That's my point exactly. Gay people are born that way and in many societies they suffer because of it. They should be treated just like non-gay people and allowed to live their life the way God meant for them, and that is to be gay. If gay people were not meant to be gay, God would not have made gay people. Gay people are born gay. It’s a fact. Get over it. This fear that people will turn gay if gay marriage is legal is nonsense.
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Xstacy
- Start date
HappyCamper
Rising Star
ohayoco, no one is talking about you being gay. There a whole thread about negativity that we all need to re read. Like the saying goes, it's the sin, not the sinner. People who are accepting of gays say that I am not tolerant. Well, all I ask is for you to be tolerant of my opinion.
islandhome
Rising Star
hey i dont like the parading ither
and i hate the fact that gays stole the rainbow
no really
and i hate the fact that gays stole the rainbow
no really
SpasticSpaz
Rising Star
HappyCamper, just curious, but how do you feel about the fact that in 50 years your views will almost certainly be viewed with the same sense of befuddlement that the idea that interracial marriage could be immoral (an idea that was widespread 50 years ago in the US) is viewed with today?
acolon_5 said:
Which is why government should ALSO be out of the marriage business: no GAY marriage, no STRAIGHT marriage. People should "marry" as they please, and then for all the necessary modern legal reasons be allowed to "register" that partnership with government (although, personally, I eschew even that).
As I age I become ever warmer toward anarchy (which, literally means, of course, "without a leader"). I don't want a leader. I have a very difficult time thinking of even a single occasion when one has done any good. I can think of COUNTLESS occasions where they have orchestrated shocking violence, destructiveness, and disharmony.
Here's an interesting marijuana article out today that shows us how badly government has managed our lives.
Islandhome- sorry for misunderstanding you. Your comment seemed like it was directed at me because it was under my post. I hope that you have accepted your sexuality now and have found happiness because of it. I'm ashamed to be a member of a society whose members have made you feel compelled to try to deny who you are. If it was religion that compelled you, remember that if god is all-loving as it is 'supposed' to be, then it loves gay people as much as straight. The whole persecution of gay people comes out of two short sentences at the very start of the old testament. Just as the whole oppression of drug use comes as a result of a couple of references forbidding magic. Jesus discounted most of what went before him, and I am confident that he was not an oppressor of gay people. It's sad that his hippy ideals have been twisted so badly by 'Christians' just like those of his own religion who he labelled 'the hypocrites'. I would even go so far as to say that he probably told them it was fine, but that if it ever was recorded it would've been edited out, or that particular gospel dismissed and destroyed by the Romans as heresy, as they did with any that conflicted with their patriarchal empire, such as the gospel of Mary Magdalene, which placed woman equal with man. If we all still lived strictly according to the old testament, women would again be little more than slaves.
I should point out that I am not a Christian. I was raised one by my culture, attending church twice weekly, but after reading the entire bible in adolescence and noting down every discrepancy, intolerence, contradiction and hypocrisy, I decided that it wasn't for me. Jesus is still on my list of 'major dudes' though. Incidentally, unlike the Abrahimic religions, hinduism and buddhism are gay-friendly.
I should admit that I was exagerrating here. I doubt that every homophobe is in the closet. There is truth in it though. A straight person assumes that sexuality is genetic. Whereas a bisexual in denial assumes that sexuality is a choice that can be learnt, because they have feelings for both sexes and struggle to oppress one side of their sexuality. Hence the irrational worry over gay couples adopting (and even though it wouldn't happen, why would it be a bad thing if the child DID turn out gay? Only if 'gay'='bad' to you. And given our current overpopulation, if only people COULD learn to be gay!). Even 100% gay people sometimes try to be straight, not only bisexuals- in the old days because they faced severe persecution otherwise, but today because of their religion and the oppressive judgements of the society shaped by this religion. The film American Beauty got the point across quite well.
