Will the cause of homosexuality ever be figured out?

[tonymctones]

what do you mental midgets make of two brothers in the same family, raised not only in similar environments/cultures but the EXACT SAME one, same family, same parents, same neighborhood, exposed to the same media, and one is gay and the other is not?

LOL you guys should really do some research into this instead of going off personal opinion...

first off if it was genetic and were identical twins they would have the same genetic make up meaning if one is genetically gay the other will be or at the very least by very similiar in that respect...

there are studies out there that have been conducted on twins in regards to homosexuality and the results are in favor of NURTURE being a part of determining homosexuality as well as nature...

do some research...

[chaos]

What do you mean by special treatment? Gay people ask for equal treatment, such as having their marriages recognized as well as things like their "right" to raise a child and so on. Special treatment would equate to something like their wanting to be taxed lower than a straight person of the same economic bracket simply because of their being gay.


Not at all. Society can recognize someone having psychological problems, such as being very angry and violent, but not accept any such behaviour from those individuals. The fact that they have a problem doesn't give them the right to do what they want. If they lose the distinction of what they can and cannot do, it means they are mentally ill and need medical help (and confinement).

An average person in the street may want to drive a Ferrari which is beyond their means to own, but they don't break the law and steal one just to satiate their need. When they do, they are recognized as a criminal and dealt with accordingly.

So why should society be forced to accept homosexual behavior, which the vast majority have already deemed unacceptable?

[tonymctones]

So why should society be forced to accept homosexual behavior, which the vast majority have already deemed unacceptable?

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!

those who are proponents cite the idea that b/c homosexuality is at least partially out of their control we shouldnt discriminate against them...

so is anger though and yes there is the detriment part we get that but shouldnt the fact that its at least partially biological be taken into account?

[chaos]

What is the benefit to society as a whole by legalizing gay marriage or giving them whatever other "equal" rights they feel they need a law to achieve?

[kiwiol]

So why should society be forced to accept homosexual behavior, which the vast majority have already deemed unacceptable?

Society cannot and shouldn't be forced to accept anything, especially a practice that affects only the participants who are doing it as adults, with informed consent and mutual desire. The only universal system of rules that every individual in a society has to abide by is the set of laws and regulations in place in that society / country.

The gays don't need the approval of joe public to do what they want to each other in the confines of their bedroom and society doesn't have to accept their behaviour anymore than it needs to accept a movie as being good or bad - it all boils down to the individual's point of view.

There are no victims in 2 adults having consensual sex when they are of the same gender. But there are victims in acts of crime, paedophilia and rape, where one or more individuals force their way upon the victim(s), which is why the people guilty of the latter acts can't be grouped with law abiding citizens who are simply gay.

[chaos]

Society cannot and shouldn't be forced to accept anything, especially a practice that affects only the participants who are doing it as adults, with informed consent and mutual desire. The gays don't need the approval of joe public to do what they want to each other in the confines of their bedroom and society doesn't have to accept their behaviour anymore than it needs to accept a movie as being good or bad - it all boils down to the individual's point of view.

There are no victims in 2 adults having consensual sex when they are of the same gender. But there are victims in acts of crime, paedophilia and rape, where one or more individuals force their way upon the victim(s), which is why the people guilty of the latter acts can't be grouped with law abiding citizens who are simply gay.

Are you aware of the AIDS statistics for the homosexual population? "no victims"?  Well, I guess if they agree they can't really be a victim, right?



But this discussion isn't about equal rights and all that, it's about being "born that way"..........were do we draw the line on the use of that excuse?

[kiwiol]

Are you aware of the AIDS statistics for the homosexual population? "no victims"?  Well, I guess if they agree they can't really be a victim, right?

Absolutely not. If you know that you will get run over if you carelessly cross a busy road but do it anyway on purpose for a joke or whatever, you're not a victim. But if someone forces you to cross the road at gunpoint or blindfolds you and makes you do it, then yes, you're a victim.

