Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Jor-el

Homosexuality, sin, choice or biology?

2,645 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Ratte

You see Amazons in these days?

Let me explain my stance, this is what I said pages back

And one more thing which I found interesting. LGBT community often say we are not in middle ages. Like they are doing something new. Something revolutionary.

Truth is that they dont. They arent revolutionary by any means. In history we have had homosexual socities which collapsed. So nothing new here.

Same old story. Only this time we have science which might found out reason why is higher rate of suicidies among LGBT.

No, we don't see them these days. Thus you can't prove they were lesbians.

The revolutionary concept is acceptance.

By the bloody way, you have absolutely not proven that there have been homosexual societies that have collapsed. You keep siting the Amazons. Well, do a little more research. They're shrouded in mystery.

Saying that a society of female warriors were homosexuals only furthers the "butch" lesbian staereotype. Come off it.

I have told you the reason so many times. I don't see why you won't open your eyes! There is a difference between correlation and causation. Since you claim to like science and reason so much, you should be able to understand this mind numbingly simple concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Big Bad Voodoo

So you admit that LGBT played no part in the collapse of civilizations ?

Br Cornelius

I never claim they did.

Just before I go. My points is short are.

1.LGBT are nothing revolutionary

2.Im for homosexual marriges

3.LGBT must be educated about colon disease. As one we didnt mentioned like fissure, fistulas etc. Same as other heterosexuals.

4.We need more indenpendent studies from several different states about higher rate of suicides. Because there might be link between sexuality and psychological illness. Therefore we cant put children under the risk and do social experiments with them.

5. LGBT need to back off with idea changing traditional terminology. And in that cause we in our country organized Civil group which beat their arguments very well. So my advice for everyone who like traditional terminology is to found a group which will fight for cause in civil manners. You cant loose because you have your rights to be called father and mother. Not parrent. So by forming a group you are half way to the goal.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Bad Voodoo

No, we don't see them these days. Thus you can't prove they were lesbians.

The revolutionary concept is acceptance.

By the bloody way, you have absolutely not proven that there have been homosexual societies that have collapsed. You keep siting the Amazons. Well, do a little more research. They're shrouded in mystery.

Saying that a society of female warriors were homosexuals only furthers the "butch" lesbian staereotype. Come off it.

I have told you the reason so many times. I don't see why you won't open your eyes! There is a difference between correlation and causation. Since you claim to like science and reason so much, you should be able to understand this mind numbingly simple concept.

Okay. If you think that is bad example, I admit and I will use ancient Greece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ratte

Okay. If you think that is bad example, I admit and I will use ancient Greece.

Wrong. Again.

They weren't a homosexual society and war was what caused their fall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Bad Voodoo

Wrong. Again.

They weren't a homosexual society and war was what caused their fall.

yes they are. A.Greeks beside wife, mistress usualy have had male friend.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadowhive

Can you get of this friggin "gay" thing already?

I have zero problem if a "gay" couple adopts a child --- as long the couple consists of a male and a female.

TWO MEN are by definition not a good environment for a child.

And to claim that the fact that two men hump each other has a mystical effect on the situation is crazy, to say the least.

What the adults do and not do to each other in the bedroom should be COMPLETELY irrelevant for the child. There are plenty of sexless couples in the world, and nobody has a problem with that.... except, apparently, the self-declared gay rigths activists.

Sheesh.

Your arguement is just like those that have no problem with two gay people getting married... as long as theyre a man and woman.

Honestly you need to get a grip. People talk about Two adults in a committed relationship (two men or two women) haing children. But every time you come in and say something, it's not about the committedness or staility of the relationship, it's about them 'humping' which really isnt the point.

I aree, what people do in the bedroom is irrelevent when it comes to child rearing but you dont seem to actually realise that when you make the whole thing about men 'humpin'.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

yes they are. A.Greeks beside wife, mistress usualy have had male friend.

