Hot Debate: Your Views On Gays & Homosexuality ...

[HTML_Guru 0]

In lamen's terms,

 

Aberration: a deviation from either logical process or thought OR "the norm".

 

My thought on homosexuality is that, in essence, that viewpoint or idea is an aberration; a wrong. In all actuality, homosexuality is illogical, mainly pertaining to the point of procreation. One could expound upon different supposed "logics" or at least "non-logics" of homosexuality - or, for that matter, bisexuality, but you would find, in most cases, that it would be nothing more than a via to the basic illogic(s) of homosexuality or bisexuality.

 

However, do in no way get me wrong; I am NOT a homophobe - I can't even see how one might go about BEING a homophobe. I do not mind those that are gay, but I will not validate their sexuality, or lack thereof.

 

Keepin' it real,

HTML_Guru

[mitchellmckain 0]

Religious freedom must include a freedom from the imposition of religion on other people.  Any activity which does not do harm according to secular judgement (ie. legal and scientific reasoning), cannot be prohibited by the secular authority.  The morality of such activities can only be judged by the religious sector, which means that homosexuality (which clearly falls in this category) must be protected under the auspices of religious freedom.  However, that means it must also be subjected to the same restrictions.  This means that public places such as the workplace and public schools can prohibit the free discussion of both religion and homosexuality if these are judged disruptive or inappropriate.  However these two must legally be on an equal basis.

As a follow up, another thought ocurred to me. Complete equivelence between homosexual right and religious freedom is not quite possible. The problem is that homosexuality is a sexual activity and therefore there are some restrictions with regard to children. These restrictions are already in place under the guidelines with regards to the sexual abuse of children. There are some gray areas about an appropriate environment for children which is not easy to resolve, except on a case by case basis. It is better not to tie the hands of adjudicators in such situation with legal mandates, injustices by particular adjudicators can be appealed. But the primary concern in such situations must be the well being of the child and so it is better to keep politics out of it.

[mitchellmckain 0]

My thought on homosexuality is that, in essence, that viewpoint or idea is an aberration; a wrong.  In all actuality, homosexuality is illogical, mainly pertaining to the point of procreation.  One could expound upon different supposed "logics" or at least "non-logics" of homosexuality - or, for that matter, bisexuality, but you would find, in most cases, that it would be nothing more than a via to the basic illogic(s) of homosexuality or bisexuality.
However, do in no way get me wrong; I am NOT a homophobe - I can't even see how one might go about BEING a homophobe.  I do not mind those that are gay, but I will not validate their sexuality, or lack thereof.

To keep it honest, I must admit that I am a homophobe. Phobias like this derive from bad experiences one has had in the past. Mostly, all this means is that I may avoid their company or feel a bit uncomfortable in their presence. In my previous posts, I hope that I have displayed some degree of cool logic.

But I am utterly offended by the idea that some people are born as homosexuals, as if we do not have freedom to choose. Along with this are some other very noxious ideas to which I am also very opposed. This includes the idea that only men bursting with testosterone, athletics and "manliness" are not homosexual. I am a strong advocate of male liberation from these absurd ideas about how men should behave and live their lives. Trying to make homosexuality out to be some kind of genetic conditon is a terrible mistake, and will not help anyone.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

But I am utterly offended by the idea that some people are born as homosexuals, as if we do not have freedom to choose.  Along with this are some other very noxious ideas to which I am also very opposed.  This includes the idea that only men bursting with testosterone, athletics and "manliness" are not homosexual.  I am a strong advocate of male liberation from these absurd ideas about how men should behave and live their lives.  Trying to make homosexuality out to be some kind of genetic conditon is a terrible mistake, and will not help anyone.

1064328994[/snapback]

While I agree that male stereotypes are generally something we need to move past, genetics DO have an affect on our lives. I didn't choose my hair color, my ethnicity, or any of that. I have never been attracted to men, even though sometimes I wish I could (like periods in my life where gay men were interested in me, but no women...and the guys were so sweet. It sucked turning them down).

 

So, yes, our freedom to choose some things, even perhaps our sexuality is not under our control. We may choose how we DEAL with that sexuality, but not so much the sexuality itself.

 

More to the point, whether genetic, or not, who cares? Homosexuality is a private matter. Or, as I like to say, "I have better things to worry about than who sticks what, where, in whom."

 

Another post talked about the logic of homosexuality. Since when have people been very 'logical' about sex?? Besides, procreation, these days, just isn't an issue. There are PLENTY of people on the planet. If some people live lives that don't give rise to children, that is their issue. From this perspective, a heterosexual couple that chooses not to have children is no different than a pair of gay men (or lesbians if they choose to not have a kid via artificial means). If we are OK with such a heterosexual couple, then why have a problem with gay men?

 

Or what about couples that adopt instead of raising their own kid? Gay men can do this as well, and lesbians (I have even known such a couple-they did just fine).

