Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A personal question
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 104 of 193 (20323)
10-20-2002 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by John
10-19-2002 7:04 PM


quote:
Biologically, the gender of one's mate is irrelevant unless one wants to make babies. You could argue that this in itself is enough to make homosexuality unnatural. Of course, the same logic also makes infertile men and women unnatural, and those merely choosing not to have kids, and those who only have on or two kids as well-- don't want to cut short the reproductive potential.
We would also have to consider it "unnatural", from a Biological viewpoint, to refrain from creating children as soon as we reach sexual maturity, which would be around 12 for girls and a few years older for boys.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by John, posted 10-19-2002 7:04 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by John, posted 10-20-2002 7:30 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 110 of 193 (20400)
10-21-2002 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by gene90
10-20-2002 8:08 PM


quote:
From an evolutionary perspective, disregarding any supernatural beings, what is the purpose of sex?
To reproduce.
Ah, but you are forgetting that Bonobos and human females have sex even when they are not "in heat", or fertile, which means that there is another reason for intercourse. That other reason is to strengthen social bonds.
quote:
Why do we crave sex?
So our genes get passed on.
So why do human females crave sex at times when they aren't fertile, and why do human males find females interesting at times when the females aren't fertile?
quote:
Homosexuality is an aberration of that. A fluke. It isn't the "natural" way of things, even in a completely naturalistic worldview. In fact it "should" be selected against so I wonder
why it is still around.
No, it certainly IS part of the naturalistic worldview.
There are lots of mammals which display homosexual behavior. Cows mount each other when they are in heat. Cats and dogs will mount the same sex counterpart to display dominance. Bottlenose dolphins will form same-sex pairs and engage in sex.
It is still around because it doesn't hurt anyone, and it actually helps with social bonding.
quote:
Schrafinator's point seemed to be that it is "natural" for people to be that way. Even if she could prove it were natural it would not mean it was "right". Moral values transcend simply trying to transmit genes.
Therefore, if having a biological predisposition towards being gay makes it morally ok to be gay, being genetically predisposed to having violent episodes must make it morally ok to kill or do whatever may occur during one of those episodes.
But what harm does homosexuality cause to herterosexual people, Gene?
How can you possibly equate the act of murder with two people who happen to be of the same gender loving each other? That is completely irrational.
Why do you list only things like "genetically-predisposed to murder or to be violent" in the same sentence as homosexuality?
I am not saying that "a genetic predisposition = morally OK."
I am saying that the LDS statement is utterly wrong in it's strong implication that gay people aren't that way by nature.
If you want to think that being gay is immoral, then fine, but it is not rational in the least to say that it isn't natural, as there is a lot o' homosexual behavior in nature. You have got to ignore a lot of evidence to say that it isn't natural.
As a consequence, you are then left with the dilemma; God made everything, so if God made gay people that way, why are we supposed to condemn homosexuality?
quote:
Therefore, there must be more to the issue than just rather or not a person (to use Schraf's words) "is 'really' gay". That is the purpose of my analogy. And by the way, I just want to clear up the original question, that it is my opinion that they *are* actually gay, though I suspect the gay culture occasionally sweeps in 'natural' heteros from time to time.
And vice-versa.
That's because there are very few people who are "totally" gay or "totally" hetero. Most people are somewhere in the middle of the bell curve, and since there is strong social pressure for most to be hetero, that is the way they live.
quote:
The "problem" with my analogy is that we have different worldviews.
Your definition of "immoral" is something that hurts someone, or perhaps, even only behaviors that hurt someone else. My definition of "immoral" is wider than that. Some behaviors can be "immoral" without hurting somebody, at least directly. I believe homosexuality is immoral, as are the other behaviors I mentioned.
If your reason for thinking so is because it says so in the Bible, then you are being selective. It's also considered an abomination to wear mixed fiber clothing and for crippled people to go to church.
[QUOTE][B]Certain behaviors, when not checked, are very bad for such associations. Homosexuality is not one of those behaviors.[/QUOTE]
quote:
Hey, I agree with that. I need to point out first that by the nature of the culture of the place where I live I'm not knowingly around people who are openly gay
I suspected as much.
I am around lots of openly-gay people, as my town is one of the few which allows same-gender partners to adopt children. I have many gay co-workers and friends.
quote:
so I can't really be sure about this, but I don't think I have anything against gay people. I don't see how they're doing anything bad to society by being the way they are. I'm not openly supporting same-sex marriage but I'm not *necessarily* against it either (open minded there). I also don't believe in the "homosexual agenda" those infuriating "Christians" talk about on the radio all the time (I actually heard one of them praise Stalin for his anti-gay policies once).
*But* I believe it is contrary to the way God would want it to be.
God doesn't want people to be in loving, comitted relationships? Didn't God make them the way they are?
quote:
Obviously there are two sexes and I don't see any way around it.
So? Sex for humans isn't only about reproduction, otherwise we wouldn't have the ability to respond sexually when we aren't fertile.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-21-2002]
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-21-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by gene90, posted 10-20-2002 8:08 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 3:55 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 111 of 193 (20403)
10-21-2002 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by gene90
10-20-2002 8:32 PM