Many homophobes just like having someone to hate. This is Freudian transference, or scapegoating. One group projecting negative feelings (often its own negative traits) onto another group. Nazi Germany was the most extreme example- anyone whose race, sexuality, religion, political beliefs, way of life, economic success or lack of, or physical or mental health was said to be 'what is wrong with society' and exterminated. Jews, gypsies, gays, Jehovah's Witnesses, Freemasons, Communists, Anarchists, unemployed people, the insane, the mentally handicapped, and the physically handicapped were what according to the Nazis what was wrong with Nazi Germany. OF course, what was REALLY wrong with Nazi Germany was the Nazis.
While we have come a long way, prejudice is still socially acceptable in some forms. The Christian prejudice against gay people lingers on, even though most governments do not share the sentiment anymore. Similarly, gypsy travellers are still largely condescended, forced to live in horrific government camps underneath power cables in the supposedly 'civilised' western world. Of course, anyone who wants to enjoy drugs other than the state-certified ones of alcohol and tobacco is completely demonised by the rest of society without question. Ignorant people hate anyone who doesn't want to live like they do, because they are scared of difference. We should embrace variety, not oppress it.
I thought you were implying that I was gay because you were directing your words to 'Ohayoco' (that's me!) and then saying how if 'you're' gay and if 'you' want to parade etc. And this is the reaction I have got elsewhere when I stick up for gay rights (he's a sympathiser, he must be one of them), as if having compassion for a different group is unfathomable.
I am being tolerant of your opinion, as bizarre as it is that an intolerent person would demand that people should be tolerent of their intolerence. I accept that that is what you currently believe, but that doesn't mean I have to agree. Just as I wouldn't agree with a racist who posted in a thread called "Interracial marriage" and argued against it.
But there's a carrot here as well as a stick, HappyCamper. You should find that if you learn to be happy for people who are doing what makes them happy (when it doesn't stop your freedom to do what makes you happy either), then your life will be better for it. Does homophobia make you happy? No, of course not. It's a source of negativity for you. So abandon it, and say goodbye to negative emotions and frustration over your inability to control other people. Follow the path of love instead.
I should point out that I am not a Christian. I was raised one by my culture, attending church twice weekly, but after reading the entire bible in adolescence and noting down every discrepancy, intolerence, contradiction and hypocrisy, I decided that it wasn't for me. Jesus is still on my list of 'major dudes' though. Incidentally, unlike the Abrahimic religions, hinduism and buddhism are gay-friendly.
ohayoco said:
I should admit that I was exagerrating here. I doubt that every homophobe is in the closet. There is truth in it though. A straight person assumes that sexuality is genetic. Whereas a bisexual in denial assumes that sexuality is a choice that can be learnt, because they have feelings for both sexes and struggle to oppress one side of their sexuality. Hence the irrational worry over gay couples adopting (and even though it wouldn't happen, why would it be a bad thing if the child DID turn out gay? Only if 'gay'='bad' to you. And given our current overpopulation, if only people COULD learn to be gay!). Even 100% gay people sometimes try to be straight, not only bisexuals- in the old days because they faced severe persecution otherwise, but today because of their religion and the oppressive judgements of the society shaped by this religion. The film American Beauty got the point across quite well.
Many homophobes just like having someone to hate. This is Freudian transference, or scapegoating. One group projecting negative feelings (often its own negative traits) onto another group. Nazi Germany was the most extreme example- anyone whose race, sexuality, religion, political beliefs, way of life, economic success or lack of, or physical or mental health was said to be 'what is wrong with society' and exterminated. Jews, gypsies, gays, Jehovah's Witnesses, Freemasons, Communists, Anarchists, unemployed people, the insane, the mentally handicapped, and the physically handicapped were what according to the Nazis what was wrong with Nazi Germany. OF course, what was REALLY wrong with Nazi Germany was the Nazis.
While we have come a long way, prejudice is still socially acceptable in some forms. The Christian prejudice against gay people lingers on, even though most governments do not share the sentiment anymore. Similarly, gypsy travellers are still largely condescended, forced to live in horrific government camps underneath power cables in the supposedly 'civilised' western world. Of course, anyone who wants to enjoy drugs other than the state-certified ones of alcohol and tobacco is completely demonised by the rest of society without question. Ignorant people hate anyone who doesn't want to live like they do, because they are scared of difference. We should embrace variety, not oppress it.
