Am I a homophobe?

[Stu Pidasso]

I'm sitting there channel surfing and I happen to see two men kissing on a show on HBO. I thought it was disgusting. Does that mean I'm a homophobe?

Stu

[James Boston]

No. It means you're straight.

[jagoff]

I'm sitting there channel surfing and I happen to see two men kissing on a show on HBO. I thought it was disgusting. Does that mean I'm a homophobe?

Do you enjoy watching two girls kiss? If yes you aren't a homophobe!

[stripsqueez]

i have a gay friend who finds the heterosexual sex act repugnant - go figure

my friend is not at all offended by the fact that i find the homosexual sex act repugnant - we have a standard routine whereby i ask him how his weekend was and he replies "it was so good i cant tell you"

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[nothumb]

Were they ugly? I'm assuming not.

I don't think you can control your reactions to images. You can consider your own beliefs and how you interact with others based on your gut reactions, but you can't stop what you feel when you see something, at least not immediately.

Are you a homophobe? I don't know, do you dislike being around gay people? Do you resent gay culture or think homosexuals are a threat to society? Or do you just not like to watch dudes make out?

NT

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
i have a gay friend who finds the heterosexual sex act repugnant - go figure

[/ QUOTE ] Is he repulsed by everything else that is normal?

sorry cheap shot....

[ThaSaltCracka]

Okay I have a serious question.
Is it possible to think Homosexuality is disgusting, but not think Homosexuals are disgusting. This is something I have been thinking about for a little while. I think the lifestyle(and yes it is a lifestyle) is disgusting and abnormal, however I do not hate gay people, in fact I have met many gay people, and they all seem normal /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[nothumb]

Perhaps you have a very stereotypical idea of the 'lifestyle' that is somewhat upset when you meet actual gay people. Not saying this to be a snot, I'm serious; most people do.

I know a lot of gay people who live far more stable and normal lives than I do.

NT

[ThaSaltCracka]

No, I don't think if someone is gay that means they are trendy or hairdresser or some [censored] like that. What I mean is the actual attraction to men is a lifestyle decision they make.

[M2d]

I think your personal reaction and feelings prove that thhe two opinions are possible. fwiw, I have no problem with the lifestyle or the act, as long as it doesn't involve me. It doesn't decrease supply (wouldn't want to be with some chick who was thinking about another chick, anyway), but it decreases demand, so you could probably chalk me up as a proponent of homosexuality.

[ThaSaltCracka]

This might possibly be the best argument for gay rights, ever!!

[M2d]

I have some gay friends who I used to hang out with a bit. I swear they're better than a puppy at attracting girls. they're the stereotypical fit, well groomed gay men, so the girls would come in for a look until they realize that they're on the other team. Then they'd look around and discover me, as the only viable option in the bunch.

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
What I mean is the actual attraction to men is a lifestyle decision they make.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where your thinking is flawed. No one decides to be gay. They are what they are. Think about it from your perspective. Did you ever decide to be attracted to women?

[ThaSaltCracka]

LOL, hilarious..... I need to find some gay guys to go pick up chicks with.

[CollegePlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sitting there channel surfing and I happen to see two men kissing on a show on HBO. I thought it was disgusting. Does that mean I'm a homophobe?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]
it meant that you were so attracted to them kissing that you pretended to hate it and turned the channel, then logged onto the internet to talk to strangers and have them assure you that you are normal and dont want a cock in your ass.

Seriously though, i dont think it means you are homophobe. you dislike the sexual act, not those participating in it.

[nicky g]

Do you find the attraction/act/lifestyle morally or physically disgusting (opr both)? I don't think finding the idea physically repellent necessarily makes you a homophobe. Finding it morally repellent or wrong would, IMO.

[ThaSaltCracka]

hmmm.... this is a slippery slop G.
I think its gross and abnormal, now, if i happen to find it morally wrong too how does that make me a homophobe? I am not saying its morally wrong, atleats not at this point, but I most certainly don't think its normal or natural.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I most certainly don't think its normal or natural.

[/ QUOTE ]
It depends on what you mean by normal and natural. Is it normal in the sense that a majority does it - no. Is it natural in the sense that it would be natural for a "normal" heterosexual to participate - no.

I tend to think that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality (just at different rates). There are studies suggesting homosexual behavior among other animals. That suggests to me that it is natural.

What suggests to you that it is unnatural?

[MMMMMM]

That is pretty funny and I bet it would work pretty well, too.

[gonores]

Since no one else has said it...

I'd be gay if it weren't for the sex with other men part.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it possible to think Homosexuality is disgusting, but not think Homosexuals are disgusting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[SossMan]

More importantly, I hope you didn't let the two guys kissing thing get in the way of watching one of the best shows on TV, 6 feet under.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
I tend to think that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality (just at different rates). There are studies suggesting homosexual behavior among other animals. That suggests to me that it is natural.

What suggests to you that it is unnatural?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because it may be found in animals doesn't make it any more normal or natural. The only thing that shows to me is that humans and animals are more similar than people think. IMO, it is an abnormality in both groups. Sex with the same sex is not normal, and in fact goes completely against what sex is suppose to be used for(in nature). I am not trying to argue the morality aspect of this, simply that sex is intended to create life, first and foremost, therefor sex in the case of homosexuality goes completey against that.

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
I tend to think that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality (just at different rates). There are studies suggesting homosexual behavior among other animals. That suggests to me that it is natural.

[/ QUOTE ]

(I'm not commenting on homosexuality itself one way or the other)

Tadpoles eat each other.

It's a tough sell to say that cannabilism is normal or natural. I think that the fact that some occurs in nature does not suggest that the act or event is natural, at least for human beings. There may very well good reasons why homosexuality is or is not be natural or normal, but I don't believe this is one of them.

[elwoodblues]

I guess we're quibbling over what "unnatural" means.

A lot of things come about in nature that aren't what we would expect. In my book, that doesn't make them unnatural.

[ThaSaltCracka]

are you talking about mutations?

[elwoodblues]

Sure, but not necessarily. Recessive genes can hang around for a long time and then just pop up. Doesn't mean that they are necessarily mutations.

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it possible to think Homosexuality is disgusting, but not think Homosexuals are disgusting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it possible to be disgusted by the idea of nailing a 350 pound, 60 year old woman, and not hate her for being 350 pounds and 60?

[ThaSaltCracka]

okay, now your implying that homosexuality may be genetic, and there is zero concrete proof that it is.

[daryn]

come on.

anyone who tries to argue that homosexuality is in no way unnatural is crazy.

forget all the PC sh!t and just start doing some thinking.

[Gamblor]

Since the dawn of animalia, species protect themselves by travelling and acting in groups, on the simple notion that more is stronger. There are generally the leaders of the pack (dominant/strong) and the followers (submissive/weak).

Now, the imperative of all animals are to continue the lineage - to mate with a female and produce a baby and the pack grows and survives a little longer. The strong get more booty. It's fun, it feels good, and more importantly, natural selection ensures that the stronger males have more babies than the weaker males (if you ever doubted this, go to a bar sometime- they're lots of fun). The imperative to "get laid" is far stronger in the male than the female, mainly because he is strong enough not to worry about his own safety and security and can preoccupy himself with continuing the line.

On the other hand, the weakies don't have that peace of mind. They are more concerned with survival, and therefore, are more interested in finding friends to help them survive battles - you ever notice you don't like someone who tries too hard to be your friend? That's weakness, and as such you don't like them because they can't help you survive.

So, where does this go? Well, the submissive can be so intent on finding safety and security, that their imperative to reproduce is almost non-existent. That's when they go over to the dark side.

Evidence: The ancient Spartan army used to force soldiers to engage in homosexual acts to encourage bonding and to strengthen their emotional attachment to protect their fellow soldiers.

This encourages stronger bonds which in turn provide safety and security in numbers for the weak. They find more peace-of-mind with a man because he can provide security, than a woman who they will have to protect. That's all subconcious, I should add.

