Miscellaneous Sexual Orientation Should Govertments From Around The World Allow Gays?

Phrasebase Archive

Return to the MISCELLANEOUS Archive
Forward to the Current MISCELLANEOUS Discussion


Avaldi
Thursday 31st of January 2008 04:50:59 AM
Sexual orientation: Here in Spain gay marriage is politically accepted, but people still don't accept it. My question is: Why?

I don't understand why people just accept the normal things: a family (woman and man) with their children, white people, thin people... In my opinion, that's stupid! There are many tolerant people, but "close-minders" are the winners in this world.

The problem is that laws accept different cultures, different sexs (men and women), different people from different countries, etc... But who allows different sexual orientation? Why is it a taboo subject?

I'm sure that while people will be reading my post, some of them will say: they shouldn't allow them. But you, the rest of the people, the clever group, will think: everyone is OK, and anyone is less than the next one.

What is your opinion about this subject? Do you think your country should allow gays? Thank you for reading ;)


Dominick_Korshanyenko
Thursday 31st of January 2008 07:10:19 AM
Here in America it is illegal for gays to get married (except in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and one or two more I'm forgetting). What some people don't know is that also businesses are allowed to not hire a person because of sexual orientation in most places, gays are also not allowed to adopt. In many senses they are treated like second class citizens.

My opinion is this: America was built on the priciple of equality and freedom for all. What does it teach us then when gays are restricted in their lives? Every social group whether it is African Americans, women, disabled Americans, or Native Americans everyone has fought for their freedoms in this country. Eventually I think the gays will too.

What Americans can't seem to get through their thick skulls is that everyone on this planet is the same, equal, period. Americans always seem to find someone to hate, call dirty names, and treat terribly until those people speak up. In the past there were racists and African Americans, then women and sexists, nowadays it seems that our new targets are muslims and gays. :(


Crealo
Thursday 31st of January 2008 08:42:39 AM
As a gay male, I think if more people understood that sexual orientation is not a choice any more than the eyes or skin you're born with are, then people would be more open and accepting.

This entire issue frustrates me because it should not be an issue. PEOPLE are PEOPLE and all should be treated compassionately and with respect, equally.

I am intrigued, though, to hear that homosexuality isn't as accepted in Spain as I thought it was. At least homosexuals there are given the same rights as other citizens. I'm sure this will happen in America, as well, but people are ignorant at the moment.


Avaldi
Thursday 31st of January 2008 09:10:27 PM
I am intrigued, though, to hear that homosexuality isn't as accepted in Spain as I thought it was.

Just try to go out and kiss your boyfriend in Spain ;) Most of the people will say: Puah! ... Or they'll say: If Franco was here in this moment, he'll kill you.

I don't have any kind of problem with this people, I just care of what my friends say. And they don't have any kind of problem for looking as how I kiss with my bfriend ;) So I always say: Let this people continue being stupid, I don't care. (Manytimes I fighted with some of them, one time with a Moroccan guy who said something about "Spanish freedom") :)

Do you really believe that gays are born as gays? As a gay guy, I don't believe so. I think you choose it. It's difficult to explain...


djr33
Friday 01st of February 2008 08:00:06 AM
I think that both explanations "you choose to be gay" and "you are just born gay" are really simplistic, neither actually correct. Every person has desires. Every person also has the ability to make choices within a certain scope based upon those desires. Additionally, being born has nothing to do with being gay. It's simply a state at one point in your life which might continue throughout or change.
So, if you happen to be someone who has an attraction to someone of the same sex, then you have the choice of acting upon it or not. So, it's both, really.
However, I don't see anything wrong with acting upon that. I'm not saying "oh, it's just an urge resist it"... not at all.

Anyway, a good explanation I once heard is that every person exists (at a specific time, it should be noted) on a spectrum from "gay" to "straight", and really no one is 100% of either. The odds are that someone who has 95% feelings for the opposite sex is not "gay" in that they won't act upon any slight desire for the same sex, though that's not impossible. Some people may be much less set, and those people might be interested in either. I'd be willing to speculate that, due to evolution and its results, the odds are that any individual has some desire for the opposite sex is strong, and perhaps that anyone who is "gay" may have some (though not to say stronger) desire for the opposite sex. Then again, there are some individuals who this is not strong for, likely.
It would be extremely difficult to chart this; but, anyway, everyone exists somewhere on the spectrum, and you can, I suppose, expect that if the right individual of either sex were to appear for an individual, that individual would be attracted to them (though if the split in percentages were enough, probably not enough to hold their interest, as the other desire would be stronger).

