Controversial Discussion/Debate

[talkingtocactus]

I hope answering this isn't off topic, but since religion is a controversial issue, I don't think it's taboo here.

In my opinion, you're stereotyping religious people by saying that. I personally do not have anything against someone who is gay. You may think I'm spitting out bull, but it's my belief (I am a Christian) to love everyone. So that includes gays. It's like how even though you've done something wrong, your mom still loves you. That's how I'm trying to explain.

On a biological level, I disagree with homosexuality. I think that it is against nature as nature is for the continuation of the species, and like T'Witchy said, if homosexuality was supposed to be the norm, both sexes would have both sets of biological systems.

Anyway, I hope I'm in line with the rules of the thread. Have a great day XD

that's fair enough, we're all entitled to our opinion i just meant i'd heard that argument (the one i quoted, as opposed to yours, i mean) and can't quite get my head around it. however, while i can't agree with it, i can understand it. sorry, i wasn't intending to sound like i was stereotyping religious people, actually i don't think *just* christians (or people of any other religion) believe that, i think lots of non-religious people do too, which is up to them.

even from an evolutionary standpoint, you have a good point: homosexuality isn't something that allows a species to continue, and therefore it probably runs counter to evolutionary principle as well, but i think there must be something advantageous about it (on an evolutionary level) or it would've been lost several genetic mutations ago.

I have a question for those that feel homosexuality is wrong. If it is wrong then why did God create people that are gay? And remember the bible was translated by man. I'm not that up on my bible but I do know my Ten Commandments so I'm aware about the one that says 'thou shalt not lay with another man'. Does anyone actually know what God wrote when he wrote the Ten Commandments? We only know what's in the translations.

it don't think it's in the commandments, the citation that i think is usually referred to is in Leviticus 18-22. the creation question is a good question - personally i don't believe in creation but supposing it did happen, why would (any) god create things or acts or types of people if those things were abhorrent or wrong? and for me that doesn't just go for homosexuality and related things - why would (any) god create entire races of people who believe in different deities? do gods like watching their creations fight eachother?

When I went to church we didn't have to read the bible. I grew up in the Anglican Church. I still call myself an Anglican but I don't go to church anymore. I think I sort of had a fallen out with the Church when the minister that married my husband and I was murdered because he was gay. As in accordance with the Anglican Church he was suppose to be celibate. When he was murdered I believe he was coming out of a Gay Bar. If the church would allow gays to live as gays then this probably wouldn't have happened.

i don't think the Anglican church decrees celibacy for priests - my dad is an anglican priest! as far as i know anglican priests were required to be celibate under henry the 8th but his son, edward the 6th (who became king at the age of 9!) abolised that rule. i did a fair bit of bible reading as a kid and was taken to church fairly often, and i went to christian schools (none of it through choice). i think my parents despair of my staunch atheism (in fact i go further than atheism, i'm an antitheist) but they don't pressure me on it (anymore!) and i certainly wouldn't try to make them change their beliefs. i think that's the main thing really - people should be able to believe whatever the hell they want, even in the flying spaghetti monster if that makes them happy, but as soon as they start forcibly telling others what they can or can't believe, there is a problem (and that has been the problem for centuries!)

 

[allmaple]

even from an evolutionary standpoint, you have a good point: homosexuality isn't something that allows a species to continue, and therefore it probably runs counter to evolutionary principle as well, but i think there must be something advantageous about it (on an evolutionary level) or it would've been lost several genetic mutations ago.

there was a study that showed women with gay male relatives on average had more offspring than women without gay male relatives. so it is possible that a gene that would increase reproduction in females, if it ends up in males makes them gay. sorry if i am not explaining this right, we talked about it in my evolution class three years ago. that would explain how a gene that makes a man gay can be passed down in the population. havent heard of any genetic studies about gay women though.

they have also looked at brain anatomy and chemistry. gay male brains are more like straight female brains, and gay female brains are more like straight male brains. there are all kinds of studies to do with hormonal environment in the womb and such, so it is not strictly a question of genetics. so i believe without a doubt that homosexuality is natural, and so you cannot separate the act from the person.

as for the marriage part, as a non-religious person i dont view it as a religious thing but a legal one. for people who want to have families or be with each other until the end, you get rights and privileges you wouldnt otherwise have without a marriage license. why should same sex couples be denied that?