Note: This is based entirely on my own personal thoughts, which consist entirely of "me want steak and big boobs".

Someone set me straight.

[Bubbagump]

[ QUOTE ]
Sex with the same sex is not normal, and in fact goes completely against what sex is suppose to be used for(in nature). I am not trying to argue the morality aspect of this, simply that sex is intended to create life, first and foremost, therefor sex in the case of homosexuality goes completey against that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just curious, but by your definition, do you also consider sex (between a man and woman) for purposes other than procreation to be unatural?

Bubbagump

[ThaSaltCracka]

what???? so weak people are gay? I dunno, there are some big ass gay dudes (ie Convicts).

[ThaSaltCracka]

no, I am not trying to get into the morality aspect of sex. However sex main purpose, atleast according to the laws or nature, is for procreation, and that cannot be argued. So between a man and a women, any other kind of sex is naturally speaking not correct.

[M2d]

By this reasoning, oral sex between a man and woman is just as un-natural as homosexual sex.

[ThaSaltCracka]

your right.

But ultimately, we are all a bunch of sluts.

[Bubbagump]

[ QUOTE ]
Is he repulsed by everything else that is normal?

[/ QUOTE ]

What is normal? It all depends on your perspective. There are things that I do in my every day life (not talking sex here) that would not be considered normal by many. In fact, I think that is probably true for just about every one of us by the very nature of the hobby/part-time job/career we all share, poker. Let's face it, how many people in your life who don't play poker really understand what you do or why?

It's all about perspective.

Bubbagump

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
However sex main purpose, atleast according to the laws or nature, is for procreation, and that cannot be argued.

[/ QUOTE ]

If procreation is the main purpose of sex, what, if any, are the secondary purposes?

Stu

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
If procreation is the main purpose of sex, what, if any, are the secondary purposes?

[/ QUOTE ] Why are you asking this question? Have you ever had an orgasm? It feels good.... duh!!!!

I can see where this is headed, and I would have to say that I think homosexual sex is gross, and thats my opinion, and I am entitled to it. Some may even say anal sex is gross between a man and a women, and thats their opinion. But ultimately it boils down to which one is natural, and the only one that is natutal is sex between a man and a women People can go around [censored] whoever and whatever they want (as long as its not against the law), but ulitmately, if your dick isn't in a pussy of some female of child bearing age, its not natural, and more than likely its pretty gross too.

[adios]

I think he means weak along the lines of being insecure. Actually his theory fits in well with homosexual behavior in the prison population.

[M2d]

Hey, you only speak for yourself. I can confirm your theory on myself, but we have the rest of the planet to prove.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I was being sarcastic, and its an interesting theory, IMO.

[ThaSaltCracka]

what that were all sluts???
I mean c'mon, look at us. We are all some serious whores, IMO. What is supposedly right and wrong has been eroded way (thank goodness) but if you want to talk about the laws of nature, everything I said stands true, and thats undeniable.

[M2d]

"manly love" was practiced by a number of samurai in feudal Japan. it wasn't the most prevalent of leanings, but it wasn't ridiculed, either. those who felt the urge to do so, did so. It was also used as a political tool by some who didn't lean that way. These were often ambitious, lower ranking samurai who performed these acts in order to garner favor with a higher ranking (or higher class) samurai who did lean that way.

interestingly, the ones who practiced manly love usually had wives and families as well. it was their duty to produce heirs, so they did.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
These were often ambitious, lower ranking samurai who performed these acts in order to garner favor with a higher ranking (or higher class) samurai who did lean that way.

[/ QUOTE ] Sort of like the ambitious young female reporter who gives her boss head for the good assignments?

[ QUOTE ]
interestingly, the ones who practiced manly love usually had wives and families as well. it was their duty to produce heirs, so they did.

[/ QUOTE ] I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. So because some Samurais gave each other hummers makes it more natural? This is probably the origin of the term "suck-up".

[WDC]

do you have fear of or contempt for gay men and lesbians? If not, then you are not a homophobe. The fact that gay male sex does not appeal to your purientinterests does not nmake you homophobe. The fact that hot lesbian sex might appeal to your purient interests does not anser the question either.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you asking this question? Have you ever had an orgasm? It feels good.... duh!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I ask it only to make the point that sex has many purposes - a point you failed to make. I agree that procreation is undeniably, the primary purpose and I would also conceed that all the secondary purposes support in some way the primary.

[ QUOTE ]
I would have to say that I think homosexual sex is gross

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, I once saw a man french kiss his dog. I thought that was pretty gross. Watching two gay men kiss on that HBO show elicited the same emotional response.

Stu

[James Boston]

Why is it that contempt towards homosexuals it the only prejudice that has been deemed a "phobia." Contempt towards certain races is racism or bigotry. Contempt towards Jewish people is Anti-Semitism. Is it not a bit arrogant for homosexuals to assume that they are disliked out of fear?

[ThaSaltCracka]

Because being Jewish is a religion, being black is a race, being arab is a race, being white is a race. Being gay is not a religion, its not a race, its a lifestyle choice.

[ QUOTE ]
Is it not a bit arrogant for homosexuals to assume that they are disliked out of fear?

[/ QUOTE ] first of all, most people don't dislike gay people because they are gay. In fact most people don't dislike gay people anyways. A lot of people don't like/agree with their lifestyle.

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
Because being Jewish is a religion, being black is a race, being arab is a race, being white is a race. Being gay is not a religion, its not a race, its a lifestyle choice.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it not a bit arrogant for homosexuals to assume that they are disliked out of fear?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

first of all, most people don't dislike gay people because they are gay. In fact most people don't dislike gay people anyways. A lot of people don't like/agree with their lifestyle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Race is uncontrolable. However, the religion you practice and the sexuality you practive are both decisions made by the individual.

As for "most people don't dislike gay people because they're gay," why else would they dislike them, assuming they are "homophobic?"

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that procreation is undeniably, the primary purpose and I would also conceed that all the secondary purposes support in some way the primary.


[/ QUOTE ] Your right about this when it involves a man and a women, bu the secondary purposes of sex involving two men do absolutely nothing to support the primary purpose of sex.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
However, the religion you practice and the sexuality you practive are both decisions made by the individual

[/ QUOTE ] where do you draw the line on what lifestyle choices are acceptable and which aren't? I am not tryin to make a moral distinction here, but as I have already illustrated, homosexuality is not natural. It goes against the laws of nature to want to have sex with someone of your own sex. Religion has been around for millions of years and takes many different forms and shapes. I can see a clear difference in someone following a religion and someone being gay.

[ QUOTE ]
As for "most people don't dislike gay people because they're gay," why else would they dislike them, assuming they are "homophobic?"

[/ QUOTE ] Maybe they don't like him/her because he/she is an [censored], who knows, people dislike people for plenty of reasons.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not tryin to make a moral distinction here, but as I have already illustrated, homosexuality is not natural. It goes against the laws of nature to want to have sex with someone of your own sex.

[/ QUOTE ]

What your saying is that homosexuals are deviants from the natural order of things. Does calling a homosexual a deviant make you a homophobe?

Stu

[James Boston]

I know religion and sexual preference are not even close to being in the same ballpark. My point was that, in your original response, you seemed to isolate sexuality as the only thing I had mentioned that was a matter of choice. I'm just saying it's not.

And, "homophobic" people aren't labeled as such for disliking particular gay people. They get the label by having contempt for ALL gay people.

Still, I don't see how contempt for gay people is automatically born from fear.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Does calling a homosexual a deviant make you a homophobe?

[/ QUOTE ] I don't know. I know I am not afraid of gay people.

[andyfox]

Yes. But probably just a male homophobe. Would you have felt the same way about two women kissing?

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
My point was that, in your original response, you seemed to isolate sexuality as the only thing I had mentioned that was a matter of choice. I'm just saying it's not.


[/ QUOTE ] I agree.

