What do you think of homosexuality?

[Hardcore]

Gays would win.

[cheetahfear]

they would all be old with no kids

[Kyo]

I honestly believe that homosexuality is nothing but a result of some sort of psychological trauma or dysfunction that the person has yet to deal with.

Or you joking? Do you understand how fallacious this is?

I would be surprised of a gay human-being was not offended by your statement.

Your example of a straight couple being satisfied without being married has nothing to do with a gay couple who are not.

Homosexuality is definitely a psychological dysfunction. I have yet to meet one gay guy or girl who didn't have a sob story about their past. For example, I once knew a lesbian who in fact became lesbian because when she was little her father use to molest her. I knew a guy who admitted he was gay because he never had a father in his life and that male intimacy gave him something he's always wish he'd gotten from a father (not in a sexual way). And I've known countless of people who were gay because (here it comes) they couldn't score a date with the opposite sex so their insecurities within themselves made them feel like "If I can't have a girl then I might as well go for guys" or vice versa. The who idea of homosexuality being "inevitable" or "in your genes" is ridiculous.

As for the marriage thing. When you love someone that's all that matters. If it were me, I'd say [censored] the government, go to Las Vegas and get married there.

[Dretlin]

Homosexuality is definitely a psychological dysfunction. I have yet to meet one gay guy or girl who didn't have a sob story about their past. For example, I once knew a lesbian who in fact became lesbian because when she was little her father use to molest her. I knew a guy who admitted he was gay because he never had a father in his life and that male intimacy gave him something he's always wish he'd gotten from a father (not in a sexual way). And I've known countless of people who were gay because (here it comes) they couldn't score a date with the opposite sex so their insecurities within themselves made them feel like "If I can't have a girl then I might as well go for guys" or vice versa. The who idea of homosexuality being "inevitable" or "in your genes" is ridiculous.

As for the marriage thing. When you love someone that's all that matters. If it were me, I'd say [censored] the government, go to Las Vegas and get married there.

Whether or not you are yet to meet a gay person who does not fit your, ridiculous and rather offence stereotype, does nothing to validate your anecdote (on a side note, I to have never had a father in my life, and (shock!) I am not homosexual).

Homosexuality is complex and you do it a complete injustice by assuming one (one, just one) cause. The American Psychological Association said in 1975, '...homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral depravity. It is the way a portion of the population expresses human love and sexuality.'

I am also unsure why you find a biological reason for homosexuality "ridiculous". I can only deduce from your post this is based on your own held opinions rather than any evidence. I direct you to this paper: Homosexuality: A brief Study

[Pennyroyal Tea]

The only the even remotely accurate about your post is that homosexuality can be viewed as a dysfunction, however it's not a psychological one, but a sociological one, and only one you can manage if you're taking the functional view of sociology which would view homosexuality as a dysfunction because it detracts from the simple biological function of the human species to reproduces. However, this isn't something that's necessarily against homosexuality, it's just a method of analyzing things.

The problem with America I find is that nobody knows where our freedom should end, people only have an idea of what the powers of the government should be, and it's constantly changing from generation to generation and from person to person. To this effect I think in a true society no limits need to be necessarily placed on freedoms as people have the abilities to make their own decisions and form their own judgments, however after a period of possibly a bit of chaos or unrest I believe that it's something that will moderate itself.

Mostly because I believe the best rules are learned not taught and I don't see how expanding marriage so that any person who can legally consent to marriage is allowed to marry whoever they want is a logical step in the right direction. Anyone with personal opinions against such things, or if they simply prefer not to marry someone from the same sex just has that decision to make for themselves.

I think the argument is, does a person have the right to decide things for themselves, or do we give the government the power to decide who we can and can not marry, even if they're legally able to consent to it?

The debate really when it comes to homosexual rights is what rights does a person actually deserve? What personal freedoms should they be free to explore?

[Pennyroyal Tea]

The only harm is them not having the official seal of approval by society.

Society often lags behind. It's a delicate balance, what happens when society believes in something morally unconscionable? Does the ruling body have the power to then enforce such values in its citizens? I sort of shudder to think of the precedence that such an action may set.

[Athos]

It does have the power to enforce such values and it often does. Take a look at DOMA and any penal law.

[Pennyroyal Tea]

It does have the power to enforce such values and it often does. Take a look at DOMA and any penal law.

I know about DOMA. That wasn't exactly what I was referring to. I mean forcing through something that it unpopular because it is perceived as right even if a clear majority opposes it. With things like Doma it's different because there's nothing forcing any state to adopt it, if citizens of a particular state don't like it, it probably wouldn't get adopted. It was to prevent people from getting married in Michigan, and then running back to Texas to be married. I don't actually have a running list in my head of which states adopted it or not,or which states have some for of gay marriage, I just picked states at random.


I'm talking more along the lines of something more on the federal level applying to all states no matter if they're liberal or conservative, something to the level of slavery or ERA where it affects everyone.

[The Brown-Eyed Boy]

kyo i could not agree with you more and in any case homosexuality is the result of a minor chemical imbalance because it is not natural.

Interestingly enough, there have been cases reported of homosexuality within the animal kingdom.

here is one example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildli ... chick.html

and if you pay attention to the last paragraph of that article:
"It is not the only same-sex pairing within the animal world on the Otago Peninsula, just south of Dunedin. Currently, two male yellow-eyed penguins – an endangered species like the royal albatross– are incubating an egg."

