Homosexual marriage - do you agree?

[Jazzel]

But in gay relations it always starts with lust.

This debate is going to go round in circles if you're repeatedly make sweeping generalisations. C'mon - always? You can categorically say that all hosexual relationships start with lust?

Admitedly, most homosexual relationships probably do begin in lust. But so do most of heterosexual relationships.

I think the problem that arises when dscussing love/lust is when people quote heterosexual relatonships that went without sex, and then say there is no comparable evidence with homosexuality. There are sevral flaws in this type of argument.

The first concerns itslef with religion. On the whole, most religions are against any type of homosexual relationships, and hence, as religion has dominated human life until the last 20 years or so, homosexual relationships have always been persecuted and hidden away. We have very little documentation on what form such relationships took - all we have is dogma.

On the other hand, most religions encourage chastity, especially Christianity. Hence, any marriage that went without sex was often held as the ideal, the perfect relationship. Hence, we have plenty of examples of where this has occured.

Therefore, we have examples of sexless, heterosexual marriages because it is has seen by an ideal by certain groups, but we have comparably few hmosexual examples, as all such relationships have been frowned on and hidden by those groups. Hence, there is very few documented cases os such things occuring.

Except, of course one - the Symposium by Plato.

I'm rambling on a bit, but this is an important part in my argument. In a society which had few scruples over homosexuality (Ancient Greece), such relaionships could be celebrated and documented. This found full expression in Plato's work. In Socrates part of the dialouge, he talks about a certain relationship between males based solely on admiration of the mind and persoanlity. Such a description has passed into te Englsh language - the Platonic relationship, which in it's original sense, applied solely to homosexuality.

And here's my last point- it's only in societies which tolerate homosexuality that different expressions of such relationships can occur. In our current society where there is still hostility, that can't happen, and hence there are few examples to use.

The best example I could think of is Emily Dickinson and Sue Gilbert. Go look it up.

Anyhoo, my idea of marriage is any relationship in which a family can be happy. By family, mean anything from two loving aults, or to adults and children. In that respect, I support gay mariage because such relationships can provide that atmosphere. Some heterosexal relationships cannot, but somehow, no one complains about that. Still...

 

[Shahab]

What attracted you to her in the first place? What attracted her to you in the first place? What kept you together? I'd imagine that love would grow from whatever it is you felt at that point. The 'lust' doesn't necessarily mean you want to have animal sex; I'm not using the word as strongly as that.

What attracted me was her honesty. So as for her
I did not say that LUST is ANIMAL SEX

I can say that about my female friends. I love them; I'd help them with anything; I'd do what I could to make them happy, but I don't want to have sex with them (well ... xD).

So as I for my male friends. sex is not neccessary to love someone.

Well, in any relationship, you've got to work bloody hard. You marry to declare your love for one another. You marry to be unified - either in the eys of God, or each other. You know the rest - sex and children are other parts of it, aye. Even in a straight marriage, you don't MARRY someone just because they're good in bed. You marry them for so much more than that; the sex is just a bonus.

AGREED

Why can't it be the same for gay couples?

Because it does not have the OTHER PARTS that you mentioned above
but again, I mention that its just my opinion and does not mean anything else.
As for my opinion I respect it so much,so as I do for other's opinion.
Everyone would have different opinion about other people. I just think that it would be better that gays were stright. just this, does not mean that I dislike them. IP is my cyber friend and what is nice about him is that he is one of the most respectful guys I ever meet online ( after Vahid ) and IP is gay. I respect him so much and love him too ( as a friend )

As a side note, your grammar's a bit off, but I can understand it well enough, so no worries [:

Sorry for that. I am trying to improve it, You had to see me last year, for sure you would not understand half of my words and even more.
Thanks

This debate is going to go round in circles if you're repeatedly make sweeping generalisations. C'mon - always? You can categorically say that all hosexual relationships start with lust?

Admitedly, most homosexual relationships probably do begin in lust. But so do most of heterosexual relationships.

I think the problem that arises when dscussing love/lust is when people quote heterosexual relatonships that went without sex, and then say there is no comparable evidence with homosexuality. There are sevral flaws in this type of argument.

I have seen many strights who begun their relations with lust. I agree
but
Have you ever seen a homo marriage that started with something except lust ?
For real, I will accept it if you bring a real example of that, and I will take my word about ALWAYS back.