As I said, it's mainly religious people who are homophobic. Hence, nowadays, the Christian fundamentalists have become the 'baddies' in comparison to the general culture.HappyCamper said:
I thought you were implying that I was gay because you were directing your words to 'Ohayoco' (that's me!) and then saying how if 'you're' gay and if 'you' want to parade etc. And this is the reaction I have got elsewhere when I stick up for gay rights (he's a sympathiser, he must be one of them), as if having compassion for a different group is unfathomable.
You use the phrase 'people who are accepting' as a contrast to your own viewpoint- well, being accepting IS being tolerent, so not being accepting is being intolerent. Therefore someone who is 'accepting of gays' is correct in saying that you are 'not tolerent'. Hence why you tell them not to 'parade' in front of you, as if you have ownership of what goes on in front of your eyes.HappyCamper said:
I am being tolerant of your opinion, as bizarre as it is that an intolerent person would demand that people should be tolerent of their intolerence. I accept that that is what you currently believe, but that doesn't mean I have to agree. Just as I wouldn't agree with a racist who posted in a thread called "Interracial marriage" and argued against it.
But there's a carrot here as well as a stick, HappyCamper. You should find that if you learn to be happy for people who are doing what makes them happy (when it doesn't stop your freedom to do what makes you happy either), then your life will be better for it. Does homophobia make you happy? No, of course not. It's a source of negativity for you. So abandon it, and say goodbye to negative emotions and frustration over your inability to control other people. Follow the path of love instead.
If homosexuality was genetic then that trait would have died out long ago... for one simple evolutionary reason... Homosexuals don't reproduce.... so how do they pass on their gay genes?
I think homosexuality is a learned behavior, not instinct.
I think it is more of which "works".
I think homosexuality is a learned behavior, not instinct.
I think it is more of which "works".
Homosexuality is not a learned behavior that is ridiculous. It is well know that it is a physiological "basis". Genes can be passed as recessive traits. This is how many diseases and disorders remain a part of the population. Thus only when an individual has two recessive genes will the disease phenotype be expressed. Also there are other correlation such as the environment during development in the womb that have be shown to play a role. Homosexuality is also observed in other animals to varying degrees.
They are definitely born that way. Why would someone choose this. It is quite apparent that some one is gay, they have specific behavioral patterns in many cases. It is wrong how our homophobic society treats homosexuals. Who cares what these people do. They have every right to do as they please so long as it does not physically harm another individual. They are not going to turn your kids gay. Why are our societies so homophobic?
They are definitely born that way. Why would someone choose this. It is quite apparent that some one is gay, they have specific behavioral patterns in many cases. It is wrong how our homophobic society treats homosexuals. Who cares what these people do. They have every right to do as they please so long as it does not physically harm another individual. They are not going to turn your kids gay. Why are our societies so homophobic?
QUOTE:
"Ok well what is the gene for homosexuality?
I just don't think it is genetic, but "learned" was a bad choice of words.
Quote:
They are definitely born that way.
I am inclined to disagree.
I'm sure I'll get flamed for "not loving the gays"."
Reply:
Not to be an asshole but I am not sure you understand genetics. Homosexuality like most phenotypes are much more complex than a single gene or even several genes. Complex interactions among a wide variety of genes and various regulator factors are involved. There are however known genes correlated with homosexuality. It may very well be a variety of different combinations as well.
As I said there are other things environmental factors. Also there are differences between normal subjects physiological markers and homosexuals. Just go to pubmed and look. There is a physiological difference this male individual are more like women physiologicaly. This is not a learned response .
No educated person honestly believes that homosexuality is a choice. This is wrong, it is not even a debate. Christians may pretend it is but they are wrong. There is absolutely a large genetic component. Honestly are you serious? Have you ever talked to a homosexual?
"Ok well what is the gene for homosexuality?
I just don't think it is genetic, but "learned" was a bad choice of words.
Quote:
They are definitely born that way.
I am inclined to disagree.
I'm sure I'll get flamed for "not loving the gays"."
Reply:
Not to be an asshole but I am not sure you understand genetics. Homosexuality like most phenotypes are much more complex than a single gene or even several genes. Complex interactions among a wide variety of genes and various regulator factors are involved. There are however known genes correlated with homosexuality. It may very well be a variety of different combinations as well.