The question posed is quite silly. "Should governments allow gays?".
The government has nothing to do with one's feelings, at least I'd really hope not.
They can certainly influence based on social norms and laws concerning consequences for actions, but not how someone can feel.
As for my opinion on the government having laws against homosexual acts, I think it's completely stupid. There is no rational reason for this, at all.
Two men go into a house. They close the door. They come out an hour later. ...who cares? There are any number of things they could have done (the odds are most are 'culturally acceptable'), and no matter what it was would not affect me (at least no differently than if it was a man and a woman if they'd blown the house up or started shooting guns out the windows, there would be a different set of concerns).

One issue which I'm not sure about is adoption by gay couples. I don't think there's anything wrong with a gay couple in terms of parenting per se, but there are a couple things that I would wonder about:
1. Being raised in such an environment, and let's assume that at least acting upon any "gay" desires would be based on "nurture" not "nature", one might be affected by this. But then again, the same is true for heterosexual parents. However, this does relate to reason 2:
2. Such a situation is complex, at least in today's society. Forcing a 5 year old to explain to their class why they have "two daddies" is not fair, I don't think. This IS society's fault, but still a problem.
3. Having two of either sex and not one of the other sex would pose a problem similar to a single parent in that they don't get the influence of both sexes.
4. Additionally as would having a single parent, this might cause some odd problems based on a non-standard family unit, where a child growing up might feel more at home with a mother and with a father, as we have evolved. I don't know enough to comment on that though.

This does not, though, mean that there aren't many homosexual couples who wouldn't raise children much better than many heterosexual couples, so perhaps it should be allowed. (ie, should ex-convicts be allowed to have children, etc., and of course those who are just, for any random reason, not good parents)


On a more international note, though, there is one thing to be considered. In some nations, virginity at marriage is crucial and marriage is the focus of society. In a way, marriage is not then about love but about procreation and designed to be strictly that. So, in such a nation, homosexuality is against this, as would be an affair or premarital relationships. I'm not justifying this, but if a society is based purely on having people raised by parents then marry to have children, it seems like it makes sense that homosexuality has no place.
However, if you want to dispute such religions and governing systems, that's a completely separate issue.



In short, I'm not gay, but I don't think anyone who is harms me. In fact, if you look at it on a purely logical level, it means more opportunities to find a partner opposite sex because I have less competition (then again if the opposite sex is also equally gay, that would not hold true).

I say let them get married... why not?
The only reasonable argument against that is if marriage is not something about a relationship but about a family and creating children between two people (as the international comment explains above).
HOWEVER! I don't think that if it isn't allowed for that reason that a gay couple should not have the same rights as a married couple, such as being legally related for medical decisions, etc.


I think people should be a lot less worried about what doesn't affect them and start worrying a lot more about being reasonable themselves.
After all, if we go on the logic that some people don't like homosexuality, so let's ban it, then we might as well ban religion as well.


EDIT: there's one more important thing to note:
social change is inevitable, I think, and it's just a matter of time until people accept it. It was African Americans, then it was women. (though the timelines overlap). Also, immigrants in general fall into that, at one time or another. So, now the big social issue is homosexuality. In 100 years, it'll be just like slavery of African Americans, something of the past, that everyone understands (or, I should say, at least a vast majority). Some people don't like change though, so it's slow to happen.
However, continuing on what I said above, this may not apply to some nations which have specific values based on religion and other ideals. But in nations where these other issues have come and gone, the change will happen soon.

Dominick, one interesting thing I'll say, as you did note something similar to this, is that Muslims aren't quite in the same category as other groups that have been not accepted. There's a very important divide between Muslims (and people of similar structured societies, as described above), and people who are at least moving toward more free societies. It's hard to imagine a fully integrated world in which there are Muslims and liberals, because the views contradict so greatly. HOWEVER, both groups should stop acting stupid and fighting with each other and look for more understanding but actual integration would be very difficult because the two are mutually exclusive, having freedom and being restricted in order to reach certain ideals. Both have faults and advantages, though.