A victim is anyone who gets unfairly taken advantage of, by another party, through the use of force or cheating by the latter. If a gay guy who has AIDS has sex with another guy who knows the first guy's situation, the partner is not a victim. But the partner is, if the infected guy didn't disclose the information or lied about it in the first place.

were do we draw the line on the use of that excuse?

Where their actions begin. Everyone has demons that they have to deal with. But if they let those take them over and break the law, they have to pay the price.

[timfogarty]

jumping in late here...

So why should society be forced to accept homosexual behavior, which the vast majority have already deemed unacceptable?

1) why should society be forced to accept left handed behavior when at one time the vast majority of Christians saw it as the work of the devil.

2) in 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.  A much higher percentage of the population at that time thought mixed race marriages were unacceptable than people today think gay marriage is unacceptable.

[chaos]

jumping in late here...

1) why should society be forced to accept left handed behavior when at one time the vast majority of Christians saw it as the work of the devil.

2) in 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.  A much higher percentage of the population at that time thought mixed race marriages were unacceptable than people today think gay marriage is unacceptable.

And?

Like I asked earlier in the thread........what is the benefit of society and the general population as a whole in making gay marriage legal? I see a small minority of homosexuals jumping up and down, making all kinds of noise, when most of them want to be left alone and live thier lives, not plastered all over TV as some kind of freak show. 

Tim, were you born gay, or did you start out with girls and change over at some point in time?

[CC973]

To me it doesn't matter if people want to give homosexuals the same exact legal rights as a married couple. 
I do have a huge problem with people wanting to change the definition of marriage. Marriage, as ordained by God, is the union of man and woman, period.
If its about equal rights under the law, give civil unions the same benefits as a married couple.

[noworries]

Jesus finally a thread where Goodrum could actually be some value too and he avoids it.  Come on Goodrum, we know you suck cock come on here and tell us how it started.  Did you start young or what. 

[pellius]

What do you mean by special treatment? Gay people ask for equal treatment, such as having their marriages recognized as well as things like their "right" to raise a child and so on. Special treatment would equate to something like their wanting to be taxed lower than a straight person of the same economic bracket simply because of their being gay.

 

You must have missed my earlier brilliant commentary.

Gays ARE asking for special rights. They have the same rights to marry as anybody else. Nobody has the right, in the legal sense, to marry the same sex. That right has never existed in all of time immemorial.

[kiwiol]

Like I asked earlier in the thread........what is the benefit of society and the general population as a whole in making gay marriage legal? I see a small minority of homosexuals jumping up and down, making all kinds of noise, when most of them want to be left alone and live thier lives, not plastered all over TV as some kind of freak show.  

I agree with you there. If someone hates gays, they are going to have contempt for the group regardless of whether the law recognizes gay marriages or not.

If gay people want gay marriages to be legally recognized solely for prestige and show purposes, then they're actually doing the opposite by begging society to grant them recognition. And it would be pointless, although I guess they may get some satisfaction out of it. But if they are being unfairly subject to laws that would otherwise be to their advantage had the system recognized their union, then there is justification for it.

It's definitely a complex situation that can't be resolved with simple blanket statements or arguments.

[pellius]

jumping in late here...

1) why should society be forced to accept left handed behavior when at one time the vast majority of Christians saw it as the work of the devil.

2) in 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.  A much higher percentage of the population at that time thought mixed race marriages were unacceptable than people today think gay marriage is unacceptable.

1.Being left handed is a physical condition. Homosexual sex is a behavior which is accepted behavior in our society. We don't put them in jail anymore. Same argument for 2.

[kiwiol]

Being attracted or having sexual desires for the same sex is one thing. Homosexual behavior is something else. If a person engages in homosexuality that does not mean, strictly speaking, he is gay in the sense of being attracted to the same sex. If that were the case then for some just merely going to prison changes your genetically predisposed sexual orientation.