As I said there are other things environmental factors. Also there are differences between normal subjects physiological markers and homosexuals. Just go to pubmed and look. There is a physiological difference this male individual are more like women physiologicaly. This is not a learned response .
No educated person honestly believes that homosexuality is a choice. This is wrong, it is not even a debate. Christians may pretend it is but they are wrong. There is absolutely a large genetic component. Honestly are you serious? Have you ever talked to a homosexual?
I did not mean to imply you are not educated but you do seem to be misinformed which is okay. One person can not know everything. However this is a not a matter of opinion it is without a doubt genetically determined.
There are differences in the brains of homosexual males and heterosexual males as well as genes.
There is no question that it is genetically determined. People are born that way. Many gays kill themselves because they are not accepted. The choice argument is just a complete fallacy. It has no basis and has been proved wrong beyond a reasonable doubt. Why would someone choose to be gay? Why do some animals also exhibit homosexual behaviors?
There are differences in the brains of homosexual males and heterosexual males as well as genes.
There is no question that it is genetically determined. People are born that way. Many gays kill themselves because they are not accepted. The choice argument is just a complete fallacy. It has no basis and has been proved wrong beyond a reasonable doubt. Why would someone choose to be gay? Why do some animals also exhibit homosexual behaviors?
Bufoman is completely right on this one. It is born in. You don't learn to be gay.
Haven’t you ever noticed that some lesbians have the facial characteristics of a man and some gay men have the facial characteristics of a woman? Sometimes it is so heavy that their voices also carry this characteristic and so they will dress as the opposite sex just so that they are not made fun of. It’s obviously genetic.
Anyone who doubts this, take a trip to the gay district of San Francisco and look around. You’ll notice an awful lot of the gay people LOOK GAY. Their bones even have a feminine/masculine mix, their voices do, the way they walk does, it’s so obviously genetic. Now some look completely straight and it’s not noticeable in their body structures, but many have obvious bone structures especially in the face that are different from that of straight people.
It's genetic. They were made that way by God.
Haven’t you ever noticed that some lesbians have the facial characteristics of a man and some gay men have the facial characteristics of a woman? Sometimes it is so heavy that their voices also carry this characteristic and so they will dress as the opposite sex just so that they are not made fun of. It’s obviously genetic.
Anyone who doubts this, take a trip to the gay district of San Francisco and look around. You’ll notice an awful lot of the gay people LOOK GAY. Their bones even have a feminine/masculine mix, their voices do, the way they walk does, it’s so obviously genetic. Now some look completely straight and it’s not noticeable in their body structures, but many have obvious bone structures especially in the face that are different from that of straight people.
It's genetic. They were made that way by God.
[quote='Coatl]If homosexuality was genetic then that trait would have died out long ago... for one simple evolutionary reason... Homosexuals don't reproduce.... so how do they pass on their gay genes?[/quote]
Unfortunately, genetics is much more complex than that (my undergrad degree is in genetics, btw). A common example is sickle cell trait: which, when homozygous, results in an incredibly debilitating illness--that without treatment would probably kill most people before they could do much breeding. But in heterozygous form, the allele helps prevent infection by the malaria parasite.
So, for all we know, genes that might promote gayness also have beneficial effects, so they would remains in the population.
Also, it may be that the gene is sex-linked. I'm sure, as humans were evolving, women would be impregnated whether they were very keen on the idea of sex with men or not. In that way the gene is kept in the population even if the men who get it don't mate--and besides, in small groups, those men might INDEED mate with women if there aren't any men around who share their trait. Most humans lived in small groups before the advent of agriculture.
An example of sex-linkage is the blood-clotting disease hemophilia: Women don't ever get the disease because they have TWO X chromosomes--and even if their mother carries ONE X chromosome with the allele, their father never will, because without treatment all male children die before they can reproduce. The allele stays in the population despite the fact that male children (with only one X chromosome) invariably die.
Genetics can be a dangerous minefield in which to make assumptions.
