Homosexuality, Beastiality or Bestiality and Incest. Sexual sins that deserve a bashing or a way of life in review.
69Innocent animals or man's soon to be legal mate?
Acquired Desires or Genetic Contributions
I have heard arguments both for and against homosexuality and as is customary in any debated issue tempers will flare and each party will try to prove why their view is correct.
I have chosen to focus on a particular view which I am yet to hear sufficient if any debates on.
The Argument: If we are to accept the argument that persons are born as homosexuals, should we not also accept the views that one can also be born with a sexual preference for beast/animals? This should give legal rights to persons who engage in bestiality to not be discriminated against but rather to be able to openly live their lives as they choose. We can also argue that people can be born with sexual preference for members of their family, hence, making incest acceptable.
Would the same scientist and doctors, psychologist etc., who present arguments in support of homosexuality do the same for bestiality and incest? Can it be proven that either of these sexual preferences are not genetically affiliated?
If homosexuals can have their sexual preference legalized, what arguments can be presented against persons who may want to come out of the closet and demand that their sexual preference, (bestiality or incest), be legalized as well? Would the homosexuals or those in support of that lifestyle try to tell those emerging groups that their lifestyle is wrong and should not be practiced?
Would the homosexuals come out in full support of a march against discrimination for persons engaged in the practice of bestiality and/or incest? Imagine thousands of men and women marching down the street with their animal lovers (dog, cat, horse etc.), or family member who is their lover (daughter, son, mother, father, cousin etc.), at their side demanding justice, rights and equality. *That would be would be interesting.
As a society on a whole what would we do? Of course there will always be those of us who argue for morality and biblical guidance but, would bestiality and incest be legalized eventually just as homosexuality was?
Personal View: I find credence in the concerns raised above. All three sexual practices stem from human desire and not genes. I do not believe that anyone is born as a homosexual and most certainly not as persons to practice bestialty or incest.
Humans by nature have warped desires which should not be flaunted as a way of life. Some men for example seem to get a high out of raping women, others from sexual involvement with children. There is no way anyone is going to argue that these men were born as rapists or paedophiles. Even more, there is no way they could seek legality to their practices. The argument that homosexuals do not commit a crime against a fellow-man as they engage in their lifestyle practices but that rapist and paedophiles do, is not much of an argument. It is a fact no doubt, but all those acts are based on sexual preferences which go outside the norm as it is or was known.
Tampering with or bending moral issues to suit any one view or practice is a dangerous thing to do. We cannot then expect the same moral law to stand up and judge other issues of a similar nature which may arise in the future, at least not without impartiality.
I strongly believe the moral laws which govern our society received a near thorough bashing,in order for homosexuality to be legalized. That same bashing will serve to haunt us in the future.
Puppy Love
CommentsLoading...
Hi Chris. Thanks for ading your views.
It does seem that at the rate we are going many bad habits or choices will indeed become our rights. Moral laws will be so crushed that there will be no right or wrong if we continue as is.
(Quote)
"The argument that homosexuals do not commit a crime against a fellow-man as they engage in their lifestyle
practices but that rapist and pedophiles do, is not much of an argument."
(Quote)
What are you babbling about xD? That is a fantastic argument and point. It in no way affects anyone but the
two involved in the relationship, and they have every right to make such a lifestyle decision as consenting
individuals. And if we want to say "some people don't like it" we may aswell also say "some people don't like
the colour pink, so make it illegal!". Neither harm anyone.
I also see no proof in your argument or your responce that homosexuality isn't a genetic disposition, besides
referencing other things completely unrelated beyond the fact they're sexual in nature. May as well say 60% of murderers have brown eyes, so brown eyes must be bad or somehow related! (just an example).
(:Quote:)
"Tampering with or bending moral issues to suit any one view or practice is a dangerous thing to do."
(:Quote:)
I couldn't disagree more, how do you think human kind came up with "moral principles" to begin with? it was
through debating such issues, tampering with pre-established norms and bending moral issues/view points on them.
It wasn't so long ago that one could morally rape women from a conquered township (saxons, romans etc), take
possession of them or sell as slaves.
Or a "black person", by norm, was regarded as less than human. It was through reexamination and tampering that finally changed those accepted norms, aka people became more aware of the concept of morality and questioned their own beliefs.
And no, Chris, homosexuals are not sex offenders by any moral standpoint. In no way do they harm anyone, or even each other, and the entire practice is consensual. I fail to see where an "offense" is occurring. Whether a choice or genetic disposition.
And I'm sorry but you can't use God there in an example and expect a rebuttal to it. Intelligent design is just as "out there" as the theory of Evolution. Though I would like to just add in, the No1 argument I always seem to find in favor of intelligent design is that the world is simply too complex and amazing to have just "happened". So then I can't help but wonder how absolutely insanely complex and amazing God must be, and
we're meant to believe something even -more- complex and beautiful than our world did just "come to be"?
Sorry about all the spaces, I wrote it in word pad as this keeps crashing me.
No problem Disgruntled. Let me start from the bottom of your comment up.
Though I would like to just add in, the No1 argument I always seem to find in favor of intelligent design is that the world is simply too complex and amazing to have just "happened".
That is the same view I have of the human body. Males were made males (no mix up no mistakes) and females females. Their is no need to elaborate what each genders sexual organ was made for and with the result being procreation. Mankind turning to members of their own sex erases procreation. Did a man really get his genitals to go and mess around with another man and a woman to go to another woman. I think not. As humans we tend to build arguments to support our wanton desires and I consider the scientific arguments put forward about genetics to be just that. AN argument built to support wanton needs.
I wish you had said something in relation to the comparisons made with those who support incest and those who engage in bestiality. That is what I just cant get any solid views on from people who support homosexuality. The little discussion you and I would have here about homosexuality itself is well explored and argued many times over and with each argument that arise it becomes even clearer to me that it is just a sexual desire that people seek to pass off as being normal. Whether it happens with the animals or with humans it indicates a wayward turning of the sexual desire. It is the same for incest (sexual desire gone bad), pedophiles, rapist and those who turn to animals. I maintain that to pick any one of these and legalize them opens the way for the others to later be legalized. The we would have a world of legal incestuous persons and people who prefer to be with animals. For the other two I do not think they will ever get to that stage unless this world becomes barbaric again.
In regards to your argument about moral laws then and now. Morals have always been morals in-spite of the decade. It is humans who keep falling below par. At some point when these same humans cant ignore the level to which they had fallen (maybe in a different generation) they try to step up to the plate and institute moral laws. The points you hinted at (treatments of blacks and the raping) were the lows in human behavior.
I really think that the argument of two consenting adults is a lame one. It is the same argument that rappers and certain other entertainers use. We are not doing anything wrong we are just putting in song what is happening in the world. Nonsense. A man who choose to have multiple wives and have them all under one roof is labeled. Polygamy is and was practiced in some societies but it is not accepted in many societies. This idea that we can all practice what we want and live our lives as we please once we are consenting adults and are not hurting anyone is a dangerous one.
I hope my point was clear in that last bit. It is not a matter of just not like a group of people because of their skin color or their lifestyle. It is about being mindful of what our practices represents for the human race. Not just the present but for the future. At this pointing time I think the future is set for persons with other undesirable sexual desires to come out of the closet and demand their "legal rights" to live as they desire. It may not happen for years to come but the thing to note is that the ground as been broken and the foundation is being built.
Criminal lawyers can put forth such a convincing argument so much so that a hard criminal is made to look innocent ( even plead insanity if it comes to that) but it will never take away the fact that the man is who he is. A criminal. Seemingly convincing arguments are put forward to support homosexuality but all that will never be able to change the fact that it is just a warped desire of humankind. We will wear ourselves out before the truth will ever be changed. We will paint over it many times, dig a hole and bury it then build multistory arguments on it to hide it but all the paint and building will one day wear out, grow old and crumble, get broken by earthquakes and storms only to have the truth emerge once again.
That is why history is so important. Just as we are now able to speak of the barbaric nature of our forefathers (you can bet they had all sorts of arguments to support their behavior), children of generations to come will be able to have their say about our actions now. Just as we have the truth to judge our forefathers actions they will; have the truth to judge us.
There are stories in the bible about periods similar to this. Homosexuality was very high in the nation. One was the story of Lot when the homosexuals decided they wanted they angel (the new guy in town). There were many men outside Lot's home demanding that the have the stranger so they could enjoy themselves with him.
Another was at a time when the one of the twelve tribes waced hot with homosexuality. Similar to Lot's case a stanger deared to enter their city and they went to the house he was staying to demand that he be released to them so they couls have their way with him. When the host refused and offered his virgin daughter instead the men refused sayingthey wanted the man. Eventually the host was able to pursuade them and they took the girl. The next morning she was found dead with her hand upon the doorstep of the house (as I remember it). They had odne her in so badly that she died. Aside from the fact that that indicated just how much men back then valued women both stories show that homosexuality was all about conquering the other person. This tends be more true among men it seems as there was no recording of the practice among women then though I think it existed. Homesexuality was and is about dominating another male. Have them at your mercy has you would a woman.
Okay here's goes xD. First I'd just like to apologize again if the spacing is odd as I had to use wordpad again, though I think I figured out the tabbing a bit.
And also I'd like to add you didn't put in the full argument to the No1 thing I hear from creationists.
They find it too unbelievable that the world and humans just "happened" to start existing due to the complex nature of it, but they're willing to believe a far more advanced and complex figure (God) did, it is a contradiction.
Alrighty and on to the new stuff. On the first point of
"Males were made males (no mix up no mistakes) and females females. Their is no need to elaborate what each genders sexual organ was made for and with the result being procreation. Mankind turning to members of their own sex erases procreation. Did a man really get his genitals to go and mess around with another man and a woman to go to another woman. I think not. As humans we tend to build arguments to support our wanton desires and I consider the scientific arguments put forward about genetics to be just that. AN argument built to support wanton needs."
Males work with females to procreate based on anatomy, yes. But that does does not mean anything separate from procreation is wrong, in fact by that logic we
should have sex one to five times in a life time... after-all, sex is only for procreation and -anything- other than that is humans trying to pass up desires
as being "normal".
Next, to quote you again just to focus in a bit.
"As humans we tend to build arguments to support our wanton desires and I consider the scientific arguments put forward about genetics to be just that. AN argument built to support wanton needs."
Humans do make excuses for their individual desires and beliefs this is true, it's why we sometimes indulge in chocolate, or go online to read online posts instead of studying for our psychology exam etc xD. But to say that the "scientific" findings are a bi-product of a human desire to make homosexuality "okay" is silly. Scientific tests are unbiased by any opinion, yes the scientist may want a certain result but science gives the results that are found, and they run and re-run results to get a conclusive answer. Science isn't about bending and skewing ideas, it's about looking at the evidence found and releasing the discovered information/answers.
So if the scientists hadn't found any evidence of genetic disposition towards being homosexual, that is what would have been reported. As it stands after
scientific testing there -is- evidence to support genetic involvement. To discredit actual scientific evidence with a theory lacking any just doesn't work.
I found it very ironic in this part "As humans we tend to build arguments to support our wanton desires and I consider the scientific arguments put forward about genetics to be just that". In this case, even though there is evidence to the contrary, you want to believe that there is absolutely no genetic say in homosexuality, so your argument is built to support your "desired" belief. Not meant as an attack in any way, just point out how we ourselves fall victim to it.
And next up, wish granted for bestiality and incest sub-discussion:D!
Homosexuality is in no way related to either of them beyond the fact it's a sexual act or preference. Incest degrades the genetic make up of a couples children so it is harmful, thus should not be legalized. An animal cannot consent to sexual congress so it should also not be legalized. Homosexuality is non-harmful to the parties involved or anyone else, and again, technically anything except intercourse between a male and female to have children is "wayward turning of sexual desire". Even mentioning homosexuals in the same sentence as pedophiles and rapists seems like a grave injustice and misunderstanding, as both of the later are blatantly crimes for obvious reason. While homosexuality has yet to have a good reason put forth for it to be outlawed or made illegal.
