Homophobia

diddley

Anyway this is off topic so I won't reply to you again, Jakkass. Bottom line is don't try to impinge upon someone elses freedom just because you believe in religion.

philologos

diddley wrote: »

I find it offensive u write it off as being subject to restraints like everything else. The Bible isn't exactly like all other literary texts so theres no point in saying its subject to the same constraints. How many literary texts do people use as a guide to live their lives, through messages that are contained in it.

Why do you find it offensive that I think that God could be behind the science? I'm not entirely sure about the specifics of exactly how God's hand formed humanity, and I don't think anyone can be exactly certain. It's seeming probable that this was through evolution.

I don't write the Bible off at all. The Bible was written by different authors in different contexts and in different times.

For example, the Torah deals with the Jewish laws and the laws of the Biblical State of Israel.

The Historical books deal with Israel's history from arriving in the land of Israel until the point where they were held captive under the Babylonians and the Assyrians until they finally got their freedom again.

The Wisdom / Poetic books tell us about how God communicates with individuals and what it is that is prudent or wise to do.

The Prophets tell us of God's judgement of Israel for failing to keep their covenant with God, and prophesies of the Messiah (Jesus) and what He would do while he was alive 600 years before it happened.

Then the Gospels give us 4 accounts of what Jesus was like when he walked the earth.

The Epistles are words of guidance for new Christian communities that were forming throughout Europe.

Revelations is the prophesy concerning the end times.

Now given this, do you think that all these books can be read in the exact same way, using the exact same literary devices?

diddley wrote: »

Also, I don't know what u mean by taking the parables literally. Isn't that implied anyway that its the message in them to be taken seriously and not the actual story.

That's what I was saying. If you read the parables of Jesus literally you couldn't take the message in them, but the actual story.

philologos

diddley wrote: »

Anyway this is off topic so I won't reply to you again, Jakkass. Bottom line is don't try to impinge upon someone elses freedom just because you believe in religion.

I believe it was Boston who brought religion into the thread. I hadn't mentioned it until that point.

Although I do hold certain Biblical morals, I don't think I can expect non-Christians to hold to them unless they are seeking to find God themselves. However, marriage has huge impact in a society and I think all people should be able to have their say on it. I personally think it is best for society to have marriage as being between a man and a woman, due to this being the basis of the family unit.

Ironé

Gay people in Ireland can have children now - not just adoption, artificial insemination, surrogate mothers.

Making Gay marriage legal means, among other things, that children with same sex parents are afforded the same rights as children with a single-parent, or straight parents.

Ironé

Faylum wrote: »

If you can't have kids naturally then you shouldn't be allowed to have them.

What a simple sentence. How easy for you to say that people should not be allowed to have children with medical assistance. There are so so many people in this country with fertility issues. I have the bad bad luck to be one of them. You have no idea of how painful that is for someone - no idea unless you go through it.

Maybe instead of ranting about what people should and shouldn't be allowed to do you should try to put yourselves in other people's shoes. You need to go out and experience life a bit more ... cause it is not black and white.

KeyLimePie

I spent about a good half hour reading this thread and I must say I'm pretty disgusted.

first of all, if you have to say "I'm not homophobic but..." it means that you are homophobic, it's like a guy I know who says "I'm not racist but black people can't drive"

second of all, anyone who complains about gay people being vulgar or whatever, that's EVERYONE ! I was stayed at a friend's house and herself, and her 2 other friends all girls discussed very intimate sexual things like "I'VE HAD SEX ON MY PERIOD" ! Or how many guys talk about, in detail, their sexual experiences ? It's everyone not just the gays

third of all, on the subject of gay marriage, religion should not come into question on any aspect of it, if the church doesn't want gays marrying, that's there problem, but the government should allow gay marriages ! Screw the terminology of it cause NOONE is gonna send out invitations to their "Civil Union"

fourth of all, on issue of gay adoption, there's no evidence of any negative impacts on the children, and for the people who say that children need a father figure or mother figure or visa-versa, by ye're logic all single mothers and fathers shouldn't be allowed to keep their kids. And MOST importantly, are you saying that NO parents are better than GAY parents ?