OK, I missed this earlier. A person engaging in a homosexual act is gay, as long as they're not being forced to do it. A guy fcuking another guy in prison is gay, or a bisexual, even if he only started the same sex act in prison. A straight guy won't engage in gay sex in prison - he may get raped or be made to fcuk another guy under force of threat, but if that happens, he's a rape victim, not a gay guy, because he wouldn't have engaged in that act under a free situation.

As for your other argument about gay marriages, they are simply assertions that you've based upon the bible and the view points of a couple of people, neither of which are absolutely binding, especially to people who don't agree with them or of a different faith (or not, like atheists).

[pellius]

OK, I missed this earlier. A person engaging in a homosexual act is gay, as long as they're not being forced to do it. A guy fcuking another guy in prison is gay, or a bisexual, even if he only started the same sex act in prison. A straight guy won't engage in gay sex in prison - he may get raped or be made to fcuk another guy under force of threat, but if that happens, he's a rape victim, not a gay guy, because he wouldn't have engaged in that act under a free situation.

As for your other argument about gay marriages, they are simply assertions that you've based upon the bible and the view points of a couple of people, neither of which are absolutely binding, especially to people who don't agree with them or of a different faith (or not, like atheists).

In ancient Greek it was common to have a boy concubine. The men did not consider themselves gay. It was part of the culture and people grew up thinking this was normal. As gay behavior, not being genuinely being attracted to the same sex, because more common, main stream and trendy, you will get more of that behavior. Sexual behavior, especially in the early years, is not always fixed in stone and can be fluid. It is not uncommon for both men and women to "experiment" during the formative years.

What argument did I make vis-a-vis gay marriage that was religious based? The only point I was making was that it's a fallacious argument to claim that gays don't have he same rights to marriage as heteros. They do.

[Wiggs]

Despite popular beliefs, the vast majority of Catholic priests are celibate. A politician recently announced that at 53 years old he has remained celibate because sex is only allowed within the context of marriage.

Though it seems incomprehensible in this day and age, there are still people left and are really out there that have the discipline to practice self-control and adhere and really practice their beliefs.

And no where in the Bible, or in Christianity, does it implore one to hate the sin and not the sinner. That was said by Ghandi  not Christ. It seems incongruous to profess to love someone and then condemn them to hell. Buddhism is a pacifistic belief system.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Like so many passages in the Bible: "Turn the other cheek.", "Judge not, lest ye be judged.", "Eye for an eye.", context is everything, my tranny loving friend.  

First of all, that particular passage was never included in the original text and many believe it doesn't belong in the Book of John. But no matter. Like several instances in the Bible where many tried to "trip up" or "trap" Jesus and find inconsistencies in his teaching this was one of them. If Jesus allowed the woman to be stoned the Romans would seized them for violating their law. Adultery was punishable by exile and confiscation of property. A father was permitted to kill his daughter and her partner. And a husband was allowed to kill his wife's partner only under specific circumstances but only require to divorce his wife. Remember, adultery was defined as having sex with a married woman. This gave a married man a lot of leeway. He could, and many did, have sex with unmarried women.

Now, if Jesus allowed the woman to go free he would lose face with the people for not adhering to the law of Moses. The onus was now on the people, mostly Pharisees, who were put in the dilemma of admitting some sin or that their position meant more to them than Mosaic law.

So to reiterate: God hates a fag. And if you're a fag -- he hates you, too.
 

  

Do you believe Jesus would approve of your hate?  Look what he said to the whore, Mary Magdalin when a bunch of Jews outed her as one...He would not approve of your hate and you would actually be worse than the sinner.  God does not hate anyone.  Please don't spew the blasphamic phrase God hates fags cause he doesn't and you and I both know that despite you hate of homosexuals....I

[kiwiol]

In ancient Greek it was common to have a boy concubine. The men did not consider themselves gay. It was part of the culture and people grew up thinking this was normal. As gay behavior, not being genuinely being attracted to the same sex, because more common, main stream and trendy, you will get more of that behavior. Sexual behavior, especially in the early years, is not always fixed in stone and can be fluid. It is not uncommon for both men and women to "experiment" during the formative years.

