As an INTJ what do you think about homosexuality?

[TheFreeThinker]

As an INTJ what do you think about homosexuality?

I personally think, it should be a choice whatever it is. Also, there are people who are born homosexual and those people’s rights must be respected.

Just to let you know, I’m straight! :)

[wolf]

In spite of my being a christian and all, and the fact most of the wackos that claim that want to make it illegal and such, I am totally neutral on it. Without freedom, you can't follow, and freedom is good for people regardless.

I am, however, against marriage. Since they've pointed it out, I am actually flat against the government being involved in a religious institution/ceremony. If they must define a union of people, it should have no rules governing what is and isn't a union. If the participants are willing, there's nothing wrong with it. It shouldn't be marriage, as that is religious.

[Firelie]

As hard as my conservative christian parents tried to instill "proper" values in me, I gotta say I just don't care either way. *What people do with themselves is their deal. *Man with a man? *Go for it. *Woman with a woman? *Sure why not. *As long as the human being is mature enough to truly understand the situation and give consent, it's all good. *(That does not include animals due to their lack the human language skills necessary to give consent) *It really pisses me off when people talk about their reasons for not wanting gay marriage to be legal and spout off some nonsense about people marrying goats next, like a bond between a same sex couple can't be just as loving and normal (or better than) as a straight couple. *Please! *Seen the divorce rate in America lately? *I think we should try to fix up the man-woman marriages before nitpicking elsewhere.


/rant

[Jon]

I don't think there's any possible way to keep this thread on topic. It's just impossible with how simple the question is. Here's how it breaks down, "Gay, is it okay?" answered by "unconditional yes" and if anyone disagrees, we can knife battle. People are people and everyone is equal. If people disagree, the rest of us need to work harder to convince them to change their opinions.

Now, as for the off-topic stuff... The government should be hands off in all religious ceremonies? So you're okay with extremist Mormon polygamy and cult human sacrifice, Wolf? I'm fine with the first one (when it's not insane like it generally is with women being treated as commodities and men needing to acquire X number of women before they get into heaven...), but clearly there are some thing that aren't covered under freedom of religion, just like freedom of speech. Unlike allowing gay marriage, using "it's my religion" as an excuse for anything really is a slippery slope (God, I hate those words). I'm sure you meant that, but you didn't say it, so I'm just making sure.

And regarding gay marriage. Why not? It's not like Christianity predates marriage. You can't really claim that marriage is a religious invention when the facts say it's not. Just because people keep saying that marriage is exclusively religious doesn't make it truth; It's truthiness. Allowing gays to marry while calling it a union is so bizarre. It's just a tiny semantic barrier that people want to use to differentiate themselves from "the gays". Clearly, there is a hurtful underlying prejudice in "being okay with it, as long as it's separate from what I do".

[wolf]

I think you guys have missed me here. I'm against government-sanctioned heterosexual marriage as well. All should be unions of some number of people that wish to be economically bonded in the eyes of the government. Marriage has been religious since the very invention of the concept. It wasn't a governmental thing until the governments of the world started caring.

Really, it's bad for anyone that's single. I get taxed way higher than someone that uses way more resources and costs far more for every possible thing...because they are married or have children. I get the shaft because I'm single. This is not cool. The unions of people should have no bearing on taxes... They should define who is part of your "family" of sorts. This would include people like my best friend, who could then see me in the hospital when only "family" is allowed, among other benefits. This is sensible.

[Jon]

I think you guys have missed me here. *I'm against government-sanctioned heterosexual marriage as well. *All should be unions of some number of people that wish to be economically bonded in the eyes of the government. *Marriage has been religious since the very invention of the concept. *It wasn't a governmental thing until the governments of the world started caring.

Really, it's bad for anyone that's single. *I get taxed way higher than someone that uses way more resources and costs far more for every possible thing...because they are married or have children. *I get the shaft because I'm single. *This is not cool. *The unions of people should have no bearing on taxes...

No, I know what you mean. I just totally disagree. The first caveman who claimed a woman as his prize was probably not doing it religiously. Cecrops (the man-snake) established marriage in Athens to make it easier to record lineages and, again, to say who was in charge of the woman. It was totally secular. Sure, it's a myth, but it's probably partially true. Pre-Christian Roman marriage was secular, too. Marriage being invented by religion is truthiness. "Everybody" says it so it becomes "true". Sadly, that doesn't make it true. I never really said that it was always a government thing... it's just not a religious thing.

I do disagree with uneven taxation, though, but that's even MORE off topic than I'm willing to go. I never thought I'd hit that wall.

[Capwolf]

I think you guys have missed me here. *I'm against government-sanctioned heterosexual marriage as well. *All should be unions of some number of people that wish to be economically bonded in the eyes of the government.
OK, but his point was that marriage is not solely a religious institution, and thus it's absurd to give the word to religious organizations. The word has a lot of [secular] meaning, socially and emotionally. (Imagine someone saying "Yeah, we got unioned last weekend!") Insisting that the government not 'marry' people, while most churches will only marry mixed couples, is giving in to bigotry.

Both religion and marriage have become nearly unrecognizable since 'the very invention of the concept.' So why should today's religion have a claim on today's marriage?

[OneBadMother]

Man do I wish I could post in this topic. :P

[wolf]

No, I know what you mean. I just totally disagree. The first caveman who claimed a woman as his prize was probably not doing it religiously. Cecrops (the man-snake) established marriage in Athens to make it easier to record lineages and, again, to say who was in charge of the woman. It was totally secular. Sure, it's a myth, but it's probably partially true. Pre-Christian Roman marriage was secular, too. Marriage being invented by religion is truthiness. "Everybody" says it so it becomes "true". Sadly, that doesn't make it true. I never really said that it was always a government thing... it's just not a religious thing.
Except you are still way too modern and disregarding things prior to that. I never said it was invented by christianity (that is unbelievable bogus). Your baseless arguments against things I never said are very annoying. Please go play with your strawmen elsewhere.

[wolf]

Insisting that the government not 'marry' people, while most churches will only marry mixed couples, is giving in to bigotry.
This is bullshit. If they really wanted marriage (they don't, they want tax benefits and a ceremony to show off, like your average heterosexual), a bunch of churches will step up to the plate and marry consenting adults of any collection of genders. Freedom will allow it and it will happen. The government intrusion is why it's rigidly between a male and a female.

[Jon]

Except you are still way too modern and disregarding things prior to that. *I never said it was invented by christianity (that is unbelievable bogus). *Your baseless arguments against things I never said are very annoying. *Please go play with your strawmen elsewhere.

The wh... h...

The first cavemen are too modern?

Let me get this straight. You are against the word marriage? We can take this step by step so I don't offend you with my extrapolating.

I really do want to understand your side and debate with you if I really am missing it, Wolf.

[deicruxified]

As an INTJ what do you think about homosexuality?

I personally think, it should be a choice whatever it is. Also, there are people who are born homosexual and those people’s rights must be respected.

Just to let you know, I’m straight! *:) *

i got an androgynous look... fyi i'm straight. i am surrounded by screaming loud gays as acquaintances one of them happens to be my closest friend (i am my own bestfriend :D)

i don't actually care what people's sexual orientation is as long as he or she does not harm me, he/she's ok

[lollercancer]

there is barely a difference between a gay and a straight person.

hating on gay people is like hating on people whose favorite color is blue.

man, screw those blue lovers...

[rwyatt365]

A person's sexual orientation and/or practices are solely between them and their partner(s). What I like has no bearing on what someone else likes or wants. As deicruxified says, "…as long as they don't harm me, he/she's ok…", you do me no harm and I'll do the same for you.

I had an older step-son that was gay (he passed away from AID complications) and he often had many of his gay friends around the house. I had no problem with any of them, how they acted (or didn’t act), or anything. To me they were just people, friends of my son – nothing else.

[aude]

Who cares who can get married and who cant. I hate when people say that when some one is different that they are against some ones imaginary god-like creature. I am neutral when it comes those who are different. It was never there choice to be born that way. If we try to eradicate homosexuals, why not get rid of all other disabilities(not saying homosexual is one). Its pretty sad when animals like dogs can get married and yet gay people cant.

[Firelie]

Who cares who can get married and who cant. I hate when people say that when some one is different that they are against some ones imaginary god-like creature. I am neutral when it comes those who are different. *It was never there choice to be born that way. If we try to eradicate homosexuals, why not get rid of all other disabilities(not saying homosexual is one). Its pretty sad when animals like dogs can get married and yet gay people cant.


Dogs can get married?? Where do YOU live?

[aude]

Who cares who can get married and who cant. I hate when people say that when some one is different that they are against some ones imaginary god-like creature. I am neutral when it comes those who are different. It was never there choice to be born that way. If we try to eradicate homosexuals, why not get rid of all other disabilities(not saying homosexual is one). Its pretty sad when animals like dogs can get married and yet gay people cant.


Dogs can get married?? Where do YOU live?
Personally i live in canada. But i have animals get married from around the world.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Its stupid but i guess some people dont have a life :)

[tundra]

I'm straight, but I'm fine with homosexuals. It's really your private life...

What I don't understand is the long Evangelist-fed opposition against it. What's wrong with choosing to be (sexually) attracted to the members of the same sex?

Perhaps its a bit off to compare it to a religion (different things, rather), but I don't see what's horribly wrong. It's just a personal thing.

[Max T]

Perhaps as a result of being INTJ and therefore very comfortable in my own skin (I'm straight btw), I'm fine with homosexuals.

Besides, I'm quite inept at reading flirt signals from girls. So would neither understand a 'come-on' from a bloke nor expect it. As a result, my view on homosexuality is very basic: do your own thing.

[Jbmontag]

I don't care who you're screwing, unless you happen to be screwing me. I agree with wolf also, marriage is a religious sacrament. If you want to get married, that is between you and your church, the government should offer EVERYONE a civil union.

I'll have to decline the knife fight. I already stabbed someone this week. I don't want it turning into an addiction ;D

Now I don't have to answer the sarcasm thread.

[StJimmy]

knife battle. i lol'd irl.

anyway. i could care less. really. as far as marriage, i think the saying goes, "if they want to get married and be miserable like everyone else, let them."

ha. take that, gays. :P

[OneBadMother]

I'm straight, but I'm fine with homosexuals. It's really your private life...

What I don't understand is the long Evangelist-fed opposition against it. What's wrong with choosing to be (sexually) attracted to the members of the same sex?

Perhaps its a bit off to compare it to a religion (different things, rather), but I don't see what's horribly wrong. It's just a personal thing.

It all goes back to the Hebrews, who decided that the best way to spread Judaism was to make more of themselves. So naturally, any carnal relations that didn't have a chance of producing children were looked down upon as a "sin". This is also reflected in the discouragement of birth control.

[rwyatt365]

Besides, I'm quite inept at reading flirt signals from girls. * So would neither understand a 'come-on' from a bloke nor expect it. * As a result, my view on homosexuality is very basic: do your own thing.

And I thought I was the only real-live guy that can't see "come-on" signals from women! Usually you only see that in the movies (you know, awkward dork can't see beautiful girl's advances = plot device). My wife is forever punching me and saying, "Didn't you see that girl coming on to you?!", like it's my fault.

Another thread perhaps?

[Rei]

Wow I'm a little backed up on this thread.

Anyhow, my friend just sent me this:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I found it entertaining...

Hum... This was intended for the other thread...
Though I guess it fits alright here too?

[hr]

I guess this means I have to write my opinion here.
Which is frankly that I don't care. As long as homosexual couples don't make out in front of me I'm good. Then again, I feel the same way about hetero-couples too... =/

[wolf]

Besides, I'm quite inept at reading flirt signals from girls. So would neither understand a 'come-on' from a bloke nor expect it. As a result, my view on homosexuality is very basic: do your own thing.

And I thought I was the only real-live guy that can't see "come-on" signals from women! Usually you only see that in the movies (you know, awkward dork can't see beautiful girl's advances = plot device). My wife is forever punching me and saying, "Didn't you see that girl coming on to you?!", like it's my fault.

Another thread perhaps?
I don't notice when gay guys hit on me, either (someone else tells me). I also never notice female flirting, so I assume it doesn't happen.

[biased]

I basically think of it as "You do your thing and I'll do mine" In other words someone's private life is not of my concern though I would prefer it if they kept it private, that applies to straight couples too. Public affections of love ::)

[phoenix]

Hmmm.......I guess I'm okay with it. *;D

Of course, I'd probably like it better if I could actually marry the woman I love. People often wonder why we get so hung up on the marriage issue. But it really is entirely pragmatic. There are so many financial and security benefits that go along with marriage. Benefits that simply cannot be conferred any other way. Rights of survivorship, parental rights, social security, legal and medical powers-of-attorney....the list goes on.

My partner and I have gone through ridiculous legal paperwork (and $1000s in expenses) to attempt to guarantee each other some semblance of the rights that a straight couple get with a $50 marriage license. And all it takes is one person to say 'I don't agree' and they can deny us those rights. True, we can then take them to court. But that doesn't help if your partner is in the hospital and you simply want to be able to hold their hand while they're hurting. Court takes years....and I need to be in there *right now*.

So...maybe that starts to explain why marriage is such an issue.

Personally, I agree with Jbmontag. The legal contract should be a civil union for all couples. Marriage should be a religious institution. Unfortunately there are 200+ years of established law that use the term 'marriage' for the legal contract. Until all those laws are changed to read 'civil union,' we will continue to have a separate-and-not-equal situation for same-sex couples.

[blackout]

As an INTJ what do you think about homosexuality?

I personally think, it should be a choice whatever it is. Also, there are people who are born homosexual and those people’s rights must be respected.

Just to let you know, I’m straight! *:) *


Who a person has sex with doesnt matter to me one bit, as long as they arent morons. I also hate the flaming type of behavior because it's an act and fake and I dont like fakeness. If a guy wants to hmup another guy, great, why does that mean some have to act like a total moron in thier mannerisms?

[thegnat]

I don't care.

I had an uncle that was gay. He and his partner were two of the nicest people you'd ever meet. (please, don't ask me why it's past tense, that always annoys me when people do that)

Gay marriage is cool with me.

"Marriage" shouldn't have to refer to just heterosexual couples.

And btw, anti-gay marriage laws suck for singles, too. I think we have one here in Ohio ::) I used to know all why it did suck for singles. But college has driven that information out of my mind replaced with a lot of other information...

[Nomad]

read the above. In the US, we have an enormous number of laws that stem directly from the ethics/morals derived from the teachings of the Abrahamic religions. Every blue law, every law about dress, pretty much every law that legislates behavior that does not cause harm to others, laws regarding divorce, adultery, it goes on and on. Examine it, you'll see.

Call it what you like, civil unions or marriage. certain religions ban same sex marriage, some have no problem with it at all, and will conduct a religious ceremony without hesitation. religions can have whatever rules they like. Governments have a duty to respect the rights of their citizens (OK, I'm an idealist) including the right to pursue happiness.

I'm straight, and most of my friends here are gay. They accept me without reservation, I do the same. I judge people by their character, not who they sleep with.

This is a perspective of an American, who are accustomed to their rights.

Taxation and other benefits of "marriage are the business of governments, not religions.

-Nomad

[AJ]

I do not care what they do with their life. Only problem I've had with gays are when they are flamboyant and seek attention. Now that gets on my nerves and I make sure to avoid the person and if I do end up talking to them I'll speak in a sort of condescending voice. But they do serve as a good birth control measure.

[iamnotspock]

more gay men, more single women . . . my only problem is with the closeted ones who take a woman off the market just for cover

but let the gays have marriage. as a wise man once said, you're better off finding a woman who hates you and buying her a house

[OFL]

My sister is a lesbian, so i had a real life test to see how i would react. It didn't bother me at all. When she told me it made sense so i didn't question it. I have no problem with the gay community. If they want to marry thats fine with me. I for one don't believe in marriage straight or gay. In my eyes it is just a contract that is very hard to break and is unneeded.

OFL :thumbsup:

[Evalind]

If they must define a union of people, it should have no rules governing what is and isn't a union. If the participants are willing, there's nothing wrong with it. It shouldn't be marriage, as that is religious.
Agreed. Yes, I'm married, but my husband and I had several debates about this very thing before we got hitched. I couldn't convince him to go to the court house for a civil union before our family oriented wedding ceremony though.

[INTJoe]

I don't think about them much. I'm sort of indifferent I guess. But I definitely use derogatory words about them when joking with friends or whatever.

I don't know if being gay is a choice or a natural thing. I assume it is unnatural because I'm hetero and can't imagine enjoying some dude's weiner nestled between my buttcheeks. BUT, I think human nature does evolve, and so what I think or know is natural may change before I know it.

If I have kids and they are gay, it will be for me to "get over". As what is most important to me is that they are happy and lead a meaningful life. Now whether or not I will be able to "get over" it if the time comes, is a different story. I'm not perfect. Hell, for proof of that just a paragraph earlier I used the word buttcheeks. I mean that's pretty messed up, right?

INTJoe

[Jennywocky]

hating on gay people is like hating on people whose favorite color is blue. man, screw those blue lovers...

Hey.... you... you BLUE-A-PHOBE!

*readies the blue banners for the March on Washington*


...in general, I'm all for keeping "marriage" a religious acknowledgment and "civil union" the legal terminology. The problem is that the two terms are merged in some cultures (under the guise of "marriage"), so then religions fight about what the secular government should endorse. Churches should be allowed to approve of what covenants they like, as per their faith; but the government determines what "legal rights" its citizens should have.

[TruorTupnm]

As with all types of sexuality, I am indifferent. Anybody can have whatever types of fun they wish for. Sexual orientation doesn't matter much when it comes to me deciding if somebody is cool or not. I am not a large fan of sexual tales of most sorts. Aren't they all the same?

For the record, I am asexual and oblivious to flirtations. I have been informed that some have flirted at me, in the past. I wondered why, when I've mostly ignored the flirters. oh well.

Towards marriage, I don't see the point in making a large deal of the thing. Wouldn't obtain one. But I understand that it is pretty nonsensically unfair for some to marry while others can't. I'd sign something, why not, but wouldn't do much about it, really.

And towards those who like the color blue ---> What is wrong with you? Yay green! You blue-lovers! Do you enjoy your lack of taste? Hm? Ugh! Disgusting! ::)

[Santana28]

It depends on whether we are talking about simply being attracted to both sexes, or considering yourself a homosexual.

Personally, i have absolutely no opinion nor do i care who people choose to be in relationships with. I judge everyone as an individual, and i don't differentiate by gender. I've been involved with people of both sexes. I don't consider myself straight, or bi, or gay - i'm just me. A label such as those would be incorrect, and i won't apply that to other people unless they already apply it to themselves.

Of course, i think there is something wrong with considering yourself "100% straight, or 100% absolutely no doubt gay." There are a lot of personality disorders and such, not to mention the simple human tendency to try to explain away things we don't understand.... i've known people that are convinced they are gay, who aren't. And vice versa. The "Gay" lifestyle is hedonistic, self-centered, and destructive for the most part. I don't endorse it because it is unhealthy and counter-productive for both society and the individuals involved. Its like a gang.

Interestingly enough... every guy i've ever had a long term relationship with has turned out to be the same way as i.... i'll have to sit down and think about their type. Not just one or two, but ALL of them. Either their is a correlation here... or i have supreme gaydar ;)

[Garth]

I tend to think that being gay has to be biological. *

There is no way I could be attracted to a guy.

Sometimes, I almost wish I were gay. *I strongly suspect that in any major city a gay guy could pretty much get laid whenever he wants to. *He could probably get the other dude to buy him drinks and stuff too.

Unfortunately I am a straight guy, which means I have to do all the buying, asking out, and it takes tons of time and effort to get laid.

Other than my resentment about gay guys getting laid whenever they want with out having to spend any time, effort, or money to do it, I really don’t think about them much or care what they do.

[rubbercorks]

makes no difference really because it doesnt affect me, I just don't want to see it...thing is though that goes for hetero and homosexual relationships...I just dont want PDA in my face.

[phoenix]

The "Gay" lifestyle is hedonistic, self-centered, and destructive for the most part. I don't endorse it because it is unhealthy and counter-productive for both society and the individuals involved. Its like a gang.


Can you please explain this comment? I need to understand what you think the "gay" lifestyle consists of?

[INTroJect]

It seems as if I am the resident gay INTJ representative. I would like everyone to know that although Gay, I am still an INTJ just the same, just sexual attraction in a different direction. I still have no idea when someone is hitting on me, guy or girl. That 'Gay lifestyle' thing is a bunch of Exxx types who flash it around for fun, there are 'look at me' straight guys with whatever personality type that is but its just not noticed because its more common.

The way I think about it is there is a spectrum of likes and dislikes that everyone has. I had served for an enlistment in the military (completed honorably in case anyone was going to wonder otherwise) and had the "opportunity" to be in constant company wiht guys talking about 'I like big this' 'I like small that' 'I like brown/black/ this and that' 'Long hair/Short hair' 'guess what I did last night'...you get what I mean. If a straight guy can like girls with big booties and another not even be remotely interested then this 'gay' thing is just that same spectrum of like/dislike with an additional dimension.

Ive been to sport bars where the words and actions are just as, if not more, destructive than this 'gay lifestyle' myth. Gay has nothing to do with it, its just people being people just the same. I still go to work every day and excel at what I do, pay my taxes, barely drink (rarely to excess), don't smoke or do drugs, and I don't even litter. As an INTJ I am probably less obvious as gay because we are so detached. Exxx's cant help themselves, they are more spontaneous and their thoughts get broadcasted out all over the place. Funny how as a gay man I patiently listened to guys in the service talk the way that they do and watch them act the way that they do, as unhealthy and counterproductive as those actions can sometimes be, and at the same time patiently read such crazy characterizations of how my life must be. Funny how the world is.

However, I am encouraged to read that most people in this thread are actually saying very reasonable things.

[rubbercorks]

The "Gay" lifestyle is hedonistic, self-centered, and destructive for the most part. I don't endorse it because it is unhealthy and counter-productive for both society and the individuals involved. Its like a gang.


Can you please explain this comment? I need to understand what you think the "gay" lifestyle consists of?


I think he is refering to stuff like the gay bathhouse culture that was prevailent in the 80's (Think "And the Band Played On") which helped spread STD's and AIDS in the homosexual community. But I could be wrong. :P

[yllmar]

Let me begin by saying that I am straight, but at the same time the NT pursuit of sexual knowlege is strong in me. I have read countless books, articles and the like concerning what really is the attraction between human beings, whether it is heterosexual, homosexual, incestual, or whatever. What I don't understand is in most homosexual relationships, you almost always see the same habits exhibited in the relationship. One almost always is the dominant, masculine partner and the other is almost always the passive, feminine. While you almost never see the georgeous pairing off you always see in most pornography, even though most lesbian pairings don't exhibit a girly-girl in the recessive partner you still have a dominant personality in the relationship.

I don't think there should be a law that regulates morality of any kind, including sexual relationships. This includes civil unions, but in terms of marriage that is, as has been stated before, a religious pairing. I don't know if the homosexual community wants the public to confirm their pairing as legitimate, or if it is a financial desire to have insurance and lower taxes. Only the individual knows these things, so I don't have an opinion on it specifically.

Now what I have observed in homosexual pairings is there is something generally wrong in the relationship. Someone is looking for a specific level of security that they can't find in an opposite-sex partner. By this I mean, most hard-core lesbians that I have met (my step-daughter is lesbian) they are anti-male; to the point of either being extremely angry/hateful or afraid of men. In the case of my step-daughter, she was molested at a very young age by a teen-age boy who threatened to cut her fingers off with a pocket knife if she revealed to anyone what he had done. This caused her to suppress any form of heterosexual desires and converted them to fear. In the case of my step-grandson, he was also molested by his step-brother. In that scenario, the young boy's step-brother's father was treated the same way in the home, but it was his sister rather than another male. Most homosexual relationships are created from a need of social acceptance, and the community readily accepts a person regardless of their backgrounds. I think this makes for a very appealing lifestyle on the surface, but on the inside their life is full of mistrust and drama. It would be interesting to see a same-sex relationship that was as healthy as my heterosexual marriage with my wife, but I have yet to find it. Not that there isn't drama in other relationships as there is plenty of drama in my step-daughters heterosexual marriage to an abusive drunk, mind you. I just have yet to see the same kind of full spectrum in a homosexual relationship; at least from the outside.

