Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

[Ambassadar]

Now that I start thinking about it I know a few other straight guys that have been hit on by gay guys. I had a college roommate who had been hit on multiple times. I also had a neighbor that had some gay man hit on him when he was about 15...

[BlueTear]

What would the human race be like if marriage had never been invented?

It's worth noting that marriage has not always been an affair between a single man and a single women. Nor has it, throughout the ages, been an arraignment with fidelity in particularly high regard. So feel free to explain where you're going and what you really mean by "marriage".

[assassin_696]

What makes you think marriage itself is natural?

 

 

 

What would the human race be like if marriage had never been invented?

 

 

 

I don't think that was the point, obviously marriage is a beneficial kind of union, it's just it's not something that occurs in nature, life-partners yes, but formal rituals and ceremonies no.

 

 

 

On a side note, i've never been hit on by a gay guy, unless that gay who kept... :P

[warri0r45]

What makes you think marriage itself is natural?

 

 

 

What would the human race be like if marriage had never been invented?

 

 

 

It would be different to you or me. But thinking about it, you or me in a different word would think these different practices to be normal. The point I was making was not whether it's a correct concept; it was that it's just a concept whose normailty is solely dependant on the fact it's familiar and not alien. If homosexual unions were accepted and thier normal occurance recognised throughout the ages, no one would be debating an issue such as the acceptability of homosexual unions.

 

 

 

It's all pretty self-evident and dosen't really require me to tell you this, but it's worth thinking about. As I said, it's an interesting thought that what you know is in fact learned and not necessarily true, right or wrong.

[Ambassadar]

On a side note, i've never been hit on by a gay guy

 

Lucky...

 

unless that gay who kept...

 

NEVERMIND!! :P

 

hehe

 

 

 

It's worth noting that marriage has not always been an affair between a single man and a single women.

 

True.

 

Nor has it, throughout the ages, been an arraignment with fidelity in particularly high regard.

 

Debatable. It all depends on which culture you are talking about.

 

So feel free to explain where you're going and what you really mean by "marriage".

 

 

If you want my definition of marriage we need to keep it relatively vague since it can vary a little between cultures. When looking at human history marriage has always involved members of the opposite sex pledging their lives together. The number of females can vary but they are always marrying the man and not his other wives as well.

 

 

 

Warrior was making the point that marriage is not natural. My counter was what would human history have looked like if marriage had never occurred?

 

 

 

I want to hear some people come up with some answers before I give any answer. What do you think Bluetear?

[Ambassadar]

Warrior posted while I was typing up my above response so here is my response to his last post.

 

 

But thinking about it, you or me in a different world would think these different practices to be normal.

 

Would we even be alive if these different practices were normal?

 

 

If homosexual unions were accepted and thier normal occurance recognised throughout the ages, no one would be debating an issue such as the acceptability of homosexual unions.

 

Agreed. However, if murdering someone for looking at your ear was a normal occurance recognized throughout the ages then no one would debate that as an issue either... Would that make it right though?

 

 

As I said, it's an interesting thought that what you know is in fact learned and not necessarily true, right or wrong.

 

But that is why we have minds so we can use our real world experiences to filter through what we learn to constantly analyze the knowledge we have learned to determine it's validity. Sure it's not the perfect solution but it is pretty darn effective when rigorously applied.

[BlueTear]

If you want my definition of marriage we need to keep it relatively vague since it can vary a little between cultures. When looking at human history marriage has always involved members of the opposite sex pledging their lives together. The number of females can vary but they are always marrying the man and not his other wives as well.

Actually, that also depends on culture and time. IIRC Tibet had some sort of multiple-husbands-and-a-single-wife going for a bit.

 

 

 

The point is that in order to encompass all of these unions you really do have to keep the definition of marriage - more than a bit IMHO - vague. An artifical institution that formalizes a bond between individuals. The exact nature of this bond is - unless you start involving various religious texts, and even then it gets a bit fuzzy - vague. No reason why it shouldn't include people of the same sex forming an exclusive bond, and society recognizing it as such. Humans would have to be biologically wired in a radically different way for the bonds that form the basis of our losely defined marriage to not occur naturally.

 

 

 

Because marriage is not a cause, it's an effect. Talking about how marriage affects human history isn't really relevant, because it's just a formalization and recognition - that means different things to different people in different times - of what's really going on; Love.

 

 

 

Meh, I hope I managed to keep that reasonably coherent despite a certain sleep deprivation.edit: Fixed glaring error where don't turned a sentence into do, which made even less sense than usual.

