Homosexuality

You can think that freely and even say it, as long as you don't try to force people not to do anything that you think wrong, just because you think it is wrong, or expect other people to share your opinion of the source, power or nature of your intelligence.

Reply 843

queenj

Weejimmie

There are many factors todeciding whether anything is right. Homosexual behaviour between consenting adults does no-one else any direct harm and pleasure to the participants so there is no reason to say it is wrong. Assorted religions say such behaviour is wrong because god says so. If that is true, it is a matter entirely for god, who can deal with it posthumously. We cannot say which- if any- religions are at all true and have no right to impose our religius beliefs on other people.

No one is talking about God here, besides what you are saying is: murder isn’t wrong, paedophilia isn’t wrong, mass murder isn’t wrong, and every thing else.

Reply 844

TKR

15

queenj

No one is talking about God here, besides what you are saying is: murder isn’t wrong, paedophilia isn’t wrong, mass murder isn’t wrong, and every thing else.

That's not what anyone has said at all! Why do you insist on constantly misrepresenting our opinions? We have stated time and time again what things we feel make an act right or wrong - I myself have made a post with the exact words "paedophilia is wrong". :rolleyes:

Reread what we have written - we've tried to make it clear to you that we do not beleive that somehting being natural makes it right, rather an actions effects on the world and the people around you decide this. Getting all hysterical and accusing us of condonng murder and paedophilia (which we clearly don't, as must surely be obvious to anyone who has actually read our posts" isn't getting you anywhere.

Reply 845

SlyPie

12

queenj

No one is talking about God here, besides what you are saying is: murder isn’t wrong, paedophilia isn’t wrong, mass murder isn’t wrong, and every thing else.

um, homosexuality does not result in a victim.

Reply 846

saz_1989

Without having read any of the debate because I'm laaaaazy... (and read everything before you have a go at me please :smile:

)

In some ways, homosexuality is against nature. It's caused by something going wrong before birth. It is against nature because we are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex so that we can reproduce. The thing that goes wrong is something to do with the amount of testosterone given to the foetus (male with too little = gay, female with too much = gay) but I'm no medic so I won't go into it further.

It's not a lifestyle choice; because of the homophobic losers out there, there are lots of gay people who at some point would prefer that they weren't gay. Some people have committed suicide because of abuse for being gay. You don't choose your sexuality, it's chosen for you before you're born.

However, another point is that if it wasn't natural it wouldn't happen. Saying it's not natural is like saying people born disabled are not natural. It's not "normal" - if there is such a thing. But it's natural.

Religion is actually the thing that goes against science and nature if you think about it.

And at any rate, who cares who someone fancies? And if it's you - be flattered.

Reply 847

Beekeeper

13

queenj

If you don't like it, go away, you're not forced to debate here.

What would be the point in debate if you only enter debates you "like"?

Anyway, who are you? :p:

And the quality of my response is relative to the quality of the first post.

Reply 848

naivesincerity

queenj

Exactly!

What do you mean exactly? You contradict yourself, you just said before that masturbation was unnatural and wrong.... :confused:

Reply 849

queenj

what you are saying is: murder isn’t wrong, paedophilia isn’t wrong, mass murder isn’t wrong, and every thing else.

Where have I said any of these things? "Every thing else" is rather a wide-ranging category, actally. It covers- well- every thing else. Even someone as talented and hard-working as i am couldn't possibly say every thing else, even if I was foolish enough to want to.

Reply 850

wanderer

Lauren

Without having read any of the debate because I'm laaaaazy... (and read everything before you have a go at me please :smile:

)

In some ways, homosexuality is against nature. It's caused by something going wrong before birth. It is against nature because we are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex so that we can reproduce. The thing that goes wrong is something to do with the amount of testosterone given to the foetus (male with too little = gay, female with too much = gay) but I'm no medic so I won't go into it further.

It's not a lifestyle choice; because of the homophobic losers out there, there are lots of gay people who at some point would prefer that they weren't gay. Some people have committed suicide because of abuse for being gay. You don't choose your sexuality, it's chosen for you before you're born.

However, another point is that if it wasn't natural it wouldn't happen. Saying it's not natural is like saying people born disabled are not natural. It's not "normal" - if there is such a thing. But it's natural.