I have nothing against any single person, regardless of their religion, race, creed, or sexual orientation. I do have a problem with anyone that fits the stereotype of the worst example of said category, but I try to be very objective and open when I meet someone. The type of person that I can never really stomach is the extremly stupid, but I think that is the same for almost everyone that posts on this forum.

[Santana28]

Confused kid has feelings for someone of the same sex - Confused kid looks for explanation - Confused kid is told he's evil or flawed by family, friends, religion, society, etc - Confused kid finds a group of people who supposedly are "like" him/her. This group rejects society's condemnation and embraces and rejoices in their differences... Classic coping method.... This group defines themselves based on their sexual preference. This group encourges expressing and indulging in behavior expressing sexual preference.

Its a gang. I know so many kids who had problems growing up... one of my best friends was constantly molested by his stepfather growing up. I watched his transformation growing up. Now here is is, some 27 years later wondering why he's still miserable. Goes to a gay therapist who gives him happy pills. Still miserable. He's never once stopped to consider that he might not actually be gay... just really, really screwed up and misguided. Of course - when you have friends everywhere that tell you you're fine, and tell you that its normal to spend your life taking home a new guy every night... or its completely normal to dress in drag and work at gay clubs.... see my point yet?

Yes - i know this is a singular experience. But i see so many problems with it that relate to bigger issues.

1) To define ourselves by one aspect of our personality is narrow-minded. To define ourselves by the type of sexual experience we prefer is hedonsitic.
2) To accept society's definition of that particular aspect of our personality is the product of a weak or flawed personality ("I like ___ so i must be ___")
3) To surround yourself with people who have constructed an entire culture based around one singular definition of who they are... is absolutely no different or better than heterosexual cultures who do the same thing... gangs... cults...churches.
4) To equate the homosexual lifestyle and compare it to a "normal" heterosexual lifestyle is bad logic. The homosexual lifestyle by very definition is a self-limiting lifestyle which is hedonistic in nature, and can only be equated to similar hedonistic heterosexual lifestyles.

Am i saying that there aren't "normal" homosexuals out there who aren't hedonistic and just want to live a "normal" life? No i'm not. I'm just saying that if you identify yourself with a self-indulgent culture that defines itself on its sexual preference, and you align your particular values with theirs - then you're being contradictory.

We are all individuals until we align ourselves otherwise. Its all about values - will you reject society's values and come up with your own... or will you reject society's values and accept someone else's value definitions?

Not trying to start a flamewar here... just my opinion....

[phoenix]

Let me begin by saying that I am straight, but at the same time the NT pursuit of sexual knowlege is strong in me. I have read countless books, articles and the like concerning what really is the attraction between human beings, whether it is heterosexual, homosexual, incestual, or whatever. What I don't understand is in most homosexual relationships, you almost always see the same habits exhibited in the relationship. One almost always is the dominant, masculine partner and the other is almost always the passive, feminine. While you almost never see the georgeous pairing off you always see in most pornography, even though most lesbian pairings don't exhibit a girly-girl in the recessive partner you still have a dominant personality in the relationship.

This sounds like your primary experience with gays and lesbians has been either 1) in the media (so viewed through someone else's lens), or 2) in the singles scene, where relationships both gay and straight tend to have an ever-decreasing shelf life.


I don't think there should be a law that regulates morality of any kind, including sexual relationships. This includes civil unions, but in terms of marriage that is, as has been stated before, a religious pairing. I don't know if the homosexual community wants the public to confirm their pairing as legitimate, or if it is a financial desire to have insurance and lower taxes. Only the individual knows these things, so I don't have an opinion on it specifically.

As a gay person, I can happily inform you that, just as with straight couples, the desire for marriage is a desire for security; financial security for our offspring and our spouse, legal security to ensure that the wishes of our loved ones are taken into consideration in times of crisis, emotional security of stating that two people are one, and being able to share that for all to see and understand.

Now what I have observed in homosexual pairings is there is something generally wrong in the relationship. Someone is looking for a specific level of security that they can't find in an opposite-sex partner.

Okay, now I have to stop you right there. I know you go into several examples...anectotes....of people you know who you feel prove this contention. However, I have to tell you that you are wrong. People in homosexual pairings are usually there because they are attracted to and love a person of the same gender. No other reason, no hidden agenda. (I say usually, because there are some bisexuals who may be in homosexual pairings while still having feelings of attraction for members of the opposite sex...hence their bisexualty.) On with the examples....

By this I mean, most hard-core lesbians that I have met (my step-daughter is lesbian) they are anti-male; to the point of either being extremely angry/hateful or afraid of men. In the case of my step-daughter, she was molested at a very young age by a teen-age boy who threatened to cut her fingers off with a pocket knife if she revealed to anyone what he had done. This caused her to suppress any form of heterosexual desires and converted them to fear. In the case of my step-grandson, he was also molested by his step-brother. In that scenario, the young boy's step-brother's father was treated the same way in the home, but it was his sister rather than another male.

Yes, I see. Horrible things happened to two people you know. This does not make it the case for all, or even most, gay people.

Most homosexual relationships are created from a need of social acceptance, and the community readily accepts a person regardless of their backgrounds. I think this makes for a very appealing lifestyle on the surface, but on the inside their life is full of mistrust and drama. It would be interesting to see a same-sex relationship that was as healthy as my heterosexual marriage with my wife, but I have yet to find it. Not that there isn't drama in other relationships as there is plenty of drama in my step-daughters heterosexual marriage to an abusive drunk, mind you. I just have yet to see the same kind of full spectrum in a homosexual relationship; at least from the outside.

The reason you do not see us is because we are normal. No really, we are normal people. We have jobs, we have kids, we pay our bills, we don't go out and party every night, we don't sleep around. We are just like you and your wife. We probably don't socialize with you and your wife because, as you said, our community accepts us for exactly who we are, and I suspect your community probably would not. We don't tell you who we are at work because we've probably overheard you talking about your stepdaughter and step-grandson and decided you aren't the kind of person we would feel comfortable talking to about our home lives.

I have nothing against any single person, regardless of their religion, race, creed, or sexual orientation. I do have a problem with anyone that fits the stereotype of the worst example of said category, but I try to be very objective and open when I meet someone. The type of person that I can never really stomach is the extremly stupid, but I think that is the same for almost everyone that posts on this forum.

I hate to break this to you, but you are prejudiced. Even though I know you won't believe it, every phrase you have used, exclaiming the stereotypes and then claiming non-bigotry...is exactly that, bigotry. You have told me exactly how you feel about me. And what's sad is, you are telling your children and your grandchildren that it is okay to feel that way about me, too.

What happens when my daughter tells a friend that she has two moms? What a way to lose a friendship! All that has happened is that both children are hurt for losing a friendship. And my daughter comes to me and asks why kids are so mean....

We want acceptance because this is what happens....this is what a society with prejudice does. This is the emotional security we seek. But as long as your vision is of some warped hedonistic lifestyle, you can afford to abuse us. Maybe you should try opening your eyes, and your mind, a bit more.


Edited to correct tag usage.

[yllmar]

I hate to break this to you, but you are prejudiced. Even though I know you won't believe it, every phrase you have used, exclaiming the stereotypes and then claiming non-bigotry...is exactly that, bigotry. You have told me exactly how you feel about me. And what's sad is, you are telling your children and your grandchildren that it is okay to feel that way about me, too.


I don't disagree that I have a bias, but as I said it is based upon observation not upon presupposition. If your situation is different, I am happy for you. You're relationship is 1 in about 16 that has been different.


What happens when my daughter tells a friend that she has two moms? What a way to lose a friendship! All that has happened is that both children are hurt for losing a friendship. And my daughter comes to me and asks why kids are so mean....

Uhm, this has nothing to do with me.


We want acceptance because this is what happens....this is what a society with prejudice does. This is the emotional security we seek. But as long as your vision is of some warped hedonistic lifestyle, you can afford to abuse us. Maybe you should try opening your eyes, and your mind, a bit more.

I believe you are right about one thing; society is prejudiced. I have experienced it first-hand. Growing up a long-hair, listening to extreme metal music, driving a muscle car and dressing in black T-shirts and ripped jeans I have been the victim of prejudice. Law enforcement officials have singled me out and assumed I was trying to cause trouble. Grocery store managers have followed me around their store wondering what I was going to try and steal. I couldn't hang out in a store parking lot with my friends because the people shopping were afraid to come out for fear that they were endangered outside with the rest of us. People are xenophobic and don't accept what they deem to be normal, or more to the point, the same as them. That's the way people are, and as an INTJ you would think that it wouldn't bother you so much what people thought about you.

I will freely admit that I am completely ignorant of the lifestyle you have chosen to follow. How could I not be? While my previous statements may portray me as a bigot, I assure you that this isn't the case. Hopefully you don't assume that by not agreeing with your lifestyle I automatically "abuse" anyone? I don't. Perhaps I struck a nerve and now you're being overly defensive? Do not be offended with my viewpoint, I don't have any other experiences for me to see things differently. I welcome the opportunity to see things differently.

[INTroJect]

Hello. I am right here!

My testament to being normal seems to be getting overlooked by the few who seem to be looking at something contrary to their observation. I do not see this heterosexual life as being any more ideal than my preference. I served in the military for an enlistment and delt with the assumption that I was straight for most of my early adulthood, well aware of myself. I've been witness to plenty of normal straight guys and i'm trying to figure out where the hedonism isn't. We were in Japan and 2 guys from my command were charged with raping a local. We were in Singapore, everyone ran off to the local whorehouses (the '4 floors of whores' they liked to say), I walked out of clubs in Spain and saw one of my female americans drunk and blowing a local in the parking lot. We went back to the home port and suddenly there was a rash of divorces because the wives were off at the base club with the wedding rings left at home (among many other other things).

Go into the local sports bar and listen to the conversation: drunk straight guys defining themselves by their sexual preference. Its a normal human thing to do that is done on both sides, my best guess is that it is a buddy-comraderie thing. Yes there were some problems in the 80's, twenty years ago, I was born in the early 80's so all of that is very different from my experience. Those who lived through it just didn't care to join the croud in sleeping around. Look what happened to America as a nation in the 60's and 70's - acid, weed, sex for the sake of just doing it...everyone just let go of convention. Could it be that the same thing happened to the gay culture the decade after?

I know of model gay relationships that surely beat the whole average of heterosexuals who are trying to live this Christian model. They are usually over-achievers who are ridiculously successful and see it as important to set an example for everyone else. Sound familiar? That equivalent on the straight side is what the entire gay population is being compared against.

These negative characterizations of an entire population, based on some kid getting molested, are not justified. Wasn't there just something in the news about some guy videotaping sex with a 3 year old girl? Life is chaotic on both sides, theres no need to stand on an alter and say 'I've got it right' because chances are that you are nuts. Having heterosexual sex, even once, without the direct intention to procreate is a perfect example of a Hedonistic act. Please look up the words you are using when calling people names.


From the American Heritage Dictionary:

he·don·ism
n. *
Pursuit of or devotion to pleasure, especially to the pleasures of the senses.
Philosophy The ethical doctrine holding that only what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is intrinsically good.
Psychology The doctrine holding that behavior is motivated by the desire for pleasure and the avoidance of pain.

[PhoenixRising]

This is an interesting topic especially considering the forum, and although I am a "Rookie" here, in this thread I have seen a lot of comments that seem uncharacteristically INTJ. *From thoughts on how easy one could find sex in a large city to gay's being hedonistic to questioning the level of commitment that gay's have etc. Very unusual taken in context from most other forum topics indeed. Why is this?.. I'll have to think on that one for awhile but food for thought for sure. ... We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.....

First I do believe that at least on the surface that there are at least two reasons that people are or become homosexual and there may be more.
I think that one reason has to do with gender and all of the misconceptions there are regaurding it. Society tells us that there are only two genders, male and female and that is a Lie. Gender is more like a line segment with what is considered male at one end and what is considered female at the other, with just about infinite points in-between. This is true of both physical gender and mental gender although perhaps more true with the latter. So a physical male who is mentally more female is what if they prefer the company of men?... most would say Homosexual, but are they really? again what really defines what we are... the Mind or the Body? To me this scenario is more hereditary than environment based.
The second primary reason I see has more to do with things buried deep in the subconscious that prevent a person from being able to become involved with a member of the opposite sex. This may sound odd, but I have experienced it first hand. I once had a woman I was involved with whom I had been friends with for a long time and we were very close. I know we both loved and cared for each other, but she could never let go and trust me even though she knew in her heart that I would not ever hurt her intentionally. As I found out, when she was a small child her father was an alcoholic. He beat everyone in the house but her. She could still remember hearing her mother crying from her bedroom as her father forced himself on her mother, in her memories her father almost never talked to her unless he was drunk, and then he came across as a letch. She was Gay. The point being in this case that deep down in her psyche at a young age the meaning of what being a "Man" and a *"Woman" meant was burned in just like it is for everyone, but in her case she could not overcome all the things she could not remember.. only the feelings remained, so she found love the only place that she could- with the company of other women. *In this case we have an environmental based homosexuality.
Of course this doesn't explain those that flaunt their behavior or are promiscuous etc. but those are not homosexual related, but entirely different as there are just as many who do that regardless of sexual orientation.
How do I feel about all of this? People are People, and as long as they are REAL I'm ok with them. For those that are not I highly suggest they take a deep look inside themself and their own psyche, as if a person can't judge another individually then there are obviously internal issues present.

[PhoenixRising]

After doing a little further reading I felt compelled to add a little to my previous post to possibly further confound things and explain where I am coming from. While not a homosexual, I do fall well outside the gender norms, and by clinical definition would be considered bisexual, although by my own definition I consider myself bi-gendered or intergendered (I've had to start using the term Bi-gendered even though I prefer intergendered because the latter has inappropriately been used by the medical community to encompass only those who are physically between the genders). Sexuality wise I have a need to express both genders and consider myself to be Both a straight male as well as a bisexual female at the same time (figure that one out!), and feel comfortable in both roles, without wanting or feeling the need to elimenate one or the other. Interestingly I have been this way all of life, but did not know it until later in adulthood, only knowing that I was very different from most other men but never being able to figure out why until I happened to take a gender test, which led to much research and a whole different perspective on life, from many different angles on sexuality and gender. Isn't being an INTJ Grand!

[Santana28]

Hello. I am right here!

My testament to being normal seems to be getting overlooked by the few who seem to be looking at something contrary to their observation. I do not see this heterosexual life as being any more ideal than my preference. I served in the military for an enlistment and delt with the assumption that I was straight for most of my early adulthood, well aware of myself. I've been witness to plenty of normal straight guys and i'm trying to figure out where the hedonism isn't. We were in Japan and 2 guys from my command were charged with raping a local. We were in Singapore, everyone ran off to the local whorehouses (the '4 floors of whores' they liked to say), I walked out of clubs in Spain and saw one of my female americans drunk and blowing a local in the parking lot. We went back to the home port and suddenly there was a rash of divorces because the wives were off at the base club with the wedding rings left at home (among many other other things).

Go into the local sports bar and listen to the conversation: drunk straight guys defining themselves by their sexual preference. Its a normal human thing to do that is done on both sides, my best guess is that it is a buddy-comraderie thing. Yes there were some problems in the 80's, twenty years ago, I was born in the early 80's so all of that is very different from my experience. Those who lived through it just didn't care to join the croud in sleeping around. Look what happened to America as a nation in the 60's and 70's - acid, weed, sex for the sake of just doing it...everyone just let go of convention. Could it be that the same thing happened to the gay culture the decade after?

I know of model gay relationships that surely beat the whole average of heterosexuals who are trying to live this Christian model. They are usually over-achievers who are ridiculously successful and see it as important to set an example for everyone else. Sound familiar? That equivalent on the straight side is what the entire gay population is being compared against.

These negative characterizations of an entire population, based on some kid getting molested, are not justified. Wasn't there just something in the news about some guy videotaping sex with a 3 year old girl? Life is chaotic on both sides, theres no need to stand on an alter and say 'I've got it right' because chances are that you are nuts. Having heterosexual sex, even once, without the direct intention to procreate is a perfect example of a Hedonistic act. Please look up the words you are using when calling people names.


From the American Heritage Dictionary:

he·don·ism
n. *
Pursuit of or devotion to pleasure, especially to the pleasures of the senses.
Philosophy The ethical doctrine holding that only what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is intrinsically good.
Psychology The doctrine holding that behavior is motivated by the desire for pleasure and the avoidance of pain.



I think you missed my point, and still feel like i'm trying to single you out for some reason. I'm not. Everything you posted about those supposedly "normal" heterosexual males i would consider just as hedonistic as i would apply to those who define themselves along the homosexual definition. Its all about applying society's and your peer's value systems to yourself. I believe we are all individuals and we should all develop our own unbiased value system based on our own personal lifelong experiences, rather than ascribing to a predefined definition of who we supposedly are. I am completely gender neutral - to me it all about the individual experience. I do not consider myself gay, straight OR bisexual - sexual preference has absolutely no relevance to me personally.

I mentioned the molested friend of mine as an example of how people's perception of their sexual preference can be distorted and manipulated by life experiences during the formative years. Rather than delve into the issues which led him to being attracted to men, he applied the definition of "i am attracted to men, therefore society explains i must be gay" to himself, and sought out others supposedly like himself. And then he chose to accept their value systems as his own rather than addressing his root issues of abandonment, abuse, anxiety, etc. The result is a man living the life he thinks he is supposed to be living, and yet he is still wracked with the same issues as before and completely miserable. Just one example i happen to know intimately.

My own life? I've been exactly the same for my entire life preference-wise. I have never discriminated. There was a point where i could have simply "accepted" that i was "gay" and embraced that lifestyle, but i knew that was untrue, narrow-minded and counter-productive at that state in my development so i declined to do so.

Sure, i believe you can be born with a certain exclusive sexual preference. I also believe that traumatic life experiences can alter that preference. But in the end - none of that even matters. Love and relationships are about the individual and unique experiences we share with one another, and nothing more. Whether you prefer guys to girls makes about as much difference as whether you prefer blondes to brunettes... unless you make it a bigger issue than it really is.

[Hdier]

I don't know if being gay is a choice or a natural thing. I assume it is unnatural because I'm hetero and can't imagine enjoying some dude's weiner nestled between my buttcheeks. BUT, I think human nature does evolve, and so what I think or know is natural may change before I know it.

(I'm not mocking you, just making a point) I don't know if being straight is a choice or a natural ting. I assume it is unnatural because I'm homo and can't imagine having sex with a girl. I think that it has been natural all along, and you simply can't (couldn't?) see it.

I strongly suspect that in any major city a gay guy could pretty much get laid whenever he wants to.

Why? The only reason I could think of that you might think of that that's true is the stereotype of 'gays only want sex and will do each other all the time'. Please tell me that I missed something and you have a different motivation for saying this.

It seems as if I am the resident gay INTJ representative.

I never got a vote! I don't think there even was one! I'm going to do the only American thing and sue you!

BTW, after I sue you I will say that I think that you probably are the best rep., because you seem to be able to make your point well.

Yes - i know this is a singular experience.

Exactly! You, weather you meant to or not, are saying that homosexuality is bad because we are overindulgent in sexual pleasure and we live a label. Every group has the latter problem, look how big of a problem it was in America not that long ago (slavery)! And as to the overindulgence, that is not generally true. There are gay rapists, perverts etc. just like there are straight rapists, perverts etc. (I'm assuming that you do not consider homosexuality in and of itself perverted) The majority of us are fine, and in most of the rapes you here about a man raping a man, the rapist isn't even gay! Rape is about control and physical pleasure, not sexual attraction.

Hello. I am right here!

Hello, I am over here instead of there.

[Santana28]

Exactly! You, weather you meant to or not, are saying that homosexuality is bad because we are overindulgent in sexual pleasure and we live a label. Every group has the latter problem, look how big of a problem it was in America not that long ago (slavery)! And as to the overindulgence, that is not generally true. There are gay rapists, perverts etc. just like there are straight rapists, perverts etc. (I'm assuming that you do not consider homosexuality in and of itself perverted) The majority of us are fine, and in most of the rapes you here about a man raping a man, the rapist isn't even gay! Rape is about control and physical pleasure, not sexual attraction.

i'm not saying "homosexuality is bad" because of those things you listed - i'm saying THOSE THINGS are bad in and of themselves. Sexual orientation, is not the issue at all here. People choosing to overindulge and sacrifice their body in unhealthy endeavors is one thing... people choosing to accept another person/group's value systems as their own and basically giving up all independent thought on the matter is another. Those are the things that i am against.

Yes - every "group" has the problem... well... except perhaps a group of "free thinkers" :) That is precisely the problem - groupthink. I am an individual and i think for myself. I do not allow other people or society to sway my emotions. I am free to live and love on my own terms, and do not feel the need to ascribe to someone else's definition of what that should be.

That is all.

[MichaelH]

(PhoenixRising) I do fall well outside the gender norms, and by clinical definition would be considered bisexual, although by my own definition I consider myself bi-gendered or intergendered
(PhoenixRising) I have a need to express both genders and consider myself to be Both a straight male as well as a bisexual female at the same time

This reminds me of a great quote from Jack Harkness on Torchwood, with respect to sexuality:

"You people and your narrow, little labels!"

There's a lot to sexuality we're still learning about. Props to you for coming up with a good interpretation of your personal sexuality! It sounds like you had a harder puzzle to figure out than most.

(Santana28) Love and relationships are about the individual and unique experiences we share with one another,

YEAH!

(Santana28)and nothing more.

ATo view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I was so with you there. Fortunately or unfortunately, relationships also exist in a social context. Gay relationships are given second-class status at best currently. In my opinion, this needs to change.

(yllmar) Now what I have observed in homosexual pairings is there is something generally wrong in the relationship.

The important phrase here, and what gains you some points with me personally, is that phrase: "what I have observed". Watch out for confirmation bias. It's tough to find "normal" gay relationships for the same reason it's tough to find, say, "normal" Phillippino relationships. Healthy relationships are usually low-key and nearly private, and you won't know of them unless you happen to be on personal terms with someone in category X who also happens to be in a healthy relationship. Is the person who installed your cabinets in a healthy gay relationship? How about the person who mowed your lawn? Or the CEO of the company on the corner?

Also, I'm sorry your step-daughter and step-grandson have been treated so poorly by those who were supposed to care for them! I hope their relationships - of all stripes - help them cope and function as healthy human beings.

(yllmar)It would be interesting to see a same-sex relationship that was as healthy as my heterosexual marriage with my wife, but I have yet to find it. <snip> I just have yet to see the same kind of full spectrum in a homosexual relationship; at least from the outside.

Again, please keep confirmation bias in mind here. Outside of your relatives, have you seen multiple heterosexual relationships that obviously have the same full spectrum as your relationship with your wife? Maybe because I'm introverted, but I can't think of two couples outside of relatives that I've seen in that detail.

My spouse and I are bound like a force of nature. When people communicate with us, it's obvious we're a couple. Although we're opposites in many ways, living without each other would be dull and lifeless. Is there some drama? Sure, but not often. Certainly no more often than I saw my parents have issues, or my spouse's parents.

At the same time, my gayness isn't necessarily obvious. I've heard students debate whether I _might_ be, but as far as I know no conclusions have been reached. Most people give me plenty of personal space because I am intensely private, and in that space they may well assume that I'm straight. I don't hide my relationship, but I don't advertise it either. If you could wake up tomorrow magically identifying everyone who was in a same-sex relationship, I think you'd be surprised.

Everyone seems to have an opinion on homosexuality. It might be because everyone knows something about sex, based on their own personal experience. Case in point:

(INTJoe) I don't know if being gay is a choice or a natural thing. I assume it is unnatural because I'm hetero and can't imagine enjoying some dude's weiner nestled between my buttcheeks. BUT, I think human nature does evolve, and so what I think or know is natural may change before I know it.

Props for recognizing you don't know everything about everyone's sexuality! As far as my understanding goes, sexuality can drift slightly over time but it isn't usually a fundamental change. You will probably like the same things you like now when you're 40 or 70. You may find some interesting new angles you haven't considered yet, but the basics of attraction will stay pretty constant over time. (ie: no sudden urges to weiner-nestle) Just realizing what's natural is different for different people gives you great perspective.