[Homer]

This thread is too long. The fact that you don't like watching men take it up the ass means you're straight. That is all.

[MMMMMM]

So anytime you feel disgust of anything, you are also necessarily phobic??? /images/graemlins/confused.gif


I feel disgust when I see a mother in Wal-Mart treating her child unkindly. Am I a mother-treating-her-child-unkindly-phobe?

I feel disgust at some players who abuse dealers. Am I an abusive-player-phobe?

I feel disgust when I unavoidably catch a few minutes of a soap opera, or hear nasty grating rap music. Am I a soap-opera-phobe, or a rap-music-phobe?

I feel disgust at people who are regularly overly loud in public places. Their excessive volume is an assault on my ears and sensibilities. Am I a loud-person-phobe?

I feel revolted when I smell cooked liver and onions. Am I a liver-phobe?


I really don't think that a feeling of distaste or disgust at something is synonymous with phobia.

Perhaps more importantly, I believe it is quite possible to feel distaste for certain acts or things without feeling disgust for the person himself--and without feeling disgust for people in similar categories.

[elwoodblues]

You caught me, it was just the PC police talking. I don't think homosexuality is unnatural. In my mind, what would be unnatural would be a homosexual pretending to be heterosexual to fit in with socially accepted mores.

[elwoodblues]

I do think it is genetic (concrete proof notwithstanding). Like I mentioned earlier, there are other examples in the animal kingdom of animals engaging in homosexual behavior (and some animals engaging in exclusively homosexual sex).

[elwoodblues]

Maybe. Are you suggesting that it's better to be considered on par with a racist or an anti-semite than be found to be fearful of something? I might be an ignorant fool, but at least I'm not afraid.

[daryn]

i agree it's a stupid term. who is really afraid of gays???

[andyfox]

"So anytime you feel disgust of anything, you are also necessarily phobic???"

No. But anytime you feel compelled to worry about it by posting about your disgust in seeing two men kiss, as opposed to a man and a woman (or two women, which I alluded to in my original post), the evidence is pretty good that you're homophobic. Circumstantial evidence, no doubt, but akin to guessing that it rained overnight if, when you wake up, the streets are all wet.

[MMMMMM]

But Andy, you can't presume Stu's motives for posting. He asked a legitimate question, too.

Zero evidence of homophobia IMO.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
Zero evidence of homophobia IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but zero evidence against it, either, since he didn't really elaborate on why he was disgusted by it (or he did and I missed it).

Phobia is defined as:

1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.

or

2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.

...so it clearly is more based in fear but can have connotations that include more general feelings of disgust. I think 'homophobia' in particular (as it used today) often includes the latter more so than, say, arachnaphobia, because of the intense social issues that surround it.

The irrational fear aspect of 'phobia' is particularly present in people who genuinely believe that homosexuality or gay marriage threaten their own way of life. This, I think, is the epitome of a homophobe.

However, I disagree about homosexuality being a 'lifestyle choice.' This is simply not true. I think there is likely to be a genetic component to homosexuality, but it is also clear that experience/environment strongly influence sexual orientation. However, these influences appear to take hold so early in life that one can hardly claim to have any power over them, much like many psychological tendencies are formed very early on. I have never met a gay person who 'chose' to be gay. Most say they were aware of their sexual orientation before the age that heterosexual children tend to become sexually active/aware.

I doubt there are any serious homophobes on this board (in this thread, anyway) but there are definitely some people who don't really understand the phenomenon IMHO.

NT

[Stu Pidasso]

I really wasn't looking for an answer on weather or not I am a homophobe. To be perfectly honest, I could care less. I am perfectly content with how I veiw my own sexuality and the sexuality of others.

I figured the question itself was simple and the answer to it uninteresting. However the question was one that this forum has the potential to take to a lot of intersting places. So I threw it out there to see what would become of it.

I guess I'm getting bored of the Bush vs Kerry and Isreal vs Arabs threads.


Stu

[ThaSaltCracka]

You really have given no proof that its genetic or that animals rountinely are involved in homosexual acivity. One example of rare activity means nothing.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I disagree about homosexuality being a 'lifestyle choice.' This is simply not true. I think there is likely to be a genetic component to homosexuality, but it is also clear that experience/environment strongly influence sexual orientation. However, these influences appear to take hold so early in life that one can hardly claim to have any power over them, much like many psychological tendencies are formed very early on. I have never met a gay person who 'chose' to be gay. Most say they were aware of their sexual orientation before the age that heterosexual children tend to become sexually active/aware.


[/ QUOTE ]
Which is it, genes or enviroment? Because there is no proof its genetic(although its possible). I think enviroment more than anything, but think about this. People that grow up in deeply religous families tend to rebel against that religion. So what explanation could there be then for someone being gay based upon the enviroment they grew up in? Is it based upon sexual assault, or parental upbringing? I only ask because kids that grow up in abusive enviroments usually have problems, and those problems are usually looked upon as disorders or illnesses.

I still think this is a lifestyle choice, but I suppose the million dollar questions is, what makes gay people be attracted to people of their own sex?

[elwoodblues]

Run a google search for it. When I posted a while back about homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom I found tons of things on it.

Regarding genetic predisposition - I suppose it could be environmental, but it is an environmental trait that is so early taken on that it becomes a part of the person that can't truly be changed. There will always be people with "confused sexuality" who claim to be one but deep inside know that they are lying to themselves. Or those whose early life had some traumatic sexual experience that made them rebel against their sexual being. However, every single gay person I have met and talked to about it has told me that they can never remember not being attracted to people of the same sex.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
anyone who tries to argue that homosexuality is in no way unnatural is crazy.

forget all the PC sh!t and just start doing some thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, lets do some thinking.
Infanticide- natural or unnatural? When a woman locks her two kids in a car and drives them into a lake in an effort to gain attention, seems pretty unnatural.
When a woman belonging to a hunter/gatherer culture has a child and the food supply becomes short and she abandones or kills the child because there is not enough food for both of them to survive- natural, or unnatural?
On the same token there are animals who will defend their young to the death, and others who will abandon them to their own fate you can begin to realize that there are many differnt possibilities for "natural".
If you believe that a higher being (ie "God") has decread that there is a certain way that everyone must live then things can be "natural" or "unnatural". If you look at the evolutionary record you will see branches of animals that blossemed brifely and died out, ones that succeded,, and somethings that have remained essentially unchanged for tens of millions of years. What you wont have much evidence of will be the thoasands of attempts at each of them- ways that failed to thrive, mutations that didnt provide an advantage big enough, or that were disadvantageous. Are these things unnatural? No, they are part of a lager scheme.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, the imperative of all animals are to continue the lineage - to mate with a female and produce a baby and the pack grows and survives a little longer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution is not concerned with the survival of the individual, only with the survival of the species. Your personal desire is fairly irrelevent.
Homosexualiy has been recroded in groups of overpopulated lemmings- those individuals are not reproducing but they are not contributing to the overpopulation problem that can cause to much stress on thier food supple and cause mass stavation. This is a natural population check for lemmings (i am not argueing that this is or isnt the reason for homosexulaity in humans).

[Dominic]

You keep mentioning this "Natural Law." Where is this document so that I might take a look at it, please?

[Dominic]

You know what, I think wearing white after Labor Day is gross. Does that make it unnatural?

[Dominic]

Being Jewish...or Catholic or Agnostic...are all things we CHOOSE to be...I know, you can be born a Jew...but you get my point...race, ethnicity, etc. are all things we have no control over, so to be prejudiced against someone who is Black or Russian is just plain stupid. Judging someone on the basis of the color of their skin or where they were born - things that person had no say in whatsoever - is idiotic.

However, I DO think you can judge someone a little based on his religion...because that's a choice he made...or, in the vernacular used today - his "lifestyle choice." Choice of religion - while a freedom everyone should have and I strongly support - is just that: a choice. Nothing wrong with judging a man by the choices he makes in life. But lifestyle choices should never be linked to race, ethnicity or sexual preference. Why? Because being gay is no more a choice than being straight. Tell, me SaltCracka, did you CHOOSE to be straight?? What makes you think gay people chose to be that way? In today's society, WHY would someone choose to be gay if they could forgo the societal scorn and be straight?

