My Personal Views On Homosexuality

Firstly these are my views. I have the right and I am entitled to have my views.

Just because you do not agree with me does not mean my rights should be compromised. It is my intention to promote positive discussion of the topic and my points.

Some argue homosexuality is not a choice, one does not choose their sexual orientation. I disagree with that statement because this can also apply to other situations. A lot of people including some scientific researchers also say paedophilia is not chosen by an individual.

My issue with this is if society is to accept homosexuals on the basis that they have no choice, then why punish and criminalise paedophiles as they also have no choice?

Humans are limited in their choice, we 'cant' decide what we want. We are designed in a way, this information is stored in our DNA. Society can also have a strong say. Two siblings, a brother and a sister, cannot have a sexual relationship because it goes against etiquette of society and science. He cannot just say 'oh I love my sister, its not affecting you so whats your problem if i go out with her'.

Furthermore if we are to accept the argument 'gays are born gay' we must investigate that claim and examine what it means for humanity. Under the assumption that the argument that they are born gay holds, then it is something which is affecting their ability to reproduce (as they are not attracted to the opposite sex). Then, it is in my belief that by definition of continuity of the human race we must find a way to prevent it as it is, technically speaking, a negative genetic mutation and must be addressed by doctors and medical researchers to preserve continuity.

I should not be down voted because of my views.

Further to this my point is society in general is vastly negative towards paedophiles. If a paedophile is known to the authorities they are punished, criminalised and jailed. How is this fair if we are saying both circumstances are through no choice of their own? Nature has come up quiet frequently. Some users are saying homosexuality is natural and paedophilia is not - where is the evidence I ask to accept one and reject the other of being natural?

Many users have rejected the idea of incest on the basis that children produced from an incestuous couple will be disadvantaged from a weaker gene pool, but why are users making the assumption that all incestuous relationships will directly lead to a child I ask?

Many people have tackled my negative gene issue about human continuity by stating homosexuals will promote a negative population growth and will help issues of over crowding. I cannot express in words how offended I am by that statement. So because we want to control the population does that mean we should abandon research and development in preventing cancer and other forms of life threatening illnesses? By that logic we can say we should have more illegal wars as it will bring down the mortality levels and help control population?

You still cannot claim that it is a sexual orientation. It cannot be a sexual orientation simply by the definition of what a sexual orientation is.

Firstly these are my views. I have the right and I am entitled to have my views regarding this subject especially as it is always under constant mass scrutiny. Just because you do not agree with me does not mean my rights should be compromised. It is my intention to promote positive discussion of the topic and my points.

Some argue homosexuality is not a choice, one does not choose their sexual orientation. I disagree with that statement because this can also apply to other situations. A lot of people including some scientific researchers also say paedophilia is not chosen by an individual. My issue with this is if society is to accept homosexuals on the basis that they have no choice, then why punish and criminalise paedophiles as they also have no choice?

Humans are limited in their choice, we 'cant' decide what we want. We are designed in a way, this information is stored in our DNA. Society can also have a strong say. Two siblings, a brother and a sister, cannot have a sexual relationship because it goes against etiquette of society and science. He cannot just say 'oh I love my sister, its not affecting you so whats your problem if i go out with her'. I therefore believe choice alone is not justification for homosexuality.

Furthermore if we are to accept the argument 'gays are born gay' we must investigate that claim and examine what it means for humanity. Under the assumption that the argument that they are born gay holds, then it is something which is affecting their ability to reproduce (as they are not attracted to the opposite sex). Then, it is in my belief that by definition of continuity of the human race we must find a way to prevent it as it is, technically speaking, a negative genetic mutation and must be addressed by doctors and medical researchers to preserve continuity.

These are some subjects which I feel strongly about. I am willing to debate issues regarding psychology, health and hygiene, communication, social impacts etc.

This topic is constant in media, social and professional circles. There will always be support for and against, I am simply against due to some points I outlined above. I should not be down voted because of my views (there are plenty of groups which are allowed to have a say no matter how 'wrong' some people think they are such as BNP EDL Extremist Muslims), rather I would like TSR to assess my points. This issue must be discussed if were are to find an eventual solution. I welcome feedback and further discussion.