I don't claim to understand a lot of the drives of straight men; it's a long-standing point of discussion between my spouse and I. It's taken me a while to realize I'm just not wired that way. I think truly bisexual people might be the best off of any of us. In a biological way, they can appreciate good features of both genders. That's got to be quite a trip.

[Hdier]

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your post. I need to sleep more than 4 or 5 hours every night...

And, by the way, free thinkers can have their own problems. Who is supposed to be my pawns if everyone thinks freely?

MiachaelH:

Out of curiosity, why do you think that bi's appreciate the finer points of both genders? Maybe I'm still a bit slow (tierd), but I prefer feminine men, so why couldn't someone who's bi simply prefer feminine or masculine forms of both genders?

BF

[MichaelH]

Hdier, I assumed. My perception was that bisexual people could appreciate whatever traits they favor is either gender, ie typical gender-role men and women, or feminine men, or masculine women. The point I wanted to make was that bisexual people would seem to have more choice in who they like sexually. But it's entirely possible for a bi person to favor the masculine or feminine in both genders. Point 1: Hdier! :)

[Hdier]

Yeah! Points!

But, I am a bit confused. Are you saying that you thought that bisexual people could appreciate whatever gender or gender type (ex. liking masculine woman) they wanted to, but you now realize the fallacy in your logic?

[MichaelH]

Your statement of my fallacious _assumption_ is correct: there's no reason a bisexual person would _have_ to be open to all genders and gender types.

At the same time, I'll still defend the point I was trying to make: being bisexual gives you more choices. If you can be attracted to both men and women, you'll see things you like in both. If you prefer masculine traits, you can find them in both men and women. Ditto for feminine traits. And, of course, if you just like who you like, you can't be wrong. :)

[Hdier]

Oh, I definitely agree that if you are Bi then you have more choices; for example if you prefer masculine and you are male than all gay masculine males and females rather than just one gender or another, if this is what you meant.

BTW, what does _this_ underscoring mean?

[PRBori]

Is a personal choice, although I personally disagree with the behavior, I respect people's personal choice. At the end there is only one that will be the final judge, and that's GOD himself...

To me if you're happy, then I'm happy for you...

FYI... When I was 16 my boss was gay and he was like a father to me, very nice and always worried... so I have nothing against people Gay or Lesbian.. I just personally disagree with it, but respect the choices made

JUST ONE THING... A LESBIAN BETTER NOT APPROACH ME.... cause it won't be a good thing...

[Colette]

OP, do you mean do you morally agree with homosexuality?

I have no moral position on it - to me it is a neutral and natural behavior; just like heterosexuality.

[Antares]

It shouldn't be marriage, as that is religious.

I don't think it's religious. My parents didn't marry in a church or swear an oath in front of a minister, and I don't think I will either. Marriage is a legal union between two people. I think homosexual couples, just as heterosexual couples, should be able to marry if they wish. It's not 'immoral', and I don't see how it is, as claimed by many people.

My mother's argument against it is that it's 'unnatural'. That's the appealing to nature fallacy. Just because in nature, males and females have sexual unions to produce offspring, does not mean we have to do like nature does. Her argument itself is invalid ("When was the last time you saw two male dogs mate? Never? Then its unnatural and shouldn't be done."). Indeed. When was the last time you saw a goat brush its teeth? Never?

Another argument against homosexual marriages is that they cannot produce offspring. Then if that is the reason they shouldn't marry, then heterosexuals that cannot or will not produce offsprings shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

It's also a violation of rights. As my french teacher said during my re-test (I was eavesdropping on her talk with a senior about gay marriages :suspicious:), she rights would be violated if the government told her she couldn't be with and marry who she loves (she's straight, but I think the same applies for homosexuals). The government has no rights whatsoever to tell me (in this case, a homosexual) how to live my life as long as I do not violate someone else's rights.

Personally, I would treat couples of both types the same and I would support equal rights for homosexual couples, but I wouldn't be homosexual myself because... Well... I'm straight, and I can't change that, but I wouldn't even if I can ;)

[Caramel]

My mother's argument against it is that it's 'unnatural'. That's the appealing to nature fallacy. Just because in nature, males and females have sexual unions to produce offspring, does not mean we have to do like nature does. Her argument itself is invalid ("When was the last time you saw two male dogs mate? Never? Then its unnatural and shouldn't be done."). Indeed. When was the last time you saw a goat brush its teeth? Never?



Actually, there are numerous animals that exhibit homosexual behaviour in nature, so that would make it 'natural'.

(But you probably knew that already. :))

[Antares]

Actually, there are numerous animals that exhibit homosexual behaviour in nature, so that would make it 'natural'.

(But you probably knew that already. :))

Actually, I didn't *oh the horror*, but *wide grin* I have a new evidence! Thanks! Mom, here I come! :devilish:

[thod]

I just cant get away from the idea that homosexuals are broken, in the same way that a man born without a penis is broken.

I don't take a moral stance. I am trained in science and engineering. The purpose of sex is reproduction therefore anything that prevents that is a flaw in the sex system.

Now you can argue all you wish about other benefits. Yet these are secondary. I can sit and rest in a car, I can listen to the radio, but if it doesn't move then its lost its primary function as a means of transport.

[PRBori]

OP, do you mean do you morally agree with homosexuality?

I have no moral position on it - to me it is a neutral and natural behavior; just like heterosexuality.

No, I don't agree with it at all even morally for it's against GOD's laws. The reasons there is a women and men is to recreate as someone else said before, so if more than half the population opted to be homosexual, then humanity will slowly begin to disappear... cause same sex cannot reproduce alone.

Anyway.... I still feel is not for me to judge.... GOD is the final judge, and therefore I respect each individual decision.

[Jgib5328]

As an INTJ what do you think about homosexuality?

I personally think, it should be a choice whatever it is. Also, there are people who are born homosexual and those people’s rights must be respected.

Just to let you know, I’m straight! :)

I'm slightly disturbed by homosexuality and probably will always feel that way. No matter what anyone says or does, I will always think of it being wrong. I don't have a problem with talking to gays or anything, but I still don't feel comfortable with homosexuality. I'm really put off by their feminine (for men) and masculine (for women) behavior.

In case this is about gay marriage, I think that it shouldn't happen. To me marriage is between a man and a woman. If we let two men get married, then we'd have to allow polygamy. If we allow polygamy, who knows what else we'd have to allow.





Jgib5328 added to this post, 3 minutes and 33 seconds later...

Actually, there are numerous animals that exhibit homosexual behaviour in nature, so that would make it 'natural'.

(But you probably knew that already. :))

Lol that doesn't make it natural. Homosexuality is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, it isn't a preference. Chemical imbalance = unnatural. Is schizophrenia natural too then? That's a chemical imbalance also. I know it sounds cold, but homosexuality is an error of the human mind. Sex and love were created from evolution to make sure the human race survived. The penis and the vagina were made for each other.

[yondyr]

I do hope those who insist heterosexuality is for the procreation of the species that they are doing their bit by producing a child at least every year...if at least to compensate for those poor flawed childless misguided homosexual souls.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I don't think that sexuality should be dictated by the state or anyone else unless it is harming someone. If two consenting adults choose to be sexual, that is their business.
People are sexual in a myriad of ways. What if society or the state decided that oral sex was unatural and repugnant? Would you agree and abstain from that particular act or would you think that it was no ones business but your own? Who is anyone to decide what people can and can't do in the privacy of their homes? Even if you do live by a particular moral code, what makes you think that you have the right to dictate that code to others?

As for the marriage question........I'm still trying to figure out if it is a good idea for anyone (hetero or homo). For a long time I didn't believe that marriage was a good idea, but I have tried to be open-minded about the prospect recently. However, I'm rapidly regressing to my earlier conclusions. Regardless of my personal beliefs about marriage.........if it's a right that adults enjoy, then qualifying who gets that right is discriminatory.

[thod]

The question of why homosexuals exist is intriguing. From a strictly Darwinism perspective they should not exist. The inability to produce offspring is a fatal flaw. If you started with a population in equal proportions then after a few generations they would be all gone.

If it was a genetic trait, then the trait would be lost. If it was due to development in the womb, then the women with those wombs would be eliminated. The women that produces them is producing genetic dead ends, they are duds. Even if some of them do breed, the lower offspring numbers should still eliminate them over time. The only reason I can see is if you consider it from a systemic perspective. That producing homosexuals must confer some other advantage to the group.

Thus if a woman pops 8 kids, having a gay around to help with the rearing (pun), may result in a larger number surviving than if she had produced 8 breeders. Try to move away from morals and look at it from an scientific perspective. From this perspective morals too are simply tools and are flexible.

Women look at a small boys tiny body, his small penis, and feel no sexual attraction at all. They encounter the large, well muscled, well proportioned man, stomping around confident and dominanting other males they see "warrior, quick mate with him". They don't know why they feel this, its not something of the intellect but rather a more base drive. Women are not attracted to the guy a lot shorter than themselves.

I see a pretty girl, I stare. She is doing nothing exceptional or worthy of my interest. Yet still I cannot take my eyes off her. Something below the level of my intelect is saying "something to be fucked". The man from the previous paragraph invokes a reaction of "something to fight".

Its popular for NT's to define the world in terms of intellect yet we are more than that.

[Antares]

No, I don't agree with it at all even morally for it's against GOD's laws.

Meaning: God is always right. Because, why else would we want to follow them if they're not right?

By the way, argumentum ad verecundiam :)

The reasons there is a women and men is to recreate as someone else said before, so if more than half the population opted to be homosexual, then humanity will slowly begin to disappear... cause same sex cannot reproduce alone.


Extinct: It's inherently bad? Clarify.

So it's for species survival. I think our species have already caused enough imbalance in the ecosystem. Just a thought.

[Jgib5328]

Meaning: God is always right. Because, why else would we want to follow them if they're not right?

By the way, argumentum ad verecundiam :)



Extinct: It's inherently bad? Clarify.

So it's for species survival. I think our species have already caused enough imbalance in the ecosystem. Just a thought.

The amount of homosexuals that exist can't affect the growth of the human population, so they neither help nor hurt it.

[Antares]

The amount of homosexuals that exist can't affect the growth of the human population, so they neither help nor hurt it.

Yes, but she said more than half. I've wondered 'why half? What's the significance of 3.25 billion? Was it proven somewhere? Is half the world homosexual? What point is being made representing this figure?' But figured that it would be a pointless question. So, if more than half of the human population stop reproducing, unless the other half reproduce much more, yes, the population will decline.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I think homosexuality exists for the same reason that sexuality exists. We can talk about procreation and the evolution of sexuality to this end, however, long ago in human (and other species) evolution people started to have sex for the shear pleasure of having sex. Over the millenia, women did not stop having sex after they ceased having their menses. Individuals who are unable to procreate (birth control, spay/neuter, etc.) continue to have sex because it brings them pleasure.

With the goal of pleasure in mind........people engaged in sexual acts with whomever took their fancy. They probably did not stop to question why, since there would be no reason to, initially. With the advent of society and societal rules came the neccessity to find reasons and validity for particular sexual pleasures. Many ancient societies (Greek) allowed and encouraged homosexuality amoung men. The male body was considered beautiful and females were basically for procreation purposes only. So many Greek men were bisexual........it was the social norm.

[thod]

But now you are talking about secondary attributes in this case the idea of sex as a form of bonding. You do increase your odds of survival by using sex in this way. A women will seek out a protective male if she finds herself alone and surrounded by predatory males. Without his protection she becomes a group whore, with it she gains control over her life since she is able to manipulate his actions. The same was true in greece with established warriors fucking boys. They gained protection and learned how to be a man. They then repeated this behavoir.

The big perspective shift needed is choice. All your life you have had choices. If you were in prison where violent sociopaths were the norm you come closer to the model. You are either a bum boy or you are man. You can only be a man by violent action and thus control the actions of others by fear of consequence. No amount of reasoned argument will cut it.

[Lucid]

The big perspective shift needed is choice. All your life you have had choices. If you were in prison where violent sociopaths were the norm you come closer to the model. You are either a bum boy or you are man. You can only be a man by violent action and thus control the actions of others by fear of consequence. No amount of reasoned argument will cut it.

Um... I've known a few people who've been in prison and from everything they tell me it is not a case of "rape or be raped."

And everything I've read or heard on the subject of sexual preference says that it's not a choice at all. Did you choose to be straight?

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I am not talking about sex for bonding, although I agree that this occurs frequently. The case I am making, however, is about pleasure. In ancient Greece, adolescents and young adult males were sought after and courted by the majority of older males because youths epitomized male beauty and male beauty was exhalted by this society. When those young men got older they, in turn, courted younger males. All were expected to marry and propogate the species, but the homosexual act was for pleasure alone.

[Aurelia]

The amount of homosexuals that exist can't affect the growth of the human population, so they neither help nor hurt it.

Actually they can affect the growth of human population. In many lesbian relationships, one or both of the females will impregnate themselves with donor sperm.

[pavman]

I'm slightly disturbed by homosexuality and probably will always feel that way. No matter what anyone says or does, I will always think of it being wrong. I don't have a problem with talking to gays or anything, but I still don't feel comfortable with homosexuality. I'm really put off by their feminine (for men) and masculine (for women) behavior.

In case this is about gay marriage, I think that it shouldn't happen. To me marriage is between a man and a woman. If we let two men get married, then we'd have to allow polygamy. If we allow polygamy, who knows what else we'd have to allow.

Jgib5328 added to this post, 3 minutes and 33 seconds later...

Lol that doesn't make it natural. Homosexuality is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, it isn't a preference. Chemical imbalance = unnatural. Is schizophrenia natural too then? That's a chemical imbalance also. I know it sounds cold, but homosexuality is an error of the human mind. Sex and love were created from evolution to make sure the human race survived. The penis and the vagina were made for each other.

Here here! I second that, for the most part. I also agree w/ Santana that a hedonistic lifestyle is not something society should celebrate.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I always wonder why people think that natural = moral?

Along the same lines doesn't it make sense that everything is natural since it comes from nature?

[SShack]

Chemical imbalances in the brain (or elsewhere in the body) are perfectly "natural," whether the results are something that is optimal to survival or not.

Homosexuality has been documented (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) in around 1,500 species of animals. "Biological Exuberance" is a great book to read if you're interested. The main part of the book is simply a documentation, species by species, of homosexual, bisexual and even transsexual behavior (taking on the traits of the opposite sex) of mammals and birds.

The incidence of homosexuality in society is not great enough that the future of the species is something that rationally should factor into the discussion. Nobody particularly worries about whether the incidences of other non-reproducing factors in a human are going to result in mankind's extinction.

[Colette]

No, I don't agree with it at all even morally for it's against GOD's laws. The reasons there is a women and men is to recreate as someone else said before, so if more than half the population opted to be homosexual, then humanity will slowly begin to disappear... cause same sex cannot reproduce alone

Just as well they're a minority then, isn't it?

There is still the likes of you and I to keep the reproductive numbers up - 4 kids between us? ;)

Anyway.... I still feel is not for me to judge.... GOD is the final judge, and therefore I respect each individual decision.

Well I quite agree that He is the judge. However that doesn't seem to stop you, hopping on your high moral/ethical horse in every thread you post in. A good thing INTJs on this board are so open-minded; I can tell you right now you'd last about 5 minutes on INTPc.

[ArchonAlarion]

Simply...

As a small warmblooded lifeform stuck to a small rock floating around a medium sized glowing ball of gas, what right do I have to decide what two people do together with voluntary mutual consent.

I am not really a fan of it, but it would be immoral for me to force them to stop.

[Provoker]

As an INTJ what do you think about homosexuality?

I personally think, it should be a choice whatever it is. Also, there are people who are born homosexual and those people’s rights must be respected.

Just to let you know, I’m straight! :)

No one is born a homosexual just as no one is born a rapist. These identities are socially constructed and have fluxuated over time and across cultures depending on the status quo and norms.

Perhaps it should be a choic, but it shouldn't be promoted. Over the last few decades homosexuality has really come into vogue and in the new millenium has made its way into the media and hollywood. We're seeing more movies and reality shows about gays, etc. It has become fashionable to be gay the way it was in ancient Greece, but the human species cannot be sustained with homosexuality. On the otherhand, perhaps it is a good thing as many environmentalists keep telling us that we're going to overshoot the earth's carrying capacity at the rate we're growing by. If this is the case, than widespread homosexuality is a good thing for slowing down population growth.

[PRBori]

Just as well they're a minority then, isn't it?

There is still the likes of you and I to keep the reproductive numbers up - 4 kids between us? ;)



Well I quite agree that He is the judge. However that doesn't seem to stop you, hopping on your high moral/ethical horse in every thread you post in. A good thing INTJs on this board are so open-minded; I can tell you right now you'd last about 5 minutes on INTPc.

You know, I didn't join this threat to fight. I have my own view, my own opinions and I'm sharing them. That's the bottom line. My life, is just that, my life. I really don't care much about others people life and what they choose to do with it. I do like to read about how others think and see things.

Everyone is FREE to do as they like and believe on what they want, nobody is putting a knife or gun to their heads. I'm just expressing my views and my beliefs. I have no reason to hate others because of their choices for they don't affect me in any way.

However, if someone tries to make a pass on me, I will get piss off, because I personally don't like that. Is my right...

So instead of continously critizing my views as you have had, how about just learning to cope with the differences in views and opinions.

Just because we share the same personality type, it doesn't mean that we are going to agree on every single things, for each individual sees things in different angles.

Maybe you should also clarify this for me "However that doesn't seem to stop you, hopping on your high moral/ethical horse in every thread you post in." because I don't think I'm hopping a horse, but maybe I'm not understanding your correctly...

:toff:

[Jgib5328]

I always wonder why people think that natural = moral?

Along the same lines doesn't it make sense that everything is natural since it comes from nature?

I never made that equation and I never said homosexuality was immoral. I just said that I was somewhat disturbed by it. I was just making the point that it was in fact unnatural. I think sexuality is amoral. It's not a conscious decision to be a certain sexuality, it's how that person is and was born.





Jgib5328 added to this post, 2 minutes and 49 seconds later...

No one is born a homosexual just as no one is born a rapist. These identities are socially constructed and have fluxuated over time and across cultures depending on the status quo and norms.

Perhaps it should be a choic, but it shouldn't be promoted. Over the last few decades homosexuality has really come into vogue and in the new millenium has made its way into the media and hollywood. We're seeing more movies and reality shows about gays, etc. It has become fashionable to be gay the way it was in ancient Greece, but the human species cannot be sustained with homosexuality. On the otherhand, perhaps it is a good thing as many environmentalists keep telling us that we're going to overshoot the earth's carrying capacity at the rate we're growing by. If this is the case, than widespread homosexuality is a good thing for slowing down population growth.

I'm sorry dude, you are usually born homosexual. It may take more time for some to find out, but you are usually born that way. I'm not pulling this out of my ass or stating my opinion, I learned this from my Psych class. Homosexuality is a chemical imbalance, it's in your brain not from outside.

[yondyr]

I question that 'no one is born a homosexual'. I don't have the stats, admittedly, but my understanding is that there are those that know from very early on, pre sexual activity, that they resonated with their own gender and always would - for love, for companionship, and sexually. And then there are those 'created' homosexuals from reacting to treatment by the other gender at some point in their lives.

[Jgib5328]

I question that 'no one is born a homosexual'. I don't have the stats, admittedly, but my understanding is that there are those that know from very early on, pre sexual activity, that they resonated with their own gender and always would - for love, for companionship, and sexually. And then there are those 'created' homosexuals from reacting to treatment by the other gender at some point in their lives.

I actually think most homosexuals are born, but it is possible to become homosexual, I'm not sure though.

[yondyr]

I would like to add that I hesitate to label any behaviour, preference or physical characteristic as an imbalance, chemical or otherwise, until the definition of normal has been settled on. And I doubt that could ever be agreed upon.

[Jgib5328]

I would like to add that I hesitate to label any behaviour, preference or physical characteristic as an imbalance, chemical or otherwise, until the definition of normal has been settled on. And I doubt that could ever be agreed upon.

Science has found that homosexuals have a chemical imbalance that causes homosexuality.

[SeaCzar]

First off, does anyone really give a rat's ass what goes on in someone else's bedroom, as long as its between consenting adults? What scares me is the people who do. A chemical imbalance? One would think that if this is the case, some sort of re-balancing cure would have been found by now. I would think that its genetic; no different from being right or left-handed. Lifestyles?!? Come on!! As INTJs, we all tend to be misanthrops. Why should this bother us more than any other life, much less lifestyle? Also, how can something so prevelant in nature be un-natural? To me, this makes no sense.

I would not like to be hit on by a guy, but, as has been mentioned, probably would not know it anyway. One of the guys that plays on poker night is gay; all the other guys know it. Its not, in any way, an issue.

I must be missing something.

[Lucid]

I've seen a lot of posts by straight people who say they would be offended if someone of the same gender hit on them. I've never understood this. What does their sexuality have to do with you? I've always seen it as being hit on by someone I'm not attracted to... since, at the end of the day that's what it comes down to for me.

I'm not trying to start a bitter argument about it, I'm just wondering why it bothers you.

[ginandsour]

I don't care at all who someone likes or what they enjoy. I find sexual orientation (like race, gender, etc) to be totally irrelevant to a person's abilities and potentials, which is really fun to say to people on diversity scholarships.





ginandsour added to this post, 3 minutes and 1 seconds later...

Also, I agree with the notion that it's dangerous to blame something like this on a chemical imbalance. Those INTJ's who have taken antidepressants and "seen the other side" as it were, can tell you how frightning it is to have a mental health professional essentially tell you, "here, take these pills, Gin, you'll be just fine..."

[Jgib5328]

I don't care at all who someone likes or what they enjoy. I find sexual orientation (like race, gender, etc) to be totally irrelevant to a person's abilities and potentials, which is really fun to say to people on diversity scholarships.





ginandsour added to this post, 3 minutes and 1 seconds later...

Also, I agree with the notion that it's dangerous to blame something like this on a chemical imbalance. Those INTJ's who have taken antidepressants and "seen the other side" as it were, can tell you how frightning it is to have a mental health professional essentially tell you, "here, take these pills, Gin, you'll be just fine..."


The homosexual people who I have come across have been effeminate, I just don't really like men who aren't manly (I know that this statement ironically sounds homoerotic). I just see homosexuals as being strange, obviously not all of them, but a lot of them do have that effeminate trait. I don't care if I sound close-minded when saying this.

Being open minded doesn't mean you have to accept everyone. Most people look strongly down on pedofiles, but they are just acting on their nature. Most pedofiles have a sexual preference for young children, it's not their fault. They still aren't accepted by anyone really. So while pedofelia isn't as extreme as homosexuality, one can make the argument that they are analogous. Both have preferences that are widely frowned upon and both can't help their preferences. The point I'm trying to make, is that just because INTJs are open minded, doesn't mean that they should not be bothered by gay people. I'm not bothered a lot, but I am slightly disturbed as I've stated in my previous posts.

[yondyr]

Please, Jgib, could you give a more concrete answer than 'Science has found that homosexuals have a chemical imbalance that causes homosexuality'. Where do I look to find this scientific 'fact' ?
And I would suggest being 'hit on' is a compliment, to be appreciated as being seen as attractive. That you might not share the same proclivities is irrelevant.

[Jgib5328]

Please, Jgib, could you give a more concrete answer than 'Science has found that homosexuals have a chemical imbalance that causes homosexuality'. Where do I look to find this scientific 'fact' ?

I'm just going to bombard you with some sources, I'm not going to read any of them, so some may or may not support my point (it's late).

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.,M1

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well I guess I didn't bombard you, but these may be helpful. I guess it is still debated whether it is a chemical imbalance or not, I remember reading in my psych text that it was.

Who knows? I honestly don't care enough about this topic to really get into it.

[Provoker]

One thing that bothers me is when gay males exaggerate their flamboyance. It can be annoying, and I know other gay guys that dislike this too (as it gives gays a bad reputation).

However, I support homosexuality because we need to slow down population growth or we're going to overshoot the earth's carrying capacity. This happened at Easter Island and it destroyed the civilization (fighting over scarce resources). It's too bad Easter Island didn't have more homos, as it would have helped stifle population growth and they may have survived because of it. So I support gays, gay rights, etc for this reason.