More broad brush stereotyping - how many people can you offend in one thread :tu:

Nice work.

Br Cornelius

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ratte

yes they are. A.Greeks beside wife, mistress usualy have had male friend.

That's called bisexual.

But, so the [expletive deleted] what?! All civilizations fall. It's only a matter of time.

You fail to prove your point. I'm not even sure what your point is anymore.

I'm trying to figure out your thought process, how you arrive at these conclusions, these statements you make and quite honestly; I'm baffled.

You want to say gay people are mentally ill because some of them commit suicide. You say it is entirely their fault because they are the ones who end the life.

Is it so hard for you to believe that not all of us are Vulcan-like in suppressing the things that get to us? Is it so hard for you to believe that being abused day in and day out regardless of ANY FACTOR other than the abuse itself can wear one down over time? This has nothing to do with sexuality. You could go back in time and say the same damn thing about women in the twenties and again in the seventies and now, that they're mentally unstable, they shouldn't be able to vote, or go back to the eighteen sixties and say the same thing about African Americans.

This has nothing to do with science, logic or fact, but everything to do with prejudice.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Bad Voodoo

More broad brush stereotyping - how many people can you offend in one thread :tu:

Nice work.

Br Cornelius

:w00t: :w00t: :w00t:

You think having a male friend is insult? Amazing. Arent you activist for sexual freedom'

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Bad Voodoo

I'm not even sure what your point is anymore.

Post 2627 clearly explains this mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

:w00t:

You think having a male friend is insult? Amazing. Arent you activist for sexual freedom'

Not in the way you suggested it - a male friend, nudge nudge wink wink.

Otherwise you would not have mentioned it to suggest that the Greeks commonly practiced homosexual acts.

Are you going to try to wriggle out of your implied meaning :w00t:

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Bad Voodoo

Not in the way you suggested it - a male friend, nudge nudge wink wink.

Otherwise you would not have mentioned it to suggest that the Greeks commonly practiced homosexual acts.

Are you going to try to wriggle out of your implied meaning :w00t:

Br Cornelius

No. You said I insulted Greeks with notation that they practice sex with same gender.

But since I will go now I dont wont to make you more :blush:

Just Im not so sure about your view on LGBT.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Br Cornelius

No. You said I insulted Greeks with notation that they practice sex with same gender.

But since I will go now I dont wont to make you more :blush:

Just Im not so sure about your view on LGBT.

You insulted the Greeks by repeating a commonly held stereotype. It is not nice to insult a homosexual, and neither is it nice to imply that a heterosexual practices forms of sex which they do not.

It would be like you saying I have sex with men, when I never have and probably never will. It is not the act which is offensive, it is the suggestion that I or the Greeks would habitually practice acts alien to our nature.

I rarely have to say this to people, but you truly strike me as a fairly unpleasant person. You constantly try to avoid the implications of your statements, but their true meaning and intent oozes out of your every pore.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Bad Voodoo

You insulted the Greeks by repeating a commonly held stereotype. It is not nice to insult a homosexual, and neither is it nice to imply that a heterosexual practices forms of sex which they do not.

It would be like you saying I have sex with men, when I never have and probably never will. It is not the act which is offensive, it is the suggestion that I or the Greeks would habitually practice acts alien to our nature.

I rarely have to say this to people, but you truly strike me as a fairly unpleasant person. You constantly try to avoid the implications of your statements, but their true meaning and intent oozes out of your every pore.

Br Cornelius

Then I aplogize. I thought that greeks practice all kind of sex is common knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

When it comes to religion concerns and fears aren't very justified. Nor are they logical or rational In religous terms all it comes down to is 'religious text says so, we'll do as it says'. In short the religious stance largely comes from blindly following without a bit of thought to the consequences of that blindness.

As such you can't use the religious stance to anything as 'logical or rational' because of that.