quote:
"Strengthening bonds" doesn't justify a behavior either. Great bonds can form in war, but that doesn't mean running around shooting people is always a moral thing to do. Gang rituals and hazings also come to mind when we talk about social bonds.
Come on, Gene. Social bonding and cooperation is considered to be one of the most important reasons humans ever became as successful as they did.
The reason bonds form in war is not because of the shooting, but because of the coming together against a common foe.
It's funny you should mention war, though, because I think it was the ancient greeks who's soldiers used to have gay lovers because they believed that the loyalty and devotion would be greater, thus would protect each other more fiercely.
It is clear that you have decided ahead of time that your church's teaching is correct and nothing will ever make you think otherwise. It is a lot like talking to a very intellectually-nimble brick wall.
BTW, can I assume that you concede that the LDS statement on homosexuality doesn't actually say that gay people are "naturally-gay"?
Also, I am sorry that you equate criticism of LDS church policies with belittling them. Quite the contrary; if they weren't so influential I woulnd't bother.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by gene90, posted 10-20-2002 8:32 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 4:03 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 114 of 193 (20425)
10-21-2002 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by gene90
10-20-2002 8:32 PM


Was thinking about this and realized I have a point to make about it...
quote:
A problem here is that love does not provide moral justification either.
A person could have a deep and loving relationship with another person. It could be "true love". But that person could also be married and having an affair with their "true love". In which case it would be immoral no matter how much they loved each other.
I would agree with you that this is an immoral act because an innocent (the spouse being cheated on) is being deceived and betrayed, and therefore injured.
This is not what I was talking about when I asked you if you held love as a value.
I do not think that love is an excuse for hurting and betraying others, which is how you have portrayed it in your example above.
I am talking about two unattached people falling in love and wanting to make a life together, and those two people happen to be of the same gender.
I have yet to hear a satisfactory justification for an anti-gay stance by any Christian group.
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by gene90, posted 10-20-2002 8:32 PM gene90 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 120 of 193 (20485)
10-22-2002 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by compmage
10-22-2002 2:57 AM


quote:
Originally posted by compmage:
quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:

Suffice to say the Church does not recognize same-sex marriages. I
don't think that's a problem because gay people are not required to join unless they want to, and if they believe in the church, then obviously they must also believe the policy is correct. Theology is a package-deal and I don't think anyone should criticize us for it.

Can't really argue here.

While theology is a package deal, if that package contains illegal or immoral chapters then it should be criticised and a lot worse. Note, I am not saying that the LDS church does anything immoral or illegal. I don't know enough about it, however just because the 'bad' parts for part of a package with many 'good' parts in no way makes the 'bad' parts acceptable.

Agreed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by compmage, posted 10-22-2002 2:57 AM compmage has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 121 of 193 (20490)
10-22-2002 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Delshad
10-22-2002 9:35 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Delshad:
Since homosexualism 99% is based upon the surrounding environment and not dependent upon genetical structures, one should ask himself if it really is moral.
Since being a Muslim 99% is based upon the surrounding environment and not dependent upon genetical structures, one should ask himself if it really is moral.
Morality has NOTHING to do with if something is natural or not. Morality is made up by humans and always has been.
quote:
Sure, Ive heard heard about the argument that , if they dont hurt anyone , then its fine.
Or, look at the bonobos, they do it!
Firstly, it doesnt only effect you, it effects society.
The children for example doesnt know what roles the two sexes are supposed to have and their judgement will be very confused when they grow up.
Um, first of all, the idea that a child with two parents of the same gender will be confused about who are boys and who are girls is not established at all, nor will they necesarily be gay. Most gay children come from traditional hetero families, don't they, so this doesn't fit. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Second of all, what do gender roles and sexual preference have to do with each other?
quote:
Whatever "pleasure" the gay pair will have will never justify the act, a cleptoman may enjoy himself when he steals,
Yet another comparison of homosexuality with the crime of theft. How and why people equate them, I don't understand.
quote:
but that wont justify the act, a pair stealing a childs judgement by their direct or indirect influence will never justify the act.
Not sure what you mean here...
quote:
And secondly, we arent bonobos, no matter how much some of us would want it.
LOL! Never said we should want to be Bonobos. They ARE our closest relatives and are very much like us, socially, physically, and genetically, so therefore they are useful subjects of study for comparison.
quote:
We can understand right from wrong, we know that children arent made that way, bonobos dont.
Saying that "children aren't made that way" is a very bold statement considering that very little formal research on the genetic basis of homosexuality has been done. Tell me, what research are you relying on when you make this statement?
"Right from wrong" is a human construct and is defined differently all around the world.
quote:
Think about this, before we knew how to make fire, we ate raw meat,
We still eat raw meat. Carpaccio? Sushi?
quote:
we perhaps ate plants we were allergic to or we perhaps died by lack of hygien.
Now we know what is good for us but we dont consider the soap unnatural, or cocked food unnatural, or clothes unnatural or medicine unnatural.
...or homosexuality unnatural.
You still haven't given any reason at all why homosexuality is either harmful or unnatural. [/QUOTE]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Delshad, posted 10-22-2002 9:35 AM Delshad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Delshad, posted 10-22-2002 2:14 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 122 of 193 (20493)
10-22-2002 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by gene90
10-20-2002 8:08 PM