And that's my 2 cents and if anyone wants challenge me on ANY of my points I'll be more than happy to discuss

philologos

KeyLimePie wrote: »

first of all, if you have to say "I'm not homophobic but..." it means that you are homophobic, it's like a guy I know who says "I'm not racist but black people can't drive"

If you want to call people who disagree with gay marriage go ahead, it's ultimately your choice. You might want to check out the definition for accuracy though:

Homophobia (from Greek homós: one and the same; phóbos: fear, phobia) is an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against ...

I don't have a phobia of homosexuals, or an aversion to them. I know many people who are gay or bisexual, and that's fair enough. However calling someone homophobic for opposing a change of something as important as marriage within society is just a bit ridiculous. I have no reason to hate homosexuals none at all, and if I did I would be doing something incredibly wrong. Hugely wrong infact. However supporting marriage as between a man and a woman, the traditional formation of the family amongst other things is different. As such it would probably be best not to throw around the word homophobia like a rag doll in conversation.

I find that people call people homophobic when discussing marriage for no other reason than to stifle discussion. This is something important that needs to be talked about, if you don't want to talk about it fine, don't. However, it's something that we as a society do need to talk about before blindly supporting. People are in my book entitled to their own opinion on the subject even if I disagree with them. I disagree with best of friends, as such it's not reasonable to say that disagreement = hatred.

KeyLimePie wrote: »

second of all, anyone who complains about gay people being vulgar or whatever, that's EVERYONE ! I was stayed at a friend's house and herself, and her 2 other friends all girls discussed very intimate sexual things like "I'VE HAD SEX ON MY PERIOD" ! Or how many guys talk about, in detail, their sexual experiences ? It's everyone not just the gays

I never complained about this. You're totally right though, that's a lot of people. I personally would prefer if I didn't have to hear about the ins and outs of what who did to who however

KeyLimePie wrote: »

third of all, on the subject of gay marriage, religion should not come into question on any aspect of it, if the church doesn't want gays marrying, that's there problem, but the government should allow gay marriages ! Screw the terminology of it cause NOONE is gonna send out invitations to their "Civil Union"

So your primary disagreement is because of the word that's involved? As for religion not coming into peoples views on gay marriage. Separation of church and state does not go as far as to separate religion from peoples consciences. Christianity defines me as a person, it's who I am. Some people find that weird, and some people like talking to me one on one about things about my faith. That's their decision not mine. However, I don't think it reasonable to say that I should change my opinion because it is different from someone elses.

I've said clearly if there was a referendum on gay marriage in Ireland, I would personally vote no. However, if it passed, I would respect that the Irish people had decided to allow it. I would be a bit disappointed that people didn't want to fight for the traditional marriage that has formed society for generations, but that would be my disappointment and mine alone and I would have to accept it.

KeyLimePie wrote: »

fourth of all, on issue of gay adoption, there's no evidence of any negative impacts on the children, and for the people who say that children need a father figure or mother figure or visa-versa, by ye're logic all single mothers and fathers shouldn't be allowed to keep their kids. And MOST importantly, are you saying that NO parents are better than GAY parents ?

There are journals to support it. Other people have correctly said that there are a few other journals which don't. Either way people have argued from either side.

As for single mothers, it is hard for them and I feel sorry for people who have to raise children on their own. However, there are key advantages to having both a male and a female role model in childrearing. In the USA in particular there have been studies which correlate children without a father figure to social problems.

I'm not saying that no parents are better than gay parents, however I am saying that straight parents are the best for a child.

KeyLimePie wrote: »

And that's my 2 cents and if anyone wants challenge me on ANY of my points I'll be more than happy to discuss

I'm personally open to discuss with you too . I just don't think it's fair to throw around the "homophobia" word for merely disagreeing with gay marriage, it's actually a touch intolerant of alternative views, and a means of trying to silence people in discussions.