Even one negative is enough for me to not use ALWAYS for this case

 

[Rockman X]

On the other hand, most religions encourage chastity, especially Christianity. Hence, any marriage that went without sex was often held as the ideal, the perfect relationship. Hence, we have plenty of examples of where this has occured.

Therefore, we have examples of sexless, heterosexual marriages because it is has seen by an ideal by certain groups, but we have comparably few hmosexual examples, as all such relationships have been frowned on and hidden by those groups. Hence, there is very few documented cases os such things occuring.

People weren't even open about heterosexual relationships till the 60's and 70's came around. Before that it was almost taboo, just look at older TV shows like Dick Van Dyke. The husband and wife would be shown sleeping in separate beds, nobody even wanted to portray or admit to a sexual side of a heterosexual relationship, and sleeping in the same bed doesn't even involve sex!

Except, of course one - the Symposium by Plato.

I'm rambling on a bit, but this is an important part in my argument. In a society which had few scruples over homosexuality (Ancient Greece), such relaionships could be celebrated and documented. This found full expression in Plato's work. In Socrates part of the dialouge, he talks about a certain relationship between males based solely on admiration of the mind and persoanlity. Such a description has passed into te Englsh language - the Platonic relationship, which in it's original sense, applied solely to homosexuality.

Yes, the original meaning of platonic. Plato describes an affection and eroticism toward younger pupils, however, it wasn't simple lust, rather, it was the admiration of the youths' beauty and person. This helped strengthen the existing friendship, love, and teacher/student relationship. In other words, it furthered bonding, which is what sex in humans has always been about. We're not meant to be like animals and simply screw to reproduce, it's meant as a way to bond and to further love your partner.

What attracted me was her honesty. So as for her
I did not say that LUST is ANIMAL SEX

Well the way you keep making disparaging remarks about lust makes it sound as if that's all you think it is, an animal instinct.

As for my opinion I respect it so much,so as I do for other's opinion.
Everyone would have different opinion about other people. I just think that it would be better that gays were stright. just this, does not mean that I dislike them. IP is my cyber friend and what is nice about him is that he is one of the most respectful guys I ever meet online ( after Vahid ) and IP is gay. I respect him so much and love him too ( as a friend )

We know you respect your opinion, but you keep trying to disprove people by making the same arguments over and over, you're not even basing your opinion on science or research, just what little you've seen in your gay friends and your own unfounded ideas. And that's great you love your friend, but that is completely irrelevant to this topic.

As many have already stated, there are different types of love. There is today's sense of the word platonic, which is the affection friends have for each other; Plato's original meaning of platonic which involved sexual desire plus affection and admiration for the person; there's erotic love, which involves labido, the human sex drive; familial which i'm sure you can guess is the type of love one has for their family; then of course we have romantic love, which includes strong feelings of devotion for a person.

Now as proven by Plato's writings on platonic love, it is clearly possible for homosexuals to feel more for each other than just labido.

I have seen many strights who begun their relations with lust. I agree
but
Have you ever seen a homo marriage that started with something except lust ?
For real, I will accept it if you bring a real example of that, and I will take my word about ALWAYS back.

Even one negative is enough for me to not use ALWAYS for this case

I don't know any gay couples, so i can't give you an example. However, you cannot say that all gay marriages start with lust because you have not seen every gay marriage in the world, you have only seen a few examples and are making assumptions based on those. You aren't even going out and performing studies and taking small censuses on communities or anything like that. Have you ever heard of the scientific method? It goes as such:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

All you are doing is steps 1 and 2. Without steps 3 and 4, your opinions are nothing more than that, opinions. Yet you keep saying "all gay marriages start with lust" as if it is fact, but you have absolutely no proof to support that theory.

 

[Casandraelf]

i say it should be legal for two reasons:

1. regardless of persuasion, two people should be allowed to marry, whether or not they're gay
2. what part of 'separation of church and state' do you guys not get?

 

[Hera Ledro]

People weren't even open about heterosexual relationships till the 60's and 70's came around. Before that it was almost taboo, just look at older TV shows like Dick Van Dyke. The husband and wife would be shown sleeping in separate beds, nobody even wanted to portray or admit to a sexual side of a heterosexual relationship, and sleeping in the same bed doesn't even involve sex!