In the end it comes down to: people should be free to make the right decisions. So, that is in itself contradictory, and there are two ways of going about this: either anarchy or strict control. Both approaches intend to do the same thing, really, make society function. People are not 100% good, and problems arise when you let them run around and cause problems for themselves. So that's an argument for having strict control, where the government informs the population of what is correct, and I can see a very rational argument for this, but problems of course arise when people find something better, or something doesn't fall into what the government views as good, or even the government is just wrong or corrupt. And you can't really have it both ways. For example, the odds of marrying a virgin in America today are very very low.
I guess it also comes down to the fact that restriction creates LESS, whereas freedom creates MORE that is to say "of good and bad". Restrict, and you get less bad while at the same time isn't quite as good as if it was free. But if you allow freedom, in the process of attaining everything good and that you want, there will be a ton of bad along the way.


Now this post is getting way too long, and I'm going off topic. But I think that is the point it's all about how society should function.
And people should be accepting of others for any reason, because there are likely qualities about them which bother others, but those are accepted, or at least should be.


Crealo
Friday 01st of February 2008 11:59:34 AM
Additionally, being born has nothing to do with being gay. It's simply a state at one point in your life which might continue throughout or change.
So, if you happen to be someone who has an attraction to someone of the same sex, then you have the choice of acting upon it or not. So, it's both, really.

Actually the vast majority of research and gay people (excluding Avaldi above, it seems...I'd love to talk with him more about his views on this) concur that one's sexuality is inborn, a part of one's genetic, internal blue prints.

Human sexuality is not limited to a sexual act. Straight people are still straight whether or not they have sexual relations with those of the opposite sex. Human sexuality is a state of being, not a sexual act. The distinction is very important.

Choosing to act on sexual attraction simply means that a person does or does not have sex...this view disregards the fact that sexuality is defined by the attraction we feel, despite any sexual experience.

Beyond that I'm glad you're accepting of people.


djr33
Friday 01st of February 2008 01:44:11 PM
You may be born with a certain set of desires. However, do you consider someone who never acts upon any homosexual desires and is married, happy, with children, as they were never allowed a chance to act upon those feelings to still be "gay"?

People who are gay also frequently have some sort of heterosexual relationship first. Is this never something that they like? Are they still gay?

Or, does this bring us back to the spectrum that I mentioned defining someone as being born gay is just silly. Sure, they're born with certain levels of desire for anything (related and unrelated to sexuality), but the environment also allows them to want, not want, and act or not act upon such things.

It's a much more complex issue than saying someone is simply born gay or not, and they MAY be born at a certain disposition of inherent desire, but that doesn't mean that the environment and changes in someone's life can't affect how they feel or what they want.


Avaldi
Friday 01st of February 2008 09:35:48 PM
Originally posted by djr33You may be born with a certain set of desires. However, do you consider someone who never acts upon any homosexual desires and is married, happy, with children, as they were never allowed a chance to act upon those feelings to still be \"gay\"?

People who are gay also frequently have some sort of heterosexual relationship first. Is this never something that they like? Are they still gay?

Or, does this bring us back to the spectrum that I mentioned defining someone as being born gay is just silly. Sure, they're born with certain levels of desire for anything (related and unrelated to sexuality), but the environment also allows them to want, not want, and act or not act upon such things.

It's a much more complex issue than saying someone is simply born gay or not, and they MAY be born at a certain disposition of inherent desire, but that doesn't mean that the environment and changes in someone's life can't affect how they feel or what they want.

That's a subject I always fight with my friends, but I think you "become" gay. When I was a child I kissed girls and I liked them, but with the time I prefered guys.

Everytime I think about it, I say: But why do people care about who do other people love? ... I think that will never change, because in the XXI Sigle people still think like racists, untolerants and homophobics.


Crealo
Saturday 02nd of February 2008 04:34:36 AM
Originally posted by djr33You may be born with a certain set of desires. However, do you consider someone who never acts upon any homosexual desires and is married, happy, with children, as they were never allowed a chance to act upon those feelings to still be \"gay\"?

If he's content and happy with his wife and kids then he will be sexually and romantically attracted to his wife, which suggests that a) he wasn't sure about his sexuality before entering this heterosexual relationship and b) he is obviously attracted to women. The man could very well be equally attracted to both sexes and simply denying the other part of himself that, regardless of whether it is acted upon, still exists.

People who are gay also frequently have some sort of heterosexual relationship first. Is this never something that they like? Are they still gay?

It's very possible that gay people have "enjoyed" previous relationships with those of the opposite sex. However, seeing as these people have come to call themselves gay and have relationships exclusively with the same sex, then it is clear that they have discovered what "feels right" for them. I know many gay friends that describe their gay relationships as so much more "real" than any previous relationship with the opposite sex, and most of the time these previous relationships were not even based on mutual attraction but rather as a desire to cover up one's homosexuality.