[aimeemayonnaise 0]

I completely agree with being homosexual, it's up to the person themself to choose who they're "with" and that choice shouldn't affect their existing relationships in any way.Two of my friends and me were discussing homosexuality the other day and we all agreed that everyone's free to be with who they want and not who anyone else wants them to (that was including my Christian friend whose religion frowns upon homosexuality, according to her -- I have no knowledge of the Christian religion so excuse me if I'm wrong). I then asked my Christian friend why homosexuality was frowned upon in her religion and she told me, "because God created women for men and men for women." Now, I can see where she is coming from but Adam and Eves' purpose was to populate the Earth (or so I think) so it would make sense to create a woman and a man because there isn't a way for a man and a man or a woman and a woman to reproduce. That being said, God could have created mankind to be able to reproduce across the same gender.I don't agree with a person's religion choosing their sexuality for them as it leave the person with a religious dilemma if they do discover that they are homosexual.I do agree with MajesticTreeFrog though, about how our sexuality may have already been chosen for us before we are born but how we deal with that sexuality is a personal choice and should not be controlled by anyone, government, religion or otherwise.

[Houdini 0]

One of the first commandments to man from God was to be fruitful and multiply, therefore homosexual activity does not in any means fullfill that requirement. Homoseual practice if taken as a norm would doom the entire species of man within one generation. It is biologically incorrect and also the major cause of aids. There are very few of those infected by this disease that are not homosexual, just another reason not to engage in such perverted behavior.God does not like it (I believe he called it an abomination, and also destroyed an entire city Sodom because of the widespread practice of this perverted behavior) and most normal people don't want to see perverted folks flaunting their sexual depravity in the presence of their children or themselves, if you are queer (the real term for such behavior) then I do not want to know about your perversion, and I certainly don't want to pay through my taxes for the results of your behavior.Now it is quite possible that ou do not believe in a God almighy, which is your perogative, but if there is you shall have to answer to a being that created everything and that knows everything and you will be quite small and without a response to such a superior being. If he can create something I am certain he can also destroy it with little effort. It is kinda like watching a building get built but its destuction because it is not longer useful or dangerous takes little time at all.

[Opethian 0]

The fact that being gay is a touchy subject. Let's face it, the whole world isn't ready to accept relationships between same sex, yet that is. A lot of people have some level of homophobia, and you can't really fault them for it, because they were raised to realize that X + Y = Z, and that X + X cannot be.

[velma 6]

There are many creatures in the wild who have had homosexual tendencies like apes and cats and dogs that too under studied experiments, Unfortunately I had a pair of *person* tom cats with me when I was a kid and the idea of gay marriage is not completely mad for they themselves would want a normal life of their own. It is not like that they chose to be gay but it happens genetically from the time that they are conceived.Again I say treat them like humans and not specimens of the lab. For they are not lab rats.I have to admit though that they are very brave to say that they are gay when others would not

Edited March 23, 2007 by OpaQue (see edit history)

[Dalv87 0]

I'm not gay, but I don't care if people are. It's not like there's a shortage of people in the world, people not reproducing isn't going to doom mankind, it's people reproducing too much that will probably lead us to extinction. Every study I've ever seen shows that gay couples are as good at parenting as straight couples, so I'm find with gay adoption, and since gays pay the same taxes as everyone else they should get the same benefits. I would say they should make gay marriage legal, except I don't think the government should be involved in marriage at all, they should just give everyone equal civil unions and leave marriage to the churches.

[iGuest 3]

I don't really think gay marriage is a good thing because it was made that women and man come together and produce seed but, some people don't believe that way and in the united states I don't think they should have any thing to say about it because it is a free country and people have freedom to do whatever they want to do. But I don't think they should let same sex marry each other I mean people can like each other but they should not let same sex couples get married. Its just sick...Theres no one who can stop it but I wouldnt recommend that happen at any point

 

[iGuest 3]

To say that gays cannot get married because they cannot produce children is a flawed argument. In order for that to be valid, one would have to prevent the marriages of infertile couples, those that choose not to have children, and those too old to bare.

Those opposing same sex marriage: Have you ever asked a gay person WHY they want to get married? The answers they give may in fact surprise you. Did you know that regardless of how long a couple has been together, if something incompacitates one of the partners, that a hospital does not have to allow their partner to visit? A true story that may shock some of you follows.

There was a gay male couple that met in the 50's. Their name slips my mind but I will call them Bob and Tim for the sake of the story. The two men loved each other very deeply and build a life together. Bob purchased land and together they built what eventually became a very successful farm from the ground up which they each worked for 50+ years. These two even lived in a state where civil unions were legal, and had one themselves. Bob grew ill and passed away. He had a legal will that stated that the farm and everything on it was to go to his partner of 50+ years, Tim. Bob also had distant cousins that desired to own the farm and felt they were entitled to it and felt that this man Tim, had no right to it even though he himself had helped build the house and barns and had lived there for 50 years. These people, had never even met Bob. The cousins filed a legal challenge to the will and won. Tim who was still grieving for his lost love of 50 years, now found his whole life taken away. His livelyhood, his home, his love, were all gone. You may be saying to yourself that this would never happen. Well unfortunatly it did because despite what has been told to many, a civil union does not carry the same legal weight as a marriage and in most states when a blood relative challenges a will against a non-family member, the court must side with the blood relative.

The reason gays are fighting isnt because they want to take anything away from the straights, they want to have the ability to have a say in what becomes of their loved ones, visitation rights, property rights, etc. All of which are guarenteed by and protected by marriage. If civil unions held the same legal weight, then of course gays would be satisfied with them.

FYI-- If you get a domestic partnership/civil union performed in one state that recognises them, should you move to another state that also allows them, you must pay to have ANOTHER one done in your new state. Married couples only have to get married once.