 

[talkingtocactus]

even from an evolutionary standpoint, you have a good point: homosexuality isn't something that allows a species to continue, and therefore it probably runs counter to evolutionary principle as well, but i think there must be something advantageous about it (on an evolutionary level) or it would've been lost several genetic mutations ago.

there was a study that showed women with gay male relatives on average had more offspring than women without gay male relatives. so it is possible that a gene that would increase reproduction in females, if it ends up in males makes them gay. sorry if i am not explaining this right,

no, that makes sense. also being gay doesn't preclude having children (obviously that's a whole other moral/societal debate), many gay men have children by artificial methods (but using their own dna), as do many gay women.

they have also looked at brain anatomy and chemistry. gay male brains are more like straight female brains, and gay female brains are more like straight male brains. there are all kinds of studies to do with hormonal environment in the womb and such, so it is not strictly a question of genetics. so i believe without a doubt that homosexuality is natural, and so you cannot separate the act from the person.

that makes a lot of sense as well - i don't think nurture is relevant in whether someone's gay, it's all about what happens before birth, whether it be a long time before (genes passing down generations) or immediately before (during pregnancy). it seems my brain is somewhere in the middle!

as for the marriage part, as a non-religious person i dont view it as a religious thing but a legal one. for people who want to have families or be with each other until the end, you get rights and privileges you wouldnt otherwise have without a marriage license. why should same sex couples be denied that?

exactly, that was very succinct!

 

[Ajbuckly]

even from an evolutionary standpoint, you have a good point: homosexuality isn't something that allows a species to continue, and therefore it probably runs counter to evolutionary principle as well, but i think there must be something advantageous about it (on an evolutionary level) or it would've been lost several genetic mutations ago.

there was a study that showed women with gay male relatives on average had more offspring than women without gay male relatives. so it is possible that a gene that would increase reproduction in females, if it ends up in males makes them gay. sorry if i am not explaining this right,

no, that makes sense. also being gay doesn't preclude having children (obviously that's a whole other moral/societal debate), many gay men have children by artificial methods (but using their own dna), as do many gay women.

they have also looked at brain anatomy and chemistry. gay male brains are more like straight female brains, and gay female brains are more like straight male brains. there are all kinds of studies to do with hormonal environment in the womb and such, so it is not strictly a question of genetics. so i believe without a doubt that homosexuality is natural, and so you cannot separate the act from the person.

that makes a lot of sense as well - i don't think nurture is relevant in whether someone's gay, it's all about what happens before birth, whether it be a long time before (genes passing down generations) or immediately before (during pregnancy). it seems my brain is somewhere in the middle!

as for the marriage part, as a non-religious person i dont view it as a religious thing but a legal one. for people who want to have families or be with each other until the end, you get rights and privileges you wouldnt otherwise have without a marriage license. why should same sex couples be denied that?

exactly, that was very succinct!

Hi Lisa.....Am very conflicted as it is hard to be argumentative...with myself envogued(?) 5 lines min.

1. Is your sexuality brain or body determined? Some say the brain is the biggest s..organ there is ...making your preferences a matter of enviroment.
2. Marriage as a statement of love.....Well...A vise man once said I choose my love every day and bless the heavens she is mine...
Guess: Married or not?

 

[talkingtocactus]

^ the brain is definitely the biggest sex organ, imho, it's the one that does most of the hard work! as for sexuality, it's hard to say, i think you just have to see the brain as part of the body. as far as i can tell it's determined by biological factors affecting the body prior to birth (genetic, hormonal or whatever). i don't think many people consciously choose to be gay (although it has been known i suppose, and people's sexuality can change in light of life experience, for instance women who have had violent men in their lives sometimes turn to women), they only choose consciously to act on it and be open about it.

haha, i'm sure for a great many people it is a statement of love as opposed to a clinical business decision. for me it would only ever be the latter because my belief is that love is an urban myth/social construct and a method of social control. but then, i am extremely cynical.