Or, does this bring us back to the spectrum that I mentioned defining someone as being born gay is just silly. Sure, they're born with certain levels of desire for anything (related and unrelated to sexuality), but the environment also allows them to want, not want, and act or not act upon such things.

I never disagreed with a spectrum of sexuality; I merely stated that one's sexuality is a part of one's genetics. Whether this is inhibited or encouraged psychologically depends on one's circumstances, but this does not change the core feelings and attractions that people have.

It's a much more complex issue than saying someone is simply born gay or not, and they MAY be born at a certain disposition of inherent desire, but that doesn't mean that the environment and changes in someone's life can't affect how they feel or what they want.

I never said that environmental factors couldn't change how someone feels about their sexuality. Countless men and women throughout history have had to hide their true feelings, usually living in unfulfilled relationships because of societal expectations....this does not fabricate new sexual feelings, but, again, only suppresses one's true feelings. Indeed, until the past few decades in America homosexuality was completely unacceptable and taboo...now it's less so but the strong homophobic sentiments still exist not only in the US but around the world.

And Avaldi, I concede that it is very well possible that your sexuality has "changed" since you were young, but it is far more likely that you have simply "found" your inherent sexuality. Or it's possible that you still enjoy relationships with both sexes. I'm not you and I can't really say.


djr33
Saturday 02nd of February 2008 05:02:54 AM
I never disagreed with a spectrum of sexuality;Which means that no one is really one or the other, and simply is part of both; if a pretty enough woman or handsome enough man were to show up, that might be enough for one or the other, and one's state might dictate which is more attractive. Traumatic incidents and other such things can also change desires, either emotional, psychological or even physical (to the brain).
Yes, we are born at a predisposition to have certain feelings, but that doesn't mean we those feelings can't change.
HOWEVER! Don't read this as me saying that "oh, you're just confused".
But I do feel that life is about choices and if you think a bit and really understand yourself you can make a lot of choices (whichever way you desire), and things can change.
Perhaps it's just a different outlook on life, but I think human will is quite strong, then again perhaps you would not have the will to change if you weren't already inclined to.

Someone is born. From that very moment, then, we should just know that they will only be the happiest if they choose the sex they are predispositioned toward? Or the most sexually satisfied?


I don't think it's extremely flexible to the point of uncertainty, but I do think there are ways in which one's sexuality can change. If someone were raped, and they genuinely didn't desire to have sex (at least not as much), then is this simply some misunderstanding of how they were born to be? An extreme example, yes, but I suppose it must be to prove the point.


Crealo
Saturday 02nd of February 2008 05:26:12 AM
Originally posted by djr33I never disagreed with a spectrum of sexuality;Which means that no one is really one or the other, and simply is part of both; if a pretty enough woman or handsome enough man were to show up, that might be enough for one or the other, and one's state might dictate which is more attractive. Traumatic incidents and other such things can also change desires, either emotional, psychological or even physical (to the brain).
Yes, we are born at a predisposition to have certain feelings, but that doesn't mean we those feelings can't change.
HOWEVER! Don't read this as me saying that \"oh, you're just confused\".
But I do feel that life is about choices and if you think a bit and really understand yourself you can make a lot of choices (whichever way you desire), and things can change.
Perhaps it's just a different outlook on life, but I think human will is quite strong, then again perhaps you would not have the will to change if you weren't already inclined to.

I can see where you're coming from, but I have to respectfully disagree with the notion that one's will power can change who one's attracted to. We don't suddenly wake up one morning and say "HEY...I think I'll like girls/guys now because the whole guy/girl thing isn't working out...there's too much discrimination and hatred toward me....yeah I think I'll like girls/guys now...." If it were this easy no one would be gay. Quite frankly the countless men and women who PRAY vehemently every night for their sexual feelings to change don't have any lack of will power, and yet they are still gay/lesbian/bisexual. Honestly the notion that if people only DESIRED IT ENOUGH then they could change their sexual feelings goes against the entire scientific and psychological communities consensus on human sexuality, and is not only irrational but also potentially offensive to all those people who try in vain to change their sexuality.

Someone is born. From that very moment, then, we should just know that they will only be the happiest if they choose the sex they are predispositioned toward? Or the most sexually satisfied?

Given that there are no societal or social taboos against it, people tend to do what makes them happy, yes.

I don't think it's extremely flexible to the point of uncertainty, but I do think there are ways in which one's sexuality can change. If someone were raped, and they genuinely didn't desire to have sex (at least not as much), then is this simply some misunderstanding of how they were born to be? An extreme example, yes, but I suppose it must be to prove the point.