KeyLimePie

Jakkass wrote: »

If you want to call people who disagree with gay marriage go ahead, it's ultimately your choice. You might want to check out the definition for accuracy though

I was refering to the opening post "I personally think Gay ppl should never be allowed to marry. And i think the act itself is rather sick... "
I would not class someone who opposes gay marriage as homophobic !

Jakkass wrote: »

So your primary disagreement is because of the word that's involved? As for religion not coming into peoples views on gay marriage. Separation of church and state does not go as far as to separate religion from peoples consciences. Christianity defines me as a person, it's who I am. Some people find that weird, and some people like talking to me one on one about things about my faith. That's their decision not mine. However, I don't think it reasonable to say that I should change my opinion because it is different from someone elses.

I've said clearly if there was a referendum on gay marriage in Ireland, I would personally vote no. However, if it passed, I would respect that the Irish people had decided to allow it. I would be a bit disappointed that people didn't want to fight for the traditional marriage that has formed society for generations, but that would be my disappointment and mine alone and I would have to accept it.

I can't say I agree but I respect your views =p

Jakkass wrote: »

There are journals to support it. Other people have correctly said that there are a few other journals which don't. Either way people have argued from either side.

As for single mothers, it is hard for them and I feel sorry for people who have to raise children on their own. However, there are key advantages to having both a male and a female role model in childrearing. In the USA in particular there have been studies which correlate children without a father figure to social problems.

I'm not saying that no parents are better than gay parents, however I am saying that straight parents are the best for a child.

When someone petitions for adoption, they're put through strenuous interviews to determine if the couple is stable enough to adopt a child, there should be no reason that gays can't adopt ! What I'm trying to say is that adoption should be determined case by case,

Stercus Accidit

If ye had two dads, if another kid said

well my da'd bate yore da

You could say,

oiv two da's, they'd both bate yore da


Two mams if they were butch would be the same deal.

Win win.

Ironé

People keep bringing up arguments about same sex couples being parents. This has nothing to do with legalizing same sex marriage. Gay people can have children now without having to be married. So with that taken out of the equation where is the issue with same sex marriage?

KeyLimePie

Ironé wrote: »

People keep bringing up arguments about same sex couples being parents. This has nothing to do with legalizing same sex marriage. Gay people can have children now without having to be married. So with that taken out of the equation where is the issue with same sex marriage?

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

JC 2K3

I'm confused as to where the idea that gay marriage would change the meaning of marriage, as has been inferred in here by certain people.

2 questions to you Jakkass:
1. What is marriage in a legal context, in your opinion?
2. Are heterosexual couples who have no intention of having children cheating the system by getting married?

Ironé

KeyLimePie wrote: »

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

I think you have misunderstood my post. I'm asking why someone would have an issue with same sex marriage if you remove the argument about gay couples having children. I am curious to know what other objections people have.

KeyLimePie

Ironé wrote: »

I think you have misunderstood my post. I'm asking why someone would have an issue with same sex marriage if you remove the argument about gay couples having children. I am curious to know what other objections people have.

Nope I didn't
I was having this discussion with my friend the other day who does law in UCC and she told me that most people who disagree with gay marriage disagree with it BECAUSE of that definition of marriage being between a man and a woman

PK2008

Why would anyone be scared of their home?


(gets coat)

oisindoyle

KeyLimePie wrote: »

Nope I didn't
I was having this discussion with my friend the other day who does law in UCC and she told me that most people who disagree with gay marriage disagree with it BECAUSE of that definition of marriage being between a man and a woman

The TRADITIONAL definition of marriage is indeed between man and woman ,BUT times change .People/Society needs to wake up to the fact that couples of the same sex ,do love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together,they also want EQUALITY ,which is being denied to every gay and lesbian person in this land .
Its quite simple Ireland discriminates against gay and lesbian people and there is NO denying that ...
On the subject of gay marriage itself and its detractors ,,It always amuses me to see when this subject is brought up ,that those who oppose EQUAL rights (gay marriage),bring up comments like "its not good for children" ect ect ...It is in my opinion a distraction and its a tatic used by many (includeing iona institute) to take away from the fact that gays want to marry and care for each other ,,,Many gay and lesbian people do not want to adopt children they just want to be with each other for the rest of their lives .