[warri0r45]

Warrior posted while I was typing up my above response so here is my response to his last post.

 

 

But thinking about it, you or me in a different world would think these different practices to be normal.

 

(1) Would we even be alive if these different practices were normal?

 

 

If homosexual unions were accepted and thier normal occurance recognised throughout the ages, no one would be debating an issue such as the acceptability of homosexual unions.

 

(2) Agreed. However, if murdering someone for looking at your ear was a normal occurance recognized throughout the ages then no one would debate that as an issue either... Would that make it right though?

 

 

As I said, it's an interesting thought that what you know is in fact learned and not necessarily true, right or wrong.

 

(3) But that is why we have minds so we can use our real world experiences to filter through what we learn to constantly analyze the knowledge we have learned to determine it's validity. Sure it's not the perfect solution but it is pretty darn effective when rigorously applied.

 

 

 

(1) Assuming reproduction is part of this odd world and for the purposes of the hypothetical situation, sure.

 

 

 

(2) That's right. I've not brought up issues of right or wrong yet but judging by our sense of right and wrong in this reality, it would be wrong. But that's murder. How would homosexual unions for example be wrong in this reality if they were considered normal practice?

 

 

 

(3) Yep. The ideas I'm suggesting are that we learn and accept these concepts because we're socially 'expected' to do so. It's a valid route to take in accepting these notions so as to remain an accepted memeber of society, if that's what you desire, which most people do because we are a social species.

[Satenza]

What makes you think marriage itself is natural?

 

 

 

What would the human race be like if marriage had never been invented?

 

 

 

It would be different to you or me. But thinking about it, you or me in a different word would think these different practices to be normal. The point I was making was not whether it's a correct concept; it was that it's just a concept whose normailty is solely dependant on the fact it's familiar and not alien. If homosexual unions were accepted and thier normal occurance recognised throughout the ages, no one would be debating an issue such as the acceptability of homosexual unions.

 

 

 

 

If i rememeber correctly it has been practised throughout the ages. In places like China i think it was even more respected. In places like Greece it was common occurance, pedestary and all that. I think it was mainly the interferance of the church which then stopped most of these practises in one way or another.

[arizark]

having a homosexual brother(i'm serious) really conflicts me on this. pretty much aslong as i don't see it i don't care, its pretty much the same as fat people having sex to me....but he has always acted the same. people who say that people who are gay are born that way are correct he hasnt changed since he was 3 wearing my sisters dresses :XD: i say if your homophobic your as good as a racist because they cant exactly change it. well thats my 2 cents

[THEMASKEDMAN52]

I once came out to this straight dude on my rugby team, and he was like, "dude don't hit on me". And I said, 'sorry, I don't find you attractive". And he replied, "what!?".

 

 

 

Irony FTW?

 

 

 

Anyways, gay marriage will become a nonissue eventually. To deny someone marriage because of their sexual orientation is the equivalent to denying someone marriage because they want to marry outside their race. (Clicḫ̩̉̉ as it is) If marriage is so sacred, ban divorce, and I'm serious. And while civil unions may seem a temporary hold, we must remember what the Civil Rights Movement taught us, 'separate but equal, is not equal'. BTW I haven't seen Canada fall apart, the fabric of their society torn because of legalizing gay marriage.

 

 

 

And do you seriously believe the goal in life is to procreate you fundy's? How do you explain infertility then? Should we deny them rights too? It may be short of a disease, but we haven't died because of infertility. And our children haven't died from seeing homosexuals (in Canada and elsewhere) holding hands. Oh no, teaching our kids tolerance, what a shame!

 

 

 

It is theorised that homosexual men fail to relate to their father and instead of showing an interest to daddy shaving, want to bake cakes with mummy. Or perhaps daddy wasn't there to teach them that. A lot of gay men have over bearing mothers and were raised by single parents.

 

 

 

Actually, I'd argue that it doesn't cause homosexuality, but acts with it. It would be alongside the finger debate, as boys with estrogen shots verses testosterone (gay or not) would definitely have a more feminine side. Besides, I was raised by two parents, and in an overbearing conservative Middle-American family, and I'm still gay.

 

 

 

Most scientists agree that it is unlikely that there is a single "gay gene" that determines something as complex as a (homo)sexual orientation, and that it is more likely to be the result of an interaction of genetic, biological and environmental/cultural factors.