 

[Shytownmofo]

Here's a link to an interesting article regarding homosexuality amongst animals. It's from Psychology Today and it touches on the behavior of many animal species, including Bonobos, or Pygmy Chimpanzees.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/200906/gay-animals

It states that sexual behavior with Bonobos, including homosexuality reinforces social bonds and the social structure, also defusing aggression.

It also notes that homosexuality appears in about 450 species of animals, and that in some species of sheep, individuals who aren't interested are kicked out of the group.

Also, they note that male penguins will court each other, and even raise young successfully if given the opportunity.

Interesting. Just goes to show that there's an explanation or a natural reason for any behavior, including homosexuality, and that Homosexuality is as natural as sunshine and rain.

 

[Speedystokesgirl]

as for the marriage part, as a non-religious person i dont view it as a religious thing but a legal one. for people who want to have families or be with each other until the end, you get rights and privileges you wouldnt otherwise have without a marriage license. why should same sex couples be denied that?

I agree! Marriage has nothing to do with religion, if it did you wouldn't be able to go to a judge or Vegas, for that matter, and get married. Marriage is just a license and a contract with the state (so to speak) and so your country recognizes the marriage. Homosexual couples should have those same rights.

Here's a link to an interesting article regarding homosexuality amongst animals. It's from Psychology Today and it touches on the behavior of many animal species, including Bonobos, or Pygmy Chimpanzees.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/200906/gay-animals

It states that sexual behavior with Bonobos, including homosexuality reinforces social bonds and the social structure, also defusing aggression.

It also notes that homosexuality appears in about 450 species of animals, and that in some species of sheep, individuals who aren't interested are kicked out of the group.

Also, they note that male penguins will court each other, and even raise young successfully if given the opportunity.

Interesting. Just goes to show that there's an explanation or a natural reason for any behavior, including homosexuality, and that Homosexuality is as natural as sunshine and rain.

Exactly! You can't say homosexuality is not normal, if you look at the Kinsey Scale, most people fall somewhere in between. Basically, not everyone is 100% heterosexual and not everyone (gays and lesbians) are 100% homosexual. Yes there are those that are 100% either way, but most fall somewhere in the middle. Now that's not to say that if you consider yourself hetero, that you would become homosexual, just that hetero is your preference.

However, I do think most women are more open to exploring both sides. I, myself, don't think I could be with a woman in a relationship, but as a one time thing, maybe. I never tried it, nor do I plan on it, but you never know where life takes you. However, I still wouldn't be able to be in a relationship with a woman as I am hetero in that I prefer men and I am attracted to only men.

Men, on the other hand, have the whole macho thing going for them, so they're not as open as woman are and well, that's the way it's always been. :lol: Nothing wrong with, guys, just the way it is. It's a shame really, because two guys together is just hot!!!!

 

[Ajbuckly]

Well fans of forums.

I would like to add a bit about death penalty.

Just read a book about my country´s police/BAU unit. He says that through his 30 years as a police officer. He thinks under the right circumstances anyone could kill someone. I tend to agree. But he also states that under the surface(?) of any hardcoregangmember is the boy that wasn´t love,respected, cared for as a child and who in the end saw no other way to bond with someone else and choose a route more easy to go then frighting the terms of his life.

oy! am ranting :guffaw:

But my point being: who/what should control people?
1. Laws ? we all break them at our convience...Driving faster then the speed limit. Or are rules just ok when they suit us?
2. Religion? As we noticed in here we couldn´t a agree on one universel religion for all. And any excisting religion has it flaws and people not committed anyways.
3. Moral? See 1.