quote:
Why do we crave sex?
So our genes get passed on.
Homosexuality is an aberration of that. A fluke. It isn't the "natural" way of things, even in a completely naturalistic worldview. In fact it "should" be selected against so I wonder
why it is still around.
After reading this again, I realized that this is very interesting.
Gene, what is the difference between a genetic "abberation" and a genetic "variation"?
In what instances (other than homosexuality) would you consider relatively rare variations in a population to be unnatural?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by gene90, posted 10-20-2002 8:08 PM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Mammuthus, posted 10-23-2002 10:26 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 126 of 193 (20565)
10-23-2002 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Delshad
10-22-2002 2:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Delshad:
Dear Schrafinator and John
I just have a question, why is it so (you can correct me if Im wrong) that animals that arent intelligent and that dont have an own opinion or can consider their actions from a second or third perspective dont express any type of homosexual behaviour.

Well, I suppose I want to hear your definition of "intelligent", but in lieu of that, there are examples of homosexual behavior in non-primate animals such as dogs, cats, cows, and dolphins.
I would say that the animals that display homosexual behavior are often have very complex social structures in which social bonds and cooperation are important for survival.
quote:
In my view, homosexuality is a choise and can only be made from an intelligent being, that choise dont have to coincide with the natural way but is done because of the personal pleasure.
In that case, does one also choose to be heterosexual?
Please define "natural".
quote:
So consider this, a childs mind isnt fully formed, but is made to learn from their surrounding, mostly their parents or relatives.
So, would it be fair to let this child be raised by parents with the same sex, did it have a choise, dit it wish to be borned without the normal figures, mom and dad?

Define "normal".
So, now you are condemning all "non-traditional" families. What about children raised by single parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, etc?
Again, what evidence do you have that being raised in a non-traditional family has any negative affect upon children at all?
quote:
Furthermore, this child is going to have his views of mom+mom or dad+dad heavily questioned even at an early stage by society(friends,etc)
Look, the children of marriages of mixed faith, mixed ethnicity, mixed social class, mixed regionality, mixed country of origin, etc., all have had to deal with greater or lesser problems from bigots and hate-mongers and ignorant people all along. I expect there will be stupid people who will give a kid a hard time because they are prejudiced against their parents, but any child born out of love and raised in a loving home will be able to handle it. And time has, and will, integrate these people until it is simply not a big deal. We see this today.
quote:
AND, as that wasn`t enough, the cild finds out at an early age that he or she was adopted.
Is it really fair to let this child experinece all this because of his parents desicions.

Many lesbians produce their own children, actually.
quote:
And if the pair decides to not have any children and not influence the surroundings ( example: children that passes by when the pair is walking hand in hand down the street), then were should they go, should they hide their choise for the rest of their lives and always fear to get caught.
That's exactly the point. They shouldn't have to hide. THEY are not hurting anyone. It is the culture which is hurting THEM.
quote:
And even if all of society embraced homosexualism with open arms, there is a question.
If THAT boundary has been transgressed, what is to stop society from other unappropriate sexual behaviours, sure there is a law against some of them , but still.. the law was against homosexualism but that law doesnt exist anymore?