You sure you're talking about heterosexual? Yes, that's how it was back then, but I wouldn't say at all that people were shy about heterosexuality. Back in the medieval ages, it was a great accomplishment, in certain religions, to have multiple concubines. Also, in the European Middle Ages, heterosexuality was the way to go. If you were homo, you were thought to be under the spell of a demon (not daemon), witch, or you were a demon or witch.

Homosexuls still have trouble coming out, and they shouldn't. I advocate many homosexual activities, though I may not agree with them. In other words, I support the fact that they have a right to do it, but I don't like them doing it.

Yes, the original meaning of platonic. Plato describes an affection and eroticism toward younger pupils, however, it wasn't simple lust, rather, it was the admiration of the youths' beauty and person. This helped strengthen the existing friendship, love, and teacher/student relationship. In other words, it furthered bonding, which is what sex in humans has always been about. We're not meant to be like animals and simply screw to reproduce, it's meant as a way to bond and to further love your partner.

Quite the opposite. If evolution and nature prove to be true, then all humans were made for were to screw and reproduce. If Catholicism and other religions prove to be true, then humans are still supposed to screw and reproduce, for God banished Adam and Eve from the Garden, telling them to go and breed. If I find that excerpt, I'll bring it in, but it's excluded in many online scriptures.

We know you respect your opinion, but you keep trying to disprove people by making the same arguments over and over, you're not even basing your opinion on science or research, just what little you've seen in your gay friends and your own unfounded ideas. And that's great you love your friend, but that is completely irrelevant to this topic.

As many have already stated, there are different types of love. There is today's sense of the word platonic, which is the affection friends have for each other; Plato's original meaning of platonic which involved sexual desire plus affection and admiration for the person; there's erotic love, which involves labido, the human sex drive; familial which i'm sure you can guess is the type of love one has for their family; then of course we have romantic love, which includes strong feelings of devotion for a person.

Now as proven by Plato's writings on platonic love, it is clearly possible for homosexuals to feel more for each other than just labido.

Quitbe true. You really should use more scientific or religious arguments (based on your spiritual point of view), Shahab.

Let's not exclude the sexualities, though. Pansexuality, Omnisexuality, Bisexuality, Homosexuality, Heterosexuality, etc. are all different forms of 'love.'

I don't know any gay couples, so i can't give you an example. However, you cannot say that all gay marriages start with lust because you have not seen every gay marriage in the world, you have only seen a few examples and are making assumptions based on those. You aren't even going out and performing studies and taking small censuses on communities or anything like that. Have you ever heard of the scientific method? It goes as such:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

All you are doing is steps 1 and 2. Without steps 3 and 4, your opinions are nothing more than that, opinions. Yet you keep saying "all gay marriages start with lust" as if it is fact, but you have absolutely no proof to support that theory.

Your argument beat me to the punch

I know many gays, a few of them are couples, and only 1 of the many that I have seen have started out with lust. The others are ones that it started them out being friends, then good friends, then lovers, then a couple.

 

[Rockman X]

You sure you're talking about heterosexual? Yes, that's how it was back then, but I wouldn't say at all that people were shy about heterosexuality. Back in the medieval ages, it was a great accomplishment, in certain religions, to have multiple concubines. Also, in the European Middle Ages, heterosexuality was the way to go. If you were homo, you were thought to be under the spell of a demon (not daemon), witch, or you were a demon or witch.

Yeah, i'm talking about heterosexuals, i guess i'm just thinking of how it is in a predominantly christian society. Christianity seems to be one of the biggest things keeping gays from having rights. America isn't so much a Christian society now, but the fear of gays has stuck, especially here in the south since we have all these Bible-beating, shotgun-wielding rednecks.

Quite the opposite. If evolution and nature prove to be true, then all humans were made for were to screw and reproduce. If Catholicism and other religions prove to be true, then humans are still supposed to screw and reproduce, for God banished Adam and Eve from the Garden, telling them to go and breed. If I find that excerpt, I'll bring it in, but it's excluded in many online scriptures.

Aye, but we're also beings on a higher level of existence, since we're capable of complex thinking and emotions. Not to mention people screwed around more back then and took multiple wives and concubines because the human race was so small, it needed to multiply. Now we're almost too abundant, so i think we can start looking at attractions and sex in multiple dimensions, intellect and personality as well as the body's physical beauty.

Let's not exclude the sexualities, though. Pansexuality, Omnisexuality, Bisexuality, Homosexuality, Heterosexuality, etc. are all different forms of 'love.'