***************************

A lot of people are saying that paedophilia and homosexuality cannot be compared and the comparison is not relevant. You cannot just say it is not relevant without any sort of justification. I am saying it is relevant and will pursue to argue the case. Wikipedia also agrees with the relevancy with a cited source, to quote directly from Wikipedia:



Further to this my point is society in general is vastly negative towards paedophiles. If a paedophile is known to the authorities they are punished, criminalised and jailed. How is this fair if we are saying both circumstances are through no choice of their own? Nature has come up quiet frequently. Some users are saying homosexuality is natural and paedophilia is not - where is the evidence I ask to accept one and reject the other of being natural?

People are discussing incest as being not natural. A common consensus for the acceptance of the homosexual community is the argument where two practising consensual adults are free to do what they desire as long it is not harming anyone else. One (or two) can maintain an incestuous sexual relationship in this manner as it can be said they are not harming anyone. Many users have rejected the idea of incest on the basis that children produced from an incestuous couple will be disadvantaged from a weaker gene pool, but why are users making the assumption that all incestuous relationships will directly lead to a child I ask? Homosexuality and incest can be practised without procreation so I ask again, why is the idea of incest constantly rejected by society?

Many people have tackled my negative gene issue about human continuity by stating homosexuals will promote a negative population growth and will help issues of over crowding. I cannot express in words how offended I am by that statement. So because we want to control the population does that mean we should abandon research and development in preventing cancer and other forms of life threatening illnesses? By that logic we can say we should have more illegal wars as it will bring down the mortality levels and help control population?

These are sexual orientations because they are based upon the sex you are attracted to, i.e. male or female. However, child is not a sex, thus paedophilia cannot be described as a sexual orientation. It can be described as a sexual attraction, because that is what it is, but not as a sexual orientation, because it isn't.

Basic Psychology? Studies have shown how harmful adult-child sexual relations can be.

Oh stfu ignoramous.

Sexual orientation is the orientation of sexual attraction. It is where sexual attractions are orientated towards. Therefore when you say sexual orientation, you really mean sexual [attaction] orientation.

Sex refers to biological sex, sexual refers to sexual attraction.

I would think a person ignoring the requirement for evidence and not using evidence to base their assumptions on would be the definition of a "ignoramous"

i.e. you

Which studies have suggested non-coercive and consensual adult-child sexual relations are universally and inherently harmful?

What would be the causal relationship and mechanism for this harm?

Are there studies which suggest this is not the case?

sex·u·al o·ri·en·ta·tion
noun
sexual orientations, plural

"The sum of our sexual, mental, and emotional attractions; orientation is about more than gender; it's about everything that can fulfill the human need for romantic intimacy."
www.otterbein.edu/diversity/glbtq-definitions.asp

So are you saying people who have claimed to go from homosexual to bisexual are liars? Surely by the definition of homosexuality, which states a person is sexually attracted to the same sex, one can choose to be exactly that if they so desired? Just saying 'you don't believe they can' is no justification to your cause I mean who are you to say a person cannot choose who they are attracted to?

Many people have claimed to have gone from strictly bisexual to strictly homosexual - meaning they are now exclusively sexually attracted to their own sex. Are you saying these people, in their thousands, are liars?

Many people have claimed to have gone from strictly bisexual to strictly homosexual - meaning they are now exclusively sexually attracted to their own sex. Are you saying these people, in their thousands, are liars?

You had a good argument until you quoted from Wikipedia... that is not a reliable source what so ever and destroys your argument as quite often when Wikipedia is researched using a plethora of well-established reliable sources, the information was found to be conveniently fabricated, if not simply wrong.

Nobody is saying that.
Right, let's take Stephen Fry as an example. He identifies as being gay, but says there are women he has found attractive. When he saw the first woman he was attracted to he didn't choose to be attracted to her, it just happened. He could have redefined himself as bisexual at that point, but chose to continue to define himself as gay.
However, if he redefined himself as bisexual, he wouldn't have changed his sexuality, he would have just changed what he called it. He didn't change to being attracted to a woman, he just found a woman he was attracted to - information he didn't have before when he defined himself as gay.
You can't change your sexuality, or I would have when I was attacked in school for being bisexual.

So is Mr. Fry a homosexual or a bisexual?

Because your use of the words define and redefine suggest he has a say in the matter, contrary to what is being currently being proposed in terms of choice