 

 

 

Two words, 'finger study'. Last I checked I can't change my finger lengths at will, nor do they change during my life. I would agree it's not exclusively genetic. I believe it is all about hormones, estrogen and testosterone, etc. What goes on in the womb for the most part.

[JordanGM]

Okay, first of all. It isn't a choice. Do you think people would chose to get laughed at? I don't like the fact that two males/females are having sexual relations somewhere, it kinda grosses me out.. But you can't really force them to change? Can you? No. I'm a Christian/Catholic, so I should think its wrong, but I don't. I think its gross, but not wrong.

 

You can't really change the way you feel..

 

 

 

 

 

Btw: I'm straight as a wall, fyi.

[Korskin]

Now we are slowly reaching consensus. Having agreed on that, promiscuity as an argument against homosexuality vanishes.

 

 

 

My main point is that homosexuals harm nobody more than heterosexuals, (although homosexuals don't discriminate heterosexuals :, and they help reduce overcrowding)

 

 

 

Religiously, it does seems illogical to debate, because following religion you follow a set of rules which you didn't affect by your own beliefs, and of course believe the same as the writers of these laws.

 

To me promiscuity is everything but marital-sex. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals are guilty of it, I don't deny that. I suppose it's perfectly possible for two homosexuals to enjoy a life together without spreading diseases or anything. However, by saying it's okay and normal, you will be encouraging more homosexuals to act out their homosexuality. This will lead to more diseases among humans. It's the same with promiscuous heterosexuals, you shouldn't encourage that either.

 

 

 

If God (the Bible) says it's immoral I'll accept that and therefore say it's immoral. But as I believe it's immoral for a reason, I try to think of reasons why God doesn't want homosexuals to act out their homosexuality.

 

 

 

@Korskin, your whole argument falls down on the premise that homosexuality is a danger to society based on the fact that "it spreads disease", when in fact it could only ever spread disease to other homosexual men, and in reality far more disease is spread by heterosexuals, and as Satenza said, with more far reaching consequences.

 

If it would only spread among homosexual, it would still be terrible since homosexuals were diseased. Or is not a bad thing just because it only spreads among homosexuals? And you seem to be ignoring bisexuals. If there are bisexuals, they could possibly have sexual relationships with both men and women, resulting in spreading disease among all humans.

[IGoddessI]

Actually, I'd argue that it doesn't cause homosexuality, but acts with it. It would be alongside the finger debate, as boys with estrogen shots verses testosterone (gay or not) would definitely have a more feminine side. Besides, I was raised by two parents, and in an overbearing conservative Middle-American family, and I'm still gay.

 

 

 

Sorry but I was referring to gay men failing to identify with their same sex parent during the phallic stage of developing identity (just before conscience develops) in which you wouldn't personally know unless your parents or someone you knew could tell you how you identified with that parent. (I was referring to an earlier post I made; perhaps I should have been much clearer).

 

 

 

And to relate to your story my ex boyfriends brother is gay, raised by an over conservative family also of two parents.

 

 

 

Like every other gay person I know, failed to identify with his father during developing identity.

 

 

 

By the way nothing has been proven scientifically that there is a "gay gene" not to say that there possibly couldn't be.

 

 

 

Just repeating what I learnt in 2007 biology, feel free to prove me wrong if you must but go by database sources or at least .gov or .edu sources not wiki please...

 

 

 

The only thing that seems to work in changing behaviour is cognitive therapy, in which only teaches gay men how to act straight but not be straight.

 

 

 

I'm not claiming to be an expert on homosexuals but it might be interesting to find out the aforementioned information I gave you for future reference or further understanding?

 

 

 

If you can answer my question or can find out the answer to my question to add to statistics, it would be greatly appreciated.

[Satenza]

Now we are slowly reaching consensus. Having agreed on that, promiscuity as an argument against homosexuality vanishes.

 

 

 

My main point is that homosexuals harm nobody more than heterosexuals, (although homosexuals don't discriminate heterosexuals :, and they help reduce overcrowding)

 

 

 

Religiously, it does seems illogical to debate, because following religion you follow a set of rules which you didn't affect by your own beliefs, and of course believe the same as the writers of these laws.

 

To me promiscuity is everything but marital-sex. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals are guilty of it, I don't deny that. I suppose it's perfectly possible for two homosexuals to enjoy a life together without spreading diseases or anything. However, by saying it's okay and normal, you will be encouraging more homosexuals to act out their homosexuality. This will lead to more diseases among humans. It's the same with promiscuous heterosexuals, you shouldn't encourage that either.