I'll let you handle that one then, since i took the non-sexual types of love

I know many gays, a few of them are couples, and only 1 of the many that I have seen have started out with lust. The others are ones that it started them out being friends, then good friends, then lovers, then a couple.

Well there ya go, Shahab. You said you needed just one example of a gay couple starting off on something other than lust to disprove you, and you have more than one example right here. I do believe your argument has been thoroughly shattered by now.

 

[Cyannie]

there's nothing wrong about that kind of marriage
as long as the two persons are in love





they should make a rule bout that :/?

 

[Grimoire Valentine]

Two people fall in love, and anyone has a right to deny them happiness?, I don't think so.

Jesus, did the Nazis win WW2 while I was asleep?

 

[Shahab]

Quitbe true. You really should use more scientific or religious arguments (based on your spiritual point of view), Shahab.

well. so I use it.
ISLAM says that gay marriage is banned because this cause the familly have no children in result.
Says sex of man to man is one of the top three greates sins ever.

I am not talking about those people who spoil the name of Islam by terrorism , I am talking about the real Islam and what it says in Quran.

Let's not exclude the sexualities, though. Pansexuality, Omnisexuality, Bisexuality, Homosexuality, Heterosexuality, etc. are all different forms of 'love.'

I did not say that there is no love in Homo... I said, inhomo lust comes first and then love... AS MY OPINION ( < its not angry mood, I just used larg caps to accent on it )

Your argument beat me to the punch

Sorry


I know many gays, a few of them are couples, and only 1 of the many that I have seen have started out with lust. The others are ones that it started them out being friends, then good friends, then lovers, then a couple.[/quote]

Ok, .. I just wanted one. so if you say so .. I delete ALWAYS

" Gay marriage starts with lust in almost all of them "

--------------------------------------------------------------
Well, here is my opinion, its not a debate.
--------------------------------------------------------------
​

In stright sex, both guy and girl enjoy it and have pleasure in same time ( not buttsex )
In Gay sex, a guy will have pleasure and the other no, then it will reverse and etc.
Buttsex is not romance ..why ? ok
In a romance sex, both the guy and the girl care about giving pleasure to the other one. but in gay sex, just the guy who is doing the other one in but is having pleasure . and so as the other one.
so by now, in stright sex ... both have pleasure without anything else.
in gay sex one have pleasure and the otherone has pain ( or atleast no feeling )
As a guy, I never want anyone even touchs my back, if anyone do it, for sure will see his face down by my kick on it.
Girls are so soft and tender atall. even in sex. but guys are rough.

One of the targets of marriage is protecting the girl... but who is the protector in gay marriage ? what ? both ? so both are strong.

Who is the husband ? Both ? Hilarious

buttsex has more chance to speread HIV

 

[Undimon]

Shahab i think u had a detailful post bout sex ...let put u in my Ignore list , u look so dangerous ( im kidding )

lets give em another reson too....

IN home sexual if even they do ***** ....after a while they will get tired of it ...
its the Naturality of all human to feel they need a wife ...even those who are floating in homesexual desire they will feel it after a perioud .....

 

[Rockman X]

ISLAM says that gay marriage is banned because this cause the familly have no children in result.
Says sex of man to man is one of the top three greates sins ever.

Well isn't that bleeding lovely? Guess what? We're all not Muslim, those of us who aren't Muslim don't regard it as fact. Using Islam to argue against homosexuality is just as ignorant as using Christianity or any other religion to argue against it. Faith = belief in a higher power/being. Religion = man-made rules and beliefs founded on faith. Maybe whatever god really exists out there doesn't like homosexuality, i don't know and i don't attempt to write books claiming to have been dictated by him.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Well, here is my opinion, its not a debate.
--------------------------------------------------------------
​

In stright sex, both guy and girl enjoy it and have pleasure in same time ( not buttsex )
In Gay sex, a guy will have pleasure and the other no, then it will reverse and etc.
Buttsex is not romance ..why ? ok
In a romance sex, both the guy and the girl care about giving pleasure to the other one. but in gay sex, just the guy who is doing the other one in but is having pleasure . and so as the other one.
so by now, in stright sex ... both have pleasure without anything else.
in gay sex one have pleasure and the otherone has pain ( or atleast no feeling )

I think you're starting to confuse the difference between an opinion and a fact. You said these were all opinions, yet you're stating as fact that there is no pleasure and possibly pain in anal sex. I highly doubt people would have anal if they both didn't derive pleasure from it. And have you ever had anal? Can you even speak from experience?