The idea that homosexuality is a slippery slope into blatantly illegal activity is a rather insulting one.
On to moral laws... Morals have not always been morals to the standard we now hold. Romans genuinely thought slavery was 100% okay, or gladiatorial combat in the arena was moral.
They didn't look at the topic as a nation and go "it's actually kinda wrong, but we'll do it anyway!". They thought it was fine, thus their version of morality found it acceptable, so "then and now" is a big gap.
The social and economic "norms" in this case were immoral, and it was only through revision of such acts/treatment that the moral standard and concept was raised. Moral choice and laws are an ever developing and changing thing, as you said one day future generations will look at us now as we look at what passed for moral ethics in Rome.
Annd onto next part of same topic, the treatment of blacks and the raping. I'm of course going to agree they were "lows in human behavior" but that does not change the fact they were the "norms" of the time, it was absolutely accepted blacks were the missing link between white man and apes. It was only through re-examination and discussion that this was able to alter and adapt to a higher moral ethic. And to just get this a bit more on topic again I'll re-post the section.
To quote you again;
"The argument that homosexuals do not commit a crime against a fellow-man as they engage in their lifestyle practices but that rapist and pedophiles do, is not much of an argument. It is a fact no doubt, but all those acts are based on sexual preferences which go outside the norm as it is or was known. Tampering with or bending moral issues to suit any one view or practice is a dangerous thing to do."
Again, any sexual desire beyond procreation is outside the anatomical "norm", things like oral sex which harm no one are allowed while things like rape or pedophilia are not legal. Homosexuality does not cause harm so it is by rational thought in the same category as oral sex as opposed to something that shouldn't be legalized like rape (something causing physical or psychological harm to another individual, or is non-consensual).
And next, the argument of consenting adults/individuals. It isn't just an argument or opinion it is something the -law- operates under. That said I'm not saying it's great people can use it or hide behind it, what I'm saying is it -does- apply to homosexuality for reasons listed above.
"Consenting adults" is a legally recognized and enforced concept, it again is rational for homosexuality to be legal and not outlawed. And yes the point was clear, my rebuttal being homosexuality has nothing to do with blatantly harmful and illegal activities such as rape, so no foundation is being laid and no "slippery slide" is in effect.
Relating arguments/points that prove homosexuality is not a horrible taboo to defense attorneys spinning tales in courts to get guilty criminals off, is also basically slanderous in it seems to relate homosexuals to criminals. It also works both ways, those trying to prosecute homosexuals could also be said to make their arguments/tale spinning in an attempt to discredit homosexuality.
A homosexual is not a sex offender or a "hard criminal" made to look innocent, and to say they are while it is legal is slander. It is someone wishing to live their life by their own inoffensive and harmless standards. Unlike a rapist wishing to cause harm sexually on non-consenting victims.
And another quote of yours to comment on;
"Seemingly convincing arguments are put forward to support homosexuality but all that will never be able to change the fact that it is just a warped desire of humankind."
Firstly "seemingly convincing" is a rather biased way to put it, they are convincing for a reason, there is no reason to not legalize homosexual relationships being they harm no one and are a subjective choice. The slippery slide assumption is rather absurd.
Secondly that "warped desire of humankind" is carried out not just by humans.
And a new quote;
"A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, rangi
It seems my post was cut short xD... so here's pt 2 (restarting at quotes)
And a new quote;
"A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them."
And to quote Bruce Bagemihl himself;
"the animal kingdom [does] it with much greater sexual diversity (including homosexual, bisexual and non-reproductive sex) than the scientific community and society at large have previously been willing to accept."
And another xD...;
"A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species. Homosexuality is best known from social species."
Conclusion, homosexuality is actually by far a norm.
I had a lot of info on states/countries allowing homosexual relations, but I lost the pages on crash so I'll just say states and countries are allowing it :D, and they do look to the future. It is archaic and cruel to make others suffer for something natural.
And just a fun thought, "normal" is completely a subjective and arbitrary designation and is irrelevant. It is not normal to be normal :D.
And as for the bible stories.
Its Genesis 19 for the first, two angels come to Sodom and Lot sees them and basically invites them to stay in his home. But before the angels sleep men gather around the place and call to Lot "5; And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may
know them."
("6;" being Lot stepping outside and closing the door.)
To which Lot explains "7; I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly."
"8; Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only
unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."
The story revolves around the mob wanting to "know" (have sex with) the two angels. Firstly I see it as a bad example to use for the immorality of homosexuality
as it is apparently absolutely okay to give his daughters to be raped which is incredibly immoral. One could say that was how women were treated at the time,
but by that same sentiment that was homosexuality of the time, but more importantly simply the male mindset of the time.
Homosexuality is also not the key issue of the story in my opinion, Lot had lived in the city for some years and would have known if all of the men were homosexuals; he would hardly have offered to sacrifice his daughters to the mob if the men were entirely homosexual.
I think the real point is that rape gangs, in both stories, are bad. Being homosexual has absolutely no sway over that.
I also do not believe homosexuality is as black and white as "it's just about dominating another man". Firstly as their are woman on woman relationships and
secondly even a "straight" relationship is absolutely not that simple. 99.999999% xD of sexual encounters have nothing to do with procreation (being why and where the male organ fits for a reason). Sex itself is a desire and there are many varieties, we may as well conclude that because the male organ is meant for the vaginal entrance, oral sex should be absolutely illegal because it varies from the anatomical norm.
(and more directly on second story) Men quite often seek to be dominating period, not just sexually. However it's on a sexual note, so be it with hand cuffs, dirty talk, or simply being on top it is not something unique to a homosexual relationship. Many straight couples in fact partake in roles of dominance and submission.
That girl did not die because they were homosexual men specifically, but because it was a mob of horny testosterone filled men who used her until they were spent. Basically, if the men showed up for the girls and instead agreed to take the priest it would have had the same ending except with a dead priest.
I also do not think it fair to use ancient "history" (I use "history" carefully as it's a bible story and not actual history nor fact) as a standard for today's homosexual relations, or any other relations. Yes "real" history is important, but it is also important to remember the leaps forward since then. And while I bet our forefathers did have some fantastical views on how slavery and pillaging was fine and not barbaric, homosexuality is no more a barbaric practice than any other consensual sexual act.
So if anything I think future generations will be looking back and shaking their heads at our cruel intolerance to homosexuals.
P.S. Sorry if anything was repeated xD it's near 20 to 6am here as I did end up getting some study done :D. Time to collapse for a couple of hours.
In regards to creationists arguments since nobody else seemed to assist in this discussion:
1) how did the first atom or anything ever exist if something didn't create it? You must believe in an "eternal universe" that never needed creation which to me, is simply ludicrous. Everything we've observed has been created from something and didn't just exist.
2) The big bang theory name was coined as a mockery of the theory. The theory is all about many chances that seemed to have hit on all cylinders. Thats like me rolling the dice and hitting a hard 4 x 500 times straight. Maybe that did happen but it just doesn't seem logical to many people.
3) Do some google searches and familiarize yourself with the arguments from all types of scientists who claim the brain is too complex to be created through chance. Darwin himself said that evolution is created through (paraphrasing so google it for the exact quote) small mutations and if something couldn't be created through multiple small mutations, than his theory (actually the Egyptians theory, not his) would be disproven. The brain is so complex that many scientists say it could not be created through multiple small random mutations.
-----
Onto the homosexual area and bestiality stuff.
1) there are already groups of pedophiles who are hoping for a "gay gene" to be found so that they can say they were born that way as well. ManBoyLove claims many boys and kids in general enjoy sex when given the chance to decide and they were all born this way so give it another 100 years at the rate we are going. 100 years ago if you told someone homosexuals would be allowed to marry, you were called crazy. Now look. It seems the more liberal a place becomes, only a war can make it go back to conservatism.
2) Yes, animals with no reasoning skills and whom work off of impulse and bodily desires are willing to do anything sexually. If that means homosexuals are proven to be born that way, than that also proves bestiality is in the same category. Ever had a dog hump your leg?
Thats my 2 cents
To both DisgruntledReader and ImNobody I must apologize for not giving a response to your comments as yet. I am a bit swamped at the moment and these comments warrants response which would take some time and keen consideration. Especially the comments of DisgruntledReader.
I must say that the more I read your comments its the more I maintain my position. Each time I listen to arguments in favour of homosexuality its the more I find myself moving away from even harbouring the thought of this behaviour being normal.
@ ImNobody: That bit about the dog humping someone's leg is a point I considered bringing out in all this talk about natural sexual behaviour/preference. It is really bad that we have gone to the extent of making comparisons of human sexual behaviour to that of animals which were not made with the level of intellect that we were. That again goes to show the extent to which man will stoop in order to gain our own way.
I'll have to break now but I hope to give my response within the next week or two. I must say thanks for commenting.
(Sorry again if tabbing is odd, I've had to write it in notepad). Okay and on to the response.
ImNobody, I'm not sure who you were responding to, but from what I've read I'll assume it was me :).
First with Creationists vs Evolutionists the point of my, well not argument, little circular statement is based on the fact that everything we know -has- been created. As a creationist your meant to believe God (something even more complex than allll of the wonders of the universe, with the knowledge to create us) -did- just happen to come into being or has always existed. So I'm merely pointing out the argument shoots itself in the foot by saying "all this" is too complex to have not been created, then expecting you to believe a being even more complex wasn't created.
Okay and back on topic (I don't even remember how creationism got into this...)
1) "There are already groups of pedophiles who are hoping for a "gay gene" to be found so that they can say they were born that way as well."
Firstly, what groups? I don't see any evidence :), or is that a theory? secondly, If they -did- find a gene it wouldn't legalize a thing? it seems like a kind of moot point.
Again the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia is that homosexuality -does NOT harm anyone-, while pedophiles do due to younger bodies not being equipped to deal with the interaction, nor young minds prepared for the emotional side of sexual intercourse or erotic play.
Homosexuality, as a desire, and pedophilia/bestiality are completely unrelated beyond the fact they're sexual in nature.
2) Bestiality (while I will say is not something I'm even slightly interested in) is a grey area. While an animal may be compliant it is not true sentient consent. Thus an animal can never consent to the sexual act, thus it's illegal.
Linking this to homosexuality, again, just seems pointless. As my above point with homosexuality not harming anyone (and proven to in fact be a norm), it's between two consenting adults or partners of legal age making it no different to a man and a woman engaging in sexual interactions. To use an old example, fellatio is legal as it harms no one, however from what a man and a woman are supposed to do with their anatomical equipment it is a deviation from what was intended in the same way homosexuality is.
This "slippery slide" idea is almost humorous, all of the points that make homosexuality a viable legal activity to engage in, are based on the fact that it in no way moves outside of what is already accepted sexually (being consent, no emotional harm and no illegal physical harm being done). Pedophilia and bestiality don't fit into that at all. So it is less a question of bending morals to allow homosexuality to be legal (being they should already allow it), and more a question coming from the perspective of "why isn't it legal again?" when it conforms to all pre-existing legal and moral points for a sexual interaction to be allowed.
P.S. I'm not sure where you were going with 2) with the animals but A) an animal isn't sentient like a human/homosexual, and B) a dog humping your leg has nothing to do with sexuality, it is how they establish dominance(lacking sentient social methods), even female dogs hump legs.
P.P.S. I vote we stop the creationist line of discussion, as it's completely off topic.
"Each time I listen to arguments in favour of homosexuality its the more I find myself moving away from even harbouring the thought of this behaviour being normal."
I'm not sure what to say then :). I've proven it is a norm even among thousands of species, that it is unrelated to bestiality, pedophilia etc beyond them being sexual in nature. All I can think of is if you may be a little homophobic? =/ (not meant as an attack at all) Just based on the, almost denial over the points I've illustrated.
For ohic32 :D.
Quote
"I strongly believe the moral laws which govern our society received a near thorough bashing, in order for homosexuality to be legalized."
Sorry to post yet again xD. But how/where were "moral laws which govern our society" bashed to legalize homosexuality?
