What do you think of homosexuality (and gay marriage) ?

What do you think of homosexuality and gay marriage(choose all that apply to you) ?

  • I strongly dislike gays, but think they should have the same rights as anybody else

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    134
i generally dont care what people do as long as it doesnt hurt me. if someone feels they need the piece of paper, a legal agreement, to prove their love then thats fine, let them have it. who am i to tell them they cant? besides, why should i care? its really none of my business.

Are you a Libertarian by chance?

:)
 
PaulTB said:
5 is a very badly worded option (which is why I didn't pick it).

"Homosexuality cannot be seen as immoral as it is inborn and not a matter of personal choice"

First of all it is assuming something which is far from known to be true. "Homosexuality is inborn."

Polls reflect opinions, not established thuth, otherwise, quite a few options are contradictory.

While it is certain that there is a significant genetic association it is not the case that if you're born with the same genes as someone who is gay / lesbian you will also certainly be gay / lesbian. If grow up to be not gay and your identical twin grows up to be gay - was that difference established in the womb? At 1, 5, 10, 15 years old?

Tests have shown that identical twins have a higher chance of being gay if their twin is gay (although not 100% because social pressure can incite something not to "become" gay, although that is the way they naturally feel. That is called repressed instinct.) But by "inborn" I didn't mean genetical. These are 2 different things. "Genetical = in the DNA", while "inborn = present at birth". The theory is that the mother's hormonal level plays an important role on the sexualization of the brain during pregnancy. This has nothing to do with genes. And unequal repartition of hormones between the 2 foetuses might explain differences (not just for gayness) between identical twins.

Secondly it's a false linkage. Do things necessarily become moral if you have an inborn desire to do them?

No, the other way round. It cannot be immoral if you haven't chosen it. The point is that if homosexuality is inborn, people can't really decide whether to become gay or not. They can only decide to repress their instincts.

Is a psychopath not immoral in his actions because they result from an inborn difference?

I have never heard of psycopathy being inborn, but if it can be proven, that would make them mentally handicaped, and therefore play in their favour if they commit some crimes.

In fact much that I view as moral consists of controling ones impulses and desires in the face of the needs, feelings and mores of others.

With this logic it seems that the only immoral gays are those who repress their homosexuality, as they divert their impulses and desires in an unnatural way.

So, should homosexuality not be viewed as immoral? YES.

See above.

Anyway, eventhough I think your logic is twisted, this is a poll, and therefore not all options should be logical or the way you see it, otherwise I would have deleted anything including the word "sin" or "immoral" as IMHO these are very subjective concepts based on personal feelings and that defy all rational logic.
 
Are we going to get scientific about this?

In the nature vs. nurture argument- I don't see convincing data either way- although why would I? since I don't as a vocation study human sexuality. Perhaps someone with actual background in behavioural sciences could enlighten us. Why does this matter anyway?

According to our High School text and 20 year old memories of Intro to Psych, our sexuality, including sexual preference is some combination of inherent trait and nurture. (Although I wouldn't swear by the veracity of this info.)

Morality however is not a scientific concept. What we value, what we hold good or evil, how we as a society define the parameters of normal human behavior through laws and rules and morals- this had little to do with science. All over this forum we continually explore the overlap of science and politics and religion: Homosexuality, Stem cell research, evolution, the existence of God, even the purpose of life.

I think we get into trouble when we believe our religion to be science or our science to be religion.
 
sabro said:
All over this forum we continually explore the overlap of science and politics and religion: Homosexuality, Stem cell research, evolution, the existence of God, even the purpose of life.

I dont understand why that is considered sacreligious, or inept from decent morals. Can someone explain?
 
Thanks Sabro. You just said pretty much what I would have said.

You mean Stem Cell research, Winter? Some people are against stem cell research because some interesting investigations require the use of embryonic stem cells which are harvested from non-viable embryonic cells. Some people do not wish to see a distinction between non-viable human embryonic cells and fully alive, out of the womb human beings.
 
I still dont understand that. It seems like there is nothing but positive medical outcomes to be acheived through working with those procedures. People dont like it just because they dont want to admit an embryo isnt a fully developed human or something?
 
Considering an undeveloped embryo as a complete human is a bit extreme. But if thats the case, then why the frell do we still have the death penalty for fully developed humans?
 
That's a good question. It's difficult for me to understand how you can be pro-life and pro-death penalty at the same time. My wife says that it's either pro-unborn human or pro-unconvicted potential republican voter.