As a guy, I never want anyone even touchs my back, if anyone do it, for sure will see his face down by my kick on it.
Girls are so soft and tender atall. even in sex. but guys are rough.

I guess that answers my question, you haven't had anal because you'd kick a guy in the face if he tried it. You should really think about not passing off your opinions as facts.

One of the targets of marriage is protecting the girl... but who is the protector in gay marriage ? what ? both ? so both are strong.

Yes, males played the role of the protector in older societies, but there really isn't need for that these days, now is there? Women have the same rights as men, they can work alongside men, they can join the military and fight alongside men, etc. There's no need to worry (at least in developed countries) about your village being pillaged and your wife being stolen. This aspect of your argument is simply obsolete.

buttsex has more chance to speread HIV

Care to give us the source of where you got that information? I'm pretty sure Africa has much more HIV and AIDS than homosexuals, and Africans primarily get it from heterosexual sex.

 

[Tetra Master]

simple. if two people of the same sex love each other, then let them be. as long as you're not involved in any way, it's just not right to decide for them. edit: nor judge them.

 

[Shahab]

Well isn't that bleeding lovely? Guess what? We're all not Muslim, those of us who aren't Muslim don't regard it as fact. Using Islam to argue against homosexuality is just as ignorant as using Christianity or any other religion to argue against it. Faith = belief in a higher power/being. Religion = man-made rules and beliefs founded on faith. Maybe whatever god really exists out there doesn't like homosexuality, i don't know and i don't attempt to write books claiming to have been dictated by him.

He asked me to use a religous reason, did not mention what religion, so I brough Islam because I have knowledge about it. I never said anything about religion before this and hate talking about these type of things, but he asked, so I answered.
If I want to bring a reason for every single religion, then I have to have knowledge about every single religion.
Islam is one of the public religions so as christian.
so I used Islam for it
Over a billion people in this world are Muslims.

I think you're starting to confuse the difference between an opinion and a fact. You said these were all opinions, yet you're stating as fact that there is no pleasure and possibly pain in anal sex. I highly doubt people would have anal if they both didn't derive pleasure from it. And have you ever had anal? Can you even speak from experience?

Don't forget that I am living with a bounch of gays who are my friends.
I always talk to them and when I ask about their exprience they always say that it hurts when they get fucked.
But how do they both have pleasure ? ok, I explain it
the first guy fu**s the other one and have pleasure on it, but the other does not have.
But after he finishes, it will be the other's turn,
The one who got fu**ed will Fu** this time and has pleasure on it and the other person who is get Fu**ed does not get any pleasure.

I guess that answers my question, you haven't had anal because you'd kick a guy in the face if he tried it. You should really think about not passing off your opinions as facts.

There is no need to exprience anything, you can use others exprience to avoide something or gain something.

Yes, males played the role of the protector in older societies, but there really isn't need for that these days, now is there? Women have the same rights as men, they can work alongside men, they can join the military and fight alongside men, etc. There's no need to worry (at least in developed countries) about your village being pillaged and your wife being stolen. This aspect of your argument is simply obsolete.

Its not about their rights.
I did not talk about provider, I am talking about protector.
Many girls need to be protected, because they are still weak in physic.
Many of them are afraid to be alone.
They want someone to protect them from possibile treats, which may never happen.

Care to give us the source of where you got that information?

I thought you may know about news around this case.
Here you go.

LINK1

Homosexual men had an excess risk of KS compared with the other co-infected participants

LINK2

LINK3

LINK4

LINK5

I'm pretty sure Africa has much more HIV and AIDS than homosexuals, and Africans primarily get it from heterosexual sex.

> CLICK HERE <

Read that how can HIV seperade from homo to hetro
Also I did not say that AIDS does not spereade from Hetro, I said buttsex has more chance to infect people. which can be known as MAN do butt to woman too.


Wonder how do you don't know about it.

 

[JDawg]

I won't even bother reading through this thread because I'll only get pissed off at ignorant responses. Whenever you ask a question like this, the ill-informed have only ignorant answers to give, of course. But I will throw my own opinions in the ring.

There is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality. Researchers are coming closer every day to discovering conclusively that homosexuality is a genetic trait, and not the immoral decision of of a sinner.

Homosexuality isn't contageous. Your children won't catch it from a gay person. It isn't a learned behavior, either.