Glad we can have a positive discussion without attacking...this is the problem with the world today. You can't have opposing views without being attacked anymore and that creates further complications in finding the truth so for having this completely civil, I applaud you both and thank you both.
I'll make some comments now and finish up with some later as I don't have enough time to write it all out.
"From Disgrunted: First with Creationists vs Evolutionists the point of my, well not argument, little circular statement is based on the fact that everything we know -has- been created. As a creationist your meant to believe God (something even more complex than allll of the wonders of the universe, with the knowledge to create us) -did- just happen to come into being or has always existed. So I'm merely pointing out the argument shoots itself in the foot by saying "all this" is too complex to have not been created, then expecting you to believe a being even more complex wasn't created. "
--my reply to that is that I do not believe it shoots itself in the foot and here is why. We can not possibly comprehend, understand, or even predict what is outside our known existence if God does exist. He would therefore be on a different plain than us which means science can never prove or disprove him simply because he can't be observed. While I don't believe that in itself is a valid enough reason to believe in God, I also stand by my philosophical and scientific stance that its not far fetched to believe so (which may be a topic for another day as my thoughts on this would have me writing essays). Maybe he was created, maybe he wasn't...but we can't apply our known world to someone who exists outside our observed world and than further try to create predictions/conclusions on what we can't observe.
I also find it interesting and maybe this is just me but if God came down today and we even videotaped it, in another 2000 years, it would likely be considered a hoax if he didnt come down and talk to that generation as well.
--------
1) Yes, ManBoyLove used to promote it years ago but last I checked, they took down a lot of their promoting because they were attacked pretty harsh. I believe this happened around the time SouthPark made them more well known. I wish I had some print screen stuff to show you but I had seen discussions from supposed members of ManBoyLove and others claiming that if homosexuality is proven by a gene, its a feather in their cap....so to speak. I happen to love petite brunettes with dark eyes and a nice ass but I surely wasn't born to do so. I've always witnessed a family member live a lesbian life for about a decade or so. Artificially inseminated with her partner and a few years later she said she's no longer a lesbian and is now straight. Great environment for the kid now (sarcasm). I've also made friends with guys (no females yet) that fully believe they choose their lifestyle but won't admit it in person. One specifically told me he'd never admit it out of fear of repercussions from his own group of homosexual friends...he fears being ousted/attacked. I've also heard its a "taboo" thing that he enjoys and he believes the predisposition argument is an "ingenious" argument that makes the person a victim therefore they can't be held responsible for what they can't control. Now I don't expect you to change your beliefs based on what I can't prove to you but I want to outline a few of my experiences that help me validate to myself why I believe what I believe.
You say if they did find a gene, they won't legalize pedo/bestiality. In today's generation, i fully agree with you. However, each generation is more desensitized than the previous and more liberal. so my response is all in time. My brief research in history years ago lead me to believe most all civilizations go towards more liberal and only a war makes them go back to more conservatism.
We are likely to legalize weed in this generation but just a few generations ago, that was ludicrous thinking. See what a MASSIVE generation of "free love and drugs" thinking can do once they show they are peaceful and convince people they are not harming anyone even though weed does harm, especially when it will be combined with alcohol if legalized. If you could put liberal on a chart, you'd see it ever increasing as time goes on.
You better believe pedos will try to convince people that young people already have sex so there is no difference between them having sex at a young age than having sex with someone older who is likely to keep them more safe due to their experience, etc...or whatever they will argue as everyone is a lawyer today. In time, it will be desensitized just like everything else in this world. It may be 100 years before that happens but the point is we are on that path...we are not on a path away from it and because you seem logical/fair in your thoughts, I believe you will fully agree with that statement.
2) Bestiality: its illegal cause an animal can't consent? I disagree. does an animal consent to being bought and sold? We're not talking physically beating up an animal, remember, we are solely talking about the love and emotions and sexual relationship that surely isn't an evil thing...its only showing their love for their own animals which they bought and care for. (I'm sure the argument will be molded better than that but you get the gist of how i believe it will be argued someday).
Remember the woman who tried to marry an inanimate object in New York I believe? Some say she was born attracted to metal objects/structures.
The point of connecting homosexuality to all of this is it opens the door to predisposition over matters of choice. I personally love being asked when I chose to be straight because my answer is simple, every single day of my life. The mind is more complex than anything we know and after all these studies, we know almost nothing about it. People find enjoyment in whatever they choose to. Cutters find enjoyment in cutting themselves which is ludicrous to me but it further validates why the mind is so powerful if someone can harm them self yet find pleasure in it. I believe much of everything resonates in the mind and if we convince ourselves to be victims of predisposition, we become just that. If we believe to be in control of ourselves and our choices, we than have to face the consequences of them and hell, thats no fun, is it? Therefore predisposition will always win with the masses because its a way to get out of trouble...its a path to justification...a path to doing more of what you want with less or no consequence. How enticing is that in a world thats already filled with suffering and struggles? I think thats very enticing. Would you rather live in a world of high morals and strict codes in an already tough world or would you prefer lots of slack to do what you want? I say the high moral one even though it won't be as much fun as being a little evil can be in the meantime.
its always easier to do the wrong than it is to do right. ---i forgot who made that quote.
It's really late here so I'm going to keep it very short xD.
Mostly just keeping it on topic,
"The point of connecting homosexuality to all of this is it opens the door to predisposition over matters of choice."
That only counts if it is proven homosexuality is a matter or choice only, while so far the evidence points to the opposite. (of course that is not to say some don't actually choose it).
And again I must say, homosexuality harms no one and is in no way a moral issue. Bestiality, pedophilia etc on the other hand does raise moral issues. And I do consent the point on bestiality, I in fact initially consented it was much more of a grey area, but have always maintained it is a "grey area" due to moral concerns. Homosexuality doesn't have that grey area, there is simply no reason to not legalize it. Laws do not cater to "if we legalize this than it could lead to other things being permitted", they look at the situation as it stands and make a decision. I find it offensive, for example, religion gets any say over homosexuality. It's so biased (without any real evidence beyond pointing at a book written by man) it's basically like having a vote on if black segregation should be brought back in, and letting the KKK be one of the leading roles.
Sorry if I'm jumping around a lot but as I said it's quite late here hehe.
Back to the animals. They can be bought and sold yes, under the presumption it's to enter a safe environment for it's benefit, thus animal rights acts. I had a point here but dozed off xD... Something along the lines of it being blurry as to sexual relations not being beneficial and potentially harmful. The real point still being there are moral hang ups there, and not with homosexuality.
"Therefore predisposition will always win with the masses because its a way to get out of trouble...its a path to justification...a path to doing more of what you want with less or no consequence."
Some things are justified, that's why laws are passed to allow them. Stand homosexuality on it's own two legs because what may or may not happen if they legalize it has nothing to do with the act it self. All those things like pedophiles and bestiality are completely unrelated to homosexuality and should not be considered in deciding if the act of homosexual love should be legal. You should be focusing on the act it self and if we have any right to say it should or should not be allowed. Based on what it involves, two consenting adults engaging in a relationship/sexual relations which is desired by both and has no affect on anyone else. There is no reason to not allow that, again viewing the situation as it should be viewed and looking at the act itself.
I indeed will consent that a lot of people have and always will try to excuse their behavior, it's human nature. But again we excuse fellatio in couples every day. Saying allowing homosexuality will lead to allowing things that should be and are crimes to become legal is painting the picture that homosexuality is already viewed as something forbidden when it really ought not to be.
Again, sorry this one if very jumbled but it's late... or early. I'm not saying there isn't any links to homosexuality and political shifts or moral ones, but merely pointing out we must look at the act itself when deciding if it should be legal or illegal. If bestiality was legalized many years after homosexuality it still has nothing to do with the act of gay love, thus the act itself cannot be held responsible. They are separate topics that should not be mixed together when looking at a singular practice that is, for all intents and purposes, non-harmful and inoffensive.
I've probably repeated myself in 5 different ways here hehe, but I can't tell anymore.
And back to creationism point. You can't add in an outside factor to that argument as it isn't part of the original, it is in fact an entirely new point. What I said was their argument of "All this is too complex to have simply "happened, thus God must have done it" shoots itself in the foot, as God is infinitely more complex and could not have simply come into being. The moment it's consented that God may be from another plane of existence of there are unknown factors it, while not disproving God, also means all this complexity around us could equally have just "happened" and we just can't see how yet due to lacking the knowledge. To try and summarize that messy statement, it isn't an effective argument because it doesn't prove or disprove anything, and the argument itself (as it is) shoots itself in the foot because nothing made God, yet he is infinitely more complex and just "happened". If we then say we may not understand or be able to comprehend how he was made, we can say the same about us and our galaxy, making the entire point go in circles and thus shoot itself in the foot.
Um, final thoughts, "It's always easier to do the wrong than the right". This is very true, but irrelevant to homosexuality as the act it self does no more wrong than the act of fellatio.
I have had a look at things here and the slippery slope argument, that if homosexuality becomes legal so may Paedophilia, child molesting (important to keep these two apart ;) ) and zoolophilia, are incorrect as that is simply not how law works. If we first look at law making, first legislative lawmaking (positive law, the law enacted as written) is based principle of legislative preeminence, which means that barring a few cases (of which laws on marriage and sexuality is not one.) the legislature is not bound to obey its own previous laws. In short that each case is looked on individually. Homosexuality being illegal grants no protection from legalising zoolophilia as they are two different things, it is fully possible to make zoolophilia legal while keeping homosexuality illegal. Now there is also another important factor, stare decisis. That is that judges are to stand by rulings of the past say that if Judge A rules on homosexuality being legal judge B can try to take it further by saying that zoolophilia too should fall under that ruling. But there is something that covers this too, distinguishability, stare decisis only applies in cases that are the same, and legally the laws of homosexuality and paedophilia, child molestation, zoolophilia are not related as they have different basis. The prohibition against Zoolphilia and the others is primarily based on the issue of consent , that is children and animals cannot consent (that we do not respect consent for animals in other cases are completely irrelevant to this, just as we also often break consent for children in other things). Therefor you could not apply stare decisis on a homosexuality case in a trial about Paedophilia, child molestation or Zoolophilia. This ManBoyLove was quite uninformed and incorrect, homosexuality no longer being illegal will in no way promote the other towards becoming so.
Welcome Palp
"This ManBoyLove was quite uninformed and incorrect, homosexuality no longer being illegal will in no way promote the other towards becoming so"
Indeed not legally, nor on a moral level. There is nothing immoral in homosexuality in the same way there is nothing immoral in wishing to role play during intercourse, or play with dominant and submissive roles, or give/receive fellatio.
Ill try to do a bit of commenting here but will avoid trying to respond to all the points I have missed out on. Thats quite a bit of conversation taking place there so its a bit much to try and cover in one go.
@ DisgruntledReader: I can safely say I am not homophobic (even though I am from a country which is labelled as homophobic). In the same breath I can also say without reservation that I have strong views against homosexuality being labelled as a genetic attribute to the human race or even the animals which are classified below the human race. I totally REJECT these genetic findings. I have gone through the stages of total rejection of homosexuality, to accepting that it is a part of them that some people have to deal with (even arguing against hate bashing of homosexuals), to trying to give the genetic findings argument a chance (so to speak) and now I am at the stage where I find it ridiculous and just a ploy used to satisfy or appease members of our society who DESIRE to engage in this life style. I must say to you also that my present stance is strongly influenced by the gay society and individual gays themselves.
No doubt if we are going to be arguing about a people or a way of life our arguments would be baseless unless we take the time to observe the subject of the argument. There are converted homosexuals who have stated frankly that for them it was all about experimenting,rebelling, childhood abuse, lack of self confidence and becoming attached to the person who made them feel more accepted. Some have admitted to feeling too ashamed and far gone in their sexual experiment to have turned back earlier than they did. Some of these guys are people who no doubt continued to face rejection and oppression from their family and friends but let us not lose sight of the fact that some of them were also accepted by family and friends as being normal and homosexually genetically inclined.
