But in the future?

You assume that gays are only depressed or suffering because of social conditions like prejudice and discrimination ,but thats rubbish. A lot of the causes are inherent in the minority /number of gay people in any community and the lifestyles that forces on people Look at all the statistical data on relationships and social behaviours of gays compared with straight people( provided by gay help lines, health services and similar groups) and you may comprehend what i am talking about. being les than 5 out of a hundred people in commuinty society or age cohort effects things like stability of relationships, age differnces in realtionships available choice of partners etc. Look at the cancer rates and the rates of stds Those rates arent caused by prejudice or discrimination they are a direct result of the lifestyles forced on people who are gay

I agree absolutely tha t humans are forced by genetics into their sexual orientation So what do you do if you can give people a choice about their orientaion. It snt that liberating them? Just like giving people a choice about their fertility. it sounds as if you have made your choice and wish to impose it on everyone

Where and when i live it would be a tragedy to be born gay. I will do all i can to change that, (and when i teach sex ed I do teach all forms of sexuality and how to practice them safely. I'd be remiss in my duty of care if i did not. In fact it is mandated in the courses but i would do it anyway ) even though i am not aware of a child being gay in the group i might be teaching. One never knows so one doesnt take any chances.

That might include talking about issues like the difficulty of finding partners close to your own age group and how to deal with age differnces in personal and sexual relationships in a marriage It would talk about how to communicate with parents and others about your sexual orientation, and when/where it is safe to disclose. Just as for others it would do so about contraceptive use and the right to have an abortion without a parents knowledge or consent. it might talk about the importance of finding health professionals who are knowledgable and empathetic to gay people. It would certainly point out the particular health risks of gay sex and the best practices to minimise them, but basically it would talk about humanity, human needs, and how we are humans first, and sexual beings second.

Our sexuality is only a small if significant part of who we are and it should never dominate who we are or lead us into dangerous choices, whether we are gay or straight, young or old. One night stands and brief relationships are more common in gay men, but they occur in all relationships. There are benefits, dangers, and consequences in a lifestyle made up of numerous individual sexual encounters compared with monogamy or even serial monogamy

To be brutally honest, if i had a child who was going to be born homosexual, and i could change that, i would do so in a heartbeat for the same sort of medical reasons I'd get them circumcised if they were a boy and have them vaccinated as infants. Why i would not drink or smoke before during or after a pregnancy as either the father or the mother and why id make sure we weeboth as healthy and fit as possible. Because i am their parent and i have the duty and resposnibilty to do eveything i can for them to give them the best chance in life.

Because i cant change it. Id love them, care for them, protect them, make them resilient, always give them a home and shelter And welcome anyone they loved, and who loved them, into our family.

But if i could change it ? In an instant.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How come only 260 spieces have homosexual tendencies? How is that possible? How can one spieces have those tendencies and the other don't??

That's confusing. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where and when i live it would be a tragedy to be born gay. I will do all i can to change that

Teaching about safe sex is always important... I plan to teach my kids all I can about safe sex and the importance of acceptance.( showing that is is wrong to discriminate and show any predjuice ) .I know it is weird when you go to teach morals to kids lol But it does work for some

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how would you feel a about a gay person or persons who actually wanted to be made straight? Who are desparately sad /unhappy that they were born gay? (if that was possible)You shouldnt make assumptions based on your own beliefs, perceptions and choices, and apply them to everyone

I'd ask an important question: why? Just giving them the 'teatment' without asking why they'd want it is a bad idea. The reason why can be tackled, without resorting to the 'quick fix' of a 'cure'.

Thats what you accuse me of doing. When one truly cares about others, one wants what is best for them.

That's not what you want. You want everyone to be the same.

But also one has to accept that not everyone seeks the best or optimal outcomes. That is every hiuman beings right. But to asume that all gay people are happy being gay and would not rather have been born straight is ingenous.

Why do you assume most gay people are unhappy with being gay?

When a condition is bad enough to drive people into depression and to suicide then that conditionis not healthy. And i dont accept that the best thing to do is to try and make people happy with the way they are if we can change the way they are.

Again, you ignoe the important thing: WHY. Why do gay people get depressed or suicidal? Because of prejudice. Because of discrimination. Because of family of friends disowning them.

That's not the best thing to do, not by a long shot.