The most common response I've heard from those who are smart enough to think beyond their religious trappings has been "Homosexual marriage will corrupt society." Well, that isn't true, either. Allowing homosexuals to marry isn't going to convince your son or daughter that being gay is for them, simply because they can get legally married. Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of humankind, and not being able to get married hasn't stopped millions of people from being gay anyway.

The reason we see homosexuality condemned in the major religious texts is because proliferation of our species was a top priority back then. There weren't as many people in the world, and we had no concept of overpopulation. Just like any other animal, Humans have the instinctual need to spread the seed, to further the species into the next generation; it is race memory, a built-in survival technique.

Even today, men who can't produce enough sperm, and women who can't bear children, are shunned and considered less than human in some parts of the world. Why? Because that species survival instinct is still present.

But now, in a world where we can achieve a rough estimate of how many of us are actually here, and can see the negative effects of overpopulation not only on ourselves, but the planet, we can let down our guards.

And at the very core of this argument is the fact that two conscenting adults are being denied the same legal rights that heterosexual couples are allowed. That is the greatest tragedy. We're not talking about a man wanting to marry his goat--we're talking about two adults who are in love with each other, and want to have all the benefits that come along with it.

Allow it. It's the only way.

 

[Shahab]

I botyhered to read what you said there.
But I think its better to bother yourself and read what other posts said too.

I won't even bother reading through this thread because I'll only get pissed off at ignorant responses.

You find that out without reading posts ?


We are not talking about things like " THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO DO THAT "
They have right to do whatever they want as long as it does not affect other's freedom. We are here and we are talking about our opinion, not about what religion says.

we're talking about two adults who are in love with each other, and want to have all the benefits that come along with it.

Pardon me but which benefit ?

 

[Davey Gaga]

Well, I've recently re-draughted my persuasive essay on this topic, so I might as well post it here. Bare in mind that it's part of the criteria to be completely biased, so I'm generally more leniant in my views xD.

------------

[FONT=&quot]Higher Persuasive Essay – I Believe That …[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Sources of reference: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]http://www.finalfantasyforums.net/mako-reactor/homosexual-marriage-do-you-agree-1326.html[/FONT]

“The American Academy of Paediatrics has stated, "Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences."”​

[FONT=&quot]Homosexuality has become a rather large part of life in recent times. With any new idea, there comes a plethora of controversy around said topic and, naturally, a heated discussion. I have chosen to argue that homosexuality is something, which, as people, we should all accept as something natural and perfectly acceptable.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A number of sub-topics become factors in deciding whether or not homosexuality is acceptable. Such topics include adoption, marriage, public displays of affection, the ramifications to society and, as one would expect, sex. Each of these sub-topics are equally as important as the last and, so, I am going to break down each topic systematically – starting with the very concept of homosexuality in itself.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I believe that Homosexuality is a natural occurrence. I do not believe that being homosexual can be helped or fought – it is a part of who you are. You can attempt to hide it; you can attempt to run away from it but regardless of peer pressure, media pressure or[/FONT][FONT=&quot] any kind of pressure, you are what you are and that cannot be helped. Young people particularly feel pressured and stressed into conforming to expectations to be ‘straight’ and so find it much more difficult to admit to being themselves [and that does not relate to homosexuality alone, but that’s for another debate].[/FONT]

“Gay and lesbian youth bear an increased risk of suicide, substance abuse, school problems, and isolation because of a "hostile and condemning environment, verbal and physical abuse, rejection and isolation from family and peers".”​

[FONT=&quot]In such a narrow-minded and blatantly ignorant society, homosexuals have been faced with so many obstacles. However, it’s not only the youth population who ‘fight against’ homosexuality – in earlier times, homosexuality was seen as something inhuman and unholy and eradication was attempted in some societies, as depicted by Wikipedia:[/FONT]

“In cultures under the sway of Abrahamic religions, the law and the church established sodomy as a transgression against divine law, a "crime against nature" practiced by choice, and subject to severe penalties, including capital punishment.”​

[FONT=&quot]Thankfully, such barbaric actions have now been abolished. The main problem with homosexuality these days [to the morbidly ignorant public, specifically] is accepting the idea when one ‘admits’ to being homosexual – not to themselves, but to other people. Said person, who has admitted to being gay, has made that choice. To be fair, the ‘coming out’ of a person is usually accepted, after the initial shock. [/FONT]