I tried to make the point earlier and I will do it again and I will do this using a group you seem not consider it criminal to align to homosexuals when doing a comparison. Should persons who find they have a very strong sexual affection for one of their own family member decide they want to be liberated of the laws which prevent them from freely practicing their sexual preference what then? If someone can be genetically inclined towards homosexuality how can it be that the same is not true of persons inclined to incest. Can scientist definitively say that humans cannot be GENETICALLY inclined to have sexual desires for children, beast?
As a matter of fact the practice of legalizing pedophilia is very much alive and well as far as I am concerned. Notice how the legal age of consent for having sex keeps going down over a period of time? In my country it went down from 18yrs to 16yrs. 16 !!!! The same system which says your 16yr old can consent to sex is the same one which tells you that that 16yr old is a child and it is legally binding that you as the parent is responsible for the care of this child until they become adults.
I will not be surprised if there is a review again which takes that age down to 14. You do know I believe that many in our society believe that once puberty sets in the girl child is ready for a life of sex? This belief is much stronger than is now evident but I would not be surprised if a stepping out of the closet movement begins. I would not be surprised if many menfolk I looked up to over the years are strong supporters of this view and only held it in check because at this time it is such a strong no no in our society.
Back to incest. The traditional argument and strong medical evidence against incest can be easily worked around if people really decide to be with one of their own. There is always the option of adoption, allowing your spouse to impregnate or be impregnated by another willing party which would remove the threat of the child being borne defected. All the available contraceptive methods and options of bearing a child would take care of the fears associated with such relationships. These relationships would be based on mutual consent and would bring hurt to no one. I am sure there are persons who will be able to present an even stronger argument.The only thing missing would be the scientific evidence of a genetic contribution to such a choice. As far as I am co concerned if such a gene in present for homosexuality it is very likely there for incest and pedophiles. I do not doubt one bit that once the pressure is applied in the 'right' manner such scientific evidences would be forth coming. (It happens in medicine all the time. The discovery of certain scientific evidence have serve to please interest such as the pharmaceutical society and in my opinion the homosexual society and at one time white supremest who wanted so badly to prove blacks were of a lesser intellect. A scientific notion which practical evidence (blacks excelling even more than many whites) dispelled. So I ask again: What if these people (those inclined toward incest and pedophiles) decide to come out of the closet decide they want to be liberated to practice their sexual preference.
For me all comes right back to moral principles. Men have always bent these principles to suit their own views with the most popular or many times oppressed views winning the battle. Bestiality might seem a bit far-fetched and repulsive to you now when compared to homosexuality but in my opinion they along with heterosexual preferences fall in one group. Sexual preferences. Like everything else there are the accepted and the non-accepted but most of all there is the morally correct. I maintain that no matter how much we deviate from these moral principles when we find ourselves going over the edge with our own choices we reach back for these morals to help pull our society back to a certain level.
A dog humping someones leg as means of expressing his/her need for some mating or animals turning to their own sex should not be used to justify human behavior. The behavior of these animals are outside of the norm for even their own specie.
I will leave you both to the creation argument as I do not feel inclined to weigh in on it at the moment :D.
It is our human nature to seek to express ourselves, establish our beliefs, find a footing in this world we live in but not all of us will go about it the right way or even harbor ideas or practices which will benefit society in the long term. That is the for moral laws and established governing bodies. there has to be a system which can wisely accept or reject things which we we seek to implement in our society. In the long term homosexuality, incest, bestiality and pedophilia is harmful to the existence of our society. The concept that once we mutually consent to a sexual practice and it harms no one else then nothing is wrong with it is within itself a very erroneous idea to be contented with.
Homosexuals: Consensual sex which harms no one. If they want to procreate then use a surrogate mother/some donated sperm or have one partner get some medical alterations done so he/she can bear the child. Live happily ever after.
Incest: Harms no one as long as they do not have a child together. If they want to procreate then use a surrogate mother/some donated sperm. Live happily ever after.
Pedophilia: Once lobbying is done for lowering age of consent and the law is on their side then all is well. Get a child partner, maybe support them through school if the parents are too upset to continue doing so, just enjoy some sex and until the child gets to the established adult age when they can officially live with them then move them in/marry and live happily ever after.
Note that in all those NO ONE GETS HURT because it will all be done to the tune of the law.
My conclusion
Morally: Thats all garbage. Morals govern and guide to sustain a society not stoop and sway to our every demand and desire. There will be acceptable and unacceptable behavior and mutual consent which arms no one does not make a good argument for something being acceptable. We are naturally selfish and will seek to get our own way. Even to the po
I'll have to update fully later as I couldn't even get to read everything. I'm going to have to start putting everything into microsoft word and create my reply than copy/paste it on here as these comments are getting huge.
Here is one thing that really sticks out of my mind. I actually don't think homosexuality should be illegal...I'm a firm believer in "Free Will" and letting people choose to do right or wrong within reason (obviously no murder). However, I feel insulted and offended when people tell me homosexuality has been proven fact to be a predisposition when it has not. maybe someday it will be proven that being attracted to same sex is a predisposition but as of today, it has not been proven fact. Had they simply said it was a choice, I'd actually assist them in any "tasteful" rallies for them to choose their lifestyle and the way they want to live and I firmly believe it would be legal but they offend many people with their claims it is a fact and it infuriates many.
To top it off is their offensive and disgusting rallies. Highly sexual, nude, and all in public. Would you want your kids around that even if you want to defend homosexual rights? Seeing these rallies further makes me want to always vote against anything they want...even if i do agree with their rights because that is just plain wrong on all levels. Those rallies are not tasetfully done showing maturity and self control...they are publicly showing perverted sexual acts and nudity, bondage, etc....
"it doesnt harm anyone" that all depends on how you view it. I'm a believer that hollywood and tv harm people because it changes a kids mindset on whats right (cool) and wrong(boring and lame). I feel it harms the mindset entirely to young kids (and even some adults) who aren't mature enough, experienced enough, and just plain old enough to have created a filter to see things from outside the box. So i completely disagree with it doesn't harm anyone. If you add in "physically," I'll fully agree. but "harm" by itself is too broad of a word for me to ever agree. This goes back to my explanation on how powerful the mind is. we've studied it for generations and still know nothing about it proving its complexities.
your comment on "fellatio being excused in couples." its not excused...its a complete choice. nobody is saying fellatio is a predisposition so I don't understand what you are referring to on why its excused. to me, thats apples to oranges so please further explain that. I read it VERY fast too so maybe I made a mistake in reading your message and you did so apologies ahead of time if I just simply can't read, haha.
Lastly, actually homosexuality is technically always a choice. While it may someday be proved that being attracted to someone of the same sex is a predisposition....actually acting it out "is and always will be a choice...no ifs ands or buts about it."
i lied...one more last thing on saying religion shouldnt have any role in whats right/wrong or laws...however you worded it as now im really rushing. religion is a set of beliefs and a set of beliefs creates morals and a persons morals should have a say in whats right/wrong from a legal standpoint. this also goes to further say why i believe states should be responsible, not the fed govt. I should have every right to go to a state that doesnt want it because if its anything like the gay bars my gf has gone to in chicago, it will be sickening the changes that could take place. straight people go to clubs and rarely does something sexual actually take place on the dance floor but if you go to boystown in chicago, according to my gf and her homosexual friends that I am also friends with, you will see all out sexual acts going on everywhere, spur of the moment. Look into studies that have shown homosexual relationships are mostly non-monagamous because monogamy to them is still allowing other people in their bedroom. They have studies that show the majority of marriages/partnerships end in divorce as well. If you want, I can show you those when I get some type to look through my files.
that whole boystown in chicago sounds pretty animalistic to me and many agree with me on that. is that what we are legalizing too if we legalize marriage? by looking at their parades...im scared we might be and I dont want my future kids near that place.
i lied again, haha
In response to this: "If someone can be genetically inclined towards homosexuality how can it be that the same is not true of persons inclined to incest. Can scientist definitively say that humans cannot be GENETICALLY inclined to have sexual desires for children, beast"
Freud stated that this is a normal phase for kids to go through where they are sexually attracted to their parents around the age of 7-9 i believe. So would that mean its proven that incest is ok and harms nobody...even at a young age?
@ ImNobody: I am not so sure if your question was directed at me but Ill go ahead and make a quick response here. This aspect of Freud's theory was a passing part of my studies on him as a theorist but I do remember that bit of his theory. I cant remember clearly either if he is the one who put forward a theory of children experiencing sexual pleasure while defecating.
It is no secret that kids do experience some level of sexual stimulation and sexual attraction. That knowledge by no means supports exposing children to actual sex. It simple means that those in charge of them (the children) need to wisely nurture these kids and help them to get to the point of learning about and having a healthy concept of their sexual identity and sexuality. The sad thing is that this is a taboo topic for many parents and many of us are stumped as how to relate to a child's need to learn about their sexuality.
As far as I am concerned when a child experiences a sexual attraction to their own sex, family member or even animals and become fixated during that period of sexual curiosity that is where the danger lies. It has nothing to do with genes as is being put forward by these scientific findings.
Now to answer your question directly: Let us use Freud's theory and say that a child goes through various stages of sexual attraction during a certain stage of their development. Some kids experience fixation during one of these stages but scientist have (under pressure) picked out and identified one of these sexual attractions as being a genetic attribute. That leaves us with the query: "If someone can be genetically inclined towards homosexuality how can it be that the same is not true of persons inclined to incest. Can scientist definitively say that humans cannot be GENETICALLY inclined to have sexual desires for children, beast"
You may have not being able to get the angle I was coming from with that query but please note that my response there was to another poster so might have to read back through both responses. That poster (DisgruntledReader) does not see how I can compare homosexuality with incest, bestiality and paedophilia. In my opinion they are all sexual desires but my understanding from DisgruntledReader's responses is that homosexuality is separate and a part from the other sexual desires because there is scientific evidence supporting that notion. I do not believe those scientific evidence.
As far as I am concerned labeling one sexual desire as a genetic attribution opens the door for people to find an excuse to validate their sexual desires and the need to express themselves. The notion that once it is consensual and brings harm to no one then its okay is just the sort of fuel that activist crave for their lobbying.
Not every effect shows up as an immediate direct hurt to another party. Where our society is concerned there are many things which over time have eaten away at the moral fabric of society and resulted long-term hurt. Environmentalist have for decades warned against the activities which brought instant gains of financial and economical prosperity. Those activities were seen as the the answer to many problems and brought satisfaction to many of us but now we are seeing the long term effects of those decisions. It might just take all the wealth we have accumulated over the years to correct those mistakes or possibly some things are just too far gone to be corrected.
OHIC: My question is more in reference to how long will people need to mold the argument or a better argument than I stated so it can be legalized? Everyone is a lawyer these days and its just a matter of time that we adjust our laws, morals, and such to allow more of whatever desires people want.
---
Maybe we should introduce bisexuality to the discussion and ask if that a third one now? You are either born straight, born gay, or born to like both sexes?
My mindset goes as follows: I love cheeseburgers over a salad. My tastebuds crave cheeseburgers over salads so maybe I was born to like cheeseburgers over salads?
I'd disagree because I've been able to find much pleasure in salads but also that grains (the bread) have been shown to be an addictive substance that the body craves the more it eats it. However, I still choose my path and I choose to eat salads. Now if I convinced myself that I was born to like cheeseburgers, I'd likely be eating a lot of cheeseburgers because my mindset will likely be defeated therefore less willpower and more justification why I should just give in and eat a cheeseburger because I'm already convinced my body was born to be unhealthy and craves a cheeseburger. I'm just powerless to my predisposition basically...its not my fault.
This also goes for drug addicts. The body was born to find pleasure in numerous types of drugs. Humans are predisposed to be drug addicts and since it doesn't hurt anyone but myself, I should have the ability to have all the drugs I want. I wish people would stop telling me what I can and can't do to myself. It's not my fault I'm a drug addict...I was born this way.
Does all that make sense?