[yondyr]

So, Jgib, you paste a number of links, but you haven't bothered to read them, but expect me to, and they 'may or may not support my point (it's late).'
You're not worth the typing except to repeat...[I hesitate to label any behaviour, preference or physical characteristic as an imbalance, chemical or otherwise, until the definition of normal has been settled on. And I doubt that could ever be agreed upon. ] All they are is different.

[SeaCzar]

The homosexual people who I have come across have been effeminate, I just don't really like men who aren't manly (I know that this statement ironically sounds homoerotic). I just see homosexuals as being strange, obviously not all of them, but a lot of them do have that effeminate trait. I don't care if I sound close-minded when saying this.

Being open minded doesn't mean you have to accept everyone. Most people look strongly down on pedofiles, but they are just acting on their nature. Most pedofiles have a sexual preference for young children, it's not their fault. They still aren't accepted by anyone really. So while pedofelia isn't as extreme as homosexuality, one can make the argument that they are analogous. Both have preferences that are widely frowned upon and both can't help their preferences. The point I'm trying to make, is that just because INTJs are open minded, doesn't mean that they should not be bothered by gay people. I'm not bothered a lot, but I am slightly disturbed as I've stated in my previous posts.

I would think that paedophilia is much more extreme than homosexuality.

[Jgib5328]

So, Jgib, you paste a number of links, but you haven't bothered to read them, but expect me to, and they 'may or may not support my point (it's late).'
You're not worth the typing except to repeat...[I hesitate to label any behaviour, preference or physical characteristic as an imbalance, chemical or otherwise, until the definition of normal has been settled on. And I doubt that could ever be agreed upon. ] All they are is different.

You were the one who wanted confirmation, I just gave you a possible way to do that. Like I said, I don't care enough about homosexuality to get into a serious debate about it. It was stupid of me to tell that kid that he was outirght wrong. Although I still do believe that part of homosexuality has to do with your brain and probably the majority of it does, there are still some cases where it isn't all brain.

[Provoker]

I would think that paedophilia is much more extreme than homosexuality.

Morally, yes. But scientifically, no, and wishful thinking does not change this fact.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

"I was just making the point that it was in fact unnatural. I think sexuality is amoral. It's not a conscious decision to be a certain sexuality, it's how that person is and was born."

If everything is natural because it comes from nature and we have documented scientific evidence that homosexuality is very much a part of many species' nature, then homosexuality is not unnatural.

My comment about people equating natural with moral was not aimed at anyone specifically, but just a broad statement about something I have observed about many other people.

I understand that it was not the intent here to compare paedophilia to homosexuality, but I always dislike it when a sexual act that exploits another individual is compared to a sexual act between two consenting adults.

[Lucid]

You could make an egg but where would you put it.

That's what I meant about the proper equipment. Although perhaps we don't have that equipment yet.

[Provoker]

Homosexuals prefer that their sexual preference is genetic so they don't have to take responsiblity for their actions.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Homosexuals prefer that their sexual preference is genetic so they don't have to take responsiblity for their actions.
Let's assume then that sexuality is a choice. Then we would have to say that heterosexuality is a choice and that we (you and I) could at any time decide to be attracted to individuals of the same sex.

[Jgib5328]

Let's assume then that sexuality is a choice. Then we would have to say that heterosexuality is a choice and that we (you and I) could at any time decide to be attracted to individuals of the same sex.

I agree with vague, people don't choose to be gay. They either are or aren't.

This is unrelated, but I just thought about it.

Would it be hypocritical to accept homosexuality, but not pedofelia?
If you think about it, pedofelia is just another form of sexuality, the pedofiles really can't help how they feel, just like homosexuals can't. So by making the arguments like, "it's not their fault they are like that, they can't help it" should apply to pedofelia. Although because of how our society is structured, it is very unfavorable to express pedofelia, so pedofiles have to resort to unethical and immoral ways of satisfying themselves. Do you sort of see what I am getting at? Obviously if you take a moral stance when judging sexuality, you of course can say that pedofelia is wrong, while homosexuality isn't, but if you take an objective stance, I'm not sure you can say that.

[thod]

If you are present when some ducklings hatch their brains will imprint that you are the mother figure. They don't have a genetic image of a duck hard wired into their brains. Whatever they see around them at the start takes that role and then they follow it around.

Thus homosexuality can be a programmed without it being hard wired. Once established it is not possible to choose otherwise. What would be needed is a cure in the form of resetting the brain into the normal pattern. If such a technique existed then they would be making a choice. Presumably you could go from straight to gay too. There is considerable evidence to back this model with all the homosexuals coming out of single sex public schools where they were introduced to the practice by older boys.

Would it be hypocritical to accept homosexuality, but not pedofelia?


Nope one there is a victim, the child, the other there is no victim.

[Jgib5328]

Nope one there is a victim, the child, the other there is no victim.

What if it isn't a victim child relationship? Both were consenting and the younger child knew what they were doing. Obviously 12 and below don't really know enough to make a rational decision, but what about 12-16? People still consider that pedofelia. A 15 knows enough to make a decision about a relationship, obviously not that much, but still something. People seem to think young teenagers are morons.

[Lucid]

What if it isn't a victim child relationship? Both were consenting and the younger child knew what they were doing. Obviously 12 and below don't really know enough to make a rational decision, but what about 12-16? People still consider that pedofelia. A 15 knows enough to make a decision about a relationship, obviously not that much, but still something. People seem to think young teenagers are morons.

Please see the thread on the age of consent subject. Quite frankly, a 14 year old does not have the experience to make good sexual decisions the same way an adult does. Therefore, an adult having sex with a 14-year-old is unfairly taking advantage of their age and experience. It's also illegal for someone to have sex with another person whom they are in a position of authority over. Such as a prison guard having sex with a prisoner. It is considered an abuse of their greater responsibility and capabilities in their position as an authority.

Homosexuality as we're discussing it is between two consenting adults who can make sexual decisions for themselves without fear of undue influence, coercion or intimidation.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

The age of a 'child' is chosen by the judicial system within the society. It is based on the belief that a child who is not sexually mature (both physically and mentally) is unable to consent sexually and, therefore, would either be forced or coerced by the adult and, thereby, be exploited for the adults sexual satisfaction, but recieve no such satisfaction themselves. These children often suffer lifelong problems with intamacy and sex to name a few.

[Jgib5328]

Yeah you guys make good points, I think actually being a pedofile isn't inherently immoral or moral, but acting on it is. I dunno really though.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

There's a theory that paedophilia comes from a hatred of innocence.

[Jgib5328]

There's a theory that paedophilia comes from a hatred of innocence.

That's an interesting theory, and intuitively it could make sense. Children represent innocence, and a pedophile (thanks for the correct spelling) sort of corrupts that innocence. Where'd you here it from?

[pavman]

Science has found that homosexuals have a chemical imbalance that causes homosexuality.

You have source for this that isn't biased?

Seems to me that if it is indeed a chemical imbalance, then it should be treated just like all the other chemical imbalances, IMHO.

[Caramel]

You have source for this that isn't biased?

Seems to me that if it is indeed a chemical imbalance, then it should be treated just like all the other chemical imbalances, IMHO.

You mean by finding a 'cure'?

[Jgib5328]

You have source for this that isn't biased?

Seems to me that if it is indeed a chemical imbalance, then it should be treated just like all the other chemical imbalances, IMHO.

Yondor and I have already gone over this. I tried to find a legitimate source, but I couldn't. It is debatable to whether this is true or not. There have been some findings that state that the structure of the homosexual brain is slightly different than that of a heterosexual's, but again, I am not a science major so I don't read this stuff too often and don't have much of a general interest in it. I could be wrong, I could be right, or anything in between. Nobody has a definite answer yet. If it was just a chemical balance, it'd probably be treatable.

[pavman]

You mean by finding a 'cure'?

No, I mean exactly what I said. As someone pointed out earlier, there are a number of chemical imbalances that are treated to keep the personality intact and to keep people from harming themselves and others.

If this turns out to be true, then perhaps they were wrong to change the classification in the DSM in the early 70s.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

That's an interesting theory, and intuitively it could make sense. Children represent innocence, and a pedophile (thanks for the correct spelling) sort of corrupts that innocence. Where'd you here it from?
I'm sorry......I actually don't recall where I read that, but I remember thinking the same thing. It makes intuitive sense. The pedophile robs the child of their innocence because they can't stand to see it. It's not a conscious thing though.

[yondyr]

I suggest pedophilia is a separate thread from homosexuality. It disturbs me greatly that the illegal former is being mixed in with the now enlightened legal latter.

[pavman]

I suggest pedophilia is a separate thread from homosexuality. It disturbs me greatly that the illegal former is being mixed in with the now enlightened legal latter.

Progress doesn't always equate to enlightenment. In fact, if we look at the 20th Century, in many ways progress is just the opposite of enlightenment. :thumbsup:

[yondyr]

True, and much of it can be laid at the feet of overpopulation, which brings the subject nicely back to the lower birth/reproduction rate of homosexuals, grins

[integratedvelocity]

This is an intriguing thread, so here are a few of my thoughts.

First perspective: Religious-Protestant Christian

Homosexuality is immoral. However, it is no more immoral than lying, cheating, thievery, adultery, violence, greed, etc, several of which I am guilty. Therefore, I don't really feel that I have the right to be overly critical of homosexuals. From this perspective, it does not matter to me what the cause(es) of homosexuality is/are. I have to say that lying comes pretty naturally to me, so the reason that it is natural doesn't cut it.

Second perspective: Personal Preferences

Regardless of sexual orientation, I cannot stand people who go out of their way to define themselves by one of their characteristics. People who are firstly "white," "gay," "Republican," etc. and define everything about themselves based on this frustrate me. Also, flamboyance of any kind, regardless of its root, irritates me.

Third Perspective: Political

I am against gay marriage. However, I am also possibly against many of he financial and other benefits given to married couples. In the past, it was much more likely that married couples were going to have most of society's children. The financial benefits encouraged or supported this. Now, divorce, cohabitation, and single parenting is much more common. Personally, I think taxes should be figured by each spouse's earnings. Also, if studies were to show that a certain family structure produced the most productive, well-adjusted offspring, I would be willing for the government to provide them incentives. I really don't have the motivation to look around for such studies, so if any of you happen to find or know of any, post them.

Final Thought: I really don't care what people do in their own bedrooms. It's not the government's (or my) place to decide. If you are a homosexual member of a religious group, their position is their choice. I think the government should stay out of it.

[Jgib5328]

I suggest pedophilia is a separate thread from homosexuality. It disturbs me greatly that the illegal former is being mixed in with the now enlightened legal latter.

Some people think pedophilia and homosexuality are equally immoral, it depends on who you ask. Just because you consider something enlightened doesn't mean anything. Homosexuality is still widely unaccepted in the world. A strong majority of Americans aren't in favor of it, and I know it's illegal in a lot of middle eastern countries.

Legal doesn't always = good either.

Pedophilia was legal in a form for awhile. Old men would regularly marry 12 year old girls or some other young age often, it was widely accepted and commonplace. Also as with the Ancient Greece example, it was common for men to have sex with younger men. In Spain right now the legal age of consent is 13 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). This would be considered pedophilia in America.

[pavman]

True, and much of it can be laid at the feet of overpopulation, which brings the subject nicely back to the lower birth/reproduction rate of homosexuals, grins

Overpopulation is a myth started in the late 19th century when we moved from a primarily agrarian population to an urban population.

hist: "Finally, Hopfenberg and Pimentel's projection that world population will reach 12 billion by 2050 is off. They simply extrapolate current levels of fertility, yet as we've seen, fertility rates are rapidly declining. The 2002 revision of the United Nations' World Population Prospects' median variant trend projects a world population of 8.9 billion by 2050. Given the rapidly falling global fertility rates, the low variant trend is more likely—and that projects a world population topping out at 7.5 billion by 2040, then beginning to decline. Perhaps Malthusianism will finally decline along with fertility rates."

int: "• A fertility rate of 2.1 is required to maintain population stability. The world fertility rate is projected by the UN to fall below this REPLACEMENT LEVEL [emphasis mine] around the year 2013.
• Each year about a million fewer babies are born in the world. Births in developing countries have recently declined by about 400,000 births each year."


The history of the myth of overpopulation[hist]: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

World population data & land mass use [wp]: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Endogenous growth (ie. Population size tied to economic growth, specifically in effect within idea-centric cultures) [end]: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Interesting commentary from our English brethren discussing environmental concerns w/ regards to population: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Almost all of this was gutted from an email discussion I was having with my family regarding over-population, so I just grabbed what I thought was relevant and posted it. This has nothing to do with homosexuals, so it might be considered a new thread, but I'll leave that up to the moderators. :thumbsup:

[yondyr]

I'm not thrilled to have for the second time a bunch of links throw at me to justify a position. Links to works such as the following..

[by historical evidence. Letting Lt represent the population or labor force at
time t _LtLt
= n > 0; L0 > 0 given: (2)
The second key ingredient is increasing returns to scale. Let Yt be the
quantity of a single consumption/output good produced, and let At be the
stock of ideas that the economy has discovered in the past. The production
function in our toy model is]

then have the author beetle off saying either he doesn't have time to check his links, hasn't read them, or they're a thread hijack.

[Nomad]

I just cant get away from the idea that homosexuals are broken, in the same way that a man born without a penis is broken.

I don't take a moral stance. I am trained in science and engineering. The purpose of sex is reproduction therefore anything that prevents that is a flaw in the sex system.

Now you can argue all you wish about other benefits. Yet these are secondary. I can sit and rest in a car, I can listen to the radio, but if it doesn't move then its lost its primary function as a means of transport.

I read something years and years ago that homosexual behavoir among baboons, I think, helped them within social structures among, older more dominant (stronger) males. it indicated that these homosexual behaviors were more prevalant among younger memebers with mulitple older, male siblings.

Human studies have shown that a womens hormones tend to "feminize" a fetus over the course of multiple male births, because the mother's bodies naturally regard a male fetus as alien, and the body responds likewise.

It makes me wonder if the the old European nobility custom to send the first male as heir, the second male as soldier and the third as priest had any basis in this biological curlicue.

As far as I know, no studies have really gone into female homosexuality to this extent.

-Nomad

[Antares]

I've seen a lot of posts by straight people who say they would be offended if someone of the same gender hit on them. I've never understood this. What does their sexuality have to do with you? I've always seen it as being hit on by someone I'm not attracted to... since, at the end of the day that's what it comes down to for me.

I'm not trying to start a bitter argument about it, I'm just wondering why it bothers you.

I wouldn't be offended if someone of the same sex hit on me. As a matter of fact, I did get hit on by an eighteen-year-old girl. I was disgusted, all right, but not because she's a homosexual. She used some pretty perverted language and asked if I 'finger' myself. I've been hit on by guys and girls like that, no control over their mouths or their own horny fantasies, and I feel equally disgusted at them.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I suggest pedophilia is a separate thread from homosexuality. It disturbs me greatly that the illegal former is being mixed in with the now enlightened legal latter.
I agree. However, I would be just as quick to compare heterosexuality with pedophilia in that they are both sexual in nature. But.......you're right.........there are tremendous differences between sex between consenting adults and the sexual exploitation of children.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 7 minutes and 50 seconds later...

This is an intriguing thread, so here are a few of my thoughts.

First perspective: Religious-Protestant Christian

Homosexuality is immoral. However, it is no more immoral than lying, cheating, thievery, adultery, violence, greed, etc, several of which I am guilty. Therefore, I don't really feel that I have the right to be overly critical of homosexuals. From this perspective, it does not matter to me what the cause(es) of homosexuality is/are. I have to say that lying comes pretty naturally to me, so the reason that it is natural doesn't cut it.

Second perspective: Personal Preferences

Regardless of sexual orientation, I cannot stand people who go out of their way to define themselves by one of their characteristics. People who are firstly "white," "gay," "Republican," etc. and define everything about themselves based on this frustrate me. Also, flamboyance of any kind, regardless of its root, irritates me.

Third Perspective: Political

I am against gay marriage. However, I am also possibly against many of he financial and other benefits given to married couples. In the past, it was much more likely that married couples were going to have most of society's children. The financial benefits encouraged or supported this. Now, divorce, cohabitation, and single parenting is much more common. Personally, I think taxes should be figured by each spouse's earnings. Also, if studies were to show that a certain family structure produced the most productive, well-adjusted offspring, I would be willing for the government to provide them incentives. I really don't have the motivation to look around for such studies, so if any of you happen to find or know of any, post them.

Final Thought: I really don't care what people do in their own bedrooms. It's not the government's (or my) place to decide. If you are a homosexual member of a religious group, their position is their choice. I think the government should stay out of it.
People will always define themselves by some personally chosen criteria. This is how people find 'identity' and the need for an identity appears to be very strong in humans.

"....if studies were to show that a...." homosexual "..... family structure produced the most productive, well-adjusted offspring" would you still be willing for the government to provide them with incentives?

[SShack]

I think there is at least one study out there recently that says indeed that kids of same sex couples are better adjusted than their peers, but I'd have to track it down. Not having any kids, it's something I just skimmed over. I have no idea what kind of biases might be behind the claim of "better adjusted."

Of course, there aren't many studies that can prove as such for the logical problem that society has resisted allowing it to happen, making it difficult to determine to a significant degree above the anecdotal the impact of having same-sex parents.

My attitude is that somebody who deliberately chooses to become a parent is more likely to do a better job, heterosexual or homosexual, because these are duties that they sought out. Not that people who accidentally get pregnant are destined to be bad parents or anything like that.

[Jgib5328]

I think there is at least one study out there recently that says indeed that kids of same sex couples are better adjusted than their peers, but I'd have to track it down. Not having any kids, it's something I just skimmed over. I have no idea what kind of biases might be behind the claim of "better adjusted." Of course, there aren't many studies that can prove as such for the logical problem that society has resisted allowing it to happen, making it difficult to determine to a significant degree above the anecdotal the impact of having same-sex parents.

My attitude is that somebody who deliberately chooses to become a parent is more likely to do a better job, heterosexual or homosexual, because these are duties that they sought out. Not that people who accidentally get pregnant are destined to be bad parents or anything like that.

I've always thought that same-sex marriages would be more difficult for the children, not that homosexuals can't take care of children or anything. It's more of a cultural thing. The typical family is a Man, wife, and two kids. But when the child recognizes that his family isn't like that, he will get really confused. He will also constantly be made fun of by the other children. There was this one kid with two moms that I used to go to school with. He'd always be made fun of for having a lesbian mom, daily. The kid ended up turning gay though anyways. I just think it may be hard for a kid with homosexual parents to fit in.

They may be more 'well-adjusted' because they have grown up with something unusual, so they may be more willing to accept other things that are unusual. And trust me, most people don't accept unusual things. Most people may say that they think homosexuality is fine and that they are ok with it, but a lot of those people are lying because they don't want to look bad. I hate that hypocrisy. I always admit that I'm not that accepting of homosexuality, because that's how I really feel. I remember some kids in my class were talking about how it was fine and that they were ok with it, then later on they were making fun of gays.

Also a strong majority of kids in my generation use gay related terms all of the time with strong negative connotations. If something unfortunate happens, a common response is, "That's so gay". If someone does something that is not pleasing to them, "You are so gay". We also use the term fag a lot too. If a man does something that isn't manly or is displeasing, they are called 'fags'. Not that anyone in my generation is strongly against gays, most people are only slightly uncomfortable around them. The terms 'gay' and 'fag' are just popular slang terms. It's rare that someone says "I swear to god I fucking hate gays so much, they should all die" because it's rare that anyone feels that way. For the record, I do use the term 'gay' or 'fag' quite often, just so I don't sound like a hypocrite.

[Antares]

True; it may not be good for the child, but discrimination against gays, I believe, is a prejudice our society today has to get over. Live and let live, ya know.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Back in the day............they said the same thing about inter-racial marriages. It'll be too hard on the kids.

[cruftie]

The typical family is a Man, wife, and two kids.

Let me correct your English: a man, a woman, and two kids.
You can say husband and wife or you can say man and woman. Either is parallel construction. But we no longer say man and wife as if one is a person and the other is just a role.

[Jgib5328]

Let me correct your English: a man, a woman, and two kids.
You can say husband and wife or you can say man and woman. Either is parallel construction. But we no longer say man and wife as if one is a person and the other is just a role.

Omg, I'm so sorry I made a simple grammatical error. Thank you so much for going out of your way to point that out. It was completely necessary.





Jgib5328 added to this post, 2 minutes and 29 seconds later...

Back in the day............they said the same thing about inter-racial marriages. It'll be too hard on the kids.

Inter-racial marriages still are hard on the kids. A child of two different parents can still be discriminated against no just by both races. Blacks don't really except the mulatto because he's not really black, and whites don't except him because he's not white.

Just because people aren't as upfront about racism as they used to be, doesn't mean that it isn't still strong to this day.

[oppugno1215]

I would like to quickly interrupt this discussion and say that I am a teenaged (closet)lesbian, not a hedonist, and as normal a human being as any InTJ can be. I am also in favor of all types of relationships as long as they involve consensual people of age, and that prejudice against love is abhorrent. Thank you.

[coffeeloverfreak]

I don't have the patience to wade through 6 pages of posts. I'm sure everything that's part of this debate has already been said on this thread, so I'll just weigh in with my opinion:

It's a matter of equality, plain and simple. People don't choose to be gay, straight, bisexual, whatever. They just are. People are all people, and they all deserve the same rights.

Gay rights today is what civil rights for racial minorities was four decades ago. In twenty years, people will be downright embarrassed to ever admit they were on the other side of this one.

Quebec has had gay marriage for a while now, and guess what? The sky didn't fall down. It hasn't affected anyone other than the people getting married. Frankly, at a time when marriage in general is at all-time lows, it's probably good for the marriage industry.

"Civil unions" has the disturbing ring of "separate yet equal" that will never cut it in a society that bases itself on freedom and equality for all citizens. Being gay is like being straight; it just is. Having the same rights to marriage, property laws, family and civil laws, and nondiscrimination as anyone else should be a non-issue.

Those of you who are just reacting to the "ick" factor can rest easy; nobody's making you be gay. It's not contagious, like rabies. Nobody will force married men to divorce their wives and marry their bowling partners. But you don't have the right to force your way of thinking - religious-based, tradition based, or otherwise - on everyone else.

I really couldn't care less if someone is gay, straight or other (unless I'm dating him, of course). And I firmly believe that the state has no place butting in on what goes on between consenting adults. To me, this is a non-issue that has been inflated to an issue of massive proportions by a few people who are afraid of anything or anyone that's different. Sorry, but that's not a good enough reason to justify discrimination. Nuh-uh. No way.

For the record, I'm female, straight, IxTJ, and I don't think any of those three things have a whit to do with my opinion.

[Jgib5328]

I don't have the patience to wade through 6 pages of posts. I'm sure everything that's part of this debate has already been said on this thread, so I'll just weigh in with my opinion:

It's a matter of equality, plain and simple. People don't choose to be gay, straight, bisexual, whatever. They just are. People are all people, and they all deserve the same rights.

Gay rights today is what civil rights for racial minorities was four decades ago. In twenty years, people will be downright embarrassed to ever admit they were on the other side of this one.

Quebec has had gay marriage for a while now, and guess what? The sky didn't fall down. It hasn't affected anyone other than the people getting married. Frankly, at a time when marriage in general is at all-time lows, it's probably good for the marriage industry.

"Civil unions" has the disturbing ring of "separate yet equal" that will never cut it in a society that bases itself on freedom and equality for all citizens. Being gay is like being straight; it just is. Having the same rights to marriage, property laws, family and civil laws, and nondiscrimination as anyone else should be a non-issue.

Those of you who are just reacting to the "ick" factor can rest easy; nobody's making you be gay. It's not contagious, like rabies. Nobody will force married men to divorce their wives and marry their bowling partners. But you don't have the right to force your way of thinking - religious-based, tradition based, or otherwise - on everyone else.

I really couldn't care less if someone is gay, straight or other (unless I'm dating him, of course). And I firmly believe that the state has no place butting in on what goes on between consenting adults. To me, this is a non-issue that has been inflated to an issue of massive proportions by a few people who are afraid of anything or anyone that's different. Sorry, but that's not a good enough reason to justify discrimination. Nuh-uh. No way.