If death penalty is not the answer then ........if the pedofil or serial killer cann´t/will not be cured then what and for how long. So it´s ok to look up people for life and with what purpose?

I don´t belive anyone of us would feel safe having a convicted serial killer next door. No matter whatever his thearpist said....

 

[talkingtocactus]

as for the marriage part, as a non-religious person i dont view it as a religious thing but a legal one. for people who want to have families or be with each other until the end, you get rights and privileges you wouldnt otherwise have without a marriage license. why should same sex couples be denied that?

I agree! Marriage has nothing to do with religion, if it did you wouldn't be able to go to a judge or Vegas, for that matter, and get married. Marriage is just a license and a contract with the state

even my dad, who is a priest, agrees with this one! obviously he thinks a religious blessing or whatever on said contract is important, but he tutors couples before they marry and he says one of the most important bits of the tutoring is to make sure they know that it is essentially a contract, as opposed to a fluffy romantic religious thing.

Here's a link to an interesting article regarding homosexuality amongst animals. It's from Psychology Today and it touches on the behavior of many animal species, including Bonobos, or Pygmy Chimpanzees.

nice article, thanks!

if you look at the Kinsey Scale, most people fall somewhere in between. Basically, not everyone is 100% heterosexual and not everyone (gays and lesbians) are 100% homosexual.

yeah i think kinsey had a great point - i think very very few people are 100% one way or t'other, i would say most people are about 2 or 6 (as opposed to 1/7 - was there a zero as well, i forget!). i would say i'm something like a 3 or possibly a 4

However, I do think most women are more open to exploring both sides. I, myself, don't think I could be with a woman in a relationship, but as a one time thing, maybe. I never tried it, nor do I plan on it, but you never know where life takes you. However, I still wouldn't be able to be in a relationship with a woman as I am hetero in that I prefer men and I am attracted to only men.

i think it's women that are more open to it as well (even though queen victoria refused to acknowledge that such a thing could even exist between women). sadly i think a lot of this has to do with impressing men (hello katy perry, way to turn the entire lesbian community against you! :lol but also i think it's more basic than that - homosexuality for men is a very invasive idea, whereas it rarely is for women. in fact for women, gay sex is less invasive than straight sex (whcih explains why rape victims often turn to women). i've always been attracted to both genders really, it tends to be more about the person. i've gone out with more men than women, but i think that was primarily because growing up i would've been lynched if i went out with a woman, so men were the default.

is. It's a shame really, because two guys together is just hot!!!!

haha, you sound like a man! although actually i agree...

1. Laws ? we all break them at our convience...Driving faster then the speed limit. Or are rules just ok when they suit us?

you're an anarchist then?!

 

[Ajbuckly]

:guffaw::guffaw:I consider myself a realist....but let the world prove me wrong...

But perhaps it is all in eyes of the beholder..

 

[allmaple]

Also, they note that male penguins will court each other, and even raise young successfully if given the opportunity.

the gay male penguins at the san diego zoo broke up a female penguin stole one away! they actually had to separate the one male because he kept attacking the new couple poor little guy...

 

[talkingtocactus]

^ aww that's sad!

:guffaw::guffaw:I consider myself a realist....but let the world prove me wrong...

But perhaps it is all in eyes of the beholder..

actually i think you're right - people break laws that they don't agree with all the time, albeit usually smaller laws like taking drugs or drinking in public or whatever, people can be very selective! and hey, some laws are made that *should* be broken, there are a few laws that were invented in this country recently that i go out of my way to break (for instance, i support brian haw to the hilt). also discriminatory laws can only be changed if enough people break them and are open about their oppressive and discriminatory nature, it's how society becomes more progressive.

 

[Ajbuckly]

^ aww that's sad!

:guffaw::guffaw:I consider myself a realist....but let the world prove me wrong...