Sir Oxman

Marriage is a word.
I don't think the religious have a monopoly or patent on the word.
It's basically a social statement with legal and/or spiritual connotations that a couple are in a union - in most of the world this also confers certain benefits.

Just what is the problem with allowing two men or two women having the same right as a man and a woman?

And I don't agree that a referendum should be held - when all that is being asked by our fellow citizens is equality under the law.
No-one's equality, especially a basic right such as the right to marriage (stick the word civil in front of it, if it makes ya feel better) should be decided upon by others.

Faylum

needhelpguy wrote: »

Wha...what?

I'm going to resist cursing this very very wrong post because that would serve no purpose.

So, gay people choose to be gay? Can you elaborate on that? What evidence do you have? Have you ever spoken to a gay person? Why would someone choose to be homosexual? Are you aware of the many psychiatric and psychological institutions that state this is impossible? Are you aware that one cannot choose who they are attracted to? Or did I get your post extremely wrong (which I may have done because it is impossible an intelligent person cannot know this).

And you are wrong on one more count. You have an extreme problem with gay people. Just read your own post.

So your saying if your gay, lesbian, transexual its because you can't help it you were born that way?

What a load of utter rubbish. I may be wrong about alot of things but not about something as so simple as this. Whats wrong with taking responsibility for being who you are?

That is like saying i was born to fill a certain roll or purpose in life which means life has been pre-planned so that i will perfectly fit in with "The Plan Of Life". Bullcrap!!!

Your born gay? So what you rolled over in your cot to have a look at your dads friends arse at the age of 1? Doubtful that anyone that age can even remember things let alone make a decision! When your born you mimic things around you and when you grow older the things you absorb make you who you are and only by the choices you've made, be it sub-conscious or not! FACT!

So firstly take responsibility for who you've become and at least have the balls to accept who you are rather give some rubbish about it being chosen for you, like its a disease that has no cure and you have to live with!

Perhaps i am wrong about the children thing, perhaps not. My opinions on adoption is complicated but is no where near the idea of abandoning them.
I'm Aware I've taken this off topic but would just like to say that i am not in-tolerant for viewing the rights of others, its my opinion not the lamb of god, choose to listen to me or not i couldn't care less but i hardly doubt in constitutes as hate!

To Be Honest, i don't care too much about anything but you asked our opinions and thats what you got, no one said you had to agree with it!

AnonoBoy

Faylum wrote: »

Your born gay? So what you rolled over in your cot to have a look at your dads friends arse at the age of 1? Doubtful that anyone that age can even remember things let alone make a decision! When your born you mimic things around you and when you grow older the things you absorb make you who you are and only by the choices you've made, be it sub-conscious or not! FACT!

You do realise that by shouting FACT! at the end of a sentence it doesn't neccessarily make what you've just said an actual fact?

But obviously with your degree in psychology and human development and all you know what you're talking about.

Oh wait......

Faylum

Ironé wrote: »

What a simple sentence. How easy for you to say that people should not be allowed to have children with medical assistance. There are so so many people in this country with fertility issues. I have the bad bad luck to be one of them. You have no idea of how painful that is for someone - no idea unless you go through it.

I don't think i could put myself in someone Else's shoes and know how they feel because i don't want children, at least not till I'm ready to give up my life.

But i live under the belief that things happen for a reason, be it to teach us something or to test you. (Not to be mistaken with a religion or god)

I just see patterns to things like some people and chose not to see the worst in things. If i was unable to fertilize, if i was impudent then i wouldn't want to go and F about with some scientist into engineering me a child.
How do i tell that child when its a mature age, "Oh btw I'm not really your father some guy with a microscope and a science kit is your real father, i just supplied the Sperm".