Another point I'd like to make is why does the discussion have to be limited to humans only for sexual orientation? It has been proven fact that people have be attracted to animals, inanimate objects, etc...
To me, in my opinion obviously, it seems that the discussion always wants to stay with humans and orientation around humans only because if it doesn't, the predisposition theory tends to lose its validity very quickly.
I used to find discussions (many years ago) where animals were already brought up as proof of homosexuality being ingrained in our instincts, predisposition, etc.... That evolved to the counter arguments which reversed the tables on that evidence. Now, I almost never see the animal argument ever brought up again and actually, I find that the discussion tends to always say it must be confined to humans only with the 3 orientations of gay, straight, or bi in the discussion. Is it somehow "crazy" to think that if you are born gay, you can't be born to like animals because animals aren't humans? Why the limitation that humans can only be predisposed to like humans? I don't recall seeing any studies stating that.
Ditto Ditto ****
I meant to carry in that bi-sexual bit. I meant to point out that there are no arguments stating that some persons are genetically inclined to be a bi-sexual because that would I guess be a bit more tricky to argue For and scientist would be hard pressed to really lend their support to such a notion as it is so clearly a choice, a sexual craving if you may.
Bi-sexuality so obviously demonstrates ones sexual choice. Imagine scientist trying to explain just how chemicals in our brain turn on and off a bi-sexual's preferred attraction for each sexual encounter and that sometimes there is a clashing of these chemicals which cause them to want to be with both sexes at the same time (threesome). Bi-sexuals have no need of course to lobby for the legalization of their sexual practices/preference as the legalization of homosexuality took care of that.
I really think it is so wrong to give credence to the idea that we have no control over our sexual desires/behaviors. As far as I have observed homosexuals do not even bother to carry on about how much they were born that way as they dance, frolic and prance declaring they should have a right to live the life they want to live as it is done through consent and it hurts no one. The genetic card is pulled out only when they figure it will make a for stronger argument. ***THIS IS MY CHOICE, MY SEXUAL RIGHTS*** is more of a theme of their lobbying. Further more as I stated before I am yet to hear a homosexual convert refer to their past practice as anything else other than a choice they made for whatever reason. Without doubt we can have a strong sexual attraction for our own sex rather than the opposite sex but as I have maintained throughout this article and my responses it is wrong to attribute this attraction to ones genes.
Funny too that normally genetic inheritance would mean that a parent passed on the gene but the homosexual gene just seems to pop out of nowhere and randomly deposit itself somewhere in the gene of a child. No doubt some will argue that it is a suppressed gene which just came out in that child. That means there are many homosexually inclined parents out there who have homosexual tendencies they just never explored. WHEW**** Imagine that!
The argument could be that it was a dormant gene though and something activated it. While I don't believe that's the case, it is still an option that can't be overlooked.
Another note is I have seen many argue that bi-sexuality means they were predisposed to have the "best of both worlds" as they so eloquently put it and put all their findings on the back of the psychology statement that it is "no longer considered a mental disease and it not likely a choice but a predisposition. (paraphrased obviously)" I don't have the link they showed me anymore to that terminology but a google search can find it.
I've also seen psychologists (though they are considered crazy conspiracy theorists and/or connected to talk shows that have that feel to it such as Infowars.com) say that psychology was forced to say those terms because of the backlash they received for calling it a mental disease. The argument was that it was only changed for political reasons.
While I'm not much for jumping on the bandwagon of some psychologists who are on talk shows like infowars.com, I must say that the political aspect of most any organization these days is fightful and concerning to me. I have, for many years, been concerned that science, for example, is no longer science. We don't form a thesis based on observations and openly try to test it and observe it to form a conclusion. I now fear we now form conclusions based on our bias and/or were the money is at than do whatever it takes to prove that conclusion true...which is unscientific obviously.
conspiracy theory, maybe. in today's world, i don't find that too hard to believe anymore. As my grandfather always said, find where the money is and you'll find corruption. You think we are any better or worse after a few more generations? You obviously know my answer.
Hoping the others didn't leave the discussion...I appreciate opposing views very much as it is the only way to find the truth in this world.
I would hope that is not the case either. They did put forward some good views which contribute to a good debate. I am certainly not very trusting of our scientist and some of their findings at all. Good point about the money and its influence.
As I stated in an earlier response though no matter how much the truth is covered up and built upon one day it will resurface because truth is after all the long lasting and lives throughout ages. It will always out live that which is false. The present generations may never live to see it but it will one day emerge once again to put to rest/or to the test all these discussions for and against homosexuality.
I have little faith the truth will ever be embraced. The truth coming out doesn't mean the masses will embrace it as such...especially if it makes their life more of a struggle as life already is a struggle enough for most OR if their pre-existing bias can't seem to fit in that mold of what the facts are. Many people have a pre-conceived notion of what life should be like and what the truth already is and no matter what evidence you show them to the contrary, they argue it cause it doesn't fit in the box they created in their head.
Due to my Christian background, I have little faith that the truth will be embraced until the second coming. It would appear, based on my research of Revelation and such, that the truth will be ignored aka the blind leading the blind which is how the masses will take power against the few who actually embrace the truth.
Matthew 15:14 The blind shall lead in the blind and both shall fall in the ditch.
That line right there has impacted me more than any other quote, line, advice, etc.... in life.
Speaking of liberal and how things progressively go more liberal in time. Look at Canada. This is what I fear:
In Canada, if someone quotes Bible scripture that is against homosexuality, even if its done peacefully, they can be put in front of a human rights tribunal. Basically, the church used to have inquisitions and tribunals/trials, witch trials for example and I 100% agree those are terrible and one of the reasons I don't subscribe to a church but I still subscribe to Christianity.
Now, in Canada, its the reverse where liberals can put them on the stand for simply quoting scripture that disagree's with certain peoples lifestyle.
How long until this happens in America?
I hear you on the point of the truth. I strongly believe though that whether or not we embrace the truth it will always stand as a mirror to our choices. Whether or not we own the reflection that it shows of us or we choose conjure up another image that best suits our own liking, that will not cause the truth to be worn down or outdone.
I think its just a matter of us beating our heads against a wall. The truth does not always fight back but will remain as a mirror that we can never get rid of. It is a part of our souls which cause each of us to do a self evaluation whether we like it or not. Some of us accept, some run away from and deny what is shown, while still some go numb and unresponsive to what we find staring back at us.
I was brought up as a Christian but have absolutely no problem engaging in an argument/debate without making reference to the bible. As far as some people are concerned the bible is a good story book and are pretty dismissive of its contents as they relate to todays world. That not a problem to me either. Life itself is designed in such a way that we can make wise inferences from it.
The bible is a very good historical story book with undeniable prophetic values.
One thing I know for sure anything that carries within it the tales of verifiable history and such strong prophetical events which keep coming to pass is something worth paying attention to.
The bible itself is used for good and for evil. It was used to promote slavery and is used by both Christians and workers of witchcraft. The contents of the Bible can be twisted to suit man's desires or ignored if that needs to be the case. That has been the case all through it's existence. It is glorified and it is trampled upon but I find that its has withstood the test of time. Even those who disregard it will at some point or another draw inferences from it to either support or dispel some views.
I don't worry for the bible has by nature it can take care of itself. What I will say that throughout history leaders who had wisdom made the best leaders. There are very few heads of a country who can at this time be labelled as wise. Wisdom teaches even parents that you cannot stoop to the wishes of your children if the decisions are unwise.
On the other hand wisdom also teaches that there comes a time when as a leader or parent you must step aside and allow those set in your charge to have the desires of their hearts. This though is only after you have shown them the folly of their way and they decide they still want t heir way. Mistakes are usually the best teachers there are.
I would hope that the mistakes we now make as a nation/people will serve as food of wisdom and not hell bent destruction. That is something that it needs no bible to or preaching to highlight. All it needs is simple concern for the human-race and wisdom for the continuation of a life for our people not instant gratification and the need to rebel.
That to me is what homosexuality represents. Instant gratification and rebellion. The need to be different. Within that group there are those who genuinely struggle with the desire to be with someone of their own sex. There are the molested boys and girls, the battered woman/wife/daughter who's experience caused them to be unable to stand being with a man, there is the boy who was molested by a male relative and those who may have experience a fixation (if we want to bring that in) during childhood. The list could go on but a huge core of homosexuals got made their choice based on wanton desire, greed (oh not to mention that money talks and people sell themselves to the highest bidder), the woman who just wants to enjoy sex and not have to worry about getting pregnant (I have heard a bit of that) and the many teens who just like to rebel and get with the crowd.
There are many who would have us think they are wise and want us to listen to their wisdom. Compare the wisdom they try to pass on to the numerous ones found within the bible itself and the folly of listening them will be quite clear.
What is the wisdom of a 60 year old man compared to the wisdom garnered over decades.
The USA and many other nations may well be on their way to getting to the stage you mentioned in your comment. Whatever happens will certainly not come as a surprise. It might be frightening and all but with the way things tend to be, certainly not surprising.
Wisdom versus money and power. Which will bring these changes to reality?
Found this very interesting. For a while now, science has been saying and teaching young students that serial killers all have the same brain pattern indicating they were born a certain way and likely can't choose. This brought up the ethical question if its even right to sentence someone who is predisposed to being a killer cause they can't control themselves. Than a neurologist finds out he has the same brain patterns and environment played a major role in him not wanting to hurt anyone. Goes to show you that just because you might have certain tendencies, you ultimately have control over most things in your life. I personally find it offensive when people say things they are predisposed to that are choices and act like they are apples to apples with things such as autism or epilepsy. Thoughts?
I agree and your comment does reflect some of my views. If we continue down the path we are now treading science and law will excuse every undesirable behavior that man cares to exhibit. The only fuel needed to light that fire that validates a behavior is a lot of noise making and calls from human rights groups etc. Very soon no one will be responsible for anything we do. A woman goes berserk and hacks a few people in a shopping a mall will be tested for brain pattern and analyzed for tendencies and before you know it she will be declared as having no control over her actions.
I guess all those people in war torn and civil unrest affected countries were born to kill. In my opinion its all just a cop-out story which only serves the purpose of winning an argument. Debates by nature are not always won by those with the factual argument but by those who present the strongest arguments. No matter how weird an idea/argument is it just needs to be the strongest argument to be considered the winning argument. This is where the science of genetics comes in and is all twisted and bent out of and into shape to support certain topical issues.
No one was born a killer. No one was born a homosexual. No one was born a rapist. No one was born to be a mate to a beast. No one was born to commit incest.
It is the various environmental influences and factors which helps to shape ones mind and behavior. Nature/Nurture. Like an old tree it is hard to curb certain human behavior after it has aged for some time. I was told the Catholics do say something like give me your child from age 0-6 and they will remain a Catholic for life.
That goes to show that many behaviors are formed during the impressionable years of youth but may only manifest themselves when the individual reaches that age where they can now say this is what I want to do or else form a part of teenage rebellion. It all boils down to what one chooses to do.
Okay!
I'm very out of the loop and there is way to much for me to read and re-read/respond to everything... So I'll try and clarify
and respond to as much as I can with only one read through but study now occupies basically all of my time so coming back to post is very hard ^ ^; sorry. I don't have that much time as I was saying so again sorry if it's muddled. Okay here goes part 1.
@I'm nobody.
your comment on "fellatio being excused in couples."
I couldn't find where I said "excused" or the post... I possibly used the wrong word. The point to that argument
when I bring it up, is that fellatio harms no one and is a voluntary/consented (well when it is of course, the
act it self should be or it's illegal etc). That point relates to homosexuality, consenting adults etc.
Those distasteful rallies are also occurring because of the harsh view on homosexuality, it's a strong reaction
to try and validate that it's okay to themselves as much as to others. Bondage, sexual acts/nudity etc are as much
a "we're prepared to stand up for our way of life" as they are ways of comforting themselves. If the world was
mature and looked at homosexuality in such a way, then those rallies wouldn't exist.
This point could go on forever so I'll leave it here.