Many of the same people who call themselves pro-life have no problem with the US having killed tens of thousands (100,000+?) of civilians in Iraq.
 
Winter said:
Considering an undeveloped embryo as a complete human is a bit extreme. But if thats the case, then why the frell do we still have the death penalty for fully developed humans?

The fully developed humans have had a chance to do what they will with their lives, and if they decided that they could kill others, then they should be dealt with in the same way. The unborn hasn't had a chance to do anything, so it should be left alone to develop and make its own path in life.

*Note* This is an explanation of what some people see as the difference, not necessarily my personal opinion.

CC1 said:
Some people say that being gay is not a matter of choice...Does this mean that many gay people are saying that "I don't want to be gay, I would rather be straight, but I can't help it!"???

I would say "yes." One of the managers at my work is gay, and he has said that he would rather be straight, or so I have heard.
 
Yup, there are lots of people who would change it if they could. Me? I'm happy with it - sure life would be a little less complicated if I were straight, but it's no biggie. And it's good for freaking people out sometimes. :p
 
Marriage in a religious context should not be redefined for homosexual unions. I do believe that civil unions should be legalized with all the secular rights that a "marriage" has. Leave the word "marriage" within the religious domain. Should a partner be able to visit their significant other in the hospital? Yes. Should they get spousal benefits? Yes. I don't know, I think that we are starting to focus too much on the word "marriage" and ignoring the concept. 2 people love each other and want to commit to each other for the rest of their lives? They should not be denied.
 
Fantt said:
Many of the same people who call themselves pro-life have no problem with the US having killed tens of thousands (100,000+?) of civilians in Iraq.

But Iraqi are not White American Protestant, so they are not qualified as human or even life being, are they ?
 
i say more power to um:)
 
I have no problem with homosexuals as long as they leave me alone (in regards to non-platonic things). I'm not a homophobe, but I don't want gay guys hitting on me, and I hate when people think such a mindset is homophobia. If I hit on a pretty woman at a club and she's repulsed, does that mean she's a lesbian? No, of course not.

Anyway, homosexuality doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights or civil liberties. I see no problem with it.
 
The vehement opposition to legal recognition of commited gay/lesbian couples as being married really baffles me. I don't think that letting them be legally recognized as being married in any way diminishes the validity or the sanctity of my heterosexual marriage or any heterosexual marriage for that matter.

Furthermore, the idea of ammending the Constitution to prohibit homosexual marriages is something that I find to be morally reprehensible. I say this because by doing so, we would be altering a document that was conceived and built upon the ideals of guaranteeing personal liberty to all Americans in such a way that it would deny liberty to some of the very people whom it is suppose to protect. In my humble opinion, if we as a nation, deny liberty to a few, then the very ideal of liberty becomes tarnished for us all.

--Bob
 
Hey guys!! Sorry I didn't have time to read everyone's posts before me. I will when I get time. I think most know how I feel already, because of ummm... other threads and stuff. Just wanted to vote. I like to be active in the forums!! ^_^

Ja
 
this is a bit off subject but:

The thing with stem cells is, as I remember it, that they can become any type of human cell. In that case, it's not defined that a baby will develop out of the cells, it could just as well become muscle or bone. I remember seeing one documentary where they injected stem cells into a man's heart who had somekind of a heart disease and the stem cells developed into healthy muscle and he didn't need an operation. Isn't it by far a more natural way of curing someone than taking drugs or having massive surgery?

Back to gays ^^;
At least I'm certainly more accepting of Japanese men, for instance, relaxing after a grueling day, who giggle and playfully touch each other than I would be for Americans....
That's really interesting :souka: I take it that you're not Japanese? In that sense it's maybe not very surprising but interesting nonetheless.

My ex-flatmate had a gay friend and he was the collest person you could ever think of :) Also one of the coolest clubs I've ever been to was a gay club - not because it would've been somehow really diffrent superficially, the athmosphere was just really relaxed. I went there to see a drag show with my friends (we're not gay) and also because we hadn't been to a gay club before and it was a really positive experience. Not to even mention the show, it was really great ;)

Maybe the current trend through media is also getting more and more positive towards gays because after "Sex and the City" became such a hit, all the women's magazines have since featured a "gay best friend" :emblaugh:
 

This thread has been viewed 144631 times.

Back
Top