Get it straight - pun intended - you are born gay, or you are born straight. If you don't believe me, do some research.

You judge a man by what he says and does in life. Not by the color of his skin or where he's from.

Or, in whom he happens to stick his penis.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
but as I have already illustrated, homosexuality is not natural.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? When did you illustrate this? Ive read most of the posts in this thread am find no actuall copelling arguments from you that it is unnatural.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
You keep mentioning this "Natural Law." Where is this document so that I might take a look at it, please?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a concept and not a document. Basically a belief that the principles of human conduct can be derived from a proper understanding of human nature in the context of the universe as a rational whole. An individual can use the reason and intellect the good Lord gave him to figure out what is right and wrong without the need for Devine revelation or a book of codified laws.

If homosexual acts are a violation of Natural Law, then we should be able to come up with a rational argument that condemns them as such.

Stu

[ThaSaltCracka]

web page (http://dunamai.com/articles/Christian/is_homosexuality_genetic.htm)

I have actually looked at the research and there is one thing that stands out in every single one. They cannot prove that it is genetic. Many people speculate that it may be genetic, but there is much more proof that it is enviroment and than genetic.

interesting excerpt from the article I linked:
A third study, which was conducted by researchers J.M. Bailey and Richard C. Pillard, focused on twins. They found a concordance rate of 52 percent among identical twins, 22 percent among non-identical twins and a 9.2 percent among non-twins. This study provides support for environmental factors. If homosexuality were in the genetic code, all of the identical twins would have been homosexual.
word of warning, this is apparently some sort of christian website or something. I just googled some words and this was one of the sites that came up.... so don't blame me because I did not search out for some christian web site.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
What? When did you illustrate this? Ive read most of the posts in this thread am find no actuall copelling arguments from you that it is unnatural.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are an idiot man, what is the primary purpose of sex? Making babies... sure there are secondary purposes, but the main purpose of sex is procreation, the laws of nature.... so if you are [censored] someones [censored], your not trying to make a baby now then are you, so therefor its unnatural.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What? When did you illustrate this? Ive read most of the posts in this thread am find no actuall copelling arguments from you that it is unnatural.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You are an idiot man, what is the primary purpose of sex? Making babies... sure there are secondary purposes, but the main purpose of sex is procreation, the laws of nature.... so if you are [censored] someones [censored], your not trying to make a baby now then are you, so therefor its unnatural.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idiot comment was uncalled for as he is only saying that your argument is not compelling.

Stu

[elwoodblues]

Is masturbation unnatural? How about oral sex?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
You are an idiot man, what is the primary purpose of sex? Making babies... sure there are secondary purposes, but the main purpose of sex is procreation, the laws of nature.... so if you are [censored] someones [censored], your not trying to make a baby now then are you, so therefor its unnatural.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am going to assume some things here, please let me know if i am making incorrect assumpions.
Assumtion 1- what you are calling natural law is similar to evolutionary thoery whose basis is the survival of the species.
Assumtion 2- you appear to believe that procreation of the individual is the most important factor for the survival of the species and THEREFORE all individuals should attempt to procreate.

The second assumption is what i disagree with- evolution doesnt care about your individual success at procreating, just the groups' suvial. Reproductive health of the community is based on many factors- not just the individual's ability to impregnate a female of his species.
For example homosexuality in lemmings has been seen in overpopulated groups (i don't know what a group of lemmings is called). Homosexuality in this case acts as a NATURAL population control preventing huge portions of the population from starvation be preventing a section of them from reproducing.
another example is the Bonobo chimpanzee- who live in small close nit groups. During times of stress between members of the groups they often end up have what amounts to an orgy with both hetero and homo sexual sex taking place between nearly all members of the group. This is believed to have two effects- and neither is related to impregnation of the females of the group.
1. it relieves the tension between the fueding members wtihout injury
2. strenghtens the bonds between the members who rely on a cooperative society for survival.

Please explain to me how either of these two behaviors is unnatural.

[ThaSaltCracka]

duuuuuuddddee.... even though I hate to say it, yeah it probably is unnatural, plus I already said this too.

[MMMMMM]

"You know what, I think wearing white after Labor Day is gross. Does that make it unnatural?"

Good question.

So does that make you a "wearing-white-after-Labor-Day-phobe? Getting back to the original post by Stu, you have just helped show why thinking something is gross does not
necessarily make you a "phobe".

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Assumtion 1- what you are calling natural law is similar to evolutionary thoery whose basis is the survival of the species.


[/ QUOTE ] ummm.... okay, I agree with this.
[ QUOTE ]
Assumtion 2- you appear to believe that procreation of the individual is the most important factor for the survival of the species and THEREFORE all individuals should attempt to procreate.

[/ QUOTE ] ... but not this.

I don't think proceation is the most important factor, my whole point is that the the primary purpose of SEX is procreation.



[ QUOTE ]
For example homosexuality in lemmings has been seen in overpopulated groups (i don't know what a group of lemmings is called). Homosexuality in this case acts as a NATURAL population control preventing huge portions of the population from starvation be preventing a section of them from reproducing.
another example is the Bonobo chimpanzee- who live in small close nit groups. During times of stress between members of the groups they often end up have what amounts to an orgy with both hetero and homo sexual sex taking place between nearly all members of the group. This is believed to have two

[/ QUOTE ] Do either of these species masturbate? Also based upon what you are telling me, it would seem that these animals are exhibiting homosexual behavior, but are not in fact truely homosexual. And what I mean is that they may have sex with a male, but they are not exclusively attracted to males. Homosexual men on the other hand are attracted to men. They are not having sex with them to help the group or herd survive because they are worried about starvation/overpopulation, they are having sex with men because they are exclusively attracted to men.

I can see your point that animals might do this because they have needs that need to be fulfiled, but humans have needs to, but we don't go around screwing everything and everyone, we masturbate.

BTW, sorry about calling you an idiot.

[MMMMMM]

"Homosexuality in this case acts as a NATURAL population control preventing huge portions of the population from starvation be preventing a section of them from reproducing.
another example is the Bonobo chimpanzee- who live in small close nit groups. During times of stress between members of the groups they often end up have what amounts to an orgy with both hetero and homo sexual sex taking place between nearly all members of the group. This is believed to have two effects- and neither is related to impregnation of the females of the group.
1. it relieves the tension between the fueding members wtihout injury
2. strenghtens the bonds between the members who rely on a cooperative society for survival.

Please explain to me how either of these two behaviors is unnatural."


So...is bestiality unnatural, then?

It strengthens bonds between human and pet--or between human and farm animal. It relieves tension. It does not contribute to overpopulation.

I'm not saying homosexuality and bestiality are equivalent. I'm just pointing out that if the argument "prove it is unnatural" or "define unnatural" is used, that tack doesn't necessarily stop wih homosexuality.

I have a non-judgmental view towards homosexuality. That doesn't imply I think it is entirely natural, though.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Also based upon what you are telling me, it would seem that these animals are exhibiting homosexual behavior, but are not in fact truely homosexual

[/ QUOTE ]

As i understand it the lemmings born before the overpopulation that are still alive do not become homosexual, but a percentage of those born after the overpopulation are- and spend their entire lives (not very long for a lemming) as homosexuals. an important note is that the number of asexual lemmings doesn't increase- leading some to the conclusion that sexual relief is important even without procreation.

[Stu Pidasso]

Lemmings are guided by instinct and as such they are not capable of committing acts that are good, evil, right or wrong. They are only capable of committing the acts of lemmings.

Man is guided by reason and intellect. A man can commit acts that are right, wrong, good, evil, natural or unnatural. A man can have a predisposition to steal, but not steal because he can reason out that stealing is wrong.