You are assuming that a boundry was ever needed or appropriate in the first place.
You still have not explained how homosexuality is harmful to anyone.
Thankfully, most places in the US no longer have laws which govern what consenting adults do in the privacy in their own home.
quote:
Laws can be changed, some of them in the same pace as moral values are neglected.
Why is love between two people immoral just because they are of the same gender? Who does it hurt?
{Unbolded non-quote text - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-23-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Delshad, posted 10-22-2002 2:14 PM Delshad has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 3:29 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 148 of 193 (20641)
10-23-2002 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by gene90
10-23-2002 3:29 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B][QUOTE][B]In that case, does one also choose to be heterosexual?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Good point! Yes. As long as there is the possibility of being homosexual, one *must* choose, at some level, to be heterosexual.
BTW, you opened the door for this when you insisted that people aren't 100% heterosexual.[/QUOTE]
The point remains that since most people "sit the fence", more or less, and we happen to live in a culture (US) that generally hates and fears homosexuality, or at the least most people are uncomfortable with it, the social pressure to live a hetero lifestyle is quite strong.
In other parts of the world it isn't like that.
[QUOTE][B]You still have not explained how homosexuality is harmful to anyone.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Homosexuality, as far as I can tell, is not harmful. But that does not make it moral. I think it should be allowed to be practiced in the open. I think homosexual partners should have the same legal rights as nonmarried heterosexual partners. I'm not sure about my opinion on homosexual marriages, I feel like I could argue that either way.
My problem with your reasoning is that you think that moral values are based entirely on what is and is not harmful to others. You don't recognize the possibility, that with some kind of ID and a sense of "purpose" for gender differences, it becomes more complicated than that. [/B][/QUOTE]
Sure, it's possible, but it certainly isn't probable, and I see no evidence for ID, and I see no reason to condemn love between two people for no good reason.
You do realize, of course, that you have not given any reason for why homosexuality isn't moral, other than "the Bible says so".
The Bible also says that slavery is OK and that it is an abomination for crippled people to approach the alter in temple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 3:29 PM gene90 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 149 of 193 (20642)
10-23-2002 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by nos482
10-23-2002 8:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
Originally posted by gene90:
I don't agree that breathing air is the 'right' way to go, but I'm not saying that they should be denied their choice.
Like breathing air being gay is not a choice. If you were gay would you have chosen to be so if you knew how you would be treated by others?