“Generally, coming out is described in three phases. The first phase is the phase of "knowing oneself," and the realization or decision emerges that one is open to same-sex relations. The second phase involves one's decision to come out to others, e.g. family, friends, and/or colleagues.”​

[FONT=&quot]What makes this decision differ from another? Step back and take a look at the basic idea of this and compare it with that of another person, who has decided to become a vegetarian, or a vegan. Compare this decision with that of a person who has converted their faith from one to another. Why does admitting to being homosexual differ from these? I fail to see that it does, quite frankly. Homosexuality is not an illness, an ailment, a disability or a fault. I do believe, however, in the possibility that homosexuality can come from a mutation in the genes – the undiscovered and controversial “gay gene.”[/FONT]

“Viewed by some as a pathology or mental illness to be cured, homosexuality is now more often investigated as part of a larger impetus to understand the biology, psychology, politics, genetics, history and cultural variations of sexual practice and identity.”​

[FONT=&quot]Why should one man or woman’s interest affect us? Well, a relatively clear answer is that it does not affect us – not directly or personally, at least. What can we do if the sight of public displays of affection disgusts us? We can avert our eyes – yes, I know, it’s a thought, which is out of reach by some, but at the end of the day, if you’re not being infringed upon, then why should you care? Heterosexuals kiss, cuddle and love, yet that is completely acceptable [granted, mainly in appropriate locations at appropriate times]. Homosexuality is a completely natural thing and exposing the act to people only emphasises how natural and acceptable it is, or rather, should be.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]I do not see homosexuality as a “nature versus nurture” argument; I see this as an argument between ignorance and justice. Can we say that homosexuality has been ‘adopted’ as a preference? You could, but you’d be contradicting the “natural” argument.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Adopting a preference is one thing, but what about adopting a child? This part of the debate is often the most controversial. The question here is, “Should Homosexuals be allowed to adopt?” Well, “why not?” I ask. One rebuttal to my question might be that the child misses out on qualities and skills that he or she would otherwise obtain through a heterosexually married couple – however, this lacks in development. Such a rebuttal falls nothing short of stereotypical, as it suggests that only a father can bring one thing to a family and that only a mother can bring another thing. Again, the blatant ignorance of society shines through. It is now much more widely accepted that men and women are equal [does feminism, “equality of the sexes,” mean nothing?], that men are entirely capable of doing anything a woman can do and vice versa. There is no ramification unto a child due to the sexual orientation of the parent, as can justified by yet another report from Wikipedia:[/FONT]

“There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children…research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish.”​

[FONT=&quot] So what’s wrong with homosexual adoption? “It’s not natural,” I hear someone cry. “They cannot physically reproduce, so it is not meant to be,” I hear, buzzing around. Let’s consider a different, yet almost identical situation. Take a heterosexual couple – the man is infertile and, subsequently, cannot give children to his wife. Do people find it acceptable for them to adopt? Yes. The only difference between the two situations is the gender of one of the parents. Should this really make a difference to your life? “No, but the child can be traumatised as a result of bullying in later life.” While this is true, it is only true because of that ignorance, which constantly haunts the topic of homosexuality [and, also, a significant number of other debates]. Hate is not a natural thing – it is caused by nurture. Discrimination is a concept, which is taught to a child. Why do we have bullies? Well, simply, because they have been taught that it is right, or otherwise necessary. If our world was more open to the opinions and beliefs of other people, the very idea of bullying would be abolished – consequently, the adopted children of homosexual couples would not have to endure senseless taunts. The very word, “gay,” is now thrown around more than heterosexual virginities [although, that’s another issue] and it’s become a word, which is seen to be disgusting and wrong. Children –no, people– can be so cruel. At the end of the day, narrow-mindedness is no reason to deprive a couple – homosexual or heterosexual – of a child.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]What do couples generally do? Traditionally, the get married to one another and promise to spend their lives with each other, to support one another, to start a family and to find happiness in each other. Evidently, this is beyond the grasp of homosexuals and, once you manage to bypass the sarcasm there, you’ll see how ridiculous I find the opposition to homosexual marriage. With Catholic Churches refusing to marry homosexual couples, it was increasingly difficult for homosexuals to be married at all, until recently - but why? I find that far too many people are attached to the bible for all of the answers anyway, including their standpoint in more debates than one. At the end of the day, marriage boils down to consummating your love for, and being legally bound to, the other person. It’s about friendship, commitment, compatibility and trust. What does it matter which gender one of the partners are? Quite frankly, it does not, but there’s the Catholic Church for you. One who refuses to marry a same-sex couple has either lost sight as to why people marry, or has blinded or indoctrinated by their own faith. In fact, according to the bible, the sole purpose of sex is to reproduce and any act where a child cannot result is unholy [this could be a reason as to why churches refused to marry same-sex couples]. To those who do not follow religion, however, sex can be for more than just to become pregnant. Many couples have sex to physically express their love for their partner. This could be taken as a suggestion that the Catholic Church does not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to one another – in which case, this would be a direct contradiction, as the Bible teaches us to love one another, to forgive sins and such like. What makes it acceptable, merely because the sexual orientation of the couple is different from another? As with every other question I’ve put forward – it is not acceptable.[/FONT]