But perhaps it is all in eyes of the beholder..

actually i think you're right - people break laws that they don't agree with all the time, albeit usually smaller laws like taking drugs or drinking in public or whatever, people can be very selective! and hey, some laws are made that *should* be broken, there are a few laws that were invented in this country recently that i go out of my way to break (for instance, i support brian haw to the hilt). also discriminatory laws can only be changed if enough people break them and are open about their oppressive and discriminatory nature, it's how society becomes more progressive.

Thanks for the link...

IMO we are as to Kimbos topics and further on. Looking at two things.

1. The possiblity of a unified world. All agree on the same values and norms. There is a couple movies about the negative sides of a one-concept world: Demolition Man/the one with Christian Bale./
One might say it is all about respect and respecting each other.....but as previously posted: IF the norms and values isn´t for me and was choosen by others. Would I comply or rebell?

2. For the young and the young at heart shouldn´t you rebell? Or at least evolve the world as NOT be like the oldies....if people through out time had not had different ideas and acted on them, would we still have slavery and feudal system in sociaty(?spelling sorry).

Stop!!! Damn you - mind and keyboard - we are way over selfenposed limit.

 

[Shytownmofo]

Re:^^^

I'm of the firm belief that you've GOT to question authority. When one does not question authority, it then has no checks and balances. Cultures, languages, and societies evolve with time. To me, that means if the society is not static, neither should the rules and norms be. Authority that does not evolve with the times then loses its' power.

To me, the highest morality is the "Golden Rule" which is to treat others how one would wish to be treated. I'm also a very strong proponent of Social Justice, and that everyone deserves respect, and a fair chance to succeed.

Unfortunately, Society has another "Golden Rule" and that's "those who have the gold, they make the rules" And that usually supersedes all, and the status quo is preserved, usually long after it's become obsolete.

 

[talkingtocactus]

^ yep, i'm basically the same. if authority was never questioned we'd ALL be living in a totalitarian state. diversity is a great thing and homogeneity is not - partly because it's damned boring, but also because the will of the people does not necessarily mean the right thing. as JS Mill (one of my heroes!) put it, there is tyranny in the majority - if something becomes the status quo and unquestionable just because the majority want it, then an awful lot of people are instantly marginalised. of course sometimes the majority works - in electoral process for instance, but in terms of morals and ethics it's a very dodgy measure of whether something's right/wrong.

as for checks and balances, the key thing for me is accountability - if everyone just goes docile and doesn't question world leaders (or indeed any leaders), then what's the point? one of my favourite quotes of all time is thomas jefferson - "when the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fear the people, there is liberty" - people have to be able to hold leaders (at all levels) accountable for their decisions, we have to question their authority - ok, sure we gave them the authority by voting, but we have to live up to our vote and not just sit back and say "oh well, you're in now, do what you want". if authority was never questioned, the world would never get anywhere at all. i may as well add another favourite quote of mine which says this quite neatly, from GB Shaw "the reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man" - i totally support this view, a healthy distrust of authority combined with a questioning mind is so important - which explains why education is so homogenised, the leaders don't want kids to be questioning, they want them docile and indoctrinated. ha, i promise i'm not this much of a conspiracy theorist usually! but i do genuinely believe that education is the biggest tool a nation has to form the leaders of the future, that it's integral to a functioning society - at the moment it seems to be leading towards a society on apathetic autopilot (unless, as you say, you happen to be in the elite class that gets the private education and all the opportunities you could possibly want), which is a real shame.

civil liberty (and that absolutely has to include the right to protest (peacefully), please, so called "labour" government - "change your name to new, forget the f*cking labour" :scream is probably the single most pressing issue we have (certainly in this country anyway) at the moment, but people don't seem to even give a crap about it. the right for people to do what they want, within a legal framework and not harming others of course, is absolutely paramount to a civilised society. it really angers and upsets me that so many of the freedoms that people fought for for centuries are being massively eroded because governments are too scared either of terrorists (who are a tiny minority) or of litigation to let people just live their lives, and people at large are too bored to care - we ARE all bourgeois now. yet another quote i'm afraid (i do like my political philosophy quotes!) from benjamin franklin: "those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" [/rant]