 

 

 

If God (the Bible) says it's immoral I'll accept that and therefore say it's immoral. But as I believe it's immoral for a reason, I try to think of reasons why God doesn't want homosexuals to act out their homosexuality.

 

 

 

@Korskin, your whole argument falls down on the premise that homosexuality is a danger to society based on the fact that "it spreads disease", when in fact it could only ever spread disease to other homosexual men, and in reality far more disease is spread by heterosexuals, and as Satenza said, with more far reaching consequences.

 

If it would only spread among homosexual, it would still be terrible since homosexuals were diseased. Or is not a bad thing just because it only spreads among homosexuals? And you seem to be ignoring bisexuals. If there are bisexuals, they could possibly have sexual relationships with both men and women, resulting in spreading disease among all humans.

 

 

 

So, it seems like your argument works only against promiscuous homosexuals. Now I do respect you for attempting to find out the reasons as to why homosexuality is bad, but you only identify it to the reasons why pre-marital sex is bad. Which brings about the question as to why you have a problem with homosexuality when you may as well just group it all together with pre-marital sex. The only difference being that gay people cant get married in all countrys (yet). I don't know, but if the only reason you can think of to class gay as immoral is through promiscity then the only reason why you think of it as immoral is down to semantics and what you perceive marriage is defined as.

[Korskin]

So, it seems like your argument works only against promiscuous homosexuals. Now I do respect you for attempting to find out the reasons as to why homosexuality is bad, but you only identify it to the reasons why pre-marital sex is bad. Which brings about the question as to why you have a problem with homosexuality when you may as well just group it all together with pre-marital sex. The only difference being that gay people cant get married in all countrys (yet). I don't know, but if the only reason you can think of to class gay as immoral is through promiscity then the only reason why you think of it as immoral is down to semantics and what you perceive marriage is defined as.

 

The more homosexuals having sex, the more promiscuous homosexuals. If homosexuals didn't have sex there would be no promiscuous homosexuals. This could be said about heterosexuals as well but if no heterosexuals were having sex it would mean the end of the human race. Of course I suppose we could use artificial insemination so maybe we all should stop having sex.

[Satenza]

I don't understand.

 

 

 

Homosexual A has sex with homosexual B, they stay together for the rest of their life only having sex with each other.

 

 

 

How is those two having sex encouraging promiscuous behaviour in others?

 

 

 

 

 

You're argument are still against only pre-marital sex, i want to hear arguments as to why two 'married' gay people shouldnt have sex. Not some statement like "The more homosexuals that have sex, the more promiscuous homosexuals" which is firstly grouping all homosexuals as promiscuous (slightly insulting) because two non-promiscuous gay people having sex doesn't encourage others to be promiscuous (probably the opposite if you have faith in marriage). So your first premise really doesn't make sense to me.

[Korskin]

I don't understand.

 

 

 

Homosexual A has sex with homosexual B, they stay together for the rest of their life only having sex with each other.

 

 

 

How is those two having sex encouraging promiscuous behaviour in others?

 

 

 

 

 

You're argument are still against only pre-marital sex, i want to hear arguments as to why two 'married' gay people shouldnt have sex. Not some statement like "The more homosexuals that have sex, the more promiscuous homosexuals" which is firstly grouping all homosexuals as promiscuous (slightly insulting) because two non-promiscuous gay people having sex doesn't encourage others to be promiscuous (probably the opposite if you have faith in marriage). So your first premise really doesn't make sense to me.

 

It's not really that they encourage others. It's just that if there are millions of homosexuals having sex, chances are almost 100% that some of them are promiscuous. My only reason why married homosexuals shouldn't have sex is that the Bible says that homosexuality (the act) is wrong and a marriage should be between a woman and a man.

[assassin_696]

I don't understand.

 

 

 

Homosexual A has sex with homosexual B, they stay together for the rest of their life only having sex with each other.

 

 

 

How is those two having sex encouraging promiscuous behaviour in others?

 

 

 

 

 

You're argument are still against only pre-marital sex, i want to hear arguments as to why two 'married' gay people shouldnt have sex. Not some statement like "The more homosexuals that have sex, the more promiscuous homosexuals" which is firstly grouping all homosexuals as promiscuous (slightly insulting) because two non-promiscuous gay people having sex doesn't encourage others to be promiscuous (probably the opposite if you have faith in marriage). So your first premise really doesn't make sense to me.