There's a prima facie case for assuming a strong genetic component for gayness from the way people report their feelings about their sexuality. Furthermore, there are anatomical markers (an especially long ring finger in men, for example--but also differences in certain areas of the brain) which correlate well with gayness--implying a genetic component. btw, in the "ring finger" example, highly successful men ALSO have a tendency to have longer ring fingers.
Unfortunately, genetics is much more complex than that (my undergrad degree is in genetics, btw). A common example is sickle cell trait: which, when homozygous, results in an incredibly debilitating illness--that without treatment would probably kill most people before they could do much breeding. But in heterozygous form, the allele helps prevent infection by the malaria parasite.
So, for all we know, genes that might promote gayness also have beneficial effects, so they would remains in the population.
Also, it may be that the gene is sex-linked. I'm sure, as humans were evolving, women would be impregnated whether they were very keen on the idea of sex with men or not. In that way the gene is kept in the population even if the men who get it don't mate--and besides, in small groups, those men might INDEED mate with women if there aren't any men around who share their trait. Most humans lived in small groups before the advent of agriculture.
An example of sex-linkage is the blood-clotting disease hemophilia: Women don't ever get the disease because they have TWO X chromosomes--and even if their mother carries ONE X chromosome with the allele, their father never will, because without treatment all male children die before they can reproduce. The allele stays in the population despite the fact that male children (with only one X chromosome) invariably die.
Genetics can be a dangerous minefield in which to make assumptions.
There's a prima facie case for assuming a strong genetic component for gayness from the way people report their feelings about their sexuality. Furthermore, there are anatomical markers (an especially long ring finger in men, for example--but also differences in certain areas of the brain) which correlate well with gayness--implying a genetic component. btw, in the "ring finger" example, highly successful men ALSO have a tendency to have longer ring fingers.
[quote='Coatl]If homosexuality was genetic then that trait would have died out long ago... for one simple evolutionary reason... Homosexuals don't reproduce.... so how do they pass on their gay genes?[/quote]
Homosexuality doesn't appear to be wholly a genetic trait. There's evidence suggesting that it results from the environmental conditions the mother is living when carrying a child. British scientists were reliably able to make the majority of sheep offspring homosexual by tweaking simple things like diet and environmental temperature around the mother.
Isn't love, intimacy, and spiritual wholeness what's important here?
Homosexuality doesn't appear to be wholly a genetic trait. There's evidence suggesting that it results from the environmental conditions the mother is living when carrying a child. British scientists were reliably able to make the majority of sheep offspring homosexual by tweaking simple things like diet and environmental temperature around the mother.
Why does it matter which can produce offspring? What matters is that people can share a deep lifelong connection. Just going out on a limb here, but I don't think that a gay woman can be spiritually satisfied with a male intimate life partner, or vice versa.
Isn't love, intimacy, and spiritual wholeness what's important here?
Another interesting observation is the apparent positive correlation between intelligence and tolerence.
I'm not meaning to offend people here, although I understand that this comment could be inflammatory- please don't take it as such. I'm sure the correlation exists, it is glaringly obvious, and I find it an interesting one. Are there any studies to prove this, or is it just that tolerent people SEEM more intelligent?! Maybe it is education rather than intelligence itself. The intelligentsia have I think generally always been more tolerent of minorities than the general population. Maybe I'm wrong but that's how it seems to me. I would hazard a guess that to be tolerent, one needs the emotional intelligence to empathise and place yourself in another's shoes, or the 'conventional' intelligence to understand the ethical argument without falling prey to taught prejudice.
I'm not meaning to offend people here, although I understand that this comment could be inflammatory- please don't take it as such. I'm sure the correlation exists, it is glaringly obvious, and I find it an interesting one. Are there any studies to prove this, or is it just that tolerent people SEEM more intelligent?! Maybe it is education rather than intelligence itself. The intelligentsia have I think generally always been more tolerent of minorities than the general population. Maybe I'm wrong but that's how it seems to me. I would hazard a guess that to be tolerent, one needs the emotional intelligence to empathise and place yourself in another's shoes, or the 'conventional' intelligence to understand the ethical argument without falling prey to taught prejudice.
^^?what?
who cares if people are gay? its no big deal.
who cares if people are gay? its no big deal.
Similar threads