Yes that is important. However it's also important to see not just how but also why. For example, as has been bought up several times in this topic gay people are more likely to commit suicide than their straight peers. It is important not just to use that as a weapon to demonise gay people, but to look at why that is the case and try to do something about those causes. In this case knowing why is extremely important and your stance seems to be far less concerned with that the it is about the statistics.

The thing with that is that's you and you alone. You could put those things really into two categories. Ones which definitely harm other people (ie being physically abusive) and one's that harm when done ecessively (ie drinking). Unprotected sex doesn't really fit in either though. True people should use protection, but when you're in a loving relationship and trying for a child... well, unprotected sex is kind of a necessity isn't it?

Now in society we label those that definitely harm people as bad universally. Whereas the second one, all we can do is warn of the dangers of doing them excessively. The vast majority of people do take that in and (for instance) drink responsibly. In terms of sex, as long as both parties are consentuation (and again, responsilbe) then it shouldn't really be anyone's buisness.

Humans have freedom of choice. That goes both ways. People do both good and bad, sometimes unintentionally or without thinking. There is no way to remove the freedom of people to do things (thankfully).

Just because we are a part of society doesn't mean we don't (or shouldn't) have individual rights of our own. We are not like ants or bees where societies are largely made up of drones. We are a society of individuals and it's importat to take that in mind rather than stamping out any minority group until there's nothing left.

You and I are both human beings. We are both male, but despiite those (and probably more) similarities we are both different biological entities. The same way Mrs Walker and Sherri are different despite both being women. (Or any other pair of humans.) Using your logic because you and Mrs walker are different bilogical entites to sherri and her husband than your uions must be called something different In practice, that is not the case. Despite the differences between those involved, both are called the same thing: marriage.

I don't see why the union of two human beings should be called something else. I have seen many arguements to do so, but none seem to make much sense. They all come down to 'it's the way it's always been' which is, well a pretty poor excuse isn't it?

The problem with your arguement there is, while there's a lot of data about long term hetrosexual unions, there's not similar data available for gay people. As such the differences between the different unions may not be as many as you make out. Only one (creating life) is certain. However, hetrosexuals can enter marriage without the ability to have children but we don't say to them 'you can't have kids, therefore you can't get married'. We don't do that though do we? So it puzzles me how it's used as an acceptable arguement/excuse here.

Two basic points of disagreement.

You and I are the same biological entity ie a human male We may have considerable individual differnces in colour height hair eyesight etc but we have that universla commonality of being male.

We are thus both hugely different physically from ANY human female. So I do not accept your reasoning here although i understand what you are saying.

Secondly As to reproduction. Again ot is not about age or ability or individual preference. it is a genetic differnce of the species which divides man from woman utterly and totally.

Men do not have/give birth to children, while women do. So a union of a man and a woman is the only union capable /with the potential of creating a new biological human being from that union of those two parents. That makes such a union fundamentally different, whether or not this ability is used biologically, from one in which reproduction is physically impossible, because of the "same ness" of the couple. Ps religions can have as logicall and justified fears as any group can But they may have particualr values which other humans do not share and thus specific concerns and fears not held by others.

Finally humans do NOT have absolute freeodms of choice. Their societies always have, and always will, curtail individual freedoms where the costs become too high for the society to accpet. Today especaily in "the west" we have historically a very high degree of individual freedom which is unique in human history, but that is almost certain to decrease as society suffers from the consequences of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome

I will let that to administrators to judge. But objective ones. Also about this insulting post.

I love the way you act all hurt when people tell you your arguments make no sense (even when people go to the trouble of compiling detailed lists of how they don't make sense), but your whole argument, such as it is, rests on telling people that they don't understand the subtlety of your argument.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

Anyone who has frequent promiscuous sex is at increased risk for a number of diseases. Also, those engaging in either anal or oral sex have slightly increased risk of cancer and significantly increased risk of unusual infections.

