My Personal Views On Homosexuality

You have not proven either anywhere with any citations, just because you think something is true does not make it true. Claims must be proved and backed up.

You keep missing the point, the point is not which is paraphilias, the point is both claim it is a result of genes. Furthermore homosexuality can also be a paraphilia by the definitions being mentioned. How do you know homosexuality is not a paraphilia, and how do you know paedophilia is a paraphilia?

Is homosexuality wrong?
I would say no. I don't exactly agree with it 100% (if you look at it an apply something like Kant's Deontological principles you could say that not everyone could do it, so it is wrong), but I believe that people should be able to choose how they live their lives.

I have proof that homesexuality is fine. In the animal kingdom...
Stop right there. The problem is that far too many people try to justify homosexuality, as if it were something wrong. The best argument supporting homosexuality? Why not. It is as simple as that. It isn't hurting anyone (except maybe bigotted people), so I could hardly say it is wrong. When people say things like "Homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom" I can't help but think of all those things that happen in the animal kingdom that we would see as uncivil. I could hardly throw excrement at a person, then justifity it by saying "it's in my nature. Primates do it". Part of what makes us human is our ability to reason, and not partake in actions that are uncivil and potentially harmful. I would say homosexuality is neither.

You can't get Kant involved in this... :/
Who you choose to have sexual relations with is not a moral choice (assuming of course, the other person is a consenting adult).
It's just as ridiculous as saying that eating a particular breakfast cereal, such as frosties, is immoral, because if everyone did it, then all of the other cereal companies would go bankrupt.
You could even take it to the extreme, and say that it's immoral whichever individual you choose to have sex with, regardless of gender, because if everyone had sex with that one individual he/she would probably die of exhaustion, and would not be able to produce enough offspring to keep the human race going.
Kant doesn't belong in this discussion.

I don't like that argument either. But it's not an unprompted argument, it's said in response to people that say that homosexuality is unnatural, and it's attempting to prove that that's not the case. But I think a better response to that argument would be to say that neither is the computer/phone/ipod/whatever that you're viewing this on, and you don't seem to be complaining about that.
Also, like you pointed out, just because something is 'natural', like throwing poo at each each other, doesn't make it good either.

http://www.pnas.org/content/89/15/7199.long

"Morphological differences have been identified in homosexual men in nuclei
of the brain that are in regions that influence reproductive
physiology and behavior: the volume of the suprachiasmatic
nucleus may be larger than in heterosexual men and women
(17); and the interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus
3, which we found to be larger in men than in women (11), is
smaller in homosexual men than heterosexual men (1)"

May I ask why you think that since there isn't any proof to back that up?

May I ask why you think that since there isn't any proof to back that up?

I don't really see how that how that could be considered evidence. Furthermore, it's not true. I think it's a choice and so do some gay people.

Maybe I should point out I don't have a problem with homosexuality but I don't necessarily agree is isn't a choice

quote

Can't be bothered reading through all 13 pages but I agree with what the OP said exept I think that Homosexuality should be allowed. I think homosexuality is one of natures natural population controls. Homosexuality isn't a threat to humanity we are over crowded as it is so less children being born is a good thing.

Essentially Homosexuality, Paedophila, Beastiality etc... are the same thing sexual preference disorders or a form of mental illneses if you like that cannot be changed at least not with our current technology the difference between Homosexuality and the other two is that Homosexuality isn't harming others and if we can't change who they are then there is no point denying them the right to have a homosexual relationship it's just going to make them unhappy. Paedophila I think isn't necesarily all there own fault but if they act on it they are effectivley raping someone I am attracted to girls that have knocked me back but it doesn''t mean that I will just rape them anyway because i'm stronger than them. Seeing as Paedophila hasn't got a cure I think there should be forced chemical castration for offenders which will cut off all sexual urges completley if they re offend then Physical Castration should happen that will remove any chance of re offending.

I bet there are Paedophiles out there who haven't acted on their urges but are scared to come out and ask for help to control their urges I think they should be encouraged to come out and shouldn't be demonized because they have a mental illness (as long as they haven't acted on those urges) and recieve phyciatric help and chemical castration if they think they can't control their urges.

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?

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.

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?

How so? If a guy has sex with a woman then he is either straight or bisexual since he must be attracted to her. What actual evidence is there. All I hear is anecdotes and they go both ways, like people who are gay by choice? Like this person:*http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=15430087

Another interesting point is, if being gay isn't wrong then why does it matter if it's a choice. Some people seem to use it as a justification for being gay.

How so? If a guy has sex with a woman then he is either straight or bisexual since he must be attracted to her. What actual evidence is there. All I hear is anecdotes and they go both ways, like people who are gay by choice? Like this person:*http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=15430087

Another interesting point is, if being gay isn't wrong then why does it matter if it's a choice. Some people seem to use it as a justification for being gay.