Every life has the right to be born naturally, it is more selfish to violate that just to have something of your own! Perhaps like someone said, why not adopt someone who is already alone and give them a home, than to ignore them and create what i think is a monster!

Two Words to explain it all, perhaps it is rather harsh perhaps its not sensitive enough but:

NATURAL SELECTION!

Exneigh

My IQ dropped a couple points reading the OP...

Das Kitty

Faylum wrote: »

I don't think i could put myself in someone Else's shoes and know how they feel because i don't want children, at least not till I'm ready to give up my life.

But i live under the belief that things happen for a reason, be it to teach us something or to test you. (Not to be mistaken with a religion or god)

I just see patterns to things like some people and chose not to see the worst in things. If i was unable to fertilize, if i was impudent then i wouldn't want to go and F about with some scientist into engineering me a child.
How do i tell that child when its a mature age, "Oh btw I'm not really your father some guy with a microscope and a science kit is your real father, i just supplied the Sperm".

Every life has the right to be born naturally, it is more selfish to violate that just to have something of your own! Perhaps like someone said, why not adopt someone who is already alone and give them a home, than to ignore them and create what i think is a monster!

Two Words to explain it all, perhaps it is rather harsh perhaps its not sensitive enough but:

NATURAL SELECTION!

Ah ha ha!

A seemingly anti-science post, but then , boom!, to prove a point, he uses Darwin's theory.

Amazing!

---

Back to your original point, if you believe that gay people choose to be gay, then you also believe that straight people choose to be straight.

Did you roll over in your cot and oogle your mammy's arse then?

Watch out, so many contradictions in your posts you could implode.

AnonoBoy

Faylum wrote: »

Perhaps like someone said, why not adopt someone who is already alone and give them a home, than to ignore them and create what i think is a monster!

Luckily enough the people who care what you think is a monster are few and far between.

By your logic it's an abomination against nature to do anything except have a child naturally. What about disease? If your child has a genetic disease that can be cured pre-birth then would you tell doctors that they'll be creating a monster if they do anything except allow the child to be born naturally (followed quickly by its natural death)?

JC 2K3

Faylum wrote: »

I don't think i could put myself in someone Else's shoes and know how they feel because i don't want children, at least not till I'm ready to give up my life.

But i live under the belief that things happen for a reason, be it to teach us something or to test you. (Not to be mistaken with a religion or god)

I just see patterns to things like some people and chose not to see the worst in things. If i was unable to fertilize, if i was impudent then i wouldn't want to go and F about with some scientist into engineering me a child.
How do i tell that child when its a mature age, "Oh btw I'm not really your father some guy with a microscope and a science kit is your real father, i just supplied the Sperm".

Every life has the right to be born naturally, it is more selfish to violate that just to have something of your own! Perhaps like someone said, why not adopt someone who is already alone and give them a home, than to ignore them and create what i think is a monster!

Two Words to explain it all, perhaps it is rather harsh perhaps its not sensitive enough but:

NATURAL SELECTION!

wtf?

Natural selection has absolutely no relevance to anything you have written in the above post...

Exneigh

I think it's fair to say that a child born of fertilisation treatment is in fact a product of natural selection.. the human mind evolved and with it our Science and the ability to artificially inseminate.. but what do I know, I haven't slept in 26 hours..

ejmaztec

Faylum wrote: »

I don't think i could put myself in someone Else's shoes and know how they feel because i don't want children, at least not till I'm ready to give up my life.

But i live under the belief that things happen for a reason, be it to teach us something or to test you. (Not to be mistaken with a religion or god)

I just see patterns to things like some people and chose not to see the worst in things. If i was unable to fertilize, if i was impudent then i wouldn't want to go and F about with some scientist into engineering me a child.
How do i tell that child when its a mature age, "Oh btw I'm not really your father some guy with a microscope and a science kit is your real father, i just supplied the Sperm".