By your line of thinking, I should not be condemned If I steal food from Albertsons becuase stealing food is quite prevelant in the animal kingdom. In fact I would speculate that it is more prevelant than homsexuality.

Whats the real point of my post? You can't compare humans to lemmings.

Stu

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
By your line of thinking, I should not be condemned If I steal food from Albertsons becuase stealing food is quite prevelant in the animal kingdom

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the line of thinking had nothing to do with condemnation. It was responding to the specific statement that homosexuality is unnatural. If you made the argument that stealing was unnatural and I found countless examples of stealing in nature, I think that would refute your argument. That is, unless there is some definition of unnatural out there that is yet unexplored.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
No, the line of thinking had nothing to do with condemnation. It was responding to the specific statement that homosexuality is unnatural. If you made the argument that stealing was unnatural and I found countless examples of stealing in nature, I think that would refute your argument. That is, unless there is some definition of unnatural out there that is yet unexplored

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the original ascertation in this thread was that homosexuality violated natural law, which is quite different than saying homosexuality is unnatural. Still, the overall point of my post, You can't compare humans to lemmings, is still valid.

Stu

[27offsuit]

The two guys who stole the armoire from Kramer were pretty scary.

[ThaSaltCracka]

There is clearly a big difference between humans and other mammals, so to compare humans to lemmings is a little absurd, but he brings some interesting info to the table, so I am atleast willing to accept that. But it still doesn't answer my statement that these creatures are acting much differently than humans. Lemmings are gay out of neccesity and servival, humans are not, there is a huge difference here which speaks much about the differences between humans and other mammals.

[Cyrus]

"I am not tryin to make a moral distinction here, but as I have already illustrated, homosexuality is not natural."

If the word "natural" means "encountered in nature", you are way off. Man is an animal like all other fauna, if you trust your Biology (as a matter of fact, our genetic code is more than 90% identical to the chimp). And a great number of animals in nature, including the chimps, engage routinely (and shamelessly) in acts of masturbation, homosexuality and "worse". So, homosexuality cannot be termed as "not natural".

If the word "natural" means "promoting the objective of reproduction in nature", then homosexuality is indeed not natural, strictly speaking. (Note that homosexuality, especially among males, has functioned in human society also as a mean of male subordination into the hierarchy of military societies, such as the societies of Spartans, Macedons, Ottomans.) However, this would also characterize as "unnatural" a number of purely pleasure-seeking acts, such as masturbation, oral sex, etc. In fact, it would rule out even sex in the missionary position with a condom!

What I'm trying to say, in explicitly non-Fouceauldian terms, is that sex-as-pure-reproduction is but a marginal role of sex in our lives and society. Has been for millenia. Thus, the majority of sexual feelings and acts in Man are geared primarily outside reproduction.

It is a basic rule of Logic that we cannot call something that belongs to the majority as belonging to the minority. In other words, if everybody decides to pierce their tongues, then tongue-piercing is no longer a marginal (or "unnatural") phenomenon. Therefore, if the vast majority of people, as I hereby submit, engages in sex NOT for reproductive purposes but to get a kick out of it, then the whole set of non-reproductive sexual practices, including homosexuality, CANNOT be logically called "not natural".

--Cyrus

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
It is a basic rule of Logic that we cannot call something that belongs to the majority as belonging to the minority.


[/ QUOTE ]

The majority practice heterosexual sex, which we all agree is natural. The minority practice Homosexual sex, of which there is debate weather homosexual sex is natural or unnatural. According to this axiom of logic, since naturality of the act belongs to the majority, or those who are heterosexual, it can not belong to the minority, or those who are homosexual. Therefore homosexual sex is unnatural

Anyone agree with this?

Stu

[elwoodblues]

How do you define unnatural?

At times you seem to suggest that unnatural is somehow tied to reproduction - by those standards, there are scores of sexual acts performed by heterosexuals and homosexuals that are unnatural.

If "unnatural" means does not occur in nature, then a comparison to other animals is appropriate.

[nicky g]

Who gives a flying f*ck whether it's "unnatural" or not? All this laws of nature garbage... if you can do it, it can;t be breaking too many "natural" laws, and who cares if it is anyway? What consenting adults do with each other in their private lives is their own busniness, end of story. If you are obsessed as you seem to be with whether hoosexuality is "natural" or not then I would wager the answer to your question is that yes, you are a homophobe.

[ThaSaltCracka]

blah blah blah, no one is trying to argue the morality aspect so your whole rant has zero bearing here.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone agree with this?

[/ QUOTE ] Yep, and this also pertains to what I was saying about how those crazy lemmings and even those damn dirty apes perform homesxual acts but are not exclusively homosexual. There is a massive difference between the two, and no one has been able to refute that on here, everyone simply skipped it.

Lemmings and Chimps behave like homosexuals for survival or bonding, but they for the most part, do not remain homosexuals. Humans throughtout history may have performed homsexual acts but they were never exclusively homosexual. So I would have to say that loving another man(sexually) and loving men exclusively is indeed not natural or for that matter, not in nature.

[Cyrus]

"The majority practice heterosexual sex, which we all agree is natural. The minority practice Homosexual sex, of which there is debate weather homosexual sex is natural or unnatural. According to this axiom of logic, since naturality of the act belongs to the majority, or those who are heterosexual, it can not belong to the minority, or those who are homosexual. Therefore homosexual sex is unnatural."

You did not understand my point. So here it is again:

The majority of heterosexual persons engage in sex for reasons other than strictly conceiving new human beings. The majority of heterosexual sexual activity is driven by the pleasure objective. The majority of sexual activities among heterosexuals is comprised by non-conceiving sexual activities, of which oral sex, sodomy, etc, are part. The "missionary position", which signifies the straigthforward, conceiving modus operandi is distinctly in the minority.

At least, this is what sexual research keeps telling us for the last hundred years or so.

Therefore, the argument that since homosexuality cannot "produce children", then homosexuality is "unnatural", is false, because most heterosexual activity (the majority's activity), when judged by that measure, would also be "unnatural". But one cannot characterize as "unnatural" the modus of the majority.

To cut to the chase, homosexual activity is but one of the many facets of human sexuality and there is absolutely nothing "abnormal" or "unnatural" about it, literally or metaphorically.

(BTW, your post was a bit gay... /images/graemlins/cool.gif)

[tolbiny]

I wasn't trying to simply say that if lemmings do it its ok if humans do it. My initial argument was that the "natural law" of procreation of every individual isn't important to evolution-that the survival of the species is what is important. Within this context actions of groups within the group that might appear "unnatural" at first can be viewed as a very reasonable action when viewed in broader terms. The simple fact that we don't currently understand why some people are homosexual and some aren't, and some have tendencies in both directions doesn't make it an unnatural act.

[ThaSaltCracka]

The simple fact that we don't currently understand why some people are homosexual and some aren't, and some have tendencies in both directions doesn't make it an unnatural act. hmmmmmmmmmm...... good point.... I suppose it goes both ways to though.

[bernie]

No.

Does being disgusted by seeing a cow get slaughtered make one a vegetarian?

Do you get the same feeling when you see 2 smoking hot gals doing it?

It's rooted in the fact that it's 2 guys. Watching 2 guys kiss makes me uncomfortable. It used to really bother me. Im about an unhomophobic as they come. But something still triggers the disgust reflex a little. Many factors go into that. Much of it is that it's not commonplace enough to be percieved as normal. Much of it is because one doesn't understand how 2 guys could find each other attractive. Upbringing, social perceptions and lots of other factors.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
What I mean is the actual attraction to men is a lifestyle decision they make.


[/ QUOTE ]

Dating a woman to them is the equivalent of you dating a man. In most cases, the actual attraction is not a choice they make, it's the way they are born.

Try this test and put yourself in their shoes. For a day/week, try to find a guy sexually attractive. This is how they think of women. Yet many are forced, primarily out of fear, to live that way. How would you like to live like that? Who would volunteer for that 'lifestyle'?