Now you cant do that for homosexuall people, because at the moment we cant manipulate such genetic conditions. But in the future?

Hopefully there'll be ethics laws in place to stop pelople like you using such teatments to further your goals.

You assume that gays are only depressed or suffering because of social conditions like prejudice and discrimination ,but thats rubbish. A lot of the causes are inherent in the minority /number of gay people in any community and the lifestyles that forces on people Look at all the statistical data on relationships and social behaviours of gays compared with straight people( provided by gay help lines, health services and similar groups) and you may comprehend what i am talking about. being les than 5 out of a hundred people in commuinty society or age cohort effects things like stability of relationships, age differnces in realtionships available choice of partners etc. Look at the cancer rates and the rates of stds Those rates arent caused by prejudice or discrimination they are a direct result of the lifestyles forced on people who are gay

The problem with your logic is there are many groups that are minorities. Should we get rid of left handed people? Should we force non-white people out of majoity white communities? What about atheists? Or people with ginger hair? Just because issues effect minority groups just becaause they're a minority, does not instantly grant you the right to use that to try and get rid of said minorty.

If there's only 5 in 100 of any of those groups in a community does it make it acceptable to try and cure society of those people? You should never try and use any minorities status as a minority against them.

I agree absolutely tha t humans are forced by genetics into their sexual orientation So what do you do if you can give people a choice about their orientaion. It snt that liberating them? Just like giving people a choice about their fertility. it sounds as if you have made your choice and wish to impose it on everyone

In a seperate post I had a similar discusson with Dr D. You may have seen it. I was against such a thing on principle. I said to him that I'd never submit my unborn child to such teatment. I'd not even want to know their orientation before birth. What did I get from him? Pressure to change my mind and it was relentless. Now that was just a hypothetical situation. I can easily see the same thing happening in a real one. Oh it would be a choice, but you'd be looked down upon and pressured if you didn't make it.

You see it as liberation, but that's certainly not how I'd see it and that's certainly not what would happen in the real world.

Where and when i live it would be a tragedy to be born gay. I will do all i can to change that, (and when i teach sex ed I do teach all forms of sexuality and how to practice them safely. I'd be remiss in my duty of care if i did not. In fact it is mandated in the courses but i would do it anyway ) even though i am not aware of a child being gay in the group i might be teaching. One never knows so one doesnt take any chances.

You know what you should do? If it really is a 'tragedy' to be born gay there, you should try to find out how to make it not so. That way you benefit any gay people in the community, any gay children in youur care and any futue gay people that may be born (or ones that move into you community). Not only that, but if you set an exampe others wll follow it, benefitting gay people outside of the community to.

But no, it's a tragedy to be born gay and that tragedy must be maintained for the sake of you position.

That might include talking about issues like the difficulty of finding partners close to your own age group and how to deal with age differnces in personal and sexual relationships in a marriage It would talk about how to communicate with parents and others about your sexual orientation, and when/where it is safe to disclose. Just as for others it would do so about contraceptive use and the right to have an abortion without a parents knowledge or consent. it might talk about the importance of finding health professionals who are knowledgable and empathetic to gay people. It would certainly point out the particular health risks of gay sex and the best practices to minimise them, but basically it would talk about humanity, human needs, and how we are humans first, and sexual beings second.

Our sexuality is only a small if significant part of who we are and it should never dominate who we are or lead us into dangerous choices, whether we are gay or straight, young or old. One night stands and brief relationships are more common in gay men, but they occur in all relationships. There are benefits, dangers, and consequences in a lifestyle made up of numerous individual sexual encounters compared with monogamy or even serial monogamy

Those are the sorts of things that should be in all sex education. I wsh our one had been so comprehensive.

You're right, our sexuality is a significant part of who we are. It's something that shouldn't be discarded as carelessly as you seem to want. One night stands and brief relationships occur in all areas.That's jsut how some people are. As long as the relationships are consentual I don't see any problems with that. (However, it's impotant to note that sometimes brief relationships aren't exactly brief because both parties wish it.) Of course there's consequences to doing that, but as long as they'e ware and everything's consentual, then there's nothing wong with it. It's also important to note that monogamy can be a good thing, but it's not right for everyone. Some people don't like the restaints of monogamy and, again, there's nothing wrong with that.