For the record, I'm female, straight, IxTJ, and I don't think any of those three things have a whit to do with my opinion.

I really dislike it when people compare the gay rights movement now to the civil rights movement. They aren't nearly the same. Blacks suffered a lot worse for a longer period of time, and still are suffering now. Gays, I mean their life isn't that great and there can be some nastiness towards them, but for the most part they can lead a rich fulfilling life. Most people are still uncomfortable around gays, but I mean it's not like that prevents them from much. They still can do mostly what they want, except marry or join the military I guess.

[coffeeloverfreak]

This isn't a question of "whose suffering was worse". But you seem remarkably naive about the discrimination suffered by gay and lesbian people, both in the United States and around the world. The stigma that causes so many of them to stay in the closet. The elevated teen suicide rates. The family rifts. The gut-wrenching situations were longtime lifelong partners are denied so much as visitaiton rights in a hospital, parental rights where there are children, etc. etc. Marriage and the military are two very important issues, sure, but they're not the only ones.

I really don't get what the length, degree or nature of suffering has to do with the debate. Should I go into how Jewish people have been persecuted for two thousand years? Is that relevant at all? Didn't think so.

The point we're talking about is equality. Civil rights are civil rights. Black, white, gay, straight, all citizens deserve equal civil rights and protections. What about that are you objecting to, exactly?

[Jgib5328]

This isn't a question of "whose suffering was worse". But you seem remarkably naive about the discrimination suffered by gay and lesbian people, both in the United States and around the world. The stigma that causes so many of them to stay in the closet. The elevated teen suicide rates. The family rifts. The gut-wrenching situations were longtime lifelong partners are denied so much as visitaiton rights in a hospital, parental rights where there are children, etc. etc. Marriage and the military are two very important issues, sure, but they're not the only ones.

I really don't get what the length, degree or nature of suffering has to do with the debate. Should I go into how Jewish people have been persecuted for two thousand years? Is that relevant at all? Didn't think so.

The point we're talking about is equality. Civil rights are civil rights. Black, white, gay, straight, all citizens deserve equal civil rights and protections. What about that are you objecting to, exactly?

I'm objecting to the fact that you think suffering of gays is the same as the blacks. I was focusing on America anyways. I know people get executed if they are gay in other countries. Blacks were outright second class citizens. They mostly suffered from poverty, couldn't work where they wanted, could be educated, couldn't live where they wanted etc. Gays are not second class citizens. While they may not be accepted and do suffer discrimination, they can still get by in life without nearly as much trouble. Think about it, the only things a gay person can't do is get married to another gay person or join the military if he/she states that he/she is gay. Plus gays can hide who they are to avoid discrimination (not that that is ideal) , blacks couldn't do that. People would see their skin color and instantly react negatively. Gays can at least avoid being harassed in public, because it isn't always obvious whether someone is gay or not. Other than that though, a gay person now has a lot more rights than a black person did back in the 60s.

[coffeeloverfreak]

I'm objecting to the fact that you think suffering of gays is the same as the blacks. I was focusing on America anyways. I know people get executed if they are gay in other countries. Blacks were outright second class citizens. They mostly suffered from poverty, couldn't work where they wanted, could be educated, couldn't live where they wanted etc. Gays are not second class citizens. While they may not be accepted and do suffer discrimination, they can still get by in life without nearly as much trouble. Think about it, the only things a gay person can't do is get married to another gay person or join the military if he/she states that he/she is gay. Plus gays can hide who they are to avoid discrimination (not that that is ideal) , blacks couldn't do that. People would see their skin color and instantly react negatively. Gays can at least avoid being harassed in public, because it isn't always obvious whether someone is gay or not. Other than that though, a gay person now has a lot more rights than a black person did back in the 60s.

Exactly which part of the sentence "This isn't a question of 'whose suffering was worse'." did you not understand?

[BlueTopaz]

It personally offends me when people say minorities (as in african americans) suffer worse than any other ostracized minority. You can't really judge any of that until you have walked a mile in the other person's shoes.
Shirley Chisholm said she suffered much worse prejudice as a woman than a black person.

And, BTW, it is not the 1800s or even the 60's any more.

I don't have a clue whose suffering was/is worse. As the poster above said it really doesn't matter. This isn't a suffering competition. If you suffer, as a human being you should feel compassion for a fellow human that is suffering in the same way, not resentment that the other group is getting "more attention" or shouldn't be given equal compassion from other quarters.

Gays have the added stigma that they are perceived to have made the "choice" to be gay, against the laws of God and man. Anyone who has had access to recent scientific literature in the area of biology knows this is not true. It has been found to have a genetic and an environmental component.

[Jgib5328]

Exactly which part of the sentence "This isn't a question of 'whose suffering was worse'." did you not understand?

The part that I didn't read lol, I must of missed that sentence.





Jgib5328 added to this post, 1 minutes and 13 seconds later...

It personally offends me when people say minorities (as in african americans) suffer worse than any other ostracized minority. You can't really judge any of that until you have walked a mile in the other person's shoes.
Shirley Chisholm said she suffered much worse prejudice as a woman than a black person.

And, BTW, it is not the 1800s or even the 60's any more.

We were comparing the 1960's Afro-American life to the current homosexual life.

Also I'm 3/8 African American, while that doesn't sound like much, I still have a brown skin color. So while I don't suffer discrimination, I can certainly judge.

[DeadSpace]

~~>on topic
hetero myself. No problem with anyone except racists, not going to limit who i interact with because of their sexuality, sex, race, or religion. Had passes made at me from guys, shrugged them off the same way i'd do if a woman i wasn't interested made the same kind of pass. Also had some good friends who are gay, takes alot of courage to follow what you feel, especially in a society where homosexuality is so frowned upon. Got to respect that.

[BlueTopaz]

Also I'm 3/8 African American, while that doesn't sound like much, I still have a brown skin color. So while I don't suffer discrimination, I can certainly judge.

but are you gay? If you aren't both you can't make an adequate comparison. Beside that, as I added to my post a few minutes later, you should feel compassion for a fellow human being who is suffering, not resentment.

eta: I am bisexual and have lived as a lesbian, so I can judge as well. But I have never thought that compassion should not be meted out to other minorities because I "suffered" more than they did.

[Jgib5328]

but are you gay? If you aren't both you can't make an adequate comparison. Beside that, as I added to my post a few minutes later, you should feel compassion for a fellow human being who is suffering, not resentment.

I don't think you really have to be apart of a certain group to judge them. You shouldn't be restricted from that right. I disagree about feeling compassion for a fellow human being. I don't think you should have to. Some people have a deep sense of caring for others, while others don't. It's not really like I can control it anyways. I never said I resented gays either. I said I was slightly disturbed by them, I certainly don't hate them or bear them any ill will, I just don't really like being around them. Am I ignorant because of that? Should I have to be perfectly comfortable around every single person in the world for me to not be ignorant and be open-minded?

[Antares]

I really dislike it when people compare the gay rights movement now to the civil rights movement. They aren't nearly the same. Blacks suffered a lot worse for a longer period of time, and still are suffering now. Gays, I mean their life isn't that great and there can be some nastiness towards them, but for the most part they can lead a rich fulfilling life. Most people are still uncomfortable around gays, but I mean it's not like that prevents them from much. They still can do mostly what they want, except marry or join the military I guess.

Well, I can never see why it is so wrong for them to enjoy equal rights and be like the rest of us while being with whomever struck their fancy; not just the opposite sex. Why can't they join the military? Why can't they marry? I'm not homosexual, but they would love their partners as much as I would love my future husband, or wife, if I'm a lesbian. Assuming that I love him/her very much, it would certainly be unfair and immoral to not allow us to be together in a legal union. That would be a violation of my rights and I, nor anyone else, should stand for that.

Their lives isn't hard? But it certainly isn't easy either. Ever heard 'God hates fags'? Have you heard of the attitude used when they were spoken of by many people? It's down-right discriminating and intolerant. Just a few days ago, a fifteen year old boy, my age, was killed just for being gay by his classmate; probably one of those fanatical zealots who mentally lives in the past.

[Jgib5328]

Well, I can never see why it is so wrong for them to enjoy equal rights and be like the rest of us while being with whomever struck their fancy; not just the opposite sex. Why can't they join the military? Why can't they marry? I'm not homosexual, but they would love their partners as much as I would love my future husband, or wife, if I'm a lesbian. Assuming that I love him/her very much, it would certainly be unfair and immoral to not allow us to be together in a legal union. That would be a violation of my rights and I, nor anyone else, should stand for that.

Their lives isn't hard? But it certainly isn't easy either. Ever heard 'God hates fags'? Have you heard of the attitude used when they were spoken of by many people? It's down-right discriminating and intolerant. Just a few days ago, a fifteen year old boy, my age, was killed just for being gay by his classmate; probably one of those fanatical zealots who mentally lives in the past.

Whoa, I never said anything about gay rights, I just said that I didn't believe it was fair for people to compare the gay rights movement with the civil rights movement. The people who say 'god hates fags' are just retarded. Anyone who is offended that much by someone else's behavior and has to go that far out of the way to express that has some serious issues. While I myself am not completely comfortable with homosexuality, I still interact with them without a problem, and I'm always friendly to them if they are to me.

[Colette]

Whoa, I never said anything about gay rights, I just said that I didn't believe it was fair for people to compare the gay rights movement with the civil rights movement. The people who say 'god hates fags' are just retarded. Anyone who is offended that much by someone else's behavior and has to go that far out of the way to express that has some serious issues. While I myself am not completely comfortable with homosexuality, I still interact with them without a problem, and I'm always friendly to them if they are to me.

Yep. I am a Christian, but do not accept the parts of the Bible which are often cited in support of the church's stance against Homosexuality. They are almost exclusively OT passages (Leviticus especially), and ignore the fact that Christ himself said nothing against homosexuals, during his Ministry.

[pavman]

Yep. I am a Christian, but do not accept the parts of the Bible which are often cited in support of the church's stance against Homosexuality. They are almost exclusively OT passages (Leviticus especially), and ignore the fact that Christ himself said nothing against homosexuals, during his Ministry.

LOL.

Christ didn't say a lot about a lot of things. That's not a very good reason to reject a belief out of hand. For instance, some denominations make it point that since Christ did *not* have women as apostles, this indicates that women should not be priests, reverends, moral teachers, etc.

You know what Christ did say a lot about though? Fornication...adultery. So, if we take Him at His word, the act is wrong, regardless of orientation outside of a marriage context. The person, whether environmentally or genetically gay, is still a person who should be shown the same love as everyone else Christian's are called to love (which is pretty much everyone, even Hitler).

We can tie this further to the first commandment, which was To be fruitful and multiply. If we are to be fruitful and multiply, and if God created man and woman in his image and likeness, then it logically follows that God requires us to try to live up to this commandment within the bonds of marriage. One cannot live up to this commandment if one cannot multiply without a third party. :)

Flame away. ;D

pavman added to this post, 5 minutes and 18 seconds later...

...That would be a violation of my rights and I, nor anyone else, should stand for that.

So, tell me, where is it that you have any right to marriage? For that matter, where is it that you have any right to tolerance?

We've all grown up in some school system, and, unless you had private tutors and weren't around unrelated children, then you must know that tolerance is one of those things that just doesn't happen.

Although, I was somewhat annoyed when it became a major theme in X-Men, the movie.

I didn't like how they twisted things around when Magneto said America was meant to be the land of freedom and tolerance...what crap. Tolerance is so subjective that it stands outside of reality in my opinion.

And, personally, my internal definition of tolerance is negative in the sense that it represents adding a higher priority to someone else's personal position or belief, over one's own. Which, IMHO, we should never be pressured to do.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Colette]

LOL.

We can tie this further to the first commandment, which was To be fruitful and multiply. If we are to be fruitful and multiply, and if God created man and woman in his image and likeness, then it logically follows that God requires us to try to live up to this commandment within the bonds of marriage. One cannot live up to this commandment if one cannot multiply without a third party. :)

Flame away. ;D


Contrary to popular belief, I'm not actually interested in flaming you, or anyone else. I may not always agree with a person's views, but I can usually separate a person from their views, and attack the latter, not the former. I don't know any of you well enough to form any judgment on what kind of people you are; and I wouldn't presume to do so.

[coffeeloverfreak]

The religion of some should not be an excuse for the oppression of many.

If you want to believe or practice a certain religion, that's your right, but don't use it as an excuse to limit the rights of an entire minority group, some of whom may share your religious beliefs and many of whom don't.

[Antares]

The religion of some should not be an excuse for the oppression of many.

If you want to believe or practice a certain religion, that's your right, but don't use it as an excuse to limit the rights of an entire minority group, some of whom may share your religious beliefs and many of whom don't.

Agreed. Religion is NOT a reason against homosexuality.

[Lucid]

The religion of some should not be an excuse for the oppression of many.

If you want to believe or practice a certain religion, that's your right, but don't use it as an excuse to limit the rights of an entire minority group, some of whom may share your religious beliefs and many of whom don't.

I second the motion. Those who are not religious are generally tolerant of the lifestyles and values of the religious. The un-religious don't pass laws barring the religious from certain things and I don't think the religious should pass laws barring another social demographic from things either.

You are entitled to your religion, but don't confuse it with a rational argument for or against anything.

[Darvick]

Religion is an expression of human creativity that tries to explain the world, while homosexuality is an expression of human creativity that tries to explain self...

I think that there is a place in the world for both, but just not for me :)

[SeaCzar]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Thomas Jefferson, July, 1776.

Substitute "of man and womankind" for "men" and Jefferson is spot on, after more than 200 years. I probably should not say this, as I am straight and white, but I have a very broad view of racism. Whether directed against blacks, Jews, gays, Catholics, Huguenots, Muslims, women, etc. Its been on this Earth for centuries, and probably will be for centuries more. Regardless, to me, its just wrong.

[coffeeloverfreak]

The religion of some should not be an excuse for the oppression of many.

If you want to believe or practice a certain religion, that's your right, but don't use it as an excuse to limit the rights of an entire minority group, some of whom may share your religious beliefs and many of whom don't.

I second the motion. Those who are not religious are generally tolerant of the lifestyles and values of the religious. The un-religious don't pass laws barring the religious from certain things and I don't think the religious should pass laws barring another social demographic from things either.

You are entitled to your religion, but don't confuse it with a rational argument for or against anything.

I'll take it a step further. The religion of some should not be an excuse for the oppression of many. And more importantly, the religion of many should not be an excuse for the oppression of few.

I think it's an important distinction, because it's relatively easy for us to dismiss the efforts of a religious minority to oppress a large social group (e.g. the notion, however unfounded, that Muslims in America would try to curb the rights of women is enough to set most people into a panic). It's much harder for us to apply this satisfactorally when the religion in question belongs to a majority (Christianity) and the oppressed group is a minority (homosexuals).

Democracy does not give two men in a lifeboat the right to vote to throw the third man overboard. Constitutions, charters, protections are all in place specifically to protect the few from the tyranny of the many.

[Colette]

I second the motion. Those who are not religious are generally tolerant of the lifestyles and values of the religious. The un-religious don't pass laws barring the religious from certain things and I don't think the religious should pass laws barring another social demographic from things either.


As a practising Christian, I must say I haven't found that level of tolerance to exist in the secular world toward our beliefs (especially, I might add, on internet forums, where my views and beliefs have often been lambasted in the most personal and derogatory fashion). I'd like to think that people could be tolerant of the difference, and not label us stupid, deluded, and self-righteous, but I haven't found that to be the case at all, amongst the people I interact with.

[Antares]

As a practising Christian, I must say I haven't found that level of tolerance to exist in the secular world toward our beliefs (especially, I might add, on internet forums, where my views and beliefs have often been lambasted in the most personal and derogatory fashion). I'd like to think that people could be tolerant of the difference, and not label us stupid, deluded, and self-righteous, but I haven't found that to be the case at all, amongst the people I interact with.

Don't frequent those forums. Even I find their insults to theists disgusting, being an atheist myself. I think I have been successful in being civil in debates concerning religion, but just CAN'T stand it when atheists are classified as 'moraless'. Even my close friends think that. Usually, it's the other side who fires the first blow, but I must say after the first insults on the more integrity-related issues, like suggesting that I have no morals, keeping myself in line requires a great deal of control.

Returning to the issue here, just because you have been wronged in the past does not make it right to have prejudices yourself. I've been called 'moraless' many times (it wasn't directed at me, but at atheists in general, but alas, as my posts in the generalization thread points out, atheists would include me). Most of them knew I was an atheist, but would not choose their words carefully (Being INTJ, I would not mind if opinions are stated, as long as they are logical and as fair as possible. Some of them caught me in a bad mood, and I immediately engaged them in a debate; and won). I simply abhor prejudice; and I chose to ignore the comments made by my theist friends (and themselves, for a while anyway). After being bombarded with why atheists aren't moral, I jokingly suggested to my mormon classmate that I memorize the bible with her because I frankly had nothing else to say to her (I fear what I might say lest my fuse burns out). Yes. I was trying to hide my disdain. Nowadays, I haven't been so receptive of those comments. One word of it and it's either debate time or I'm out the door.

No one group is more 'at fault' than the other in these conflicts, though I must say, prejudice and discrimination is ugly. I understand that there exist differences, but we all need to open our minds to be more accepting toward others; however hard it might be, so I would like to see that everyone, please, don't judge the homosexuals based on beliefs that are not logical (not directing at any group here. My atheist/buddhist mother is very intolerant against gays, for reasons I cannot logically comprehend. "I just don't like it," she says).

[pavman]

I'll take it a step further. The religion of some should not be an excuse for the oppression of many. And more importantly, the religion of many should not be an excuse for the oppression of few.

I think it's an important distinction, because it's relatively easy for us to dismiss the efforts of a religious minority to oppress a large social group (e.g. the notion, however unfounded, that Muslims in America would try to curb the rights of women is enough to set most people into a panic). It's much harder for us to apply this satisfactorally when the religion in question belongs to a majority (Christianity) and the oppressed group is a minority (homosexuals).

Democracy does not give two men in a lifeboat the right to vote to throw the third man overboard. Constitutions, charters, protections are all in place specifically to protect the few from the tyranny of the many.

Again, I point out there are no Democracies, only Republics. I think this is a fallacious problem with most populations...they believe its a Democracy, but most of the time its a Republic. Only when its something inconsequential does it then become a Democracy...

E.g. During the primaries, we all got to vote on whether or not to allow the city to sell bonds to expand the local High School...woofrigginwho. At the same time, the Governor of my state decided that he would be the lawgiver and force private property owners to do the will of the state with narry a say from the populace or the vested parties. All that was needed was a mere 5000 signatures, which represents about .039% of the population. Democracy my ass.

The real crux here is doing something for society's welfare vs doing something in the name of personal Rights. There has to be a line that helps us understand when something is done for the long-term good of the People, and when something is short-sighted. I suppose that's what common sense is for.

I do think saying that religious groups, particularly Christianity, are not persecuted by the state is naive at best. If you look at how public opinion treats Christianity vs other religions, you will find staggering amounts of oppression and censure. The truth is, in the US, Christianity is being persecuted at all levels of government, and the Freedom of Religion, as guaranteed by the Constitution, is under attack in almost all forms of public life, simply because people are petty and bigotted :)

This is why you will see less Christian children in public schools and more in home schools/private Christian schools in the future. Because its obvious the Board of Education (in a broad sense) is against Christianity's principles and is attempting to sabotage/seize control over the moral upbringing of these children. Regardless of whether you think Christianity is against science or not.

This is why school shouldn't act as the parent for the children. It should be as it once was, free of bias and agendas. Unfortunately, we're at the extreme edge of what it shouldn't be, so I'm thinking the pendulum will start to swing back soon.

So, to bring this full circle...teaching Homosexuality as an option to a Christian, Muslim, or Jewish child is purely a device to push acceptance into society. If you are Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, most likely your religion has taught you that this practiced lifestyle, along with other similarly hedonistic lifestyles, are against the moral foundation of your religion and should be rejected.

I mean, its not like a huge % of the population is gay anyway...its around 3 - 5%. There was a lot of statistical finagling with some research in the 90s that showed homosexuality somewhere around 10% of the population, but that has been debunked. And no, I'm not going to run out and cite the sources.

[Antares]

Again, I point out there are no Democracies, only Republics. I think this is a fallacious problem with most populations...they believe its a Democracy, but most of the time its a Republic. Only when its something inconsequential does it then become a Democracy...

E.g. During the primaries, we all got to vote on whether or not to allow the city to sell bonds to expand the local High School...woofrigginwho. At the same time, the Governor of my state decided that he would be the lawgiver and force private property owners to do the will of the state with narry a say from the populace or the vested parties. All that was needed was a mere 5000 signatures, which represents about .039% of the population. Democracy my ass.

Pure democracy is but a dream; if everyone involved is prompted to vote on all issues, things would take a long time indeed. I do agree though. It's funny how they call it democracy. As much as I think that democracy is the best that there is, it's still the 'appealing to majority' fallacy. Needless to say, it does keep tyrants in check more so than other political ideologies. I guess I have nothing to complain about.

[Lucid]

As a practising Christian, I must say I haven't found that level of tolerance to exist in the secular world toward our beliefs (especially, I might add, on internet forums, where my views and beliefs have often been lambasted in the most personal and derogatory fashion). I'd like to think that people could be tolerant of the difference, and not label us stupid, deluded, and self-righteous, but I haven't found that to be the case at all, amongst the people I interact with.

I'm sorry you haven't good experiences regarding your religion and how people treat you because of it. And I can't speak as to what laws are passed or that people are trying to get passed where you are, but I can say that where I live, there are currently no laws or proposed laws banning religious people from anything at all.

I'm not saying that Christians (or other religions... I always want to refer back to Muslims living in the US when Christians start talking about how they're persecuted) are universally loved or don't sometimes have a hard time of it. And I'm not saying that they should have to like homosexuality. But it stands right now that gay people don't have the same rights in our society that straight people do and I think this is largely due to religion.

Laws should not be passed on the basis of religion.

[pavman]

I'm sorry you haven't good experiences regarding your religion and how people treat you because of it. And I can't speak as to what laws are passed or that people are trying to get passed where you are, but I can say that where I live, there are currently no laws or proposed laws banning religious people from anything at all.

I'm not saying that Christians (or other religions... I always want to refer back to Muslims living in the US when Christians start talking about how they're persecuted) are universally loved or don't sometimes have a hard time of it. And I'm not saying that they should have to like homosexuality. But it stands right now that gay people don't have the same rights in our society that straight people do and I think this is largely due to religion.

Laws should not be passed on the basis of religion.

I agree. However, all of English Common Law is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.

As was pointed out earlier, marriage was primarily a religious institution (yes yes, we can all cite history, but don't jump the gun here). Before the government realized there were legal and financial implications, marriage was not a state-run thing. It was primarily a religious thing. I'm not talking 2000 years of history, I'm talking about 5000 - 7000. If you look holistically at the past, civil institutions were in some ways formed from religious institutions and slowly superseded the religious institutions that were setup to coordinate and control certain aspects of life. Eventually the state took over from these institutions and dictated policy for various reasons.

These days, most companies have pro-homosexual policies regarding benefits and rights. Property is easily transferred between individuals with the right documents, and therefore there seems to be no need to recognize same-sex unions as marriage.

:) ... a government that promotes lifestyles and choices that are counter-sovereignty, IMHO, deserves what it gets in the long run. The government's first and foremost responsibility is continuity of itself in the future. By promoting oppositional lifestyles and choices, the government is, in fact, saying their sovereignty doesn't really matter, and that the government is really just a puppet for the minorities who happen to be suffering during a certain period of time.

Besides, once you open the door, then there will be other groups...particularly polygamists and pedophiles who will be pushing to open the door wider. There's already been discussions about this in the public forum, especially homosexual marriage leading to the approval by the state of polygamy. And as pointed out in other threads, some civilizations approve of pedophilia, such as Spain.

Eventually, to an extreme, we can see it going to other areas that were not foreseen by most in society: marriage rights for un-natural unions, such as beastiality. I mean, if you and your "partner" can have the right to marry, then why shouldn't joe bob briggs have the right to marry his dog and leave all of his possessions to it, give it state-run healthcare, etc?