I don't think it matters if it is a choice or not. People aught to be able to love whomever the hell they want.
Having said that, I don't think that many gay people are happy pretending to be hetero. Our culture hates and fears them.
This is why the suicide rate among gay teenagers is very high.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by nos482, posted 10-23-2002 8:38 PM nos482 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 150 of 193 (20643)
10-23-2002 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by gene90
10-23-2002 3:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
quote:
It is still around because it doesn't hurt anyone, and it actually helps with social bonding.
What does not hurting anyone have to do with it still being around, from a naturalistic perspective? Cannibalism is quite popular in the animal kingdom, probably more so than homosexuality, and you can't argue it doesn't hurt "anyone".
One of the reasons certain traits are still around is because they are neutral in effect.
The reason cannibalism is still around, I imagine, is because they occur in species which reproduce copious numbers of offspring (mice) or in species where there is a lot of competition for females, rangeland, and pack leadership (lions).
quote:
As for social bonding, see my war analogy.
I already addressed your war analogy.
I said that the bonds of war happen because people are coming together to fight a common foe, not simply because shooting occurs.
quote:
But what harm does homosexuality cause to herterosexual people, Gene?
quote:
I have not claimed that it did harm heteros. You're building a strawman.
So, are you saying that your morals are relatively arbitrary, and even though you think that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, it is still immoral, because the Bible says so?
Then I would say that your position lacks reason.
quote:
How can you possibly equate the act of murder with two people who happen to be of the same gender loving each other? That is completely irrational.
quote:
Because the analogy proves that being predisposed to a behavior does not necessarily justify that behavior. I still stand by the analogy.
So, is your standard of morality begin and end at the bible, no matter how illogical and unreasonable it is?
[QUOTE][B]I am not saying that "a genetic predisposition = morally OK."[/QUOTE]
[/B]
quote:
Good.
[QUOTE][B]I am saying that the LDS statement is utterly wrong in it's strong implication that gay people aren't that way by nature.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
quote:
I didn't get that implication from reading, or rereading it for that matter.
I certainly did.
[QUOTE][B]I have many gay co-workers and friends.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
quote:
You are implying that my opinion is based upon a lack of experience around homosexuals.
Homophobia generally is based upon a lack of ecpreience with openly gay people, yes. (Homophobia might be too strong a word for your views, I'm not sure.)
quote:
However, it is equally valid for me to claim that your opinion is based upon your being around homosexuals all the time, and therefore you have become biased.
Gee, let's see...who is more likely to have a realistic view of what openly gay people are like inside a community; someone who interacts with gay people and someone who has never met an openly gay person?
quote:
I suggest we leave our respective environments out of it. The ideal environment is probably in between these two extremes anyway.
LOL! My environment is hardly the Village or the Bay area, Gene! Since the vast majority of Michigan is, shall we say, extremely conservative and the north branch of the Bible Belt, Ann Arbor has become a Mecca for all those Michigan people who are "different"; artists, musicians, free-thinkers, atheists, gay folks, hippies, liberal political actiivists, etc.
It's where all the wierdos who were run out of town for being different come.
[QUOTE][B]If you want to think that being gay is immoral, then fine, but it is not rational in the least to say that it isn't natural, as there is a lot o' homosexual behavior in nature.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
quote:
I will allow that it is "natural" in the sense that it occurs in nature (and its presence in nature has no relevance to morality). I do not allow that it is "natural" in a different connotation, that it is a part of God's plan.
My fault for not being clear.
See, this I have no problem with, because you have decided that you are believing something because you believe God wants you to think a certain way. I certainly think you are wrong, and I don't think you can justify your belief in any other way other than it being from the Bible/your religion, so I will object on those grounds. I will also object on philosophical and ethical grounds, but not on religious grounds.
[QUOTE][B]Didn't God make them the way they are?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
quote:
"God made us, and made our weaknesses as well. The test is if we can overcome our weaknesses and immoralities, that is, if we can prove that our sense of reason and morality is stronger than our genes. If we can, then we are valiant and noble creatures indeed, and have proven true agency."
(From: The World According to Gene90; 2002 edition )
See, I think it is unreasonable to expect every human on the planet to be/act 100% heterosexual.
quote:
By the way, God also made sociopaths. I'm sure that under different circumstances you would have pointed that out by now.
LOL!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 3:55 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by gene90, posted 10-24-2002 4:56 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 151 of 193 (20645)
10-23-2002 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by gene90
10-23-2002 4:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]It's funny you should mention war, though, because I think it was the ancient greeks who's soldiers used to have gay lovers because they believed that the loyalty and devotion would be greater, thus would protect each other more fiercely.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Actually homosexuality was rampant in Greece, even outside the military. Even the word "Lesbian" is derived from the Isle of Lesbos, which was a Greek city-state. The widespread homosexuality of the Spartan army could have partly been because it was believed to form close relationships, but it probably had everything to do with the fact that those men didn't have access to their wives for years at a time.
Now tell me, if being gay is simply an expression of a person's "nature" (that people do not choose to be gay), why was it so common in Greece and not in other cultures?

It goes back to the bell curve I was talking about.
(Bear in mind that this bell curve is probably skewed in favor of more hetero and fewer homo, but it is a curve, nonetheless.)
The small number of people at the ends of the bell curve are "very" straight or "very" homosexual. Everyone else in the middle could probably respond either way, to a greater or lesser extent, depending upon circumstance and cultural influences.
IOW, I never said that people didn't choose to be gay, but that fewer people choose it now because the social pressure to not be gay is so strong.
I think that most of the people who come out these days are probably quite far to the end of the "gay" side of the bell curve because there is risk to one's personal safety in a lot of the world, let alone teasing and harrasment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 4:03 PM gene90 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 152 of 193 (20648)
10-23-2002 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Delshad
10-23-2002 5:29 PM


quote:
However , I dont despite the same sex relationships and who am I to stop them from doing what they want.
Im simply stating that man and woman relationships is the moral norm that leads society and deviations should be accepted but not embraced.
What makes homosexuality immoral?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Delshad, posted 10-23-2002 5:29 PM Delshad has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 153 of 193 (20650)
10-23-2002 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by gene90
10-23-2002 7:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]Some? How about most. Christianity sees sex for pleasure as immoral.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I disagree. If you're married, most don't care.

I dunno, Gene. Lots of Christianity-based sodomy laws out there which technically affect married couples as well as gay men.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 7:08 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by gene90, posted 10-24-2002 3:55 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 154 of 193 (20651)
10-23-2002 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by gene90
10-23-2002 7:18 PM


quote:
You said homosexuality was harmless. No sex is necessarily harmless.
Homosexuality is about much more than sex, Gene. It is no more or less about sex than heterosexuality.
(Wait a minute...I'm talking to a young man in his early twenties, and I am telling him that there is more to life than hormones...what am I thinking?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 7:18 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by gene90, posted 10-24-2002 3:54 PM nator has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024