“The relationship between religion and homosexuality varies greatly across time and place, within and between different religions and sects, and regarding different forms of homosexuality and bisexuality. Currently, bodies and doctrines of the Abrahamic religions generally view homosexuality negatively, from quietly discouraging homosexual activity to explicitly forbidding same-sex sexual practices among adherents and actively opposing social acceptance of homosexuality. Some teach that homosexual orientation itself is sinful, while most assert that only homosexual behaviour is a sin.”​

“Twin studies give indications that male homosexuality is genetically mediated. One common type of twin study compares the monozygotic (or identical) twins of people possessing a particular trait to the dizygotic (non-identical, or fraternal) twins of people possessing the trait. Bailey and Pillard (1991) in a study of gay twins found that 52% of monozygotic brothers and 22% of the dizygotic twins were concordant for homosexuality.[77] Bailey, Dunne and Martin (2000) used the Australian twin registry to obtain a sample of 4,901 twins.”​

[FONT=&quot]Homosexuality is not something unnatural, it is not something dangerous and it is not something that should be scorned so forcefully. Back in the day, anyone of ethnic descent was [and, in some places, still are] treated unfairly simply because the looked different. Up until recent decades, women were considered below men and were never given equal opportunities. Much of this has changed – I predict that, in the future, society will finally abandon such blind and blatant ignorance and embrace that, while everyone is different, we are exactly the same. We might not all be straight, or white, or men – but all of us are, in the end, simply citizens of the world. One day, all men and women will acquire equal maternal, industrial and legal rights. One day, all ethnicities will be given equal opportunities around the world without question. One day, people will realise that, while we are all different, we are but one race.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]We’ve got a fair bit of work to do beforehand, though.[/FONT]

 

[Shahab]

Do you know that WIKIPEDIA is not trustable because everyone can sign up there and make an essay there ?

I don't say why gays have sexwith eachother, I think the one who is fu**ing the other one has find a hole and is getting pleasure . Just wonder, why they don't like girls in same way... and I just can't understand how a guy can agree to get fu**ed :x


Go gays, Good luck with your sexuality. I am not your enemy, we can be good friends

EDIT : Tired of discusing . * LEAVES THIS THREAD *
This topic is useless for me and in my opinion.
because
its like two armies, we we are just trying to win.
We already decided what we want about it.
I like topics, which can reach us to new points... like was 11/9 an inside job ?
No one can say it was 100% an inside job or was not, but when we talk about it, we would see new points from different people, which helps us to find something new.

Sorry for taking your times

 

[Mugen]

Well here you don't see gay people in the open that often if at all. So I can't say that I'm bothered with it, they can do what they want, as long as they leave me out of it. It is kinda disgusting to me , but hell as long as everyone's happy

 

[The Phantarch]

If two people love each other enough they should get married no matter if they are the same sex. Who are we as straight people to dictate the lives of someone else? On the other hand I would strongly disagree with a same sex couple having children. Some of my gay friends also agree that they should not have kids.

Cheers
AK

I agree.
I'm straight but I have nothing against gay people.
If two adults are willing to make that kind of commitment then let them. This garbage about not letting them commit to each other. It's comparable to racism years ago when all non-caucasian were persecuted unjustly, made to sit in designated bus compartments etc. And like that I feel confident that given a few decades, people who said otherwise are going to look back embarassed by their narrow minded view points.

 

[BennytheChemist]

I can't say I disagree with it, if two people want to be together then let them, there is nothing wrong with gay marriage or being gay. Gay people are just like the rest of us, they just have a different perspective on life and love.