Open the door, and its really really hard to shut the door once its been opened. In fact, there's no real defense against polygamy once homosexual marriage is allowed.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. -George Orwell

And lastly, homosexuality and civil rights have nothing really in common, other than oppression of one group by another group. Blacks and women have no choice in who they are and how others treat them; homosexuals, on the other hand, can work against their nature, as can a rapist or a murderer, or the weird guy in the park who exposes himself to passers by.

Lifestyle choices are not guaranteed rights. Hypocrisy lends itself well to modern American life...on the one hand, we have the right to choose to abort a child (which is counter-the idea that all men are created equal and have a right to life), but on the other we don't have a right to buy heroine and get high (which is counter-the right to liberty).

[Antares]

Maybe marriage started as a religious institution in some parts of the world (namely, the Judeo-Christian World and perhaps others as well), but in the area I'm familiar with, in ancient times marriages had more to do with finance and politics than anything else. Parents would obsess over marrying their daughters into wealthy families or royalty to gain money or influence. Religious as ancient Chinese might be, their mentality of marriage had little to do with religion, or love for that matter.

Besides, once you open the door, then there will be other groups...particularly polygamists and pedophiles who will be pushing to open the door wider. There's already been discussions about this in the public forum, especially homosexual marriage leading to the approval by the state of polygamy. Eventually, to an extreme, we can see it going to other areas that were not foreseen by most in society: marriage rights for un-natural unions, such as beastiality. I mean, if you and your "partner" can have the right to marry, then why shouldn't joe bob briggs have the right to marry his dog and leave all of his possessions to it?

Open the door, and its really really hard to shut the door once its been opened. In fact, there's no real defense against polygamy once homosexual marriage is allowed.

Slippery slope fallacy. Polygamy is already happening. In fact, (I've mentioned this somewhere else before) I've met a Singaporean geneticist with three wives and five children. Pedophiles ARE violating others' rights, namely the children's, however gays are not. At least in my book, pedophiles will never be morally correct should they decide to rape children. Also, regarding beastiality, beasts can't give 'consent', can they? Are they supposed to nod and lick their masters when the rings are presented? I thought legal unions consist of two willing and consenting parties. Just like it's illegal for me to force the best looking boy in my grade to marry me, it's also illegal to force my poor little Victor to marry me (my cocker spaniel. We all know that he only wants me to spoil him).

I love that quote of Orwell's. It really exposes the underlying hypocrisy of Stalinism missed by so many at the time. But why quote that?

[Colette]

I'm sorry you haven't good experiences regarding your religion and how people treat you because of it. And I can't speak as to what laws are passed or that people are trying to get passed where you are, but I can say that where I live, there are currently no laws or proposed laws banning religious people from anything at all

Yeah, but the sort of prejudice I am talking about is extra-legal (that is, does not stem from legislative prohibitions or restrictions of any sort).

But it stands right now that gay people don't have the same rights in our society that straight people do and I think this is largely due to religion. Laws should not be passed on the basis of religion.

I'd agree with that statement too. Your legal system is the same as mine, in that it's based on a Judaeo-Christian set of moral and ethical norms. In my country however the secularization of the legal system has resulted in us having removed any criminalization of sodomy on the statute books many years ago, and the only legal restriction that now exists is that marriage laws are written and interpreted in a way which does not permit 'gay marriage'. Gay couples can however enter into civil union here, and this gives them the same (or a similar) set of legal and property rights, as straight couples who marry under conventional laws.

[pavman]

:)

Well, lets say that we are under a state system where:
1. the state subsidizes children for families
2. polygamy is legal.

This then allows for inequality. For the family with 4 wives and 10 children becomes more of a burden on the state, which undermines the family with 2 wives and 3 children.

Society is based on the premise that we all pay in to derive protection and civility from the system we buy into. When you introduce inequalities, the system then becomes controlled by those who can produce the most offspring for society, rather than truly allowing for equality. Polygamy should be directly opposed by those who favor state-sponsored healthcare, as it increases the amount of personal burden on the state, while introducing inequalities in benefits for those who have the misfortune of not being polygamistic.

Hence why I stated it. Some are more equal than others, in all societies. It doesn't matter what society it is. In the US, those "in power" are more equal than those who are the run-of-the-mill citizen. For instance, Senators and Presidents can get away with much more than...say... a mayor of a moderately-sized town, at a micro-scale level. At a macro-scale level, the President and Senators are [more so] held accountable for their official decisions.

[Antares]

Yeah, but the sort of prejudice I am talking about is extra-legal (that is, does not stem from legislative prohibitions or restrictions of any sort).

Both sides suffer from prejudice; and they're all extra-legal too. Like George HW Bush's statement that atheists aren't American citizens, or some atheists' view that all theists are fools. I think the only thing we can do right now is to correct those... misconceptions, and afterwards, live and let live.

[Jgib5328]

And lastly, homosexuality and civil rights have nothing really in common, other than oppression of one group by another group. Blacks and women have no choice in who they are and how others treat them; homosexuals, on the other hand, can work against their nature, as can a rapist or a murderer, or the weird guy in the park who exposes himself to passers by.

Lifestyle choices are not guaranteed rights. Hypocrisy lends itself well to modern American life...on the one hand, we have the right to choose to abort a child (which is counter-the idea that all men are created equal), but on the other we don't have a right to buy heroine and get high.

Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle choice (I'm arguing for the homosexuals now). It is something that is within them that they can't change. Gays don't wake up one morning and think, "Hmmm I think I'm done with women now, let's try penis today". Being homosexual is just like being straight, it comes natural to the person. The reason I disagreed with coffee about the civil rights and the gay rights movement is because I believed the blacks suffered a lot worse than the gays of today, that doesn't take away from the fact that gays are being discriminated against. As I've stated several times, the world isn't friendly to gays, most people don't accept them. I know in a previous post I said that at least they can blend in, that is still true, but going against your nature is certainly a less than ideal situation. Plus I was comparing the shared suffering by the blacks and the homosexuals. I do still however believe that is one way that gays have it better than the blacks did. Homosexuality isn't a life style choice it's a form of sexuality just like heterosexuality, it can't be changed.

On to your idea about how Christians are being oppressed. Christians have ruled the entire world for centuries for christ's sake. They still do today. America is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. The big right wing conservative Christians still have some serious pull in this country and probably will in the future, although admittedly it's on a decline (thank god). And when you were talking about how Christians not being able to go to public schools now because their beliefs conflicted with the school's is ridiculous too. I'm sorry that our public school system doesn't want to teach theories (I'm being nice here) that have no scientific backing I.E. creationism. Jesus, excuse the school system for trying to teach things that actually have evidence to back them up. Maybe if we were in a theocracy, it'd be fine to teach these beliefs, but until then, it isn't. Christians need to get with the times.

[Antares]

:)

Well, lets say that we are under a state system where:
1. the state subsidizes children for families
2. polygamy is legal.

This then allows for inequality. For the family with 4 wives and 10 children becomes more of a burden on the state, which undermines the family with 2 wives and 3 children.

Society is based on the premise that we all pay in to derive protection and civility from the system we buy into. When you introduce inequalities, the system then becomes controlled by those who can produce the most offspring for society, rather than truly allowing for equality.

Hence why I stated it. Some are more equal than others, in all societies. It doesn't matter what society it is. In the US, those "in power" are more equal than those who are the run-of-the-mill citizen. For instance, Senators and Presidents can get away with much more than...say... a mayor of a moderately-sized town, at a micro-scale level. At a macro-scale level, the President and Senators are more so held accountable for their official decisions.

Yes, but that's assuming that men and women are willing to enter such unions, which I would peg as very unlikely. If my future husband ever speaks of marrying another at the same time seriously, then I'm sorry, he's out the door. With individualism and feminists (not implying anything bad) everywhere, I doubt there will be much enthusiasm among women for polygamist families. But given the fact that INTJ women stands for approximately 0.5% of the population, I can't say my position stands for all women, or even all INTJ women, but I would remain single than enter such a relationship. Also, it would only be reasonable for polygamy to be legal if the first partner consents... And not many would want complications in their lives. The polygamists can protest that their rights are not excercised like the gays', but their partners have rights too, and if their partners choose not to consent, which is likely, it would not happen anyway. I'd say that everyone affected by a polygamist relationship should have some influence over it, such as the children. Their lives are about to change after all, and they ought to have some say in it. That's my opinion as I have no support from statistics nor anybody else's say aside from mine.

Lifestyle choices are not guaranteed rights. Hypocrisy lends itself well to modern American life...on the one hand, we have the right to choose to abort a child (which is counter-the idea that all men are created equal), but on the other we don't have a right to buy heroine and get high.

I don't know too much about heroine, but is it a danger to others once abused (I'm not using rhetorical question. I really don't know)? Is aborting a zygote, embryo or fetus dangerous to others?

[pavman]

Yeah, I figured someone would be ignorant and bring up Creationism.

The state should not be a psuedo-parent for the child. This is what the public schools system now is. And this is why things are on the decline in American society....because public schools are now pushing agendas, rather than just teaching. As illustrated in a previous post, Lewis wrote about this problem in 1943 in his Abolition of Man. Go check it out. Not to mention more and more parents are letting the school be the parent, rather than parenting, which is confusion based on the fact that public school seeks to do the job of moral formation in place of the parents.

As for black/female vs gay... blacks and women cannot change their color or gender. They're stuck... Homosexuals, however, like their heterosexual counterparts, can choose to refrain from acting on their nature to fornicate. Period.

I know it sounds antiquated, but this is how it is. I'm not saying that we should destroy them or persecute them, I'm just saying they don't have a right to ask for marriage, as marriage as an institution is not primarily of the state. The institution itself defines a clear image of a pro-creative union , regardless of whether that union produces offspring. Unfortunately, trying to redefine the meaning will only lead to further muddying of social understanding, and will undermine the state's future sovereignty.

[Lucid]

I know it sounds antiquated, but this is how it is. I'm not saying that we should destroy them or persecute them, I'm just saying they don't have a right to ask for marriage, as marriage as an institution is not primarily of the state. The institution itself defines a clear image of a pro-creative union , regardless of whether that union produces offspring. Unfortunately, trying to redefine the meaning will only lead to further muddying of social understanding, and will undermine the state's future sovereignty.

Marriage is not a primarily religious activity. Nor is it primarily done by Judeo/Christian religions. Lots of non-religious people get married by judges. Pagans get married by high priests or priestesses. Even Satanists get married.
Nor is it solely for the purposes of procreation. Saying that a marriage is invalid because it will produce no offspring means that we have to bar infertile couples, old people and people who don't plan to have children from getting married as well.

I don't understand how redefining the meaning of marriage... or rather, redefining who is allowed to get married, will undermine the state's sovereignty. Maybe you can explain a little?

[Colette]

As for black/female vs gay... blacks and women cannot change their color or gender. They're stuck... Homosexuals, however, like their heterosexual counterparts, can choose to refrain from acting on their nature to fornicate. Period.
.

Are you admitting (bolded words) that you do think homosexuality is nature, rather than nurture? If that's the case, is it right or reasonable to deny gays the right to have sex with each other, just because the Bible (written some 2000 years ago) says "no" to it?

Apply the same principle to heterosexuality. Imagine that there is suddenly a prohibition on the practising of heterosexual behavior/sex. Would it then be equally fair and reasonable to expect all heterosexuals to abstain from sex?

[pavman]

I don't know too much about heroine, but is it a danger to others once abused (I'm not using rhetorical question. I really don't know)? Is aborting a zygote, embryo or fetus dangerous to others?

Only to the baby that would have grown from the fetus, embryo and zygote. The thing is, you were once a zygote, embryo, and fetus. You have probably gone through childhood, adolescence, and may very well be a young, middle-aged, or elderly adult. If you have the right to abort what will become a man or woman, then why do you not also have the right to kill that boy or adolescent before adulthood. Are not all men created equal with inalienable rights to life? To me its very much fallacious thinking that one can agree on the one hand that murder is wrong, but on the other think that abortion is ok because it contradicts the nature of our social contract from the most basic source.

IMHO, and in many other opinions, the abortion struggle of today is very similar to the slavery struggle of the 19th century. Groups that should have rights do not, and some of society believes this, erroneously, to be just.

pavman added to this post, 3 minutes and 2 seconds later...

Are you admitting (bolded words) that you do think homosexuality is nature, rather than nurture? If that's the case, is it right or reasonable to deny gays the right to have sex with each other, just because the Bible (written some 2000 years ago) says "no" to it?

Apply the same principle to heterosexuality. Imagine that there is suddenly a prohibition on the practising of heterosexual behavior/sex. Would it then be equally fair and reasonable to expect all heterosexuals to abstain from sex?

Prohibiting one thing is different than socially acknowledging something else's validity.

[Kotetsu]

Since I think consciousness [and the ability to learn] is the defining factor of life, I don't see a problem with preventing a fetus develop if it has no consciousness. However, I see society's problems perpetuated and exacerbated with the abuse of abortion. It removes our social responsibility.

[Antares]

I'm not going to quote the whole thing, for it makes my post longer than need be.

Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation

Killing of another human being. Arguments from potential is a fallacious, since I have the potential to become a world-renowned scientist, you might as well treat me like one. It might interest you that most pregancies were spontaneously aborted before the pregnancy was even known. Did someone die every time?

How is a zygote any different from the thousands of microbes you kill in shower everyday? From here on, we must distinguish when an unborn becomes a 'baby' and when it becomes 'human'. Certainly having cells don't count as human; it's ok to kill chimps, and they share most of our genes. Surely having a brain doesn't count as human either, because many animals have brain, nor does movement.

Also, think of it this way: The unborn Homo Sapien in developing is a parasite. If grown humans cannot forcibly use another's body for survival, then what gives a zygote, embryo or fetus the right to?

Prohibiting one thing is different than socially acknowledging something else's validity.

What gives you the right to prohibit anything? They're not harming anyone.

[pavman]

Marriage is not a primarily religious activity. Nor is it primarily done by Judeo/Christian religions. Lots of non-religious people get married by judges. Pagans get married by high priests or priestesses. Even Satanists get married.

First, Marriage is only an institution acknowledged by the state *now* because it was first used in a religious context, not necessarily Judeo-Christian in nature. Second, Satanism is a "religion." Pagans are a "religion." I don't see your point there.

Nor is it solely for the purposes of procreation. Saying that a marriage is invalid because it will produce no offspring means that we have to bar infertile couples, old people and people who don't plan to have children from getting married as well.

I don't understand how redefining the meaning of marriage... or rather, redefining who is allowed to get married, will undermine the state's sovereignty. Maybe you can explain a little?

There is a societal norm of what marriage implies. This societal norm should not be changed because then it takes away from what marriage currently implies.

I never said anything about saying a marriage is invalid. I'll try to clarify again:
Society should not officially acknowledge something that is counter-productive to its purpose, that is...the continuity of sovereignty.

Homosexual marriage (and any marriage that doesn't generally allow for the ability to secure sovereignty through procreation) should not be acknowledged because once it becomes law, it gains the state's approval. This then undermines the state's ability to be just and to seek the best ends for society since it undermines its own image of continuity vis-a-vis approval. This ultimately undermines its sovereignty.

For instance, if the state made crack legal, there'd be a lot more crackheads which would undermine society in the sense that crackheads only care about getting more crack, and have no vested interest in the sovereignty and continuity of the state. There is an inferred social contract that says the reason drugs are illegal is because it produces other problems inherently opposed to society. A just society will keep crack illegal because it does not give the impression that the state approves of a lifestyle that counters its primary purpose, that of sovereignty and continuity. Once legalized, the state will lose credibility to be a just state because it is working against itself by legalizing it.

pavman added to this post, 3 minutes and 41 seconds later...

What gives you the right to prohibit anything? They're not harming anyone.

I never asked for this right to prohibit. Re-read what I posted. Prohibiting something is different, ie not the same as, acknowledging something's validity.

Inherent in law is both the acknowledgement and prohibition of certain behavioral norms within society; however, the fact that something is not prohibited does not mean it is acknowledged as valid.

[Antares]

There is a societal norm of what marriage implies. This societal norm should not be changed because then it takes away from what marriage currently implies.

I never said anything about saying a marriage is invalid. I'll try to clarify again:
Society should not officially acknowledge something that is counter-productive to its purpose, that is...the continuity of sovereignty.

Homosexual marriage (and any marriage that doesn't generally allow for the ability to secure sovereignty through procreation) should not be acknowledged because once it becomes law, it gains the state's approval. This then undermines the state's ability to be just and to seek the best ends for society since it undermines its own image of continuity vis-a-vis approval. This ultimately undermines its sovereignty.

For instance, if the state made crack legal, there'd be a lot more crackheads which would undermine society in the sense that crackheads only care about getting more crack, and have no vested interest in the sovereignty and continuity of the state. There is an inferred social contract that says the reason drugs are illegal is because it produces other problems inherently opposed to society. A just society will keep crack illegal because it does not give the impression that the state approves of a lifestyle that counters its primary purpose, that of sovereignty and continuity. Once legalized, the state will loses credibility to be a just state because it is working against itself by legalizing it.

So social norms are right? I just don't see the point of bothering with something as petty as 'social norms'. No one said anything about making crack legal. Crack is a harmful drug not only to the abuser, but to the people around him/her as well. Gay marriages are not. You're making an incompatible comparison here.

Securing sovereignty? Did I hear right? It's about what the state wants now? So straight, childless couples shouldn't marry either? Procreation should be compulsory? Marriages are for securing sovereignty of the state, not for individual happiness?

[Jgib5328]

So social norms are right? I just don't see the point of bothering with something as petty as 'social norms'. No one said anything about making crack legal. Crack is a harmful drug not only to the abuser, but to the people around him/her as well. Gay marriages are not. You're making an incompatible comparison here.

Securing sovereignty? Did I hear right? It's about what the state wants now? So straight, childless couples shouldn't marry either? Procreation should be compulsory? Marriages are for securing sovereignty of the state, not for individual happiness?

Yeah I agree. Marriage may have started out as something religious, but it has evolved just like our civilization. We live in a progressive society, things change all of the time. Objectively there shouldn't be anything wrong with gays getting married, it's only a subjective thing. I subjectively believe that they shouldn't be able to get married, but what conflicts me, is that objectively I can't think of any good reason for why they shouldn't be able to be married.

[pavman]

So social norms are right? I just don't see the point of bothering with something as petty as 'social norms'. No one said anything about making crack legal. Crack is a harmful drug not only to the abuser, but to the people around him/her as well. Gay marriages are not. You're making an incompatible comparison here.

Am I? I don't think so. See, your world view is defined on what you think to be just and right. But from a crack user's perspective, they should have the right to use crack and it is unjust to prohibit the use of it. There's nothing wrong with it inherently...and if we all have the right to do with our bodies what we please, then crack should be legal for those that wish to use it.

Its like guns...nothing wrong with a gun, just how its used. Essentially you live based on fear, which, IMHO, is a big problem with society in general.

Securing sovereignty? Did I hear right? It's about what the state wants now? So straight, childless couples shouldn't marry either? Procreation should be compulsory? Marriages are for securing sovereignty of the state, not for individual happiness?

No, don't go to extremes. Besides, I'm typing...if you are hearing things, you might want to go see a psychiatrist.

Straight couples tend to marry before they have kids, for the most part. Having children is one of the inherent meanings of marriage, whether the couple can or cannot is not something that is really quantitative. This is why attempting to re-define it will ultimately undermine credibility of the state and its purpose of continuity of sovereignty.

Do you not understand that every child born in this country (the US) is really a number that is a future good for the economy? Have you never thought that the whole reason behind social security is to point to the investors and say, "see...here's our future GDP...invest now and you will be rewarded in the future." Every child born is entered into the social contract to the future benefit of the state. This is why the system plays the way it does.

Our children determine our future economic output, our future GDP, and our future prosperity. The less we create, the less valuable our society becomes. As is evident in our current state, there's at least 45M people who are not working in the system now due to abortion, there's about 70M people who will be retiring in the next 10 years, and there's a market acknowledgment that this is all going to be a problem. Immigration and birth are the two primary fuels of the economic engine. Unfortunately, births are down, so it lowers our future potential, and affects our current Social Security crisis because we aren't replacing who we are losing. So, the only option at this point is to allow in more immigrants who don't necessarily share the singular vision of the American Way.

This is very much a macro-view. In a macro-view, individual's rights are not as important as a government's need. Unfortunately, most corporations and governments are very short-sighted these days and don't have the organization and singular vision of ages past to really desire long-term good for their people. They think in limited ways that only address issues that are pertinent to the day. This, my friends, is the one main failure of Democracy. Its short-sighted and has no long-term vision. :)

I'm done. I've expressed about all I can with regard to my secular view of this issue. I don't want to thread this out into more topics, so PM me if you have more questions and want more clarification on my viewpoints.

[Lucid]

First, Marriage is only an institution acknowledged by the state *now* because it was first used in a religious context, not necessarily Judeo-Christian in nature. Second, Satanism is a "religion." Pagans are a "religion." I don't see your point there.

Sorry, my point was that they are religions that do not have a doctrine against homosexuality. And I mentioned that non-religious people get married as well. I was trying to illustrate that it's not just judeo/christians who practice marriage.

And I think it could be argued that marriage and religion have not always been linked historically, or that it varies by culture, but I think it's sufficient to say that because marriage is an institution acknowledged and often performed by the state *now* we should limit our conversation to the current version of marriage, which is state sanctioned and, as I mentioned, performed in many cases by government officials.

There is a societal norm of what marriage implies. This societal norm should not be changed because then it takes away from what marriage currently implies.

I think that your ideas about what marriage implies differ a great deal from mine, and also from the ideas about what marriage implies of several of the other posters on this thread. Therefore, I think we can conclude that what marriage implies is, to an extent, subjective and dependent on the personal beliefs and experiences of the person being asked. I think the idea of what constitutes a marriage is changing. Many human concepts and institutions change.


Homosexual marriage (and any marriage that doesn't generally allow for the ability to secure sovereignty through procreation) should not be acknowledged because once it becomes law, it gains the state's approval. This then undermines the state's ability to be just and to seek the best ends for society since it undermines its own image of continuity vis-a-vis approval. This ultimately undermines its sovereignty.

With respect, and I don't mean to offend you, but this sounds like circular reasoning. And I'm not sure why you think sovereignty depends on procreation. Also, I'm not sure that your argument can be true for homosexual marriages but not marriages between the infertile, the elderly, or those people who chose not to reproduce.

For instance, if the state made crack legal, there'd be a lot more crackheads which would undermine society in the sense that crackheads only care about getting more crack, and have no vested interest in the sovereignty and continuity of the state. There is an inferred social contract that says the reason drugs are illegal is because it produces other problems inherently opposed to society. A just society will keep crack illegal because it does not give the impression that the state approves of a lifestyle that counters its primary purpose, that of sovereignty and continuity. Once legalized, the state will loses credibility to be a just state because it is working against itself by legalizing it.

What is it about a homosexual lifestyle that produces other problems inherently opposed to society the way crack does? When you mention crack, I'm assuming the other problems you're speaking about are the things people do to obtain crack, such as theft and prostitution. How can you compare this to homosexuality?

I never asked for this right to prohibit. Re-read what I posted. Prohibiting something is different, ie not the same as, acknowledging something's validity.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your argument then? I thought you arguing for reasons why homosexual marriage should not be legal and why homosexuality was bad for society. Please correct me if I've misunderstood you.

Inherent in law is both the acknowledgement and prohibition of certain behavioral norms within society; however, the fact that something is not prohibited does not mean it is acknowledged as valid, and vice-versa.

I think there's more to law than just enforcing societal norms. Maybe this is what you mean, but for instance, it's legal to tattoo your face or pierce your nose. However, it's not generally socially accepted. If certain members of our society don't like homosexuality, that's their right and I'm not trying to take it away from them, but I don't think that gay marriage should be illegal. I'm not trying to say that churches with religious beliefs which prohibit homosexuality should be forced to perform homosexual marriages, but I see no logical reason why religious institutions who wish to shouldn't be able to do it, and I see no logical reason why the state, a non-religious institution, shouldn't be able to do it.

[SShack]

So what do we make of the desire by some gays and lesbians to have/rear children?