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
in fact goes completely against what sex is suppose to be used for(in nature). I am not trying to argue the morality aspect of this, simply that sex is intended to create life, first and foremost, therefor sex in the case of homosexuality goes completey against that.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is also a case for never having sex unless it is solely to reproduce. Going a step further, it's the only reason to have a male orgasm. Remember it's only a bodily function. If it was solely for reproduction, wet dreams wouldn't exist.

It is not unnatural to have sex without the intent of reproduction. Pleasure is very natural.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Run a google search for it. When I posted a while back about homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom I found tons of things on it.


[/ QUOTE ]

This has been so well documented it's impossible to just say it's a concsious 'choice'.

b

[bernie]

Though convicts are known to engange in homosexual activity, these convicts are, for the most part, not gay. Sexual activity in a prison is of a whole different form than can be compared to 'normal' outside prison homosexual relations.

b

[bernie]

Didn't you mention in another thread something about insulting others?

Anyways, here's an idea.

What if...

The natural law for sex was meant to be just a pleasurable body function, yet upon experimentation, they found it 'could' result in procreation?

Using biblical characters as an example, say ol' Adam and Eve have sex. Wild sex swinging from the trees and all. Hell, they even use anything around them the pleasure is so hot. The first couple times they do this, results in no procreation.

Couldn't it be that procreation is just an accidental benefit, of a pleasurable act shared among 2 people?

It's the result of a bodily function first and foremost. Not to mention, one doesn't have to have sex now to procreate. So you can procreate 'unnaturally' i guess.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I think enviroment more than anything,

[/ QUOTE ]

Since human homosexuality transcends over all environments and social classes, i think environment has little to do with a man loving a man, the way you love a woman in general.

Although i do agree that homosexual actions can be the result in acting out because of someone upbringing, this is a little different and usually has no tie to love for another person except in a twisted sort of way. Ie...your earlier example of convicts could fit this.

Many gay people come from very loving, non abusive families all across the social gap.
It leans much more toward genetics.

b

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
It leans much more toward genetics.

[/ QUOTE ] There is no proof it is genetic.

[bernie]

I think it was a great topic to throw out there. Also how the form of the question itself can be used for other similar type issues.

To me, homophobia, racism and other such stuff stems from lack of understanding. I'm still at a loss as to what causes one person to have nothing but utter disdain for someone only because of his skin color. On my side of it, i don't understand it at all, so i really have no use for them. Though i have found other aspects of them to help me tolerate them, i still would rather not even associate with that type of person. That feeling to me is as strong as a racists feeling towards another race. It's not the racists problem that i feel this way, it's mine.

good thread, i wish i'd have come in earlier on it.

b

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
What if...

The natural law for sex was meant to be just a pleasurable body function, yet upon experimentation, they found it 'could' result in procreation?


[/ QUOTE ]
This is a hugely unlikely what if. I mean thats like saying pollen is just intended to float around and please other plants, but somehow magically it was also found to create more plants. Come on man, this is a massive stretch, even for you /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no proof it is genetic

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no proof it's not genetic. This doesn't at all discount the possibility.

b

[ThaSaltCracka]

I agree, but plenty of research has been done to proving that no genetic link has been found....yet.

Interesting thing for you, there was actually a study of twins in which one was gay and one wasn't . Twins have the same DNA and genes, so shouldn't they both be gay?

[bernie]

Yeah, but you never know. It's an interesting angle because it takes the 'prime purpose' out of it and focus' on what was available knowledge-wise at the time. I think alot of evolution was accidental. Across the whole spectrum. Some things died out and some lived on for other reasons other than just darwinism. Random events, for instance. When things started to appear on earth, there was nothing to tell them how to procreate. Many things were likely figured out by accident both in benefit, and detriment.

I mean, maybe when humans were first here, they did it every which way with everyone until....oops. Look what happened here? Then they narrowed it down to being from a male to a female that caused the result. The pleasure was the same regardless. But then knowing they needed to porcreate to keep the species going that was the only way they knew how.

Mind you, homosexuals can still reproduce and still be homosexual. They can still perpetuate the species while loving someone of the same sex.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting thing for you, there was actually a study of twins in which one was gay and one wasn't . Twins have the same DNA and genes, so shouldn't they both be gay?

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting question. They did a related documented study on baldness. They found to identical twins. One was incarcerated, the other wasn't. The one in jail was castrated, thereby no testosterone. The other lived a normal life. The normal life guy was totally bald. The jailbird had a full head of hair. So they agreed to an experiment to inject testosterone into the jailbird. I can't remember if it was from the normal guy or just a donor. Anyways, in 6 months the jailbird was as bald as his brother.

The show was on discovery a few years back. I think it was called 'Sex, lies and toupee tape'. Very interesting show.

But this can be applied to other aspects. Twins where one is a serial killer the other isnt. It could be in the development of the fetus that some genetic aspects dominate others not following any set pattern. So 2 twins would develop differently, if anything, just by chance of how strong some genes are in their makeup compared to others.

b

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
To me, homophobia, racism and other such stuff stems from lack of understanding

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true on every level. The fact that people cannot understand such a simple concept is unfortunate.


For me, I had always considered myself to be extremely open-minded and without any prejudice. I had to reasses this position when a longtime friend admitted to me he was indeed gay. I realized immediately that I would never have been so close to him if I had known this about him from the beginning. In fact, I probably would have probably found some way to disassociate from him. This revelation left me with a terrible feeling.

As it was, I had been as close to him as any of my other friends and this did not change after I learned of his preference. I think it just shows how difficult it is for humans to really understand such fundamental differences. It also proves that understanding is possible.

[ThaSaltCracka]

you love the hypothetical don't you /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Listen, everything you said is possible, because no one was alive then to know, but you would have to assume that early man figured out the right way to have sex based upon something chemical (ie hormones, pheremones, smell). Scienitist have finally dicscovered what makes a women more attracted to one man is his smell and the pheremones he puts off, the same for men being attracted to a speciifc women.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
You did not understand my point. So here it is again:


[/ QUOTE ]

I did understand your points and thought most were very well made. First, I have to agree that the majority of heterosexual activity is drvien by the pleasure objective and falls within the bounds of normality.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, the argument that since homosexuality cannot "produce children", then homosexuality is "unnatural", is false

[/ QUOTE ]

Again great job in showing this to be a false argument, but you still have not shown the conclusion of that argument is false.

The point of my post was to use your own tools of logic to show that show that an opposite conclusion may be true. In fact, I believe the tools of your argument, in the proper focus, can be used to make a very strong argument homosexual sex is unnatural.

I am I somehow missaplying this tool of logic that you introduced into this thread?
Stu

[bernie]

Yeah, except sometimes you dont find out how much a smoking hot gal stinks until after you've picked her up. Talk about a mood killer.

Smell is only part of the attraction. You can't really smell a gal through a glass window, but you can sure be attracted to her.

Some guys get aroused at the smell of man-fur. Who knows how this is triggered in their brain.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that people cannot understand such a simple concept is unfortunate.


[/ QUOTE ]

More unfotunate is that these people dont 'try' to understand.

I mirror your experience. One of my closest friends of 25+ years came out to me. What hit me the most was how well he hid it. I just couldn't believe it. Not because of who he said he was, but because i never, well, put him on that hand.

When it hits that close to home, you look even deeper at it. Even if you were open minded to begin with, which i was. The realization of it right there in front of you can be quite powerful.

I think the more people experience being around different types of people, and seeing that they are pretty much 'normal' in every other aspect, the more they understand that there's really no big deal about it.