Therefore, according to cheetah and kyo's logic, there is a chemical imbalance in these animals.
but seeing how they arent being hunted by their own, this must mean that this is a perfectly natural and accepted occurrence.
and way back when, a few hundred years ago(1700s), there was a saying, and i dont really know if this was brought up already, but ill say it anyways: Women are for childbearing and Men are for loving.
many of americas forefathers participated in homosexual acts, coined this phrase, and it was accepted across america....i dont know what changed, but there will always be gay people. You just gotta accept it.

[Athos]

It does have the power to enforce such values and it often does. Take a look at DOMA and any penal law.

I know about DOMA. That wasn't exactly what I was referring to. I mean forcing through something that it unpopular because it is perceived as right even if a clear majority opposes it. With things like Doma it's different because there's nothing forcing any state to adopt it, if citizens of a particular state don't like it, it probably wouldn't get adopted. It was to prevent people from getting married in Michigan, and then running back to Texas to be married. I don't actually have a running list in my head of which states adopted it or not,or which states have some for of gay marriage, I just picked states at random.


I'm talking more along the lines of something more on the federal level applying to all states no matter if they're liberal or conservative, something to the level of slavery or ERA where it affects everyone.

No, I believe you're missing my point. The rule of law is the expression of the majority. DOMA as well as various laws on the state level, do reflect that. I merely used DOMA because it is a higher law. Marriage is a right to be enforced by the states by themselves, as Congress and the Courts agree. I agree how juridically speaking, is a throwback to both Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Ed.

[Pennyroyal Tea]

It does have the power to enforce such values and it often does. Take a look at DOMA and any penal law.

I know about DOMA. That wasn't exactly what I was referring to. I mean forcing through something that it unpopular because it is perceived as right even if a clear majority opposes it. With things like Doma it's different because there's nothing forcing any state to adopt it, if citizens of a particular state don't like it, it probably wouldn't get adopted. It was to prevent people from getting married in Michigan, and then running back to Texas to be married. I don't actually have a running list in my head of which states adopted it or not,or which states have some for of gay marriage, I just picked states at random.


I'm talking more along the lines of something more on the federal level applying to all states no matter if they're liberal or conservative, something to the level of slavery or ERA where it affects everyone.

No, I believe you're missing my point. The rule of law is the expression of the majority. DOMA as well as various laws on the state level, do reflect that. I merely used DOMA because it is a higher law. Marriage is a right to be enforced by the states by themselves, as Congress and the Courts agree. I agree how juridically speaking, is a throwback to both Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Ed.

No I got your point completely. I know that a bit of a majority support gay marriage, and I understand the fact that a slim majority are against it. I also know how laws tend to reflect the views of the majority.

What I'm bringing up is more of the question should laws reflect morality over what the majority of people tend to agree with (assuming it isn't an extreme majority)?

Or should we go with something that is beneficial to people even if they don't agree with it (ala converting to the metric system) I know there are places and policies where it's kind of a no brainer, I'm asking your opinion on the more gray areas.

[Athos]

Yes, laws should reflect morality over what a majority people tend to agree with--even if it was not an extreme majority.

I would not agree with going with something that would beneficial because I believe in free will. (Actually, if you would like to see more exploring that topic read the book Nudge by Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler).

[cheetahfear]

I honestly believe that homosexuality is nothing but a result of some sort of psychological trauma or dysfunction that the person has yet to deal with.

Or you joking? Do you understand how fallacious this is?

I would be surprised of a gay human-being was not offended by your statement.

Your example of a straight couple being satisfied without being married has nothing to do with a gay couple who are not.

Homosexuality is definitely a psychological dysfunction. I have yet to meet one gay guy or girl who didn't have a sob story about their past. For example, I once knew a lesbian who in fact became lesbian because when she was little her father use to molest her. I knew a guy who admitted he was gay because he never had a father in his life and that male intimacy gave him something he's always wish he'd gotten from a father (not in a sexual way). And I've known countless of people who were gay because (here it comes) they couldn't score a date with the opposite sex so their insecurities within themselves made them feel like "If I can't have a girl then I might as well go for guys" or vice versa. The who idea of homosexuality being "inevitable" or "in your genes" is ridiculous.

As for the marriage thing. When you love someone that's all that matters. If it were me, I'd say [censored] the government, go to Las Vegas and get married there.

theres nothing more to say on this topic

[cheetahfear]

kyo i could not agree with you more and in any case homosexuality is the result of a minor chemical imbalance because it is not natural.

Interestingly enough, there have been cases reported of homosexuality within the animal kingdom.

here is one example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildli ... chick.html

and if you pay attention to the last paragraph of that article:
"It is not the only same-sex pairing within the animal world on the Otago Peninsula, just south of Dunedin. Currently, two male yellow-eyed penguins – an endangered species like the royal albatross– are incubating an egg."

Therefore, according to cheetah and kyo's logic, there is a chemical imbalance in these animals.
but seeing how they arent being hunted by their own, this must mean that this is a perfectly natural and accepted occurrence.
and way back when, a few hundred years ago(1700s), there was a saying, and i dont really know if this was brought up already, but ill say it anyways: Women are for childbearing and Men are for loving.
many of americas forefathers participated in homosexual acts, coined this phrase, and it was accepted across america....i dont know what changed, but there will always be gay people. You just gotta accept it.

no where does it say that they are mating a male had 2 females and likely died and now they are trying to keep the child alive

[Dretlin]

theres nothing more to say on this topic

I suggest you read my post. You will find it much more beneficial than shouldering the burden of your prejudice.

[cheetahfear]

i did read it and i must dissagree