Homosexual Marriage

[Andúnië]

Precisely. I am not homosexual myself, but those who are should be able to receive the same rights and respect as anyone else. Everyone to his or her own business, and there is no harm caused.

[Scroll]

Exactly my friend.

[LOTRfan1414]

Well, what about adopting homosexual couple adopting a child. What effects could that have on the kid, and won't he be teased and tormented by his peers for years. What does everybody else think?

[Beren One-Hand]

A couple more things. 

1) I never argued exclusively that because the "Bible says so" that homsexuality is wrong.  Athough the Bible provides the basis for my morals.  If one looks at what I've said, it is not only the Bible that I quote from - i.e. look at the Creation vs. Evolution debate.

2) That according to Andunie, that this has nothing to do with morals, I have to agree to disagree.  Homosexuality might be "naturally-occuring" as you say, but like I said a long time ago, it has never been proven that one can be born with it, which makes it either a product of circumstances or of personal decision.  Other such crimes or moral issues fall into those categories - lying, stealing, murder, adultery, etc.  The genetic argument would be undeniably linked to autism or ADHD and so on.  These being anomalies and as Andunie said: "abnormal." 

[Pulsifer]

Considering your Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter just bore a daughter into a mother/mother homosexual relationship, I hope the nail has been put into this case's coffin once and forever. At the very least, it'll severely undercut anyone from this administration attempting to grandstand on the so-called moral side (hah!) of the issue.

I never thought I'd say this, but I want to give big kudos to the Cheney family for treating this perfectly normally as a regular family event. *Applause*

[Pulsifer]

2) That according to Andunie, that this has nothing to do with morals, I have to agree to disagree.  Homosexuality might be "naturally-occuring" as you say, but like I said a long time ago, it has never been proven that one can be born with it, which makes it either a product of circumstances or of personal decision.  Other such crimes or moral issues fall into those categories - lying, stealing, murder, adultery, etc.  The genetic argument would be undeniably linked to autism or ADHD and so on.  These being anomalies and as Andunie said: "abnormal." 

You're mistaking "born like that" with genetics. Genetics grant disposition towards certain traits, nervous habits, moods, attention spans and apparently homosexuality amongst them. A child with a homosexual disposition is still subject to change during his or her formative years; years which will decide one way or the other if the person turns out to be homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual, depending on stimuli and exposure. We've seen it a thousand times; the internally homosexual person in the closet, who takes a wife, breeds children and lives uncomfortably ever after.

I'd wager that far larger percentages - perhaps up to 30-40% - of children born are born with a disposition to homosexuality, than we currently believe. Think about it - most boys and men have a phase in their adolescence in which they are curious about homosexuality and insecure about their sexuality. Most of these people face heterosexual stimuli and exposure and subconsciously decide during their adolescence/puberty that this is the way forward, for them. Some of them might have turned out to be homosexual given another upbringing and different exposure. Some of them would probably have turned out homosexual no matter what, bringing us to the old 10% statistic of yore.

The idea of homosexuality as purely a question of upbringing raises so many headaches as to be virtually trolling. Take body chemistry, for one. How could you change your body chemistry to get turned on and working towards your own gender before you even hardly know what sex is, and what it means in a mostly heterosexual society?

ETA: And the idea of homosexuality being a personal, conscious choice is beyond the pallor. You do not choose how your body chemistry work . . .

And another aspect; autism and ADHD are genetical damages, even wounds if you will. Easily detected, even in the foster stages for autism, even if they cannot be "fixed." There is no such thing, no damage, in a homosexual's brain and only the most die-hard homophobe would call a genetic disposition brain damage; it would be akin to saying people with red hair, green eyes and naturally long tempers are brain damaged. It simply goes beyond the palé.

Of course, if they ever do detect a brain malfunction, a wound or some other damage to the brain that causes homosexuality, I'll eat my crow words. Until then, I'll require hard evidence and a working hypothesis if someone tries to link homosexuality to brain defects like ADHD, MBD and autism.

[Beren One-Hand]

Where do I begin?  Maybe you should re-read the entire debate before you jump into this.  It sounds like you're quite passionate about your side of things.  Note: it has not ever been proven that one can be born gay.  You might want to give me some, as you so intelligently state: "hard evidence" towards that point.  That is why it falls into a sociological category - i.e. that it is sociological factors that contribute to, or cause it.  Most gay people that I know, have had some unfortunate experience in their past that has essentially caused their disposition.  Some might willingly choose to be gay; others might have been spurred in this direction - i.e a kid with no father figure; someone who was sexually abused as a child, etc.  Not that this is always the case, but if most gay people were honest, there is a story behind the story.  It is not as simple as: "I was born this way."  Being born gay is not an impossibility, but has not been proven, which makes such arguments ludicrous.