One reason i never really had the 'terrible' feeling you described was because you can chalk it up to youth and how you're raised to view that sort of thing. At that point in your life, you wouldnt have had the mental capacity along with the life experience to make a good judgement call on it. You can always assume you 'might've' gone back at a later date and reconnected with your bud. That happens too. Who knows which road or if both roads would've led you to being good, maybe not as close yet, friends at this point in time.

b

[tolbiny]

"I agree, but plenty of research has been done to proving that no genetic link has been found....yet"

This is mostly a response to every oversimplified discussion of genetics in this thread. I am not saying everyone, but it appears that most people don't understand how complex genetics is. Just a couple of illustrative examples.
1. Identical twins are not perfectly identical- there are genetic mutations after conception as genes cross from one chromosome to another- this is known as crossing over.
2. Simply having a gene doesnot mean you will exhibit a trait- There have been a lot of studies on M S trying to find the gentic link- it follows family lines well enough to convice people of its existance but not enough for conclusive proof that would fit into the mathematical realm of dominat/recessive/double recessive. Now they are exploring the thoughts of "triggers" in the same way that smoking can "trigger" genes that will cause lung cancer, they think a viral infection at a certain age can "trigger" MS.

My own personal problem with this thread though is that people are using the words natural and unnatural without actually having solid definitions for either- and that saying something is unnatural carries a negative connotation (wheather you intend to or not). Saying that you dont care if another is gay but you still consider it unnatural you are insulting their choice and participating (to a lesser extent than most) in a culture that is still heavily discriminatory against many groups.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I confess that I am not a genetic scientist so I do not know much about the field, however when I read an excerpt from some genetic researcher who says there is no proven connection between homosexuality and genes than I will listen to him, and say the exact same thing, because he has done the proper schooling and research to come to a conlcusion like that.

[ QUOTE ]
Saying that you dont care if another is gay but you still consider it unnatural you are insulting their choice and participating (to a lesser extent than most) in a culture that is still heavily discriminatory against many groups.

[/ QUOTE ] I already said I think oral sex is probably unnatural as well, so I am not descriminating on someone else because they choose to partake in homosexual activity because it may or may not be unnatural. You jump to conclusions my friend. FWIW, I have met and know/known many gay people. I don't personally have a friend that has come out of the closet so to speak, but if he did, I would continue to be friends with him. The issue here is not that someone is gay, atleast for me, because I could care less, the issue for me though is that what there doing is unnatural and IMO, gross. That doesn't make them lesser people or vile people, because I am sure most of you yahoos on here could find something I do that you consider gross or unnatural.

What I just can't stand is that everyone has to bend over backwards to appease gay people for what ultimately IMO is a lifestyle choice. And yes, we can argue back and forth whether or not its a lifestyle choice or if its genetics, but as of right now, no one knows for sure either way.

10 years from now I of course could be dead wrong, thats entirely possible, but I could also be right as rain. Time will only tell..... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Cyrus]

Taken strictly as "the activity of a minority" (which it is), then homosexuality is "unnatural". (The already stated assumptions apply.)

Taken under any one of all other criteria, the "natural/unnatural" categorization is not applicable. Philosophically, biologically, historically or indeed mathematically.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Taken under any of all other criteria, the "natural/unnatural" characterization is not applicable.

[/ QUOTE ] I am going to agree with you here. Also, I don't think the comparison between humans and animals is applicable either.

[Cyrus]

"What I just can't stand is that everyone has to bend over backwards to please gay people . . ."

Did I get this right? /images/graemlins/cool.gif

". . . for what ultimately IMO is a lifestyle choice."

Lifestyle choices change. They are not for life. I have never seen or read about any gay guy "going straight". (The only exception was that born-again-Christian who was all over the TV proclaiming he was through with "that evil lifestyle" and after a month got promptly caught by the cameras cruising in a gay bar.)

It's clearly something stronger than a "lifestyle choice", like what music one likes to hear or what types of people one likes to befriend.

[tolbiny]

I don't think the comparison between humans and animals is applicable

You have to expect the comparison when you use words like "natural". The implication (as i read it) with that word is that it would not exist on its own unless humans had created it. Of course things that humans do are not going to have exact paralells with the amimal kingdom- we are a different species- but there are enough examples and there is enough diversity in the world for me to be able to accept a portion of our population as a natual outcome of our species thriving the way we do.

[tolbiny]

What I just can't stand is that everyone has to bend over backwards to appease gay people for what ultimately IMO is a lifestyle choice.

I understand, and agree that it would be nice to not have to worry about offending certain groups of people when it is clear to yourself that no offense is intended. However i would much rather that people erred on the side of caution- especially when there are so many people adamantly against homosexuals that they are trying to amend the constitution to prevent them from participating in a simple private ceremony. it was only a couple of years ago that a kid was dragged behind a pickup truck simply because he was gay- and the types of people who are commiting these acts use words like "unnatural" "immoral" when discussing homosexuals. I would rather not say anything that they could concieve as supporting them in any way, no matter the stretch. So even though it is clear that you are not trying to intentionally harm anyone when you say homosexuality is unnatural, i would still like to encourage you to think before you do.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
You have to expect the comparison when you use words like "natural".

[/ QUOTE ] I agree, but I think when I first used it I was incorrect and probably not accurate. I confess when I dove into this debate I was pretty much stating my opinion, but based upon what I have read Ion here I have decided to research a little myself. From what I have read I don't think it would be accurate to compare humans to other animals. Also, I don't know if the term "natural/unnatural" is applicable either, much like Cyrus said.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
especially when there are so many people adamantly against homosexuals that they are trying to amend the constitution to prevent them from participating in a simple private ceremony.

[/ QUOTE ] this is an entirely different issue, but one which has relevance to what we are talking about, I agree. But I am not sure if you can jump to allowing something like gay marriage before people accurately know what causes homosexuality and what effects homosexuality have on kids. I realize reseach has been done, I think it may be to early to make correct/accurate judgements.

[ QUOTE ]
it was only a couple of years ago that a kid was dragged behind a pickup truck simply because he was gay- and the types of people who are commiting these acts use words like "unnatural" "immoral" when discussing homosexuals

[/ QUOTE ] I think you give those people to much credit. Their vocab is probably filled with smaller words, which are less diificult to understand.

[tolbiny]

we seem to be agreeing on things pretty well, which is a little surprising after a poster (who shall remain nameless) began one with
"You are an idiot, man" /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I think this has been a pretty productive thread, and have enjoyed myself immensely.

"I don't really do it anymore, but i figured since i was on vacation i thought it would be alright if i rolled a few fags"
(an actuall quote from my Brtitsh uncle)

[ThaSaltCracka]

who did?

[ QUOTE ]
"I don't really do it anymore, but i figured since i was on vacation i thought it would be alright if i rolled a few fags"
(an actuall quote from my Brtitsh uncle)

[/ QUOTE ] I sincerly hope you know that he is talking about cigarettes.

[tolbiny]

OHhhhhh, he meant cigarettes...... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[bernie]

Just so you know, he's explained, a couple times, that he isn't trying to be offensive that way. It's actually not a bad point to debate that part. I think he's done fine in doing so. However, it doesn't mean that your post doesnt make some valid points. I also don't agree that it's a lifestyle choice.

The other case(not the same one, i don't think) was the Sheppard (can't remember his first name) case. Highschool kid who got killed. A bunch of christians picketed his funeral outside a church. Yelling at his parents that their kid, because he was gay, was going to burn in hell. Whatta great group.

b

[ThaSaltCracka]

FYI, faggot use to mean a bundle of sticks.

[elwoodblues]

The meanings of words and phrases change over time (I'm not suggesting you think otherwise).

A swastika used to be a religious symbol.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
But I am not sure if you can jump to allowing something like gay marriage before people accurately know what causes homosexuality and what effects homosexuality have on kids. I realize reseach has been done, I think it may be to early to make correct/accurate judgements.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think they would do fine. Gays are not deviants, perverts or criminals. They are just people. I think gay couples would make fine parents. Especially given how some of the str8 couples have raised children that you read about all the time. Like, the couple who were disciplining their kid with a pitbull as an example. I think if one hung out with a gay person (people) for any extended period of time, i think they'd see that they're really good people. Sure, there are jerks, but str8s have more than their share of A-holes too. I've found many gays, in my experience, do not have the hangups/predjudice that many str8s are capable of having.