Until a couple of years ago I had no interest in kids, but around 2000, I was really, really surprised when my biological clock inexplicably turned itself on and I started actually thinking about it. Here in California, pretty much any adult who meets the physical/financial requirements can become a foster parent. I actually started the process to become one, but ultimately decided that my heavy workload would make me a lousy dad as long as I was a single parent and I abandoned the process.

Is there a value to society in same-sex parenting? I think I'm more inclined to adopt an unwanted child as opposed to going through some elaborate surrogate mommy process. Is it good for society for me to taken on the care of an abandoned child as opposed to leaving it in the care of the state?

[Jgib5328]

I'm done. I've expressed about all I can with regard to my secular view of this issue. I don't want to thread this out into more topics, so PM me if you have more questions and want more clarification on my viewpoints.

Crack users are irrational, it doesn't matter whether someone thinks something is right or not, if it affects the lives of other people negatively, and in that case the action becomes wrong.

Lol, your argument about how it is hurting the economy is ridiculous. Jobs are finite in this country, it's already becoming increasingly difficult for people to find jobs as it is. Too many people with law degrees, phds, and other advanced degrees. Those 45 million extra people would've hurt the economy, because it would increase unemployment, which decreases GDP, by Okun's law. Therefore we'd have high unemployment and an unnecessary amount of people. Also, there are so many people wanting to get into this country, that if we felt that we were losing out on the labor force, then we could just let a few more in, that's exactly what the US did during the industrial revolution. Social security is a flawed system and it isn't investing for the children, it is taking money from the young and giving it to the old. It's going to run out when all of the baby boomers retire, because they are too large of a population. And I think you misunderstand social security, you don't invest in the future, it's giving money to the old, it's not investing in anything really. You pay some money now, that's never coming back to you and then the generation behind you gives you some money when you are old and useless.

Lol, gays aren't hurting the economy and neither is abortion. If you want, I can probably make some arguments as to why they are helping the economy.

[Antares]

Pavman: Let me get this straight, the legal union of two people for the society is for procreation? Not love? Not devotion and the willingness to be with each other? I marry and have kids because the society requires me to? Whoa. Did my freedom just disappear? No. I live how I want, and gays live how they want, not how the society requires them; the society has got NO say in how someone should live their life unless they're harming an individual's right outside of the union.

Why can't it be compared to crack? Because believe it or not, taking crack leads to irrationality and crime rates increased because of crack use; not homosexuality. Crack may not be inherently bad, but IS it causing damage? Is homosexuality?

[Colette]

So what do we make of the desire by some gays and lesbians to have/rear children?

This is where most of society is still conservative and "anti" (at least according to a study in a recent TIME article I read). Most people now are prepared to accept the idea of gay marriage, but a much lower proportion endorse same-sex parenting (especially, apparently, where the couple is gay male, rather than lesbian). I'm not saying I agree - just that these are the latest figures (I think around 30% approval of those polled, for same-sex parents).

Until a couple of years ago I had no interest in kids, but around 2000, I was really, really surprised when my biological clock inexplicably turned itself on and I started actually thinking about it. Here in California, pretty much any adult who meets the physical/financial requirements can become a foster parent. I actually started the process to become one, but ultimately decided that my heavy workload would make me a lousy dad as long as I was a single parent and I abandoned the process.


D'you mind me asking if you yourself are gay? Was just curious to know, from your discussion about adopting.

[pavman]

Pavman: Let me get this straight, the legal union of two people for the society is for procreation? Not love? Not devotion and the willingness to be with each other? I marry and have kids because the society requires me to? Whoa. Did my freedom just disappear? No. I live how I want, and gays live how they want, not how the society requires them; the society has got NO say in how someone should live their life unless they're harming an individual's right outside of the union.

Why can't it be compared to crack? Because believe it or not, taking crack leads to irrationality and crime rates increased because of crack use; not homosexuality. Crack may not be inherently bad, but IS it causing damage? Is homosexuality?

Pot smoking leads to irrationality, can lead to crime, and can lead to schizophrenia, but there are a number of forces inside society attempting to make it legal. Hell, its already legal in some states for medicinal purposes, even if there is no evidence to back that up.

The only viable reason that the state has to necessitate marriage is procreation and the continuation of a way of life. Find a reason, from a state's perspective, other than this. Realize, from a state's perspective, non-married unions are eventually acknowledged as such from a legal standpoint for rights to certain legal matters, such as inheritance and taxes. Somewhat along the lines of squatter's rights (in fact, these may be inherently linked at some point in our legal history, but I'm just making an assumption based on how closely the two are related and have no first-hand knowledge of the legality of squatter's rights).

Also, why is it the government gives child credits? Because the children are people and they deserve money? No. Its ultimately an incentive to grow the population. If population declines too much, then there will be no future for the state in its present form.

To clarify: When I say state, this includes a Federal government as well as local governments.

JGIB: I'm addressing your statements in a PM.

[Jgib5328]

Pot smoking leads to irrationality, can lead to crime, and can lead to schizophrenia, but there are a number of forces inside society attempting to make it legal. Hell, its already legal in some states for medicinal purposes, even if there is no evidence to back that up.

The only viable reason that the state has to necessitate marriage is procreation and the continuation of a way of life. Find a reason, from a state's perspective, other than this. Realize, from a state's perspective, non-married unions are eventually acknowledged as such from a legal standpoint for rights to certain legal matters, such as inheritance and taxes. Somewhat along the lines of squatter's rights (in fact, these may be inherently linked at some point in our legal history, but I'm just making an assumption based on how closely the two are related and have no first-hand knowledge of the legality of squatter's rights).

Also, why is it the government gives child credits? Because the children are people and they deserve money? No. Its ultimately an incentive to grow the population. If population declines too much, then there will be no future for the state in its present form.

To clarify: When I say state, this includes a Federal government as well as local governments.

JGIB: I'm addressing your statements in a PM.

On your pot smoking argument, just because a whole bunch of people think something is right, still doesn't mean that it is. Objectively if pot smoking doesn't hurt other people, then it is ok, but if that isn't the case then it isn't ok.

I'll read your pm and respond later, I have an office hour to attend.

[SShack]

D'you mind me asking if you yourself are gay? Was just curious to know, from your discussion about adopting.

Yes I'm gay. Sorry if I wasn't clear there.

[Antares]

So... Straight couples with absolutely no intentions of ever procreating should not enter marriages, from the state's perspective. And according to the same logic, neither could homosexuals. Again, I don't care what the state wants. That is talking as though the state has a right to dictate why and who should marry and who should not. We're arguing individual rights here, and the state might have found it necessary to endorse legal unions for the purposes you mentioned above, it certainly cannot make it apparent to the public of that reason. The individuals expect from a legal union that they are legally recognized as a couple and stay together for love and family. They marry for their own purposes, not the state's purposes.

Whether some government endorses the usage of pot is none of my concern. My concern is that gay marriages shouldn't be compared to crack OR pot. Of course people would be pushing to legalise it, as you have stated yourself, but they'd be pushing whether or not gay marriages become legal.

[deepFlow]

Boy, INTJs sure can be boringly stubborn about the lengths they'll go to justify plainly indefensible prejudices. It would seem to be easier to simply admit that one has a personal revulsion for gaiety.

Pavman, your posts are pretty incomprehensible in general. You're speaking religious mumbo-jumbo gobbledegook, as far as I'm concerned, and I can't make heads nor tails of it.

So I'm not really going to try.

In my case, I'm more than "okay with homosexuality". I'm happy, proud, celebratory, and joyed-over by it.

No Magic Sky Beard holds me in a basilisk's gaze. I am essentially atheagnostical, and thus free from a collossal mass of nonsensical skinshavings. Therefore I choose to utilize my logical brain, my aesthetic estimation apparatus, and my chewy moral center to decide upon any given so-called "issue".

Homosexuality - It's sexual attraction for a member-of-the-same-sex. It's not even comparable to paedophelia or bestiality or anything else of the like, so quit being so ridiculous as to put them in the same bin for the sake of your depraved pigheadedness. (No offense meant to porcine-friend craniums everywhere.) We are discussing consensual homo sapiens adults, both free to enter into free-relations with each other. No one's business but their own. Honestly, what's it to ya?

Gay marriage - legalize it. No "civil unions". It's all marriage, it's a legal compact, religions whose precepts aren't even mostly-selectively observed by their most fervent declaimers have no place at the public lawmaking table, and no bearing on the practical practice of marriage in daily American life. Anything less than full marriage rights for consenting homo sapiens adults is overcoy wordgames and dragging feets on evolutionary progress at best, and sadistic oppression at worst. Get your grubby mitts out of my loves lifes plzthx.

Polygamy? - Why should I give a fuck, honestly? So it's N consenting homo sapiens adults, where N > 2? What's it to me? Sure, maybe it makes the tax forms a little more complex, but I'm sure we have smart people to figure all that shit out.

But that's taking me pretty far afield.

I really can't believe how unadvanced (no offense) some of you are. If you're having this much angst and handwringing over the mere existence of gaiety, I shiver to think how your minds might be blownapart by the true extent of human sexual variety.

For the record, your Honour, I am gay. And I am straight. And yeah, I'm one of those fornicator things, too.

Put me on the board! I want the cadillac!

[Haphazard]

Gay people should be able to get married, even if the church doesn't approve of it, but you can't really force the church to approve of it -- I mean, Jews can't eat pork but they still sell it everywhere. Some places even sell "Hannukah Hams"....

Okay, I'm getting off topic here.

The point is that two legal adults love each other and want to start a family. Fine. Who cares if they're the same sex? If it's the stereotype of ying-yang personalities, well look at the INTJ females here who aren't going to get enough love for not being emotional enough. If it's because they can't make babies, think about it, does the world really need any more babies with overpopulation? If it's the predicament of income for lesbian couples, shouldn't society adjust to give women the same pay so they can support their families? That's business's problems, not the couple's.

'Morally wrong'? there are so many things that happen every day in this country that would be considered 'morally wrong' according to the Bible, and they happen completely legally, and news flash, not everyone follows the Bible.

Or maybe it's just because some people don't like to watch homosexuals kissing. Well, I don't like to watch anybody kissing, but that hasn't started me banning all marriages. Because then people would look at me like I'm crazy, but really it's the same thing.

I have a feeling that if gays begin showing off that as being married all the wholesome family values and whatever they'll start being more accepted as being able to do that by the mainstream, but the government's not giving them a chance. And that's just not right.

For the record, I'm asexual. I reproduce by budding.

[gillyweet]

this website has a pretty good argument on what the bible says and does not say.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

i personally believe that each individual has a right to choose as long as it his or her behavior is not offensive to the general public. actions like having sex in public IS offensive whether it is homosexual or not. the state should recognise the personal choices of its people. regardless of religion - because not everyone in the entire country is religious or belongs to one religious faith.

[Colette]

Pavman, your posts are pretty incomprehensible in general. You're speaking religious mumbo-jumbo gobbledegook, as far as I'm concerned, and I can't make heads nor tails of it

Ummm yeah...but he's nice and quite well-intentioned, so I try to cut him some slack. Peoples' brains can easily be overpowered with dogma, and the rational part of the brain lobotomized, but there is always hope :)

Homosexuality - It's sexual attraction for a member-of-the-same-sex.

Ah...thanks for the clarification :p

Polygamy? - Why should I give a fuck, honestly? So it's N consenting homo sapiens adults, where N > 2? What's it to me? Sure, maybe it makes the tax forms a little more complex, but I'm sure we have smart people to figure all that shit out.

Yeah. Although I find the practice of it a bit repugnant I have to say, I'm sort of forced to acknowledge that it seems to be a "private moral area" into which the legislature should not really presume to make incursions, or impose restrictions. I can't see what real harm it does to anyone, apart from the participants, perhaps.

For the record, your Honour, I am gay. And I am straight. And yeah, I'm one of those fornicator things, too

All three things at the same time? Wow; you must be a busy guy - where do you find time to post? :)

[yondyr]

If the govt would quit the discriminatory practice of giving special treatment to marriages then all this would be moot. If such contracts must be recognised then I think menage a trois, quatre etc should also get the tax breaks and recognition. Why stop at couples?

[meaniehaha]

IMHO, homosexuality is rather ho hum, and about as natural as heterosexuality.

As far as I'm concerned it's not immoral either. What is immoral is someone sticking their nose in someone else's bedroom, and trying to tell two consenting adults what they can and can't do or shouldn't do in the privacy of their own home.

I'm straight, and I'm opinionated.

[blueeyedsusan]

I work in a state run facility. Lots of gay people there. Lot's of gay men, not so many women. I have noticed one thing about gay males, there are two types, one who adore women as friends, the other are competitive with women, as in power struggle. Since I work with so many gay men I have theorized there must have been too many hormones in the milk they drank and their mothers drank while pregnant.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I work in a state run facility. Lots of gay people there. Lot's of gay men, not so many women. I have noticed one thing about gay males, there are two types, one who adore women as friends, the other are competitive with women, as in power struggle. Since I work with so many gay men I have theorized there must have been too many hormones in the milk they drank and their mothers drank while pregnant.
O.K. that theory actually made me snort laugh.

I am interested in this observation about competitiveness with women. If this is the case, there must be a significant number of bisexual men.

[blueeyedsusan]

One man I work with comes to mind as being the competitive gay male type. He did date women prior to coming out. He is a control freak with his current (male) partner. He just isn't a nice person. He will especially go out of his way to tell women what to do and attempt to make a woman demeaned and subservient. He IS in a power position so he can do that.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

One man I work with comes to mind as being the competitive gay male type. He did date women prior to coming out. He is a control freak with his current (male) partner. He just isn't a nice person. He will especially go out of his way to tell women what to do and attempt to make a woman demeaned and subservient. He IS in a power position so he can do that.
But why women in particular?

[SShack]

I too have encountered gay men who just don't like women. One of my friends is a lot like that. He rarely has anything nice to say about any women he encounters at all and speaks of them in a demeaning fashion. (Although, strangely, he's a huge Hillary Clinton supporter, given the misogynistic criticisms of her)

I don't think it's a gay thing; I think it's a misogynistic male thing. It manifests differently among gay men because they're not attracted to women, so that predatory element isn't there. But the same dismissive, nasty attitude toward them is. I have no idea why.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I too have encountered gay men who just don't like women. One of my friends is a lot like that. He rarely has anything nice to say about any women he encounters at all and speaks of them in a demeaning fashion. (Although, strangely, he's a huge Hillary Clinton supporter, given the misogynistic criticisms of her)

I don't think it's a gay thing; I think it's a misogynistic male thing. It manifests differently among gay men because they're not attracted to women, so that predatory element isn't there. But the same dismissive, nasty attitude toward them is. I have no idea why.
Perhaps it's the same 'male dominant group mentality' where the individual seeks to indentify more with the dominant group by rejecting and distancing themselves from the 'minority' group.

I actually noticed a guy doing this with me at a store. When I was in there alone he was very aloof and cool. When I went in with my male partner he's 'chatty Cathy'. I told my partner about this change in character and he was really suprised 'cause the guy's always so nice to him. I chalked it up to a gay guy looking for action with men on the down low. But maybe it's simple misogyny.

[blueeyedsusan]

You mentioned Hillary Clinton and the misogyny male thing, call me naive but I just started noticing how deep that goes, more than racism.
I read somewhere that when women are in a position of lesser power in society they become thinner, as in our size zero society. So if Clinton doesn't win, women will be thinner than ever, that way, instead of concentrating on important matters they can obsess more over diets.
I don't know why some gay guys are hateful towards women, in this one guys case that I know I just think he is mean to start with and has a very self serving personality.

[Rick]

As an INTJ, what do I think of homosexuality?

It is wrong. Period.

For anyone who wants to agree or disagree with me, I'll apologize up front. My schedule doesn't allow me to be here daily, so I cannot address responses in a timely manner.

I am conservative and old fashioned, though. Take it or leave it.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Leaves.
Ditto.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 2 minutes and 3 seconds later...

So what do we make of the desire by some gays and lesbians to have/rear children?

Until a couple of years ago I had no interest in kids, but around 2000, I was really, really surprised when my biological clock inexplicably turned itself on and I started actually thinking about it. Here in California, pretty much any adult who meets the physical/financial requirements can become a foster parent. I actually started the process to become one, but ultimately decided that my heavy workload would make me a lousy dad as long as I was a single parent and I abandoned the process.

Is there a value to society in same-sex parenting? I think I'm more inclined to adopt an unwanted child as opposed to going through some elaborate surrogate mommy process. Is it good for society for me to taken on the care of an abandoned child as opposed to leaving it in the care of the state?
Of course!!!!! We need alot more people like you.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 1 minutes and 20 seconds later...

Polygamy?!? For the love of The Christ, one is enough!!!
I say polyandry!!!! For the love of all that is holy..........one is never enough!





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 2 minutes and 15 seconds later...

If the govt would quit the discriminatory practice of giving special treatment to marriages then all this would be moot. If such contracts must be recognised then I think menage a trois, quatre etc should also get the tax breaks and recognition. Why stop at couples?
Tax breaks all around................definately!





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 5 minutes and 9 seconds later...

You mentioned Hillary Clinton and the misogyny male thing, call me naive but I just started noticing how deep that goes, more than racism.
I read somewhere that when women are in a position of lesser power in society they become thinner, as in our size zero society. So if Clinton doesn't win, women will be thinner than ever, that way, instead of concentrating on important matters they can obsess more over diets.
I don't know why some gay guys are hateful towards women, in this one guys case that I know I just think he is mean to start with and has a very self serving personality.
He could have some kind of mother complex.

Women are their own worst enemies. All we have to do is demand what we want.......we will eventually get it. It may be a tough, rocky climb, but with perserverence ......... we will get it. Instead we bow down to the pressure like good girls.

Come on girls! Be a woman.

[blueeyedsusan]

If a person is a good person and can love they should be able to foster or adopt children. You are who you are and no-one is going to "turn" a child gay. Children need loving responsible people in their lives, period.

[EsoteriEccentri]

I like girls. o.o

Homosexuality isn't a choice, it isn't special, it isn't bad, it isn't anything anymore than being straight is.

I dislike it when people are very militant about being lesbian, gay, bisexual, ect, almost as much as I hate it when people are homophobic.
Because in places where homosexuality is legal, most of the things that they do just stir up hate against them. However, if they do it in the right way then I fully support it.

Of course I think it's fine in places where they're still campaigning for gay rights.

[Antares]

As an INTJ, what do I think of homosexuality?

It is wrong. Period.

For anyone who wants to agree or disagree with me, I'll apologize up front. My schedule doesn't allow me to be here daily, so I cannot address responses in a timely manner.

I am conservative and old fashioned, though. Take it or leave it.

As in morally wrong, psychologically wrong or emotionally wrong? Or better yet, religiously wrong? (actually, I don't think there's a section in the Bible that says: "Gay = bad". I may be mistaken)

[ceg6]

As an INTJ what do you think about homosexuality?



It's completely acceptable but it's well beyond that for me. I don't notice it and I have same sex couples as close friends, as neighbors and work colleagues. Just like I don't find it strange if Joe next door marries a girl named Mary. It could be Joe and Bill and it wouldn't matter at all to me.

As far as marriage goes...it's not religious. I can tell you that not a single utterance of god, church or religion was made at my civil wedding. If I am able to have such a thing in a heterosexual union..why would it be different for a homosexual couple? I've never understood this whole gay marriage issue. Why is there one? Since mine is not a religious union and it is recognized why isn't a homosexual union? And why would anyone even care about it? Do you care about every wedding that takes place in the world and how they live and what they do? I sure don't.



As an INTJ, what do I think of homosexuality?

It is wrong. Period.

For anyone who wants to agree or disagree with me, I'll apologize up front. My schedule doesn't allow me to be here daily, so I cannot address responses in a timely manner.

I am conservative and old fashioned, though. Take it or leave it.

That's not conservative or old fashioned. Let's just put the cutsie awww terms away and call it what it is. You have concern for something that has absolutely zero effect on your life. Just like anyone else's marriage. And you are apologizing for it as well. Which means you know it's wrong.

[pallasathena]

Personally, it's not for me, but if others are gay, that's between them and their God. I don't believe in people being born gay. As far as I know, there is no "gay gene" that's been discovered. I have a friend who I suspect is gay, but she hasn't disclosed it. She also is a recovering alcoholic. Personally, I think that being "in the closet" may have contributed to her drinking. She is a sweet person and I hope one day she'll be "out". In order for us to be happy, we have to be who we are and not be ashamed of it. If you're gay, don't be ashamed. Be yourself. Be authentic and you'll be happy.

[spittingvenom]

Homosexuality is a social construction. Sexuality exists as a indefinite gray scale, a continnuum, a spectrum that isn’t inherently neatly divided and labeled for us. Words in a particular culture serve to label specific points on this spectrum such that meaningful exchange of information between individuals is possible, and communication is the process that we as humans use to standardize our interpretation of the world such that it becomes possible to share ideas. As this interpretation is standardized, it is laden with assumptions about how the world behaves and how different phenomena are related. Communication is therefore the dynamic process through which social reality is constructed and sustained such that a group of individuals come to share the same worldview and can coexist. The worldview and assumptions of a culture evolve through time, become encoded in the language, which in turn reinforce the assumptions of that culture. (This is the Foucault 101)

Queerness and Gay Pride are reactions to the marginalization of homosexuality in western culture. As a culture, the general sense is that if someone figures out that they are gay today, then they must have been gay when they were born, and they will be gay for the rest of their life. But there is simply not much empirical data that supports the position that sexual preference is a life-long predisposition that never wavers or changes because there are such strong social norms to identify with being straight, gay or bisexual. It is also unclear how many people would choose to have sex with both genders if there were not cultural norms for sexual preferences for one gender. Think about it this way. When someone realizes they are strongly attracted to Asians as sexual partners, they do not have to deal with the anxiety of wondering whether they will only like Asians for the rest of their life because there is no strong social norm for racial preference. But when someone thinks that they are attracted to someone of the same gender, they are suddenly forced to deal with a life-long decision.

My position: homosexuality is a social fiction.

[Thistle]

Homosexuality is a social construction.

Is sexuality (as a whole) not a social construction?

While Gay Pride may be considered to be a reaction against the marginalisation of homosexuality, given the levels of carnavalesque involved, do they also fulfil a celebrationary role (Durkheim)?

[thod]

actually, I don't think there's a section in the Bible that says: "Gay = bad". I may be mistaken

Old biblical pick up line, for man approaching woman.

"Hi there, I'm from Gomorrah"

[merid]

I am straight but I must say I don't see anything wrong with it. Also if a gay person wants to foster and they have the finances and the desire to be good parents then who is anyone to say no?

A lot of people think I am homophobic as when they ask if I would be comfortable with a gay couple being intimate in public I say no. It is annoying when people don't understand.

[Antares]

A lot of people think I am homophobic as when they ask if I would be comfortable with a gay couple being intimate in public I say no. It is annoying when people don't understand.

Sometimes people overanalyze where they shouldn't. They didn't consider the possibility that you might just dislike seeing anyone intimate in public.

[EsoteriEccentri]

Sometimes people overanalyze where they shouldn't. They didn't consider the possibility that you might just dislike seeing anyone intimate in public.

I don't like seeing people intimate in public either.

Sometimes anti-homophobia can go too far. But then so can anti-racism and anti-sexism.

[thod]

As in morally wrong, psychologically wrong or emotionally wrong? Or better yet, religiously wrong?

How about non of these. A man born sterile can live almost the same life as any other man. Yet I can still see him as a defective unit, I wouldn't want my son born sterile. Now homosexuals will argue that they are not defective just different. The same could be argued by the man that is wheelchair bound. I am too steeped in evolutionary theory to accept that something that renders you sterile is not a defect.

[bebegirl]

I was good friends with some gay guys (trying to understand that whole thing haha) and they told me you are just born that way (a little faulty wiring I guess) and they said "why would anyone WANT to be gay? It is such a small population (harder to meet people even for friends), and why would anyone want to be in a position to be so hated by others?" I feel more bothered by the gay people who cannot "come out" and live their entire life in fear and secrecy. A classmate of mine (elementary school) became a physician, got married, had 3 kids, and finally got up the courage in his 30's to come out...he gave up his entire life for his personal freedom and then died of AIDS shortly thereafter....I don't envy them at all; seems like a tough life no matter what.....I think they should have the same civil rights as anyone.