I strongly disagree that it harms children as well. In a world where it's accepted it would simply be that one is
allowed to partner with whomever one chooses, that's all a child would ever see or hear.
A child knowing they may be with whoever they wish as a life partner does NOT harm them. If we want to look at
it from that point of view we may as well make the bible for 18+ audiences while we're at it, incest, murder,
torture it's all there for young minds in one "wholesome" place. (not meant to be a new line of discussion, just
perspective).
To conclude I whole heatedly agree the indecent rallies are not the way to go, but it's easy to understand how
they began when a few are being oppressed and decide they've had enough.
Now, homosexuality being a choice or not... there is some limited proof to suggest it is more likely when a
parent is actually bisexual or homosexual, but I will say it isn't very strong.
However, again I agree with you on free will. It, and I will still stick to it, harms no one in the same way
liking or taking part in fellatio harms no one. So there is no reason for it to not be allowed. Beyond the fact
you may see two persons of the same sex holding hands or kissing etc the rest should be behind closed doors thus
irrelevant.
"i lied...one more last thing on saying religion shouldn't have any role in whats right/wrong or laws...however
you worded it as now I'm really rushing. religion is a set of beliefs and a set of beliefs creates morals and a
persons morals should have a say in whats right/wrong from a legal standpoint."
The trouble I have with religion having a say on people general innate moral compass is the "sheep" effect. As it
is on topic and a good example, the bible says "no homosexuality" so everyone who follows it (and I mean really
follows it not nit picking where they do or do not) should go "right it's wrong". That is not their own opinion
beyond their belief that anything the bible says is true and moral and just.
Also the "gay bars" and all such places, again, make sense. Of course such places are going to form in a society
that forcefully suppresses an aspect of these people, it is only natural to crave/seek an outlet for that
tension.
Like it or not society has molded the shape of homosexuality into a very "loud" scene where they can support
each other and hold security in the belief what they are doing is okay. And it is, but try believing that when
your targeted at school and constantly put down.
"that whole boystown in chicago sounds pretty animalistic to me and many agree with me on that. is that what we are legalizing too if we legalize marriage? by looking at their parades...I'm scared we might be and I dont want my future kids near that place."
A) no that is not what we are legalizing, it is that same sex couples shouldn't be oppressed. And B) Think about schoolies week or any other such event... You can't target an individual or group of homosexuals behaving in an animalistic fashion and NOT consent that the equivalent is done by their heterosexual counter parts.
Boystown is also an extension of my earlier point on the side effects of suppressing homosexuality and the oppressed party having a "loud" response. It is a "gay village" which is, obviously, very sad that such a thing has to exist or that they were pressured enough to feel the need for a protective community.
(I always say I want to keep things short then prattle on xD).
@ohic32
Hi again, good to be back hehe.
"As far as I am concerned labeling one sexual desire as a genetic attribution opens the door for people to find an excuse to validate their sexual desires and the need to express themselves."
This point is irrelevant as the "slippery slope" argument is not admissible in court. We cannot judge one act or topic based on outside chances that have nothing to do with the original. It is what is known as "distinguishability". Being Incest is a separate topic to homosexuality, as such a ruling on homosexuality cannot be linked to this separate case. So, even if a gene is absolutely proven to link to say pedophilia it still would not be legalized as it still does harm, but it WOULD allow preemptive help for those individuals.
"(not in response to anything just a quote) The slippery slope argument is clearly invalid if it is meant to be a point of logic, for it does not follow that "if b is an exception to A, then no part of A is true." It is something that has stuck with me though I don't remember where I first read it.
So, i guess to conclude, the "paranoia" of "opening the door" would not and should not be considered in court. Homosexuality has to be looked at for it's own strengths and weaknesses not what "might" happen.
"The notion that once it is consensual and brings harm to no one then its okay is just the sort of fuel that activist crave for their lobbying."
That is where we all hit a dangerous line xD. As how do we maintain freedom if say, it is consensual and brings harm to no one and everyone in the world goes "yeah it's okay" but one person says "no it's totally immoral". There is a point where one can say "what right do you have to say that it is immoral?". And "well I just don't like it" isn't a valid argument.
I am a firm believer that if those prerequisites are met then I'm fine with it, especially if it affects me in no way. (which with homosexuality it doesn't)
I'm no activist either, just someone putting their two cents in based on what my morals tell me. And if "consensual and non-harmful" are not good enough qualifications, list what is maybe?
"Environmentalist have for decades warned against the activities which brought instant gains of financial and economical prosperity"
This is not even in the same ball park as moral decline and sexual acts. It's just an example of not looking ahead when what would happen was clear and not "well it might happen!".
@I'mNobody
The entire cheeseburger argument as with above one is entirely off topic. Though a good example of nice will power control to take the healthy choice ;).
Also the argument did include animals at one point... Not sure where, but it was overlooked off memory. Basically that even animals are homosexual. Inanimate objects are fetishes and specific turn on's etc, again, if it harms no one I don't see the problem with them.
I prefer to stick to humans as in a sense we are also arguing true sentience over an animal, you don't hear people complaining about homosexuality in the animal kingdom.
@Ohic32
"I meant to point out that there are no arguments stating that some persons are genetically inclined to be a bi-sexual because that would I guess be a bit more tricky to argue For and scientist would be hard pressed to really lend their support to such a notion as it is so clearly a choice, a sexual craving if you may."
There was actually a study there quite recently... I remember it coming up in studies (psychology student). It was into the nature human arousal and the difference in orgasm to male and female. But it basically sat 200+subjects down and monitored blood flow/heat etc to genital area while the subject was shown various pictures and movies. Heterosexual, bi-sexual, group, male-male, female-female, even two monkeys having sex. The male mind was actually rather as one would expect, if they were straight, then straight images or naked women aroused them. Via the keypad they imput about the same psychological state of arousal as the machines indicated. While with women when shown the images everything aroused them physically, very surprising to the researchers, but they generally reported a low state of arousal via the keypad. So women rely on visual stimulation yes, but also heavily on mental stimulation for arousal (A sentiment I agree with personally). Also in a separate study that when in a "group" sexual encounter women are very prone to be with one another, while men hardly at all. Women (straight, bi and homosexual) often stating that we are attracted to "people", and this comes into play when emotions are high.
I'll try to find the article as it was a very interesting and mildly amusing read through... this isn't so much as an argument as just a response with some fun facts.
Now where was I...
"Further more as I stated before I am yet to hear a homosexual convert refer to their past practice as anything else other than a choice they made for whatever reason."
Well of course, they're converts... you also have the opposite, straight turned gay who claim "I was just brought up to believe I should like men/women..." among many other reasons.
"Without doubt we can have a strong sexual attraction for our own sex rather than the opposite sex but as I have maintained throughout this article and my responses it is wrong to attribute this attraction to ones genes."
It is more common to be straight yes... I've touched on this one a lot so I have to admit it's a little off putting to have to answer it again.
If anything they DID find commonalities for homosexuality etc, and and increased likely hood if one of the parents are or were homosexual (even if the child does not know it). However the findings are rather slim and they need to do more research. And there is a doubt :P, untill it is proven one way or the other no one is right or wrong we merely have our opinions. Though I for one obviously do not care if it is a choice or not, it's not a crime to be homosexual and it shouldn't be one. I don't have much time and really just don't want to find more evidence again or cross referencing to homosexuality in animals etc etc.
"Funny too that normally genetic inheritance would mean that a parent passed on the gene but the homosexual gene just seems to pop out of nowhere and randomly deposit itself somewhere in the gene of a child. No doubt some will argue that it is a suppressed gene which just came out in that child. That means there are many homosexually inclined parents out there who have homosexual tendencies they just never explored. WHEW**** Imagine that!" actually that entire statement is very true hehe. There are many out there who aren't particularly turned "off" by the idea of same sex contact (much more in women than men). A suppressed gene is one possibility as well yes. Like when one has two children, both parents having brown eyes and one magically having green via a gene passed on.
@I'mNobody
"The argument could be that it was a dormant gene though and something activated it. While I don't believe that's the case, it is still an option that can't be overlooked."
I agree and think it's an important point so just re-quoting it. It cannot be debunked without proof.
"I've also seen psychologists (though they are considered crazy conspiracy theorists and/or connected to talk shows that have that feel to it such as Infowars.com) say that psychology was forced to say those terms because of the backlash they received for calling it a mental disease. The argument was that it was only changed for political reasons."
God would my psychology professor have a thought or two on that one. He is not gay just for the record. There was a time when we also thought lobotomies made people better too.
I believe it was in 1973 that homosexuality was removed from the list of mental illness in America.
I'm sorry but whoever you've seen is telling lies, it simply isn't true. At best, a commonality found (as far as mental illness goes) among homosexuals is oversensitivity. However oversensitivity is NOT a symptom of ANY mental illness.
Homosexuality is not and would not be classified as a mental illness even IF genetic disposition is disproved and it was left to being a mental perspective as it is not a debilitating mental ailment, harmful to the self or others nor a cause of subjective distress. I could maybe understand a it with the application of biological psychiatry and coming from a psychiatrist where any deviation from "normal" is a mental deviation, but even then that does not make it an "illness". It is viewed to a MUCH greater extent from the biopsychosocial model (that alterations from person to person (or disease to disease) stem from a combination of biological, psychological and social factors) than the "reductionist" (understatement of the year) biomedical model of medicine (basically that every disease process can be explained by a deviation from normal function).
@I'mNobody
"Due to my Christian background, I have little faith that the truth will be embraced until the second coming."
I'm sorry, I've used some religious points to debunk some facts throughout the length of this debate. Just want it to be known I don't mean any offence.
I'm going to leave the quote and second comming alone as I don't want this becoming a religious debate, and it's all off topic anyway.
"In Canada, if someone quotes Bible scripture that is against homosexuality, even if its done peacefully, they can be put in front of a human rights tribunal. Basically, the church used to have inquisitions and tribunals/trials, witch trials for example and I 100% agree those are terrible and one of the reasons I don't subscribe to a church but I still subscribe to Christianity."
I had a long response here, but as Ohic32 says later I'm one of those people that don't hold the bible to a grain of salt. (that said I do appreciate some of it's messages and concepts of course. But taking hold of every word, well, religiously is a bad thing).
Suffice to say organizations such as "God hates fags" are the reason homosexuals have that power. And I'm sorry but I and very glad they do. Just watching those arrogant, diluted bunch of self righteous, holier-than-thou fanatics get to borderline actively abuse homosexuals made my stomach churn. How people can be so unbelievably cruel and intolerant to each other I'll never know. But it stemmed from a genuine belief they were trying to "save" them.
It is an extreme measure to prevent that abuse, but the bible is not proof against homosexuality, i'm sorry =/.
After it has been made clear it is not wanted, I agree they should stop beating them over the head with the bible and move on, or face consequences as from that point on it is abuse. Respect their beliefs and lifestyle... Of course that door swings both ways.
Ahem, I just can't help myself once I get going, I was attempting to not say anything on religion.
@Ohic32
"That to me is what homosexuality represents. Instant gratification and rebellion."
== to ==
"the woman who just wants to enjoy sex and not have to worry about getting pregnant (I have heard a bit of that) and the many teens who just like to rebel and get with the crowd."
Is all your personal subj
(oops! thank goodness I A) saved what I wrote and B) double checked now hehe xD)
Is all your personal subjective opinion and not fact. On the last bit I find it interesting other sentient life (like dolphins) also have sex just for pleasure.
(((Sorry if I'm skimming I've basically run out of time now)))
@I'mNobody
"This brought up the ethical question if its even right to sentence someone who is predisposed to being a killer cause they can't control themselves. Than a neurologist finds out he has the same brain patterns and environment played a major role in him not wanting to hurt anyone. Goes to show you that just because you might have certain tendencies, you ultimately have control over most things in your life. I personally find it offensive when people say things they are predisposed to that are choices and act like they are apples to apples with things such as autism or epilepsy. Thoughts?"