People always justify their actions and rationalize them to give them a more innocent label, lol. Whether the Greek men who fcuked boys considered themselves gay or not, they ARE/WERE gay. Yes, some people experiment during some time or the other in their life - when they do, they become bi-curious individuals and can't be categorized as straight from then on.

The uncertain sexual preferences don't apply to tons of straight people (esp. guys), who never get tempted to engage in homosexual behaviour. I'm one of them and in my guess, so is the majority of this forum. I personally don't care if someone is gay - I'm just arguing about the logic behind the classification.

[pellius]

Do you believe Jesus would approve of your hate?  Look what he said to the whore, Mary Magdalin when a bunch of Jews outed her as one...He would not approve of your hate and you would actually be worse than the sinner.  God does not hate anyone.  Please don't spew the blasphamic phrase God hates fags cause he doesn't and you and I both know that despite you hate of homosexuals....I

Low on weed, eh?

I was being facetious about God hates a fag. Didn't you watch the vid? Nobody is getting my sarcasm lately. I did want to make the point about the hate the sin and not the sinner quote is not from Christianity but was said by Ghandi. And never ever ever conflate feelings with behavior. To equate a feeling such as hate with a hateful act is ludicrous and God does not judge a feeling more than an action.

What do you care more about? How someone feels about you or how they treat you? What do you care if someone at your work is a racist and hate Blacks as long as he treats you with courtesy and dignity.

It's not always wrong to hate and there seems to be some anti-hate movement. Like somehow never being angry or hating evil makes one morally superior. I hate Richard Allen Davies and want to see him suffer. I want him to burn in hell. He raped an murdered an innocent little girl named Polly Klaas.

Does that make me worse than Davies?

[pellius]

  when they do, they become bi-curious individuals and can't be categorized as straight from then on.

I'm going to assume that you meant bi-sexual rather than bi-curious.

By that logic, once you steal you are always a thief, once you lie you are always a liar, once you smoked you are always a smoker, once you throw down with Swede you are always an MMA fighter.

[Primemuscle]

the current thought is that homosexual men are caused by mothers with an excess of "man-loving gene".. whatever that might be.

 it was discovered that homosexual men tend to come from families with large amounts of children. that is to say, they come from mothers who get pregnant alot. this might indicate that the mothers of homosexual men have something about them that makes them desire men, and sex with men, more than the average woman. a so called "man loving gene". and this can be passed down to one of the male offsrping.

-Interesting theory. I am bisexual and I was an only child.

[pellius]

-Interesting theory. I am bisexual and I was an only child.

I come from a family of nine and I'm heterosexual -- all the way heterosexual.

[Primemuscle]

If you look at a ahem, certain population, that has huge number of single mothers with male children, you see a significant number of the men are gay, or exhibit effeminate qualities. For instance, how Kanye West acts all emotional and throws temper tantrums, well he was raised by a woman, most of the time he was around women, so he takes on some of their attributes. Even some of these thugs, they "over react" to certain situations just like a female would.

There is no "silver bullet", no one singular answer, but there are multiple.

Being gay and manifesting effeminate mannerism are not synonymous. There are lots of masculine acting gay men and effeminate acting straight men.

[Primemuscle]

I come from a family of nine and I'm heterosexual -- all the way heterosexual.

Good for you. Tell me, why did you feel the need to emphasize that you are heterosexual by writing "all the way heterosexual?" If you are straight and secure in that knowledge, why would you care if someone thought you might be gay?

While it is clear many so call straight dudes are homophobic, why do you suppose you never hear about gay dudes being heterophobic? Homophobic = fear of homosexuals vs. heterophobic = fear of heterosexuals. By fear, I don't believe it means the same thing as being afraid someone will beat the crap out of you because you aren't the same as they are. But, I could be wrong about this.

[Parker]

A lot of Gay dudes have this thing about declaring such and such gay, more so that "they" want these people to be gay, or that "they" want being homosexual to be "normal" and making or claiming so and so "gay"  furthers their goal, and they don't want to look at as being outcasts