Your example of the mental trauma experienced by the victim of a rapist doesn't truly prove anything. Psychologically her sexuality has been repressed. This does not change her sexual feelings themselves. This women is still straight or bi or gay, whichever she was before the incident. Of course it's not a misunderstanding of her sexuality; it's a reflexive psychological repression.


Thank you for discussing this with me! It's not often that I get to describe how I feel about this with someone of a differing opinion. I apologize if this came across as heated or angry; I'm really not. I appreciate you taking your time to respond.


Avaldi
Saturday 02nd of February 2008 06:10:28 AM

And Avaldi, I concede that it is very well possible that your sexuality has "changed" since you were young, but it is far more likely that you have simply "found" your inherent sexuality. Or it's possible that you still enjoy relationships with both sexes. I'm not you and I can't really say.

No, I can say I don't like girls. Just thinking about it ... puah! :p My first relation with guys was with 13 years old. But my first serious relation is the one I'm on right now.

Do you think to be gay is a trauma for gays? I'm very proud of it, as I said, I don't care what people opine about me or my boyfriend. I'm sure many of them disagree with us, but let them live in their pain. :)



Crealo
Saturday 02nd of February 2008 09:28:40 AM
I think that for many, many gay guys the process of realization and acceptance can be very traumatic, yes.

Espero que tuviera el orgullo como tú, Avaldi.

¿Tienes MSN?


djr33
Saturday 02nd of February 2008 09:47:24 AM
If it were this easy no one would be gay.To say that is to imply that being gay, or acting upon it, whichever you decide is the actual concept, is lesser than being straight. "Oh, we can't help ourselves... we're gay... sorry, all!". Nah. I think that's just rationalizing. Someone (male or female) is attracted to a man good for them, do what they want.
Now you may need some sort of rationalizing to explain it to someone who is (at first) opposed, so feel free to keep using such arguments against anyone annoying enough to think it's their business.

There's a difference between actually wanting something and being in denial. Though I can't comment on specific cases, there are a lot of people who will for any number of topics whine about how they don't like some aspect of themselves but really not want to change it look at many addicts. (This is getting off topic, but it's not as black and white a rule as you propose.)

Given that there are no societal or social taboos against it, people tend to do what makes them happy, yes.One day I was happy eating vanilla ice cream. The next day I wanted strawberry. And a random fact, I hate chocolate ice cream, but, hey I don't rule out the possibility that I might like it some day.

Your example of the mental trauma experienced by the victim of a rapist doesn't truly prove anything. [...] This women is still straight or bi or gayBlah. That's so boring. So every person is just a machine and if they don't act upon what they were designed to do, then it's simply not living up to potential and/or being broken. What an amusing concept. Try telling a rape victim s/he really should be having sex, 'cause, y'know, they are [hetero/homo]sexual.


Nah, don't worry. I'm not bothered by your comments. On such topics I've certainly heard worse points of view.



I think that being gay can be very traumatic because of how it is seen in society and certain other aspects, like perhaps you may want children and somehow these two are contradictory. However, in the simplest sense, regardless of outside influence, I don't see why it would be traumatic. Well, then again, anyone ever in any sort of relationship knows it IS traumatic ;)

By the way, Avaldi, we say "relationship", not just "relation". :)


Crealo
Saturday 02nd of February 2008 10:53:02 AM
To say that is to imply that being gay, or acting upon it, whichever you decide is the actual concept, is lesser than being straight.

There are countries that kill their own citizens for being anything other than heterosexual. Only a handful of countries in the entire world give full and equal rights to their non-heterosexual citizens. All across America anti-gay comments can be heard constantly in high-schoools. Kids who deviate from the standard gender stereotype are ridiculed, harassed, assaulted, and sometimes even killed. Of course there shouldn't be any distinction in value between homosexuality and heterosexuality, but certainly most of the world's population feels that there is.

Given that there are no societal or social taboos against it, people tend to do what makes them happy, yes.One day I was happy eating vanilla ice cream. The next day I wanted strawberry. And a random fact, I hate chocolate ice cream, but, hey I don't rule out the possibility that I might like it some day.

Human sexuality cannot be reduced to a simple comparison of ice cream preferences, honestly.

Blah. That's so boring. So every person is just a machine and if they don't act upon what they were designed to do, then it's simply not living up to potential and/or being broken. What an amusing concept. Try telling a rape victim s/he really should be having sex, 'cause, y'know, they are [hetero/homo]sexual.