To be brutally honest, if i had a child who was going to be born homosexual, and i could change that, i would do so in a heartbeat for the same sort of medical reasons I'd get them circumcised if they were a boy and have them vaccinated as infants. Why i would not drink or smoke before during or after a pregnancy as either the father or the mother and why id make sure we weeboth as healthy and fit as possible. Because i am their parent and i have the duty and resposnibilty to do eveything i can for them to give them the best chance in life.

Because i cant change it. Id love them, care for them, protect them, make them resilient, always give them a home and shelter And welcome anyone they loved, and who loved them, into our family.

But if i could change it ? In an instant.

That troubles me, how willing you are to change your child. That's why chldren right now are suffering: because parents want to make them change and will go to any lengths to do so.

Those parents think they're doing what's best for their child but they're not. I'm going to be honest here: I think any parent that does that should have their children taken from their care, just as surely as any parent that abuses their child has it taken from them now. They're not fit to be parents and shouldn't be around children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is untrue at anythng like a human level Some animals can use primitive tools like twigs or rocks which suggests some learned understandings. It has usually been found that one individual dscovered this skill and passed it on to others who imitated that individual. it does not mean they have any conceptual understanding of what they are doing. One individual primate apart from humanss has been observed ot do something along these lines (storing up rocks to throw at other apes later on) But animals do not have the symbolic or other consceptual abilities to understand things like the passage of time or even the difference betwen self and others. This attribute only appears in humans between the ages of 2 an d 4 and only when language and thought improves to the point which separates us from animals.

Without language, for example, it is impossible to develop the sophistication of thought and symbolic conceptualisation to think like a human. If an animal could understand cause and effect in the way a human does, it could/should, be charged with murder when it knowingly kills another animal of its own species.

We do not know enough about what animals think to say that it is no where near humans. That is just wishful thinking on your part. Also, I wasn't talking about tool use, though that is a sign that an animal has a great capacity to learn. Humans also learn by mimicking the behavior of others, so I am not sure where you are going with that. Also as far as language goes, we know that some species have very complex communication skills, some arguably more complex than ours with regional dialects. As far as crime and the animal community, it would not be our place to decide what does and does not constitute a crime in their societies and some species do have punishment for actions that go against the collective, like banishment, physical punishment, and even death. No matter how much you want to believe you are different, it doesn't make it true.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe only humans are ignorant and arrogant enough to be homophobic.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on a minute, the word 'homophobic' is a made up word & is meaningless in the context of the animal kingdom. It's a bit like saying 'there arn't any facists or communists in the animal knigdom. Besides, 'phobic' pertains to 'an allergy or irrational fear' of something & in this context i don't think there are people with an allergy or irrational fear of homosexuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on a minute, the word 'homophobic' is a made up word & is meaningless in the context of the animal kingdom. It's a bit like saying 'there arn't any facists or communists in the animal knigdom. Besides, 'phobic' pertains to 'an allergy or irrational fear' of something & in this context i don't think there are people with an allergy or irrational fear of homosexuals.

"God said so" is pretty irrational.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not homophobic, but there are a lot of things that "only humans" are. Pretty poor and invalid reasoning for just about anything of this nature in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"God said so" is pretty irrational.

Only to those who don't believe in Him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only to those who don't believe in Him.

Well duh ! That's stating the obvious :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on a minute, the word 'homophobic' is a made up word & is meaningless in the context of the animal kingdom. It's a bit like saying 'there arn't any facists or communists in the animal knigdom. Besides, 'phobic' pertains to 'an allergy or irrational fear' of something & in this context i don't think there are people with an allergy or irrational fear of homosexuals.

Well substitute homophobic for racist or 'discriminatory mindset' or something similar. From what I know, animals don't discriminate against each other on the basis of their sexuality, but then again...do animals really recognize or even comprehend sexuality? Heaven knows...

As for the ongoing debate regarding modifying people's sexuality --- well I'd say if a consenting adult choose to undergo genetic modification or some other sugery/therapy to change their orientation, I'd let them have their way. However, the procedure must not take place without the explicit consent of the said person as an adult.

It's also better to attack the root cause. Is homosexuality the problem or homophobia? Sexual repression, prejudice in society etc often times result not only in depression but also into other areas of negative thoughts leading to crimes, suicide etc. Hypothetically speaking, if we could stamp homophobia from society completely, will homosexuality still hamper anyone's life or the moral fabric of the society?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.