Religion is actually the thing that goes against science and nature if you think about it.

And at any rate, who cares who someone fancies? And if it's you - be flattered.

Actually, there's no clear consensus on the cause of homosexuality, as you claim, although it is clear that its far from a simple 'choice', and the vast majority of people have no control over which gender they prefer. You say it is against nature because we are designed to reproduce (I'm not misinterpreting your post and labelling you as a homophobe here, I'm just disagreeing with some of your points). Its probably a mistake to refer to 'design' in nature - evolution gives the appearance of design, but its not the same thing. Its more accurate to say that humanity has evolved in such a way that the majority of people are attracted to people of the opposite gender - but humanity has also evolved in such a way that the majority of people do not have red hair. The key difference here is that homosexuality reduces the chances of reproduction significantly, whereas red hair, offensive jokes aside, has no effect on it. Does that mean homosexuality should be labelled as something that 'goes wrong' with someone? Only from a genetic survival point of view, and I don't think that really captures what it means for something to be wrong with someone. Sociopaths, people with low empathy who don't or are unable to consider the feelings of others, would generally be considered to have 'something wrong with them' to a far greater extent than homosexuals (particularly serial killers) but being sociopathic tends to confer a high level of confidence and charm that in the male at least would probably increase the chances of reproductive success (from an evolutionary viewpoint, rather than in modern society where they often end up in jail).

Reply 851

SolInvictus

11

Homosexuality, like most other things in life, is a complex issue. There are many environmental, emotional, physical and mental factors that can make someone what they are. It isn't as simple as some people are making it out to be.

Reply 852

There are actually two separate questions which- being human- we confuse unnecessarily and confusingly. One is the specific question of what causes human sexual proclivities and behaviour and the relative importance of different causes. Nurture vs nature. The other is whether human sexual behaviour is any business of anyone except the people actually directly involved, and, if it ever is, when it is. Most people would say that what consenting adults do with each other is no business of anyone else. Certainly homosexuality is a choice of lifestyle. If someone chooses to follow a lifestyle which incorporates homosexual behaviour and homosexual self-identification because of genetic factors or because of it is fashionable or both is irrelevant. If it doesn't harm anyone else directly it's no concern of anyone else.

Reply 853

naivesincerity

But what if a child who had been used by a paedophile said that they consented/didn't mind? How do you decide at which age a child has the intelligence/maturity to consent to something, as the age may vary for differnet people

Reply 854

Zoecb

11

The law decides. Each person is different. There are lots of mature 12 year olds who might be deemed old enough by some to consent to sex with their similarly aged partner. If they live in Holland, they don't have a problem. However there are vulnerable 16 year olds out there who can legally consent (in the UK) even though they might not be mentally ready. You have to generalise when you create laws, otherwise they can't exist.

Anyway, this is irrelevent to the thread.

Lauren, I think your testosterone theory is innaccurate though I see where your logic is coming from, and it does make some sense.

But people, what if it is part of our natural evolution that we have the intelligence to realise that reproducing is not necessarily a good thing and our functions don't need to be so geared towards it?

Reply 855

naivesincerity

But what if a child who had been used by a paedophile said that they consented/didn't mind? How do you decide at which age a child has the intelligence/maturity to consent to something, as the age may vary for differnet people

The age of consent is arbitrary to some degree- that's why it varies from country to country and culture to culture. It's simply when, in the opinion of legislators, people are probably unable to give informed consent to having sex. As you say, it varies from person to person too: that's why there is discretion in the system. Two fifteen year olds probably won't be prosecuted; a middle aged man or woman and a thirteen year old probably would be. There's the further complication that we live in a culture where physical maturity comes younger as a result of improved nutrition, great emphasis is put on sex and sexuality and there is also deliberate infantilisation of peoples' attitudes, which means that there are questions about when people can give informed consent for anything at all. I may be getting old and cynical though when I say that.

Reply 856

zooropa

Certainly homosexuality is a choice of lifestyle.

How so? There is no inherent lifestyle associated with homosexuality.

Reply 857

zooropa

How so? There is no inherent lifestyle associated with homosexuality.

Over the whole of history, no, but at the moment there is a lifestyle- or several related lifestyles- assumed to go along with homosexuality in the UK at least.

Reply 858

wanderer