Woah woah woah...humans are certainly not machines. And no where did I say that anyone doesn't "live up to their potential" by not being sexually active, nor is anyone "broken" by choosing to abstain from sex! I don't know why you're drawing these conclusions from my words. They aren't what I said nor what I meant. I think it would be sick and cruel to tell a rape victim to have sex if they didn't want to. I would never do that. Just because someone has a sexuality doesn't mean that they have to be sexually active! You seem to have misunderstood me.


djr33
Saturday 02nd of February 2008 11:11:33 AM
Of course there shouldn't be any distinction in value between homosexuality and heterosexuality, but certainly most of the world's population feels that there is.You said that if it was a choice people would choose against it. That means it's an irresistible mistake. Look at your wording again. And, hey, just 'cause the world says it's wrong doesn't mean it is wrong. Maybe it's not worth acting on because it would be so difficult, but that doesn't mean it is wrong in a theoretical sense. Some people give up, but others don't. So, no, if it was a choice, there are people who would still be homosexual. Look at Germany in WWII there were millions of Jews who didn't just change their beliefs systems to avoid being killed. That must mean something.


Human sexuality cannot be reduced to a simple comparison of ice cream preferences, honestly.I didn't reduce it; I created a parallel. Human preference is simple in a sense.... it's just the desire that is felt based on circumstance, and that circumstance is based on all external input and internal forces [predisposition, decisions, understanding, ability].
Tastes change. Someone may love building model boats then 20 years later switch to learning foreign languages. In the same sense, someone might like one sex then the other. You can argue this was programmed into their DNA, but things do change in life. It's just something that happens.
(AND, realize that I'm not saying "gay people will become straight", but that it could go either way, and could fluctuate more than once.)

Your example of the mental trauma experienced by the victim of a rapist doesn't truly prove anything. [...] This women is still straight or bi or gayWoah woah woah...humans are certainly not machines.Then what did you mean? Someone is raped, then they don't have that desire any more, but they still er... have that desire?
In that case, that's what I meant about being "broken" as if they were expected to be homosexual or heterosexual but didn't because something changed.
Either we are born toward something (at least in terms of possibility, not that we will act on it), or we can change. And if we ARE specifically for something then not doing it would be not fulfilling it, or being broken and not capable of it.

EDIT:
Now the ironic part is that if you actually were to prove that it is genetic then you are also proving it to be a mental disorder. Consider the logic: sex is good because it has been motivation to procreate; procreation is good to keep the species alive; this is simplified from the actual reasons from evolution (or even God's wishes for the species to survive), but it makes sense. If you are not attracted to the opposite sex, your genes are literally bad as much as those of someone who is incapable of having sex or incapable of finding a mate because those genes will not be passed on. Something went wrong and you got the wrong set of sexual desires.
I'm not making a moral argument here that's pure logic.
And an interesting question if homosexuality wasn't so controversial, would it just kill itself by no procreation? Through the centuries homosexuals have gotten married and had children due to expectation. Remove that, and you are left with homosexual relationships not resulting in children, thereby filtering out that gene. This logic can also then prove it isn't genetic as has survived until now, unless expectation really played that big a role. I wonder if homosexuality is a condition experienced by other animals than humans that might explain a lot.


Crealo
Saturday 02nd of February 2008 11:40:08 AM
Originally posted by djr33Of course there shouldn't be any distinction in value between homosexuality and heterosexuality, but certainly most of the world's population feels that there is.You said that if it was a choice people would choose against it. That means it's an irresistible mistake. Look at your wording again. And, hey, just 'cause the world says it's wrong doesn't mean it is wrong. Maybe it's not worth acting on because it would be so difficult, but that doesn't mean it is wrong in a theoretical sense. Some people give up, but others don't.

I never said that it was wrong. I agree with you. Given the choice I don't think I would choose to be gay...it's irrational. It would be so much easier to just be heterosexual. I wouldn't have to deal with the harassment, discrimination, self-esteem issues, and depression that have com from this sexuality that I did not choose. This isn't to say, of course, that many other people don't have these same types of problems, nor that mine are any gay peoples problems are any more "special" than others. Irregardless, though, Being homosexual in a heterosexual dominated world is difficult considering that so many people are opposed to even the idea of homosexuality.

So, no, if it was a choice, there are people who would still be homosexual. Look at Germany in WWII there were millions of Jews who didn't just change their beliefs systems to avoid being killed. That must mean something.