And if this was so plain and simple, then we would all agree.  But it is not.  Many people have strong opinions on this subject.  But as far as I was concerned, this debate, in this forum was dead.  We have already "beat the horse dead."  I have said really I all wanted to, and made a clear and logical case for my position.  I see where you are heading, but you are mistaken if you think I am comparing homosexuality to ADD or autism.  The only thing that they might have in common is that they are anomalies - not normal and not common among the majority of the population.

[/quote]
I'd wager that far larger percentages - perhaps up to 30-40% - of children born are born with a disposition to homosexuality, than we currently believe. Think about it - most boys and men have a phase in their adolescence in which they are curious about homosexuality and insecure about their sexuality. Most of these people face heterosexual stimuli and exposure and subconsciously decide during their adolescence/puberty that this is the way forward, for them. Some of them might have turned out to be homosexual given another upbringing and different exposure. Some of them would probably have turned out homosexual no matter what, bringing us to the old 10% statistic of yore.
[/quote]

These are your own speculative stats, and such stats don't fall in line with the coherence that has characterized this debate until now.  Also, don't imply that I am homophobic, because I have had gay friends/aquantences, and don't condone gay bashing.  Anyway, you really need to read every post of this debate, and then reply with something logical and coherent.

Also, please do not post back-to-back, as it is against the rules of this site.  If you have more to add after you have already posted, please simply revise your post. Thanks!  

[EMMA]

Do any of you guys believe in God?  The bible specifically says that homosexuality is wrong.  One day when you come face to face with God you may find that out.  well I know this: Opinions are like armpits, we all have them and they all stink.

[Wolfchild]

I find your opinion blunt and unexpanded, Emma. As part of my natural ability to question and make sense of the world, I would have presumed any being that was infinite enough to be a God, and praised for his judgment by the masses, would be open to the complexities of love, whatever they may be. I don't know if it is because there is the option of conception with male and female partners that believers take this so heavily to heart, but homosexuality is an undeniable unification of love also in the same way, and not just in relation to sex. I find it difficult to understand when I come to terms with the Christian religion, for the simple reason that it too often contradicts itself, and what we have here is a clear example. The Bible is not devoid of such stuff as 'Love thy neighbor', and yet it will refuse to consider homosexuals as nothing more that mere defiers of his word, when they are actually two people who feel the same way about one another as any male-female  couple in a relationship would. If God is unable to see past the way our world has developed to accept and be proud of these homosexual people, then I as a rational being with my own opinions would proclaim him a tyrant, and nothing short of oppressive. Can no-one see past the words of this book and look into their own hearts? You are taking the opinions from a book of questionable origin, and pasting them over your own. These are no longer your opinions, they are part of a mass of the same thing, superimposed and adjusted over time to fill the needs of a loveless world. Frankly, I chose long ago not to be part of that. An atheist I will always be.

I understand that my response here does not revolve with the scientific complexities of late, but when it comes to talking about love, what more can I do but write?

Another thing; I don't know where you come from Emma, but round here we have aerosol cans and roll on sticks. They clean up them armpits good.

[Andúnië]

Do any of you guys believe in God?  The bible specifically says that homosexuality is wrong.  One day when you come face to face with God you may find that out.

If you had read any of this discussion before, you would realize that there is more depth to this issue than "Homosexuality is wrong because God says so." One religion does not create moral standards for the entire world, but that has little to do with this topic. Again, homosexuality is not a concious choice that individuals make. If people are, then they are- there is no reason not to treat them differently. Read Wolfchild's post again. She has a very good point.

well I know this: Opinions are like armpits, we all have them and they all stink.

What was your post then? It was an opinion, and you believe it to be right, if I'm not mistaken.

[Beren One-Hand]

Some of the points made recently are understandable.  But let me say that if one is a non-believer, or lets say something other than a Christian, that they will not be able to understand the Bible in its full scope.  A non-believer might be able to grasp certain concepts and ideas from the Bible as a simple piece of literature, but with regard to key theological aspects, spiritual aspects and particularily faith, the unbeliever will be blinded.  One can only grasp the Bible to a point.  Often non-believers take ideas or concepts, or even passages and verses out of context as well.  This doesn't mean that a good Christian will not ask questions, or that they will be able to understand everything within the Bible.  But for me, as life long Christian, and a student of theology/biblical studies - the Bible is a very deep and profound book, with many lessons to learn.  After a life in the faith, and two theological degrees, the Word still amazes me with its wisdom and knowledge.

Also, if one wants to challenge the literary credibility of the Bible, they might want to look to church history, to see how it came that we have this book called the "Bible" in our hands today.  If anyone would like to understand this more, I would be happy to help.  Otherwise, pick up a book on church history and keep an open mind, you never know what might happen!  The credibility of the Bible might surprise you!    