[sriv]

Gays should be treated as they treat others. That is fair justice. They should be treated as others are treated. I agree with thod. In my opinion, gayness is probably an evolutionary defect. Then again, how do we know that INTJdom is not an evolutionary defect?

[thod]

Then again, how do we know that INTJdom is not an evolutionary defect?

It is. You are produced in small numbers by societies in order to build them machines and organize systems. You do not breed, your function is to serve the colony and increase the reproductive success of others.

[Uberfuhrer]

Meh, I don't really care. What people do is their business.

I'm only jealous that they get more than I do...

[schwartzie]

It is. You are produced in small numbers by societies in order to build them machines and organize systems. You do not breed, your function is to serve the colony and increase the reproductive success of others.

:) When necessary, one can mutate into an ENTJ and create a new breeding colony.

[True Rune]

I imagine my sort is a little more common (Though probably still rare) around here, but I think I'm probably asexual, though I still find women beautiful, I have no desire to have sex or kiss or be with anyone. I don't really know much about this subject, but I don't think it's inborn, more of a psychological issue, and many posts in this thread reinforce that belief. But it is of no consequence in the long run to anyone. I am a Christian, and I do think same sex sex is sin.(Not the attraction) However, I do not force on non Christians my Christian standards as long as they don't attack me for thinking the way I do. Thus, though I will not support or endorse gay marriages, I won't actively protest it either. (Let the world do what it wants.. :/) I will however silence those who act as if the act is ok by biblical standards, which it is not. And even worse are those who try to label people as bigots or hateful creatures for merely defending what they believe, as if that person is just out to get them.. (Though I'm sure there are some fools who do horrible things..)

[DrEast]

I think being a homosexual is value-neutral.

I think practicing homosexuality is a sin.

I think being heterosexual is value-neutral.

I think practicing heterosexuality [outside of marriage] is a sin.

I don't think either sin is particularly "worse" than the other.

There are, you may realize, an awful lot of sinners out there. I can't afford to ostracize them, so I'll leave the judging up to God and stick to the loving. It's the only thing I'm commanded to do with the vast majority of them, anyway.

[acyckowski]

This is getting creepy, DrEast, you beating me to the punch with almost exactly what I was going to say.

I never understood the sexual busybodies, who get themselves all lathered up (figuratively. easy, folks) about what everybody else is doing. Particularly when they get self-righteous about it, regardless of the persuasion. I'm uncomfortable about PDAs in the first place, and since homosexuality perplexes me, there's a double "ick" factor. But, I find serial adultery much more repugnant. But I just don't see either as reprehensible as murder, corruption, child abuse, etc....

I prefer that people just keep their bedroom preferences in the bedroom, and leave me out of it. Like DrEast said, I'll leave it to God to sort out the judgment.

[DrEast]

Remember, folks, the "J" doesn't stand for judgmental!

[EsoteriEccentri]

How about non of these. A man born sterile can live almost the same life as any other man. Yet I can still see him as a defective unit, I wouldn't want my son born sterile. Now homosexuals will argue that they are not defective just different. The same could be argued by the man that is wheelchair bound. I am too steeped in evolutionary theory to accept that something that renders you sterile is not a defect.

What about people that just don't want children?
I'm (lesbian) and I don't want children. So I guess I'm a double defect.
You can be homosexual and still have children. Especially if you're female... so in most cases it actually doesn't render you sterile - it just makes it slightly harder for you to have children.
Rather like the ugly man or the nerd that can't get a girlfriend. Partly defective? It goes too far. Everyone's defective in some way or another by that logic.
I think homosexuality is something that shouldn't be over analyzed. Sure, you're allowed to consider it a defect. I'm not saying you shouldn't. But then again what's wrong with being defective? I'm defective in about ten million ways. I'm not a machine. I don't think you can pin the labels on other humans, tell them there is something wrong with them. They have to decide that for themselves.

[yondyr]

lol good answer, Eccentric, either refute/argue.. or embrace the oppositions position to the point of absurdity. You're so right, we're all defects in one way or another, sheesh, getting old is a painful awareness of the creeping defects!

[acyckowski]

I think homosexuality is something that shouldn't be over analyzed. Sure, you're allowed to consider it a defect. I'm not saying you shouldn't. But then again what's wrong with being defective? I'm defective in about ten million ways. I'm not a machine. I don't think you can pin the labels on other humans, tell them there is something wrong with them. They have to decide that for themselves.

Good points.

In the evolutionary sense, homosexuality is a trait which tends to limit a person from perpetuate their genes, but does not prevent the possiblity as would sterility. A homosexual can still conduct a heterosexual act, or vice versa, just as an introvert can act in an extroverted manner.

Seems to me that calling homosexuality a "defect" or "aberration" intentionally uses words to connote a value judgment, while hiding behind a denotive truth. If you state that "a clear preference to homosexuality falls more than two standard deviations outside of a normal statistical distribution," then you could still denote the same meaning without implying a value judgment. Not sure if the normal curve would be appropriate, per se, but I think y'all know what I mean.

[thod]

The point would be that the normal man makes a choice in having children or not. The homosexual has no such choice, in the manner of the sterile man.

The many defects argument is invalid. However many defects you have, having less is more desirable, by definition of 'defect'.

[yondyr]

So it comes down to each persons definition of 'normal'...'defect'...and of course... 'perfect'.

[EsoteriEccentri]

The point would be that the normal man makes a choice in having children or not. The homosexual has no such choice, in the manner of the sterile man.

The many defects argument is invalid. However many defects you have, having less is more desirable, by definition of 'defect'.

You can count them? They are infinite as far as I'm concerned ^^

No, seriously, I know what you're saying.
But it just seems so silly to me - after all, can you say how much of a defect something is? Besides, what is a defect is completely subjective.
Can you really say "This person has five defects" and measure up the value of someone based on defects and, well - what ever their opposite is?
"This person has eight defects." and so on... it just seems rather pointless. But then perhaps it is not to you, you being an INTJ and so on...

Can't you just forget about defects and take people for who they are, as people?

[DrEast]

Also, thod, there have been homosexuals who historically have gotten married in order to have children. Not usually the happiest home life for the children, but it does happen.

[Antares]

What does it mean to be defective?

M-W:

1 a: an imperfection that impairs worth or utility : shortcoming <the grave defects in our foreign policy> b: an imperfection (as a vacancy or an unlike atom) in a crystal lattice
2[Latin defectus] : a lack of something necessary for completeness, adequacy, or perfection : deficiency <a hearing defect>

Why, I guess we're all defective. We're defective to many people; and sometimes the majority might seem defective to us. It's all a matter of perspective, and I don't think it's fair to judge them as 'defective'.

[thod]

Homosexuality is an interesting topic because according to basic Darwinian models they should not exist. Its odd that you don't see creationists picking up the topic. Clearly if you start with a population of breeders and non breeders, then the next generation would be composed of breeders only. Even if we had traits of lesser breeding, their numbers would be reduced in each generation until they cease to exist. The fact that they do exist suggests that it is not genetic. Some may argue that it is not genetic, but conditions in the mothers wombs that causes production. Yet the same model applies. The women with such wombs would leave less breeding offspring, and the trait of homosexual breeding wombs, would die out.

The answer most probably lies in group genetics. In this model it is not required that each individual breed, only that his efforts lead to greater reproductive success in others that are genetically similar. The solider and worker ants are such an example. By performing their tasks well they lead to greater breeding success of the queen.

Thus a village, whom are all genetically related, could increase its success over neighboring villages by producing specialized types. For example if it produced a few specialized soldiers they could kill the breeding males of the other village allowing expansion of the home village.

At a more individual level a woman could produce 7 breeding daughters or 6 breeding daughters and non breeder. The advantage to this is that the non breeder could help in child rearing, ensuring the successful raising of the 6 breeders. Without this assistant more of the breeding daughters would die out. Thus the breeding/non breeding strategy yields a higher survival rate.

Assuming homosexuals are decided at birth, and it is not a behavioral adaptation, we have to ask why they are being produced. All modifications are designed to over some advantage to our cavemen ancestors. The INTJ for example, with his superior engineering mind, would have made the spears and built the huts. You don't need many of them for this task hence their low numbers in society. I am tempted to go with child rearing for homosexuals. The atomic family of 2 parents raising a child is modern. The whole village would raise children and having childless individuals present would ease that that task. Having them homosexual instead of neuter would mean they are no threat to the breeding males, who would otherwise resent these mens constant presence with the females, and raise their survival chances.

[Antares]

Homosexuality is an interesting topic because according to basic Darwinian models they should not exist.

But we're not in that age anymore; not the 'breed or die out' age (for humans). We have social order and don't go around taking more stuff from the genetically inferior or killing them, as natural selection would have the best genes win out. We don't need 'superior survival techniques' to thrive in our modern world, a weak organism is likely to be eaten and the strong is likely to survive; but here we protect the weak. Darwinism doesn't really apply to us anymore; the smartest doesn't get the best jobs; there are score biases, different academic expectations (making it easier for one group) for different ethnic groups or gender groups. These kinds of environments aren't suitable for natural selection where there are so many artificial elements involved.

[TheLastMohican]

But we're not in that age anymore; not the 'breed or die out' age (for humans).

Yes, we are. We will never get out of that age. You seem to misunderstand the idea of natural selection.

[DrEast]

Humanity is always one generations from extinction.

[acyckowski]

Homosexuality is an interesting topic because according to basic Darwinian models they should not exist. Its odd that you don't see creationists picking up the topic.

Not quite. If homosexual preference is viewed in the context of a common but non-preducial mutation, in that the trait does not serve as an advantage or disadvantage to the individual possessing it, you would expect to see a relatively stable percentage of homosexuality from generation to generation. Mutation is a fundamental precept of evolution.

If homosexual preference is a recessive gene, then you would expect homosexual preference to manifest itself to parents who are both "carriers," such as in the case of hemophelia. This doesn't appear true, because you would expect to find homosexual preference cropping up disproportionally in certain families, like left-handedness does. But, if homosexual preference is related to two or more sets of recessive genes, the "odds" of an individual family member inheriting the preference may be small enough as to be indistinguishable from the "common mutation" percentages.

Regardless, it does not follow that homosexuality would necessarily breed itself out. "Homosexuality" is a preferential attraction, not an act. The act of sexual reproduction is, strictly speaking, independent of the sexual preference of the participants. It is difficult for a homosexual male to perform a heterosexual act for mechanical reasons, but the mechanics are not an issue for a homosexual woman.

[thod]

But we're not in that age anymore; not the 'breed or die out' age (for humans).

The argument about evolution no longer effecting us in this age has no bearing. We were formed over millions of years, we are the product of that era. We do not change overnight to reflect the new conditions. Evolution is still working but the pressures are different.

Not quite. If homosexual preference is viewed in the context of a common but non-prejudicial mutation, in that the trait does not serve as an advantage or disadvantage to the individual possessing it, you would expect to see a relatively stable percentage of homosexuality from generation to generation. Mutation is a fundamental precept of evolution.

This relies on the mutation being non-prejudicial. I would say that its about as prejudicial as you can get. If your parents had no children, then the chances are you want either. Being born without gonads is is a prejudicial mutation too.

I expect it will breed itself out. Having homosexuals around no longer provides any advantages, that I can see. The mutant woman that produces all breeders instead of a breeder/homosexual mixture has a big advantage. None of her children will die out in this age. The same is true of people who go to college and work on careers. They are wasting time when they could have been producing offspring. Since all offspring will survive, the optimal strategy is maximal production.

[schwartzie]

Homosexuality is a social construction. Sexuality exists as a indefinite gray scale, a continuum, a spectrum that isn’t inherently neatly divided and labeled for us. Words in a particular culture serve to label specific points on this spectrum ....
My position: homosexuality is a social fiction.

Splittingvenom wins. Her account makes a lot more sense than the notion that sexual preference based on gender is highly significant, and determined by genetics. It at least allows for a recognition that bisexuals exist, and that any discrete individual's sexual preference is multifaceted. People have a wide range of preferences regarding partners' physical appearance, behavior, gender, emotional qualities, etc.... The selection and labeling of gender preference as an item of special significance is purely a social construct. And probably rooted in politics. For example, I may be attracted to a person based on their gender, but ALSO based on physique (I've never been attracted to a guy shorter than about 5'10"), certain personality types (meh...INTJs...nice), social circumstances, behaviors, smell, overall health, etc, etc of prospective partners. Fail to meet any of my bottom lines, and...well... you are not gonna spawn here. Am I "sinful" because I'm a 5'10"ian? Probably not, unless evil short people rule, want all the bananas, and drive me and my nasty long dangly arms out of the clan's territory.

Thod, if you are right, that sexual preferences are dictated by discrete genes, the argument that, at this late date in human evolution, homosexuality will probably "breed itself out," seems pretty weak. Same-sex gender preference is alive and well. It got here via evolution, like everything else. This fact suggests that, if gender preference is genetic, populations with same-sex gender preference in their genes have enjoyed some evolutionary advantage over those that did not. Is there any hard science to account for that? Unless we know why GBLTs exist, how can we hypothesize an all-straight world? And what about those pesky INTJs? Why are they still around--they should have withered away in an eat-what-you-kill world. What's the evolutionary advantage that leaves them still with us, and leaves some of us thinking they're attractive?

[notoppings]

Fair is fair whatever is acceptable for the hetro should be acceptable for the homo. If you don't want to see two same sex kissing in public don't allow opposite sex kissing in public. If you don't want full frontal male in movies no full frontal woman in movies, this is supposed to be an equal country. Unions for everyone. F@$* the hospitals some people are next to alone in this world denying anyone from seeing their loved one is just wrong. Leave your estate to whoever you want. F@#* those people that come out of the woodwork after death and grubb for something, where were you when that person needed your moral uplifting support like the one who was with that person to the very end. F@#& the government it's our money paid into a system and it should be our choice who gets the benefits. Sorry for the rant. I am gay. It isn't a choice. It isn't a lifestyle. God doesn't hate me, organized religions do. Putting words in God's mouth shame on you. I am an Honorably discharged Marine, I did my part I deserve everything that others get. Rant over. For those who are wondering if I even gave woman a chance the answer is yes.

[Jezebel]

The religious discussion has been moved here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Also see this thread (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) about thread splits and off topic posts.

[azelismia]

In spite of my being a christian and all, and the fact most of the wackos that claim that want to make it illegal and such, I am totally neutral on it. Without freedom, you can't follow, and freedom is good for people regardless.

I am, however, against marriage. Since they've pointed it out, I am actually flat against the government being involved in a religious institution/ceremony. If they must define a union of people, it should have no rules governing what is and isn't a union. If the participants are willing, there's nothing wrong with it. It shouldn't be marriage, as that is religious.



Marriage is not religious though. you can get married out side of a church. you can be atheist. Religion has nothing to do with marriage for many.

[HeartlessWolf]

To tell you the truth, I don't really get irritated that much by them, as LONG as they stay away and don't push their sexual preference on me. BUT, I also view them as defective units, who have no true purpose in life, they go against science, as there is no benefit to a species or a people from having two mates who can't reproduce, and as much as I hate to support "religion", they go against that too.

Some of you will argue that maybe they should "adopt", but in my opinion I'm not so fond of that either, there shouldn't be a point in time where there are so many kids out there and no one to care for them. It's bad enough we're already overcrowded, but we have to constantly deal with the idiots of the newer generations, who seem to get stupider as time goes by.

Also, I'm not so ignorant to claim that gays will "transfer" their gayness onto their children, but they will certainly INFLUENCE the child's mind for the rest of it's life. The kid will most likely end up being a liberal idiot who knows nothing about the world and thinks we are all "equal"...

[azelismia]

To tell you the truth, I don't really get irritated that much by them, as LONG as they stay away and don't push their sexual preference on me. BUT, I also view them as defective units, who have no true purpose in life, they go against science, as there is no benefit to a species or a people from having two mates who can't reproduce, and as much as I hate to support "religion", they go against that too.

Some of you will argue that maybe they should "adopt", but in my opinion I'm not so fond of that either, there shouldn't be a point in time where there are so many kids out there and no one to care for them. It's bad enough we're already overcrowded, but we have to constantly deal with the idiots of the newer generations, who seem to get stupider as time goes by.

Also, I'm not so ignorant to claim that gays will "transfer" their gayness onto their children, but they will certainly INFLUENCE the child's mind for the rest of it's life. The kid will most likely end up being a liberal idiot who knows nothing about the world and thinks we are all "equal"...


Except, we're already over crowded on earth. we don't need every couple to reproduce and if they did it would consume too many resources.

ages past kids were free work source. you needed all the hands you could get to tend the crops and herd sheep and scavenge resources. our society has built to the point where much labour is unnecessary. Things are automated, humans are out of proportion to other ecosystems. We just don't need so many people to operate the systems anymore. As such things like disease and homosexual tendencies start to become wide spread to avoid serious overpopulation.
So homosexuals are not going against science. it's been shown in other animal societies that are undergoing overpopulation to increase as well. it's a natural balancer, so to speak.

[sriv]

Singles consume more resources per capita than families do because each of them has their own dwelling.

[azelismia]

that's not true though. some singles live on their own but many do not. even living single can you provide back up that a single person eats up more resources than a family of four?

[thod]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Aronnax]

I don't really care what other people do with their time and bodies as long as it doesn't effect me.

Edit~ Regarding natural selection screening out homosexuality you're thinking that genetics is purely linear but in our case it isn't. We're social animals and who we're surrounded by effect our chance of survival. Homosexual aunts, uncles and siblings are able to devote an adult's level of energy to their family circle without having to devote energy to their own children. We existed 100,000+ years where modern medicine and birth control weren't an option. Having additional adults who function as a net position in terms of production and can fill in as a surrogate parent in case of death would be very useful; especially to their immediate family, the one that they share genes with.

[SShack]

I don't really care what other people do with their time and bodies as long as it doesn't effect me.

Edit~ Regarding natural selection screening out homosexuality you're thinking that genetics is purely linear but in our case it isn't. We're social animals and who we're surrounded by effect our chance of survival. Homosexual aunts, uncles and siblings are able to devote an adult's level of energy to their family circle without having to devote energy to their own children. We existed 100,000+ years where modern medicine and birth control weren't an option. Having additional adults who function as a net position in terms of production and can fill in as a surrogate parent in case of death would be very useful; especially to their immediate family, the one that they share genes with.

Heh. Homosexuality as a child-rearing redundancy system. An interesting idea, particularly since human children need so much more care than other animals for a longer period of time, which increases the likelihood of something bad befalling the parents (hence or overstressed foster/adoption programs).

Not long after my sister gave birth to my nephew, I started having odd dreams where she and the boy's father were killed and I was left with the responsibility of raising him. And I find myself strangely protective of him whenever my sister tells me of any problems he might have. When their marriage broke up, I very quickly scheduled an impromptu vacation and jumped on a plane for a visit to help cheer up the nephew in a time of emotional turmoil.

[MCR]

To tell you the truth, I don't really get irritated that much by them, as LONG as they stay away and don't push their sexual preference on me. BUT, I also view them as defective units, who have no true purpose in life, they go against science, as there is no benefit to a species or a people from having two mates who can't reproduce, and as much as I hate to support "religion", they go against that too.

Some of you will argue that maybe they should "adopt", but in my opinion I'm not so fond of that either, there shouldn't be a point in time where there are so many kids out there and no one to care for them. It's bad enough we're already overcrowded, but we have to constantly deal with the idiots of the newer generations, who seem to get stupider as time goes by.

Also, I'm not so ignorant to claim that gays will "transfer" their gayness onto their children, but they will certainly INFLUENCE the child's mind for the rest of it's life. The kid will most likely end up being a liberal idiot who knows nothing about the world and thinks we are all "equal"...

Um...you do know that there are a LOT of gay people in relationships who give birth to their own biological children, right? To clarify, I'm not talking about people who were once in a heterosexual relationship, had a child and is now gay. I'm talking about people who had a child with a gay partner through artificial insemination or the like. That sort of rules out "defective" - the end product is still a child.

As for the rest, well...the adoption argument you make is confusing. The point of too many kids out there left to the devices of "the system" has long since past. They are here. Now what? So why NOT encourage someone to adopt in order to give those children someone to care for them?

And just as an aside...sexual preference does not determine your ability to be a good parent. I have known plenty of heterosexuals who are horrific as parents and treat their children like they are worthless. What to make of that, then?

Being gay and a parent is far more a situation of choice. People who are in a gay relationship and have a child together CHOSE to do so. Nobody gets pregnant on an "Oops!" there. It's not an easy or inexpensive process either, by the way. So what to make of THAT? I think it would be pretty nervy to say the least that anyone would say those people don't deserve to be parents because you don't happen to agree with their sexual orientation.

The fact that you had sex and conceived does not necessarily make you a "parent". It simply makes you a vessel. Being a parent requires far more than just a 9 month term. It requires a lifetime commitment.

The last part of your statement has no basis in fact, sorry. There is no scientific evidence that the children of gay parent(s) are more prone to a certain behavior or inclination than those of heterosexual parent(s). As a matter of fact, to assume that just because a person is gay must mean that they are a tree hugging Liberal tells me one thing. You must not know any gay people in real life. They come in all shapes, sizes and types...just like heterosexuals. Heck, there are even gay Republicans in the world. :) Your sexuality does not make you who you are. YOU make you who you are. The fact that you happen to be gay or happen to be straight is just a small part of that; a factoid on your life's baseball card.

You already mentioned that you don't believe that children of gay people are more prone to be gay themselves...good thing. Because 35+ years of scientific research has proven that belief to be completely false. In many studies I have read, the percentage of gay parents who have children that grow to be gay adults is actually lower than the percentage of heterosexuals. (And yes the ratio of heterosexual people to homosexual people is factored)

And by the way...one last thing. If by making a statement like "...that we are all equal..." you mean teaching your children tolerance then I'll say this. KUDOS to the parent-gay or straight-who teaches their child that. What an excellent way to start eradicating the bigotry, hatred and small-minded, intolerant behavior that has become the norm in today's society. Maybe if MORE parents taught their children that your religion, race, gender, sexual preference or social status is NOT the stick with which to measure a person's worth, then perhaps we wouldn't be in mess in the first place.

[HeartlessWolf]

Um...

The thing is, that this is only a small fraction of a much bigger picture I have planned out. It's very much ideal based, and I don't think you want me to go into the details, as I'm sure you would be offended by them. There are definitely worse heterosexual couples out there, but that still doesn't change the fact that being homosexual or being born "different" is an inherent flaw. This is simple logic, if you feel like you were born in the wrong body, obviously something is WRONG!!!!

What small minded bigotry and ignorance? In this society political correctness rules everything, you have to narrow down your statements in order not to be labeled a "racist". Today's media can twist things beyond recognition, and can choose to favor whoever the owners of media corporations choose. The media is just another control mechanism used by the government.

We are NOT all equal, this is another logical concept, some people are clearly more capable than others, not just in the given time, but in their POTENTIAL, in their genes. This society is based upon serving the weak at the expense of the strong and capable. People who limit themselves to following the status quo and wanting to accept everyone as "equal" while at the same time acknowledging the differences among us!!! These double standards in today's society are laughable at best. We are told that we should accept those who are different, and other cultures, yet at the same time the media is so quick to point out racially charged comments or remarks, not just by whites, but by everyone.

I have never said that the child raised by a gay couple will end up gay, what I have said on the other hand is that the chance of that child growing up into an ignorant liberal asshole will increase dramatically. Now, he may grow up into an intelligent liberal asshole, but the underlying emotional need for "equality" and "acceptance" will still be there, further encouraging the weak and deficient to multiply...

It is true that not all gays are liberal, but their inherent flaw is still there nonetheless, now personally I don't have much against gays, and I can see your side of the issue, but until the day comes when humans will be created from test tubes, or better yet, when we will be able to merge our minds into a computer, sexual preference does play a role in a healthy society that doesn't breed kids who are confused with their role. I am all for the freedom of the individual, but only as long as that individual doesn't go up against the fabric of society. One person's life means nothing, it is relatively short and he is bound by mortality, but a PEOPLE, a folk, can live forever.

But this goes into ideology more than real issues, so I will stop here. And I would also like to point out that the "society" I was talking about in the previous paragraph is NOT this one, I couldn't care less what fills this already corrupt beyond repair world we live in...