I also think a gay couple, generally, could raise a kid better than a single parent home. Which is rampant here in Wa. state.

b

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
A swastika used to be a religious symbol.

[/ QUOTE ] as far as I know, it still is.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure if you can jump to allowing something like gay marriage before people accurately know what causes homosexuality and what effects homosexuality have on kids.

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't demand the same type of rigor for other marital relationships, why should we for gay marriage?

[ThaSaltCracka]

To be honest with you guys, I am not even going to start debating gay marriage. If someone else wants to engage you guys about it, go ahead, but I am leaving that can of worms alone.

[tolbiny]

Just so you know, he's explained, a couple times, that he isn't trying to be offensive that way

I realize this bernie- i tried to make it clear in my last post that i didnt think he intended to harm anyone with the word unnatural. I just wanted to bring up the idea that the connotation the word carries can be different from what you intend, and in a situation where a group has been pretty badly persecuted i beleive its a lot better to err on the side of caution when discussing their lifestyle/race/religion. Living with my older brother we make plenty of gay jokes about each other, its an old habit that does harm anyone. Recently we rented one of our rooms to a guy who is gay, now the jokes have severly tapered off because i want him to feel as at home as possible. The jokes are meant in the same spirit as the short jokes i use about him (which also went by the wayside when i briefly dated a girl a little under 4ft).

A bunch of christians picketed his funeral outside a church. Yelling at his parents that their kid, because he was gay, was going to burn in hell. Whatta great group.


As for this stuff- somedays i hope there is a heaven and a hell so that at least when i am burning for all eternity for my chronic masturbation i can turn to the born again next to me and say "sure sucks for you that god let all those gays into heaven, and your stuck down here when all you did was let someone else tell you what to believe and how to live you life."

[tolbiny]

FYI, faggot use to mean a bundle of sticks.

yep- origanally collected for a fire so it also became a burning bundle of sticks or a single burning stick which is why the british use the word fag for a cigarette (which is also why i said "My British uncle" so that it would be understood that i knew what he was actually talking about, and that it was supposed to be funny. Apparently i dont have a sense of humor because my brother and i were dying with laughter when he said it).

[MaxPower]

If anyone is interested I found a recent review article on the topic. It is very long and boring, so I doubt you would want to read it. If you are really that curious, you can PM me your email address and I will send you the pdf file.

Very few things in science are even proven beyond any doubt, so you have to make some conclusions based on what you do know. There is mounting evidence that there is a biological component to homosexuality and it is not simply a "lifestyle choice"

I think the dichotomy between genetics and experience is a false one anyway.


Summary is below:


[ QUOTE ]
Born gay? The psychobiology of human sexual orientation

Qazi Rahman, and Glenn D. Wilson

Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, University of London, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, UK

Received 26 November 2001; revised 1 April 2002; accepted 27 April 2002. ; Available online 9 June 2002.




Abstract
Sexual orientation is fundamental to evolution and shifts from the species-typical pattern of heterosexuality may represent biological variations. The growth of scientific knowledge concerning the biology of sexual orientation during the past decade has been considerable. Sexual orientation is characterised by a bipolar distribution and is related to fraternal birth order in males. In females, its distribution is more variable; females being less prone towards exclusive homosexuality. In both sexes homosexuality is strongly associated with childhood gender nonconformity. Genetic evidence suggests a heritable component and putative gene loci on the X chromosome. Homosexuality may have evolved to promote same sex affiliation through a conserved neurodevelopmental mechanism. Recent findings suggest this mechanism involves atypical neurohormonal differentiation of the brain. Key areas for future research include the neurobiological basis of preferred sexual targets and correlates of female homosexuality.

Author Keywords: Sexual Orientation; Homosexuality; Neurodevelopment; Prenatal


[/ QUOTE ]

[bernie]

I think i saw something like this in TIME magazine too. It rings a bell.

b

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
"I don't really do it anymore, but i figured since i was on vacation i thought it would be alright if i rolled a few fags"
(an actuall quote from my Brtitsh uncle)

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I correct in assuming that the word "fags" in the above quote meant "cigarettes" and not "homosexual men"?

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Recently we rented one of our rooms to a guy who is gay, now the jokes have severly tapered off because i want him to feel as at home as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny how it works that way. After living with him awhile, how do you react to the gay jokes away from home. I've found that i look to see the intention behind the joke. Considering the source of who's telling it.

[ QUOTE ]
The jokes are meant in the same spirit as the short jokes i use about him (which also went by the wayside when i briefly dated a girl a little under 4ft).

[/ QUOTE ]

So you weren't quite nuts over her?

b

[CORed]

I don't think we know for sure what causes homosexual orientation. It might be genetic, biological but not genetic(developmental chemicaly triggered, etc.), something in ones upbringing, or (most likely) some combination of the above. However, I don't think homosexual orientation (the state of being attracted sexually be people of the same sex) is something that somebody chooses, anymore than the heterosexual majority chooses to be attracted by people of the opposite sex. One could argue that homosexual behavior (acting on ones homosexual attraction) is a choice, but sexual urges are pretty hard to ignore.

I will admit that seeing two men kissing makes me feel somewhat uncomfortable. This is probably mostly the result of growing up at a time when it was generally accepted that homosexuals were filthy deviant perverts, but I do not think that that fact in any way justifies discrimination against gay men (or lesbian women). I don't really think that equal treatment under the law for homosexual people instead of making them social outcasts is in any way "bending over backwards", but is in fact simple justice.

[tolbiny]

Funny how it works that way. After living with him awhile, how do you react to the gay jokes away from home

he isnt my first gay roomate, i lived in an interesting setting for a year where there were two open lesbians and an open bisexual male out of the 20 of us. At first i was a little more sensetive to the way others used gay jokes, but i eventually just ignored them. HOwever, if someone had said to me that they thought homosexuality was unnatural i was fairly likely to be quite put out by that comment.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The jokes are meant in the same spirit as the short jokes i use about him (which also went by the wayside when i briefly dated a girl a little under 4ft).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So you weren't quite nuts over her?


no i wasnt, and yes part of it was the height. There is something very nice about putting your arm around a girls waist and having her rest her shead on your shoulder, isnt there? (that wasnt the only problem though)

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Very few things in science are even proven beyond any doubt.

[/ QUOTE ]

By it's very nature, nothing in science is proven beond any doubt. A good theory agrees with all available evidence, but new evidence may require that the theory be modified of discarded. This is why it's difficult for scientists to win debates with people who's only standard of proof is "the Bible says so."

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
So you weren't quite nuts over her?


[/ QUOTE ]

This was a joke. If she was a little shorter, you'd have been nuts over her.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
This is why it's difficult for scientists to win debates with people who's only standard of proof is "the Bible says so."


[/ QUOTE ]

Except that the burden of proof goes both ways.

b

[tolbiny]

This is why it's difficult for scientists to win debates with people who's only standard of proof is "the Bible says so."

Ther reason that you cant win a debate against that argument is that they wont change their ways even with incontovertable truth in front of them. Its the nature of thier faith.
One of my biggest fear is that they will turn out to be right and i will find out that
1. There is a god and
2. Hes a frickin jerkoff

though it doesnt keep me up nights.

[tolbiny]

Except that the burden of proof goes both ways.

not in matters of faith- by definition there is no burden of proof to be met by faith.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
not in matters of faith- by definition there is no burden of proof to be met by faith

[/ QUOTE ]

It is if they're trying to convert you. Many try and say that proof is that they just 'know'. Sorry, it doesn't fly. But that's about when their eyes glaze over and they start saying a verse.

Then again the highly condensed version of the usual 3 hourlong heated debate, many times on your doorstep, is,

There is a God.
No there isn't.
Yes there is.
Prove it.
You can't prove that there isn't one.
FU
No F U!

b