So what? That we be aware of this and act accordingly is important, but the idea that God punishes us with diseases is abhorrent (and I think that is what an earlier message implied, rather to my disgust),

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

No .. I don't agree with that part. Labels are not that important to me, but I understand why people get defensive when their traditions are challenged. Unfortunately the gay community does not do a very good job of of bringing in the moderates on their side. Professional mild mannered people are not the face of the gay community. I am completely on the side of the gay community 100%. But their PR is horribly laking. And the honest self reflection of the community is non existent. Look at a few people in this very forum. With the exception of RATT, most are aggressive, condescending, and pit bulls for their views. I realize they have faced this themselves, but its counterproductive. Attacking religions are not going to bring the religious into the fold, and slinging inflammatory words like "bigot" every time someone isn't sure about how the feel about homosexuality and is truthful about it is in way being a bigot also.

I would like to see a gay leader have poise, logic, and solid charismatic leadership with an understanding that they are trying to change thousands of years of dogma. I would like to see this leader meet hard opposition with unemotional logic and understanding. I don't want to see her with a tung ring covered in tats or him with his speedos wiggling his ass in a parade. I want to be able to introduce my seven year old to him as a teacher and say son, this man knows about the struggle for equality and faceing adversity with grace. Listen to what he has to say because he will teach you about tolerance.

I want the gay community to succeed in all their goals, but I understand why L is uncomfortable giving kids to gay men to adopt, I understand his reluctance to let a minority take control of how we define things, I understand his desire for real data. He wants proof that giving a child to a gay couple ( especially men) is safe. I do to. Don't scream equality in our faces give us a peer reviewed study that can be trusted. I'm not Christian, I don't have theology in my way, but my passion is for kids. It's not 'normal' for two gay men to raise a child, gay men have a higher tendency for mental illness and depression, dosnt matter the reason, it's a not about the gay men, its about the child. I want proof these men have over come these hurtles before I subject a child to it. I realize biological children of people don't get the same scrutiny, but it is what it is.

Watch, even though I have continually posted on this thread in favor of gay rights, somone might call me a bigot. I'm like MR. Walker who I respect very much. I'm unswayed by popular opinion, or political correctness, or social pressures. Show me the data. All my pro gay opinions are based on cold hard facts. I consider myself a mild mannered libertarian with conservative leanings. Like I said I want the gay community to succeed, but they should reel in the whining, mudslinging, and flamboyance. Mild mannered intelligence people are not interested in drama.

This is precisely what the gay community has done, to suggest that the gay community has no leadership because of a tattoo or a earring reveals more about your limits then anything else. I am proud of what the gay community has accomplished, they have shown the world a lot about what it means to be tolerant and perhaps you can tell your son that what matters is the heart of a man, that he stands for what is fair, that he stands for equality are the things that are important not the clothes that he wears.

Prop 8 has been one hell of a fight and those that fought for gay rights have literally given a voice to a community that was shunned and treated as less then they are changing the world one mind at a time.

http://www.huffingto..._n_2950615.html

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

4.We need more indenpendent studies from several different states about higher rate of suicides. Because there might be link between sexuality and psychological illness. Therefore we cant put children under the risk and do social experiments with them.

There might be, but I sincerely doubt it, especially since we have rather compelling evidence that there is a link between being bullied, discriminated against, reviled, etc, and propensity for suicide. There is no evidence that compellingly shows that children are 'under risk' with gay parents, so your 'social experiment' stuff is already underway and is way overwrought. There is some evidence that children raised in lesbian households do the best, we should perhaps stop this social experiment allowing children to be raised by their biological fathers as they clearly may be also under risk, under your reasoning.

5. LGBT need to back off with idea changing traditional terminology.

No, they don't, not with terms that have already undergone several revisions such as 'marriage'. Non-LGBT people who object to it need to get used to the idea that terms change over time and that language is not monolithic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

This topic has run it's course. It is generating hostility and bickering. It's time to put it to bed.

Closed

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.