I basically agree. Though it's not a new theory, just psychology vs psychiatry again. Psychology more firmly rooted in emotional and environmental changes shaping someone and psychiatry believing it is all in the brain.
@Ohic32
"No one was born a killer. No one was born a homosexual. No one was born a rapist. No one was born to be a mate to a beast. No one was born to commit incest."
No one was born a killer... we think. No one was born homosexual... we think, though there is some evidence. No one was born a rapist... we think. That is your opinion.
Proof, proof, proof, please! xD. It's common knowledge we are at our weakest and most impressionable portion of our lives as children.
Proof also doesn't count if it is from subjective experience to such an extent that another would have to be you to have experienced the same thing.
For instance your experience with homosexuals sounds very very different from mine, especially those who have become straight, I've never met one of them who decided to boldly claim all homosexuals have a choice, and they generally aren't even really sure about where they are now they... I'll say "want" to be straight, as it more closely resembles my experiences with them.
All of that just being an example, you can't refute my findings and experiences with your own as you have not lived through mine. Just as I cannot with yours.
I try to keep my points less of an opinion and more based on evidence.
Not to say you make bad points! sorry everything was very rushed.
Hi DisgruntledReader. Happy to see you were able to spare some of your study time to respond. Just to address your points about my arguments being opinion rather than proof based.... It is. And as far as I am concerned so too is much of the discussion which has taken place here as the article itself relates personal views in a bid to stimulate other views/fact and fact not one or the other.
Based on some of the points you made there are still some things which science cannot definitively classify as A or B and so the findings can only be left up to opinion until proof is gained. Here for example: "If anything they DID find commonalities for homosexuality etc, and and increased likely hood if one of the parents are or were homosexual (even if the child does not know it). However the findings are rather slim and they need to do more research. And there is a doubt :P, untill it is proven one way or the other no one is right or wrong we merely have our opinions."
That quote of your own words sums it up for me. Whether we inject scientific or biblical proof or even personal experiences and/or opinions to support our argument it it all boils done to just that. OUR opinions. I just choose not to inject too many scientific researches and results in my argument as they themselves are inconclusive and seems to be prone to changes depending on where the stronger pressure and I would say financial backing lies.
Note also that whenever I state my views there is always an indication that it is in fact my opinion. I just do not think I should rely on scientific backings *which in my opinion* on this topic are more like scientific opinions. When and if my views on homosexuality does change it will be because of findings more concrete than the those now circulating in support of this sexual orientation. I hold these scientific findings and arguments in much the same light you hold the bible. So you will not draw on the bible for support and I will not draw on science as my main support either. I will from time to time draw on both if I need to use aspects of them to bring home my point. If I was involved in an academic debate and needed to score points to win the debate then I would have certainly studied and used the scientific arguments to my advantage but that would be that.
You have to made the point more than once throughout your responses that homosexuality and bestiality and the other sexual behaviors mentioned in the article are not one and the same and hence there is no merit in discussing them as such. I have in response to that point indicated that they all fall under one heading. Sexual Desires or we could even say Sexual Orientation. The fact is that they all have to do with man's sexual desires and preferences and there is no separating them. Heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, incestuous behaviors and an inclination to gain sexual gratification from raping someone all relate to human sexuality and sexual behavior. Below is a definition from Wikipedia.
"Homosexuality is one of the three main categories of sexual orientation, along with bisexuality and heterosexuality, within the heterosexual-homosexual continuum. The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is an example of normal and positive variation in human sexual orientation.
That bit is just to point out that there homosexuality does belong in the same discussion with any other sexual behavior. It does not stand alone and that is the basis for the question asked at the beginning of the article...
"The Argument: If we are to accept the argument that persons are born as homosexuals, should we not also accept the views that one can also be born with a sexual preference for beast/animals? This should give legal rights to persons who engage in bestiality to not be discriminated against but rather to be able to openly live their lives as they choose. We can also argue that people can be born with sexual preference for members of their family, hence, making incest acceptable.
Would the same scientist and doctors, psychologist etc., who present arguments in support of homosexuality do the same for bestiality and incest? Can it be proven that either of these sexual preferences are not genetically affiliated?"
You also added to that point or query here when you quoted me... "No one was born a killer... we think. No one was born homosexual... we think, though there is some evidence. No one was born a rapist... we think. That is your opinion." The emphasis would be on your words "we think" and the query in the article... "should we not also accept the views that one can also be born with a sexual preference for beast/animals?" and "Would the same scientist and doctors, psychologist etc., who present arguments in support of homosexuality do the same for bestiality and incest? Can it be proven that either of these sexual preferences are not genetically affiliated?"
That has been the basis of the argument I have presented all along. Here is one of your earlier response. "Homosexuality is in no way related to either of them beyond the fact it's a sexual act or preference. Incest degrades the genetic make up of a couples children so it is harmful, thus should not be legalized. An animal cannot consent to sexual congress so it should also not be legalized. Homosexuality is non-harmful to the parties involved or anyone else, and again, technically anything except intercourse between a male and female to have children is "wayward turning of sexual desire". Even mentioning homosexuals in the same sentence as pedophiles and rapists seems like a grave injustice and misunderstanding, as both of the later are blatantly crimes for obvious reason. While homosexuality has yet to have a good reason put forth for it to be outlawed or made illegal."
To just take it apart a bit here is your view.
Your point: Incest - degrades the genetic make up of a couples children so it is harmful, thus should not be legalized.
My response from an earlier post:
Incest: Harms no one as long as they do not have a child together. If they want to procreate then use a surrogate mother/some donated sperm. Live happily ever after.
After all the fact is that homosexuals who desire to have a child are facilitated with avenues such as sex reassignment, insemination as well as using surrogate parents (which ever they prefer). If it is OK for homosexuals to go to such lengths to live their lives it can not be right to suppress another group.
Your point: Bestiality - An animal cannot consent to sexual congress so it should also not be legalized.
My point: I do agree that animals can not consent but that in no way disqualifies the sexual orientation that some humans have toward animals. The point I have raised is CAN scientist definitively state that there is no genetic attributions to such a sexual orientation? OR will they base their answer on the non-scientific conclusion that it man can consent animals cant?
Your point: Rape and Pedophilia - Even mentioning homosexuals in the same sentence as pedophiles and rapists seems like a grave injustice and misunderstanding, as both of the later are blatantly crimes for obvious reason.
My earlier response: Pedophilia: As a matter of fact the practice of legalizing pedophilia is very much alive and well as far as I am concerned. Notice how the legal age of consent for having sex keeps going down over a period of time? In my country it went down from 18yrs to 16yrs. 16 !!!! The same system which says your 16yr old can consent to sex is the same one which tells you that that 16yr old is a child and it is legally binding that you as the parent is responsible for the care of this child until they become adults.
Once lobbying is done for lowering the age of consent and the law is on their side then all is well. Get a child partner, maybe support them through school if the parents are too upset to continue doing so, just enjoy some sex and until the child gets to the established adult age when they can officially li
OK... I guess all the comment could not be posted at one time so a bit of it got erased. Here is the rest of that qoute... "just enjoy some sex and until the child gets to the established adult age when they can officially live with them then move them in/marry and live happily ever after."
And here are a couple qoutes from ImNobody that I find interesting and agree with.
"You say if they did find a gene, they won't legalize pedo/bestiality. In today's generation, i fully agree with you. However, each generation is more desensitized than the previous and more liberal. so my response is all in time. My brief research in history years ago lead me to believe most all civilizations go towards more liberal and only a war makes them go back to more conservatism."
You better believe pedos will try to convince people that young people already have sex so there is no difference between them having sex at a young age than having sex with someone older who is likely to keep them more safe due to their experience, etc...or whatever they will argue as everyone is a lawyer today. In time, it will be desensitized just like everything else in this world. It may be 100 years before that happens but the point is we are on that path...we are not on a path away from it and because you seem logical/fair in your thoughts, I believe you will fully agree with that statement.
I would just like to say that the initial plan that is still in favour of God today is that man was made for a woman. Adam and Eve were perfect in their bodies-whether it be geneitically and/or mentally. Unfortunately man had a fall, and with this sin came into being. Many deformities, whether it be bipolar, depression, autism, came into being after the fall of man. i am not saying that all deseases are linked to sin, but sin definitely has a role for many unnatural occurences and births. I can not see that a person who is born without any limbs was God's purpose for him or her as we see that God created Adam and Eve the way he wanted it to be. This child may have been born disabled due to his mother's drug addiction before and during his or her birth (sin). So it is not fair to make a comparison between Adam and Eve's bodies to a person who is born deformed or gay. People who are born gay may be this way due to a lustful spirit, trauma and/or genetically. The main purpose is to do your utmost best to fight against the flesh, in order to please God! It is evident that the Bible is so against homosexuality, as with many other sins. Because a person was born with high testosterone, doesn't give him the right to kill another man (that is his fight against the sinful flesh, just as it is a gay mans fight against his flesh to desire another man). So yes you may have been born this way, even though Adam wasn't born gay or deformed, but it is still your fight against your flesh. Stay a virgin, rather than hammering a man in his bum!
First of all I would like to say that I think most of us would agree that beastiality is wrong, morally repugnant and should not really be tolerated. If you want to contest me on this point, you can ignore the rest of the argument.
Personally I am against homosexuality primary because of my religious views (christianity) but religion aside the beastiality question is one reason why I believe homosexuality is wrong.
I have found many homosexuals rallying under the cry of freedom to love, and freedom of choice. This argument too can be applied to beastiality.
If you are in favour of homosexuality, how are you going to respond to someone who says he was born that way, or that due to environmental factors and the way that he was brought up, he feels a sexual attraction to animals and an inclination to act them out.
Beastiality is also not excluded by the statement that argues you should let others do whatever they want as long as it does not harm other people.
The only loophole in the above argument would be whether it would harm the animal, and without it's consent whether or not it would constitute rape.
There have been cases regarding certain captive chimpanzees having a sexual attraction and an inclination towards their human trainers, but those cases aside, I find that if the only thing separating homosexuality from beastiality is consent, then there is something seriously wrong with the fact that we allow it.
You should enter this Hub in the contest for the most ignorant in the history of HubPages contest. It's a winner.
Thanks but I'll leave you to occupy all such positions. Hands down... No competition coming your way from me. So please do not feel threatened in any way. Do enjoy.
I agree with Ralph Deeds. I was going to respond about the hub itself but DisgruntledReader wiped the floor up it and the whole comment section. I'll just say, if you read those points made and still try to argue, you're really not a person that wants to understand anything. You've held onto a belief and just refuse to let it go because you'd have to rethink your position in that case and, who wants to do that? No sense anyone could make would get through to a person like that. I mean, if "consent" is not the first thing that pops into you head to address some of the ridiculous "points" made, you're really not trying at all to figure anything out.
Also, seriously, if you read the bible and see all the atrocities in it committed in the name of god or by god himself and excuse them, you've given up any right to speak on morality. Two consenting adults of the same sex in a sexual relationship harming no one = Bad. Killing the first born sons of Egypt after hardening the heart of someone willing to comply = Good. Your sense of morality and whole thought process is just screwed up.
Hi Thinking Allowed,
Firstly, I'll say thanks for sharing your views here.
Secondly, I'll ask that you consider the main point of the article. It got carried off into the for or against bible views while the point I really wanted discussed got lost.
I have copy and pasted the main argument as it appears in the article. The issue of the bible's views on homosexuality is for ever taking the forefront, but I wanted a discussion on the use of science to legalize homosexuality.
The bible believers vs the non-beleivers will never end so I hope whoever else comments will focus on the use science to legalize one form of sexual desire (just about everyone seems to acknowledge its about adult consent)as opposed to the other sexual desires highlighted. Why would science say one desire stems from gene contribution while the other undesirable sexual preferences are labelled as immoral?
Is it really a gene thing or just plain sexual desire?
My argument is that it is desire and has nothing to with gene and therefore an error has been made in using science to legalize homosexuality. Leave science and genes out of it as it is a human sexual desire just like other sexual preferences be it heterosexual or otherwise.