 

It's not really that they encourage others. It's just that if there are millions of homosexuals having sex, chances are almost 100% that some of them are promiscuous. My only reason why married homosexuals shouldn't have sex is that the Bible says that homosexuality (the act) is wrong and a marriage should be between a woman and a man.

 

 

 

Ah, so this is what it comes down to: it's wrong because the Bible says so.

 

 

 

Besides, I can't see how diseases will be spread any more by homosexuals if they use protection than heterosexuals. Unprotected sex should always be restricted to some kind of stable relationship IMO.

[Satenza]

I don't understand.

 

 

 

Homosexual A has sex with homosexual B, they stay together for the rest of their life only having sex with each other.

 

 

 

How is those two having sex encouraging promiscuous behaviour in others?

 

 

 

 

 

You're argument are still against only pre-marital sex, i want to hear arguments as to why two 'married' gay people shouldnt have sex. Not some statement like "The more homosexuals that have sex, the more promiscuous homosexuals" which is firstly grouping all homosexuals as promiscuous (slightly insulting) because two non-promiscuous gay people having sex doesn't encourage others to be promiscuous (probably the opposite if you have faith in marriage). So your first premise really doesn't make sense to me.

 

It's not really that they encourage others. It's just that if there are millions of homosexuals having sex, chances are almost 100% that some of them are promiscuous. My only reason why married homosexuals shouldn't have sex is that the Bible says that homosexuality (the act) is wrong and a marriage should be between a woman and a man.

 

 

 

Yeah, but you're blaming non promiscuous homosexuals for something which they havn't done (be promiscuous). Which is like blaming a married couple (who cant have children) for encouraging promiscious behaviour - it doesn't make sense. So your only justification lies within what the Bible tells you is wrong. Which is okay i mean thats your faith, you always try to think up reasons why you think the Bible says that and i respect that. Just in this case, i don't think there is an answer.

[Korskin]

Besides, I can't see how diseases will be spread any more by homosexuals if they use protection than heterosexuals. Unprotected sex should always be restricted to some kind of stable relationship IMO.

 

I don't think I've said that homosexuals are more prone to spread diseases. Feel free to come with statistics proving which ones are more promiscuous as I have no idea.

[Korskin]

Yeah, but you're blaming non promiscuous homosexuals for something which they havn't done (be promiscuous). Which is like blaming a married couple (who cant have children) for encouraging promiscious behaviour - it doesn't make sense. So your only justification lies within what the Bible tells you is wrong. Which is okay i mean thats your faith, you always try to think up reasons why you think the Bible says that and i respect that. Just in this case, i don't think there is an answer.

 

If I put it like this then. Would the world be a better place without homosexual sex? I fail to see how it improves anything really. However, I see some problems caused by it.

[Satenza]

Yeah, but you're blaming non promiscuous homosexuals for something which they havn't done (be promiscuous). Which is like blaming a married couple (who cant have children) for encouraging promiscious behaviour - it doesn't make sense. So your only justification lies within what the Bible tells you is wrong. Which is okay i mean thats your faith, you always try to think up reasons why you think the Bible says that and i respect that. Just in this case, i don't think there is an answer.

 

If I put it like this then. Would the world be a better place without homosexual sex? I fail to see how it improves anything really. However, I see some problems caused by it.

 

 

 

No i don't see how. I think your trouble is again with pre-marital sex, because nothing bad comes from two non-promiscuous gay people having sex. The trouble comes from both hetero and homosexual people being promiscuous. Both can spread disease ect. Promiscious heterosexual sex is probably worse actually because it could lead to the involvement of a third non-consenting party - a child.

[Peronix]

I view it as a sin (since it is clearly condemned in the Bible), but I don't look down on people who practice it. To each his own, as the saying goes. The only people who I really look down upon are criminals; murderers, robbers, con artists, drug dealers ect. Those people obviously hurt people by what they do. Homosexuals, however, don't really hurt anyone by what they do. So as far as I'm concerned, because of that fact, it isn't our place to judge them.

[Korskin]

No i don't see how. I think your trouble is again with pre-marital sex, because nothing bad comes from two non-promiscuous gay people having sex. The trouble comes from both hetero and homosexual people being promiscuous. Both can spread disease ect. Promiscious heterosexual sex is probably worse actually because it could lead to the involvement of a third non-consenting party - a child.

 

To explain how I think. I look at the world today. I see what has happened since homosexuality was taken out of the sin bin and considered normal. Are there more promiscuous homosexuals now or let say 100 years ago? Have sexually transmitted diseases become a bigger problem? My answer to both questions would be: Yes.