Every life has the right to be born naturally, it is more selfish to violate that just to have something of your own! Perhaps like someone said, why not adopt someone who is already alone and give them a home, than to ignore them and create what i think is a monster!

Two Words to explain it all, perhaps it is rather harsh perhaps its not sensitive enough but:

NATURAL SELECTION!

What's being impudent got to do with this?:p

thelordofcheese

Faylum wrote: »

So firstly take responsibility for who you've become and at least have the balls to accept who you are rather give some rubbish about it being chosen for you, like its a disease that has no cure and you have to live with!

Ok then, you are saying that your sexual orientation is a choice. Fair enough.

When did you decide to be straight?

Edit: DAMN YOU DAS KITTY!

philologos

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Ok then, you are saying that your sexual orientation is a choice. Fair enough.

When did you decide to be straight?

Edit: DAMN YOU DAS KITTY!

Even if it was the case that people over time developed their homosexuality and it became an inherent factor of who they are, this doesn't mean that it is biologically predetermined, and there isn't any real reason to say that it is. Couldn't this be the result of sociological factors?

This is only assuming that it isn't a choice.

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote: »

Even if it was the case that people over time developed their homosexuality and it became an inherent factor of who they are, this doesn't mean that it is biologically predetermined, and there isn't any real reason to say that it is. Couldn't this be the result of sociological factors?

Does it matter?

Ironé

Faylum wrote: »

I don't think i could put myself in someone Else's shoes and know how they feel because i don't want children, at least not till I'm ready to give up my life.

But i live under the belief that things happen for a reason, be it to teach us something or to test you. (Not to be mistaken with a religion or god)

I just see patterns to things like some people and chose not to see the worst in things. If i was unable to fertilize, if i was impudent then i wouldn't want to go and F about with some scientist into engineering me a child.
How do i tell that child when its a mature age, "Oh btw I'm not really your father some guy with a microscope and a science kit is your real father, i just supplied the Sperm".

Every life has the right to be born naturally, it is more selfish to violate that just to have something of your own! Perhaps like someone said, why not adopt someone who is already alone and give them a home, than to ignore them and create what i think is a monster!

Two Words to explain it all, perhaps it is rather harsh perhaps its not sensitive enough but:

NATURAL SELECTION!

Ah bless!

Maybe you should read up about IUI and IVF and actually understand what they are about before writing it all off.

I'm not even annoyed about your post as your opinions seem to be so misinformed and naive.

Back on topic - I'll say it again: having children or not is nothing to do with Gay Marriage. They can and are already doing that. Gay marriage is about legally acknowledging a family unit with same sex partners. I still have seen no argument to explain how that puts anyone out.

thelordofcheese

Jakkass wrote: »

Even if it was the case that people over time developed their homosexuality and it became an inherent factor of who they are, this doesn't mean that it is biologically predetermined, and there isn't any real reason to say that it is. Couldn't this be the result of sociological factors?

This is only assuming that it isn't a choice.

I really don't know what to say, mainly because i can't figure out if you're actually trying to say that society is making people gay or is something more sane.

philologos

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I really don't know what to say, mainly because i can't figure out if you're actually trying to say that society is making people gay or is something more sane.

No, that isn't what I said. I personally don't believe that homosexuality is biologically determined, or at least there hasn't been any coherent result in that regard. As such I think it is reasonable to at least look to see if other factors could be behind it. I mean elements of their upbringing and so on, might have an impact on this also.

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote: »

No, that isn't what I said. I personally don't believe that homosexuality is biologically determined, or at least there hasn't been any coherent result in that regard. As such I think it is reasonable to at least look to see if other factors could be behind it. I mean elements of their upbringing and so on, might have an impact on this also.

Do you think such research is important?

allabouteve

Jakkass wrote: »

No, that isn't what I said. I personally don't believe that homosexuality is biologically determined, or at least there hasn't been any coherent result in that regard. As such I think it is reasonable to at least look to see if other factors could be behind it. I mean elements of their upbringing and so on, might have an impact on this also.