Hitler viewed the Jewish people as a race, an ethnic class. Even non-practicing Jews were killed; anyone who had Jewish grandparents was targeted. They couldn't simply say that they were Christian....Hitler didn't care...they were still a part of the Jewish race.


Then what did you mean? Someone is raped, then they don't have that desire any more, but they still er... have that desire?
In that case, that's what I meant about being \"broken\" as if they were expected to be homosexual or heterosexual but didn't because something changed.
Either we are born toward something (at least in terms of possibility, not that we will act on it), or we can change. And if we ARE specifically for something then not doing it would be not fulfilling it, or being broken and not capable of it.

We are born with our given sexualities. A white person who's skin is burned to a deep red is still white. So is a straight girl who is raped and doesn't feel as much sexual desire. She's still straight. It's a part of her that cannot be inherently changed. But it truly doesn't matter.

Being born a way doesn't mean that a person HAS to fulfill it...no one's forcing them to act on their desires and no one expects them to. It's simply how they feel.

Now the ironic part is that if you actually were to prove that it is genetic then you are also proving it to be a mental disorder. Consider the logic: sex is good because it has been motivation to procreate; procreation is good to keep the species alive; this is simplified from the actual reasons from evolution (or even God's wishes for the species to survive), but it makes sense. If you are not attracted to the opposite sex, your genes are literally bad as much as those of someone who is incapable of having sex or incapable of finding a mate because those genes will not be passed on. Something went wrong and you got the wrong set of sexual desires.

A mental disorder is defined as one that is harmful to someone. Homosexuality was taken off the list of mental disorders in the '60's, as it is not harmful to oneself or anyone else.

I'm not making a moral argument here that's pure logic.
And an interesting question if homosexuality wasn't so controversial, would it just kill itself by no procreation? Through the centuries homosexuals have gotten married and had children due to expectation. Remove that, and you are left with homosexual relationships not resulting in children, thereby filtering out that gene. This logic can also then prove it isn't genetic as has survived until now, unless expectation really played that big a role. I wonder if homosexuality is a condition experienced by other animals than humans that might explain a lot.

Right, because only mentally challenged people have mentally challenged kids. Only artists have artistic children. Only tall people have tall children.... Straight people only have straight kids... And I should have clarified myself earlier: I said genetics but another possibility is that hormone levels in-utero are causes of homosexuality.

And actually homosexuality has been documented in dozens of animal species.


djr33
Saturday 02nd of February 2008 12:44:02 PM
[choice]
I find it strange that people are something they don't like or are something they find wrong. I'd suggest reevaluating if you really don't believe in how you feel. If not, I don't think there is much need to justify it.

[WWII/Jews/Hitler]
You're right about that, and that comment could be offensive to some. Not my intent. I suppose I mean that even through this they stood up for their religion and kept practicing it as much as possible.

[born with certain sexuality]
Well, hey, if Michael Jackson can turn white... :p
People are also born with certain taste buds. But burning them could change their tastes.
It IS possible for one's sexuality to change, and perhaps you won't agree that it can just happen, but there are certainly some extreme ways, such as severe physical trauma to the brain or hormonal adjustment (medically).

[mental disorder]
It is actually harmful for the species as it limits reproduction. (In an evolutionary sense, not actual due to severe overpopulation as it is.)
I don't see a mental disorder as explicitly harmful either, but just "wrong"... a problem with one's brain that creates a condition. Autism isn't harmful. It's just living in a different state.
I'm not advocating claiming that anyone who is gay is insane, but simply pointing out that claiming it's genetic is then claiming it's something wrong. (Or if this is from the wrong hormones in-utero.)


[animals]
I'd be interested in some research on that. (Not that I don't believe you at all I haven't seen anything on the subject it sounds like something worth investigating.)


Dosmaritos
Saturday 02nd of February 2008 06:52:34 PM
Lesbians rules. Gays drools!


Avaldi
Saturday 02nd of February 2008 07:48:18 PM
All across America anti-gay comments can be heard constantly in high-schoools. Kids who deviate from the standard gender stereotype are ridiculed, harassed, assaulted, and sometimes even killed. Of course there shouldn't be any distinction in value between homosexuality and heterosexuality, but certainly most of the world's population feels that there is.

Wow! Here in Spain people just speak, never kill!! I think you have a problem with guns in North America. In Spain it's very weird to hear about someone who killed somebody, hopefully. :p

By the way, Avaldi, we say "relationship", not just "relation".