As to homosexual marriage, my comments have already been said.  Even though, I would be happy to discuss more if any are willing.

[Pulsifer]

Where do I begin?  Maybe you should re-read the entire debate before you jump into this.  It sounds like you're quite passionate about your side of things.  Note: it has not ever been proven that one can be born gay.  You might want to give me some, as you so intelligently state: "hard evidence" towards that point.  That is why it falls into a sociological category - i.e. that it is sociological factors that contribute to, or cause it.  Most gay people that I know, have had some unfortunate experience in their past that has essentially caused their disposition.  Some might willingly choose to be gay; others might have been spurred in this direction - i.e a kid with no father figure; someone who was sexually abused as a child, etc.  Not that this is always the case, but if most gay people were honest, there is a story behind the story.  It is not as simple as: "I was born this way."  Being born gay is not an impossibility, but has not been proven, which makes such arguments ludicrous.

And if this was so plain and simple, then we would all agree.  But it is not.  Many people have strong opinions on this subject.  But as far as I was concerned, this debate, in this forum was dead.  We have already "beat the horse dead."  I have said really I all wanted to, and made a clear and logical case for my position.  I see where you are heading, but you are mistaken if you think I am comparing homosexuality to ADD or autism.  The only thing that they might have in common is that they are anomalies - not normal and not common among the majority of the population.


I'd wager that far larger percentages - perhaps up to 30-40% - of children born are born with a disposition to homosexuality, than we currently believe. Think about it - most boys and men have a phase in their adolescence in which they are curious about homosexuality and insecure about their sexuality. Most of these people face heterosexual stimuli and exposure and subconsciously decide during their adolescence/puberty that this is the way forward, for them. Some of them might have turned out to be homosexual given another upbringing and different exposure. Some of them would probably have turned out homosexual no matter what, bringing us to the old 10% statistic of yore.


These are your own speculative stats, and such stats don't fall in line with the coherence that has characterized this debate until now.  Also, don't imply that I am homophobic, because I have had gay friends/aquantences, and don't condone gay bashing.  Anyway, you really need to read every post of this debate, and then reply with something logical and coherent.

Also, please do not post back-to-back, as it is against the rules of this site.  If you have more to add after you have already posted, please simply revise your post. Thanks!  

I have indeed read all of the debate, am well aquainted with the rules of the board and did indicate that the statistics in my hypothesis are both made-up and spurious. It's good of you to call on that, of course, but in this occasion it was more of an illustration than a hard fact.

As for hard proof of my claim that being homosexual contains (a mildening of my previous standpoint, owing to more research and mildened down for the point of the debate) key genetic elements, you can pick up the March issue of Human Genetics. An example of correlating evidence is taken from Brian Mustanski's study of homosexual genomes, in which 60% of the study group's homosexuals had identical stretches of DNA in chromosome 7, 8 and 10, but where heterosexual members only had a 8% correlation.

This is data in favour of the hypothesis, and while researches almost conclusively agree that there is no "gay gene," the amount of correlating data is growing rapidly. The research will be examined and re-created by two other groups for the Feb 2008 release, and it will be interesting to see how the results compare.

Further, Kenneth S. Kendler's study in the American Journal of Psychiatry show a markedly higher correlation between twins' sexual orientation in monozygotic twins than in dyzigotic, indicating that there may be a genetic element in sexual orientation.

Of course, there is no lack of counter-research, but that is in itself a very hard task as it is trying to prove a negative. We can only get a real positive answer when the human genome system is fully mapped and researched.

To milden down my approach, I will posit that there is a strong genetic component in a person's sexual preference, especially in those cases which it goes against the norm.  Dean H. Hamer's analysis is of course a potent and touchy subject, as it links homosexuality to lineages - i.e. homosexuals' offspring or children (naturally born by surrogate or faux mother) contain a higher percentage of homosexuals than in a lineage of non-homosexuals. But that can be accounted as an evidence of enviromental causes as well, since he doesn't provide any proper background into family history, raising and such.

[Beren One-Hand]

Easybreath: Interesting points.  I will be sure to check out those references myself - thanks!  I might post another message at that point.  Apart from that I will consider my part in the debate done.   

[Pulsifer]

Easybreath: Interesting points.  I will be sure to check out those references myself - thanks!  I might post another message at that point.  Apart from that I will consider my part in the debate done.   

Well, thanks for hearing me out and considering what I wrote. I'm sincerely sorry for being that harsh earlier in the thread.

[Beren One-Hand]

No worries.  The cool thing about this board is we come from different backgrounds and countries, and in the end the important thing is to respect each other, and to agree to disagree in such debates.  Getting a little "passionate" is to be expected when debating.  Your comments are valuable and I hope you'd join in the various threads more often.