Is science prepared to say my genes made me heterosexual, while Mr. X's genes made him a pedophile, and still another persons genes cause them to be attracted to animals as opposed to fellow man.
Isn't science playing a dangerous game of stepping in to tip the hat in favor of on sexual desire over the others, and wont this come back to bite it in the butt later?
So here goes the main point of the article.
I have heard arguments both for and against homosexuality and as is customary in any debated issue tempers will flare and each party will try to prove why their view is correct.
I have chosen to focus on a particular view which I am yet to hear sufficient if any debates on.
The Argument: If we are to accept the argument that persons are born as homosexuals, should we not also accept the views that one can also be born with a sexual preference for beast/animals? This should give legal rights to persons who engage in bestiality to not be discriminated against but rather to be able to openly live their lives as they choose. We can also argue that people can be born with sexual preference for members of their family, hence, making incest acceptable.
Again, everything you're still bringing up was already addressed by DisgruntledReader. You already got your answer, you just don't seem to want to accept it. Homosexuality stands on it's own. To compare it to anything else is ridiculous. Consent is the only thing that need be brought up. Whether or not someone is predisposed to something doesn't matter. I don't believe homosexuality is a choice nor pedophilia. I think bestiality is more about not accepting societal norms than predisposition. None of that matters though! In one instance, homosexuality, you have consenting adults both fully understanding what they're doing with no intent of harm. In any other pairing you can think of, without 2 adult humans, informed consent exits the picture making any "point" you're trying to make moot. Science could find genes for all of this stuff or no genes at all and it wouldn't matter. The same points against your argument stand: Harm vs No harm + Consent vs No Consent.
Btw, there's is no argument against incest either other than most of us finding it "icky" (I can't imagine being with a family member). The irony is, science understanding genes, and us seeing the results of inbreeding, is most likely what led us as a society to look down on incest. Again, other than the "icky" part there's no argument that can make or even should be made against it. If 2 siblings were separated and never met until later in life, the only thing they would have connecting them as far as they know, is a mutual attraction. Can you actually prevent them from being together? Is there any reason to? No, not really. No natural instinct would kick in that would detect relation. If you make a point of them both possibly carrying a bad gene guaranteeing their child will have some deformity, the same could be said about 2 unrelated people carrying the same bad gene. Should we stop them from being together too?
Science asks questions and attempts to find answers for those questions. You're acting as if they have some meeting in the core of the earth and vote on what they want reality to be. It doesn't work that way. Whatever they find is what they find. There's no "game" being played. Not liking what they find doesn't change facts. Science brings up uncomfortable facts all the time, ask Galileo.
You keep saying "legal". Let's say we make homosexuality illegal...then what? We lock them up for saying they're a homosexual? or only when we catch them in a homosexual act? Do we make it ok to beat them up or kill them? What the hell do you mean by "legal"? They're going to be homosexual whether it's "legal" or not and again, if it's not harming anyone, just leave them the hell alone! Why is that so hard for you and some others to do? They've already been beat up, discriminated against, disowned by families and communities, ridiculed until they commit suicide, and killed for being who they are. What the hell else do you want?
Hi Again Allowed,
Though I can understand why homosexuals and persons who argue for homosexuality may get upset easily I'd rather we not enter the path of anger in this discussion.
To just be clear: I do not support violence against homosexuals. I do not support the act, but at the same time will have friends who are homosexuals. I do find that people in support of the act get just as riled and sometimes as violent as those who do not. They tend to be very judgmental so that the moment another person express their views against homosexuality, most homosexuals and their supporters start labeling those individuals as homophobic and all the rest.
Speaking against homosexuality does not make a person homophobic. That said:
As I related to Disgruntledreader he was stating his opinion and so was I. Will you be able to come up with all the right answer to satisfy my queries either? No. there's nothing else you can do but state your views (and possibly get angry but Id rather you not) and I can do nothing but the same. It is a topical discussion and will continue to be so for a long time to come.
There are topics in this world that will never be totally resolved and homosexuality is one of them. The discussions and the acceptance have come a long way and will continue for a long time. The newest addition to the arena is the 1993 reports of genes playing a factor in homosexual preferences.
Not all scientist support the gene findings and not all homosexuals do either. There are homosexuals and former homosexuals who state that it was their choice.
The use of science to support homosexuality as not even been thoroughly researched by many of us who argue for or against homosexuality. I am certainly not prepared to simply accept any such findings. Here is the link to an article of some who did so until he decided to research further what the findings entailed. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1925
Science points to women being the ones totally responsible for having and passing on the gene to their child. That alone raises eyebrows. Are women really responsible for passing on the genes that determines if we are homosexuals or heterosexuals or any other form of sexuality for that matter?
The science findings you support is still so inconclusive that using it as a support only raises more and more questions (as is the nature of science). At the end of the article are links to other interesting articles and reports.
Types of sexual preferences/sexual orientation/sexual desires
1. Heterosexuality (man to woman)
2. Homosexuality (same sex)
3. Pedophilia (adult to child; some people seem to think women aren't pedophiles too)
4. Incest (inter-familial sex)
Bestiality (man to beast)
Those are the ones I know of, but as time progresses other sexual desires/preferences may pop up. This is the human race afterall.
I gather from your views that you would or do consider heterosexuality, homosexuality and incest as accepted preferences with incest being the least desired (icky). Aside from heterosexuality i find all others (icky). As I said, we are all expressing our views. No doubt some who practice incest find homosexuality "icky" while some are homosexuals. Those in this group who are homosexuals have no genetic failings to worry about.
What of the others? aren't they preferences too? Why should I accept the view, as is expressed by you and Disgruntledreader, that once the sexual preference takes place between two consenting adults then its ok?
Supporting homosexuality calls upon the supporter to speak of the struggles homosexuals endured,including having to stay in a closet. Aside from heterosexuality all other forms of sexual preferences had to stay in a closet and were (and continue to be) deemed as wrong choices.
Homosexuality is the only of these preferences that science came out in support of and the question remains... What of the others?
If science somehow finds genetic support for the other forms of sexual preferences then what will society decide?
Obviously the main argument against them will be that it does not involve two consenting adults. What will we do with these people then? How will society facilitate their preferences or will we apply laws to stop them or find a way to cure them? Will we enter the realms of reparative therapy for other forms of sexual orientations?
For as long the human race continues to exist we will continue to have all these sexual preferences. At this point heterosexuality and homosexuality are the main and more accepted of the preferences. What of the future and what role will science play?
"Will you be able to come up with all the right answer to satisfy my queries either? No"
Saying that means you don't want answers to your questions. You want to hold on to your beliefs no matter what. No one that cares about facts or truth would ever say that, which makes this conversation pointless.
Everything you typed was already addressed. Again, you got your answers you just don't want to accept them. No amount of sense being made can convince someone who thinks their beliefs are right simply because they hold them. You don't want to talk about it, but that position on belief is the domain of the religious. You simply don't understand what beliefs are. Beliefs are not given, they're shaped by reality.
"What of the others? aren't they preferences too?"
This was already addressed so, again, you obviously don't care to have your questions answered.
"Why should I accept the view, as is expressed by you and Disgruntledreader, that once the sexual preference takes place between two consenting adults then its ok?"
Because we make sense. What 2 consenting adults do is none of your damn business. Simple as that. You don't get to make laws against something simply because you personally don't like it. How arrogant are you? I'm a straight male. I find 2 men together icky and 2 women together awesome. I have no desire to make laws against either situation. The world would be a lot better place if people doing no harm would just be left the hell alone. It's not hard to understand, you just don't want to understand it.
If I posed any questions, please don't respond to them. They were rhetorical. As I said, you don't care about answers. You don't care to understand. It's your hub, you can respond if you want of course. I just wont be responding back because, as I said before, this conversation is pointless.
Entering a discussion then throwing a tantrum when your views or opposed or disagreed with, then telling the others not to comment on your views says it all I guess.
You are very much like the Christians you seem to despise. I hate holding discussions with people like that no matter what the topic may be. Its senseless anyway.
You and Disgruntled make a lot of sense and so do the other contributors to the discussion (well save one).
Your my way or the byway attitude is pretty much a high an mighty approach to a topic and lifestyle that is still under research and continuous discussions but that's your style.
We are both happy heterosexuals (well I am) who have opposing views to another sexual orientation. VIEWS... we have VIEWS... NOT the answer as you so seem to think you have.
Thanks for stopping by.
I honestly and truly wanted to leave this alone but I had to copy and paste the definition of the word projection in response to the nonsense you just wrote:
projection (pr??d??k??n)— n
psychol
a. the belief, esp in children, that others share one's subjective mental life
b. See also defence mechanism the process of projecting one's own hidden desires and impulses
Did you or did you not write this "Will you be able to come up with all the right answer to satisfy my queries either? No"?
You can only write that if you plan on rejecting anything anyone who DISAGREES with you says. I'm leaving this conversation because YOU can't take disagreement. You said it yourself! yet have the nerve to try to put that on me? Un-freaking-believable.
Its good that you looked that up. Now you just need to face the reality that:
Homosexuality is under ongoing research and discussion.
That means that we all have and express our views. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE ANSWERS.
Hence, "Will you be able to come up with all the right answer to satisfy my queries either? No"
You like to refer to Disgruntle so here's something from him:
"If anything they DID find commonalities for homosexuality etc, and and increased likely hood if one of the parents are or were homosexual (even if the child does not know it). However the findings are rather slim and they need to do more research. And there is a doubt :P, untill it is proven one way or the other no one is right or wrong we merely have our opinions. Though I for one obviously do not care if it is a choice or not, it's not a crime to be homosexual and it shouldn't be one."
Not all scientist support the gene findings and not all homosexuals do either. There are homosexuals and former homosexuals who state that it was their choice.
How can you have the answer?
Homosexuals don't, scientist don't, I don't, Disgruntled doesn't. We all have our opinions and have engaging, sometimes ugly discussions on them.
Disgruntled spent time to address the point of the role that science played. You are yet to do so. You are just off on my not being in support of homosexuality.
Tell you what I live in peace with homosexuals and you (well I would guess so) do the same. Now lets live in peace with each other.
If you can't express your views and address the main point of the article then so be it.
What is wrong with beastiality? Is there really anything? I mean really! What's wrong with you people? Putting people down like this! Didn't your mother ever teach you any manners? Every single person is entitled to there own belief and that's the truth right there. If you don't like it, tough luck. I for one, think that beastiality is absolutely wonderful! Once again, there is nothing wrong with it. It's just two creatures making LOVE. Maybe you just don't know what that is.
Things this writer has in common with Hitler...both think that homosexuals should be persecuted by the state.
Another small minded comment.
I do not agree with homosexuality. You do.
I do not agree with bestiality. Do you?
I do not agree with incest or paedophile. Do you?
Small minded of you to just hop on to the homosexuality bit.
Now to the point of the hub... What role will science be willing to play if other less accepted forms of sexualities start coming to the fore and demand societal acceptance.
Take Hip Whimple who commented before you for example. Will science be willing to go in search of a gene to prove people were born with sexual preferences for animals, their own relatives, children etc.
I have no prob engaging in a robust agree/disagree debate about homosexuality with people. I enjoy such debates, but it only makes sense to do so with people who can express themselves in a manner I can learn from while I can counteract and they listen.
At the end of the debate both parties leave with respect for the other's view. That's how the world turns on the axis of tolerance. Never shout at me and think I'll be cowered into silence or disappear into oblivion.
I DO NOT AGREE with homosexuality.
Now on to the role of science in this whole affair of proving genetics is responsible for our sexual preferences.
chris 2 years ago
homosexuals are sex offenders and should put in mental institutions.They can make decisions in their life but not their sexual choices,no their just born that way.Well God said its an abomination what they do and practice,God doesnt create people that rights? What about drunks who want to drive plastered,Wheres their rights.What if you get upset and want to punch someone?Do you now have the right? In this day and age people are getting dumber and dumber.Just like the belief of evolution.hahaha! Id answer all question on that one but it hasnt evolved yet.duh!?