Gracias colega ;)

I think that for many, many gay guys the process of realization and acceptance can be very traumatic, yes.

Espero que tuviera el orgullo como tú, Avaldi.

¿Tienes MSN?

I don't understand why, you are who you are. And you have to accept it :)


Joe
Saturday 02nd of February 2008 08:29:36 PM
Originally posted by djr33

[animals]
I'd be interested in some research on that. (Not that I don't believe you at all I haven't seen anything on the subject it sounds like something worth investigating.)

Several non-human species of primates exhibit this, probably the most notable are the Bonobo Chimpanzees. Homosexuality among them is primarily female/female, although male/male occurs as well. The Bonobo are studied for their sexuality traits, as they have many sexual characteristics that no (or few) other species display, such as homosexuality, sex as a method of resolving conflicts...


Crealo
Tuesday 05th of February 2008 10:05:44 AM
I don't understand why, you are who you are. And you have to accept it :)

Es más facil decir que hacer...


djr33
Tuesday 05th of February 2008 12:30:36 PM
If one feels guilty, there is almost surely a reason and one which, clearly, they know (at least at a deep level) is wrong.
In terms of homosexuality that generally comes from a viewpoint instilled by society that homosexuality is taboo, so one feels guilty about it. However, I don't see the point in feeling guilty about something you don't have a problem with. Bit of a contradiction there.
It's something like how I feel about eating meat. I understand the reasons for being a vegetarian and I don't make euphemisms for myself I just eat meat because it tastes good, and yes, I'm killing animals, but I've decided to simply accept that. If I didn't, then I'd be completely contradicting myself.

I've always found it strange when someone decides to redefine their religion or something to allow for a belief. I have a friend who believed homosexuality was a sin then, after years, decided to accept it, and redefined his views of religions to accept it.

I suppose I said that backwards, though, really that I find it strange people limit their beliefs by societal standards, to go against what they really want.

Ancora... É la vita.


hamid18
Friday 28th of March 2008 09:21:01 AM
Originally posted by JoeOriginally posted by djr33

[animals]
I'd be interested in some research on that. (Not that I don't believe you at all I haven't seen anything on the subject it sounds like something worth investigating.)

Several non-human species of primates exhibit this, probably the most notable are the Bonobo Chimpanzees. Homosexuality among them is primarily female/female, although male/male occurs as well. The Bonobo are studied for their sexuality traits, as they have many sexual characteristics that no (or few) other species display, such as homosexuality, sex as a method of resolving conflicts...I saw a short documentary about this, but it was about dolphins and their sensual behaviour as well as their sexual behaviour. In most cases there are same-sex relationships. When they mate with the opposite sex is usually just to preserve their speciesI'm not saying they don't have feelings for their opposite-sex mate but that is their primary reason. It should be noted that both male and female dolphins have a slit (where their reproductive organs lay)

As a matter of fact, traces of homosexual/bisexual behaviour is found in many mammals or higher-intelligent creaturesbirds (especially flamingos), dogs, and primates as Joe mentioned.

To answer Avaldi's question, I don't think orientation should matter to the government or any work place. Many people here equate homosexuality with "automatic rape" in which the homosexual is the predator which is no more certain than a heterosexual person raping someone else. Gays are also automatically assumed to act overly effiminate (a la faerie) and lesbians are assumed to act overly masculine (or butchy). But it seems to be universal to make assumptions about somebody without really getting to know them first.

That's my two cents. I'll pop out now :p


Anonymous
Wednesday 02nd of April 2008 06:59:02 AM
why not? we all have our own preferences.


Veelakhu
Monday 07th of July 2008 08:33:21 AM
Regardless of how I may feel about homo-sexuality the question of rather a government should allow gays is a different subject. The very term 'govern' has to do with not letting things get out of control. It really has nothing to do with what is actually driving the workings of a nation. For example those really fast cars over in Europe are all supposed to be governed down to a certain capability here in the US. I am not so sure any 'governments' attempt to regulate personal preference is going to have much lasting impact. Of course there is the view that if a government sets a righteous foundation then there is at least a voice telling the people what is acceptable or not. However with so many view points this is hard to determine what is right.

I personally subscribe to the two parent method of the nuclear family, where each child receives a balanced input from both mother and father. Any deviation from this tends to thwart the healthy development of the child's ability to function to their full potential.

In my humble opinion. :)

Return to the MISCELLANEOUS Archive
Forward to the Current MISCELLANEOUS Discussion

Archive