Were you (presumably) born straight, or did society, (or your mothers actions if you subscribe to the Freudian view) make you straight?

If you weren't made straight, how do you think someone can be 'made gay'?

If you were dressed as a girl, and given dolls to play with, would that be what you consider a contributing factor?

Because I wore trousers and played with Meccano, and yet I somehow didn't become Lesbian.

There may be no conclusive evidence that one is born straight or gay, but common sense dictates it. Like there's no conclusive evidence that Leprachauns don't exist, but lets face it, not very likely, is it?

Turd Ferguson

Jakkass wrote: »

No, that isn't what I said. I personally don't believe that homosexuality is biologically determined, or at least there hasn't been any coherent result in that regard. As such I think it is reasonable to at least look to see if other factors could be behind it. I mean elements of their upbringing and so on, might have an impact on this also.

Why would you want to look at any of those factors? If someone is gay, they are gay. Deal with it.

philologos

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

Why would you want to look at any of those factors? If someone is gay, they are gay. Deal with it.

I never said that I had an issue with anyone being gay at all. Look back over the thread and you'll see the only two things I've disagreed with so far are as follows:

1. Gay marriage being legalised
2. That homosexuality is biologically determined

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Do you think such research is important?

Yes, I do.

Turd Ferguson

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, I do.

Why? The only reason research would be done for something like that would be to "cure" it. It doesnt make sense

thelordofcheese

Jakkass wrote: »

Gay marriage being legalised

There is no good argument as to why gay people should be denied the same rights as straight people.

Jakkass wrote: »

That homosexuality is biologically determined

Science says Most probably.

javaboy

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

Why? The only reason research would be done for something like that would be to "cure" it. It doesnt make sense

Have to disagree with you there. Research is often just done for the sake of research without some underlying agenda.

Exploring whether sexual orientation is genetically determined, environmentally determined or a combination of both doesn't necessarily mean you're classing homosexuality as an abnormality to be "fixed".

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, I do.

Why?

I'd consider it to be possibly interesting, but ultimately trivial. No different to research into whether the reason certain people like certain kinds of music is genetic or based on external factors.

CamperMan

I see no harm in people being gay, it's their life and they should live it as they want to and have the same human rights as anyone else, they are not animals or aliens!!.

My sister came out a few years back and told the family she was gay... all the family disowned her and were totally disgusted by it, when she told me, I told her to do what she feels is right and if it makes her happy so be it and I also told her I wasn't bothered in the slightest!


ps. I am 100% straight

ejmaztec

CamperMan wrote: »

I see no harm in people being gay, it's their life and they should live it as they want to and have the same human rights as anyone else, they are not animals or aliens!!.

My sister came out a few years back and told the family she was gay... all the family disowned her and were totally disgusted by it, when she told me, I told her to do what she feels is right and if it makes her happy so be it and I also told her I wasn't bothered in the slightest!


ps. I am 100% straight

With a name like CamperMan? :pac:

philologos

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

Why? The only reason research would be done for something like that would be to "cure" it. It doesnt make sense

Why wouldn't you want to further understanding? I personally think research should be done on just about everything so that we can understand it more clearly. I'm relatively supportive of the research that is going on about "the God part of the brain" which is essentially trying to figure out what theists are like and what effect religious experiences actually have on their brains. People research because they seek knowledge.

The suggestion that seeking knowledge is to cure people is a bit absurd. If seeking knowledge was to cure people, I should be very concerned about the research they are doing on how theists work.

CamperMan

ejmaztec wrote: »

With a name like CamperMan? :pac:

Funny!!

Camperman because I sell caravans and camper vans for a living!!

ps. I am not a knacker either!!

Reflector

raah! wrote: »

I think they should have the same right to legal marriage as infertile straight couples.

But it would be a bit of a strech to not allow them but then allow a straight(infertile) couple. Unless the government didn't think that two men/women could raise an adopted child as well as two straight parents. Which is a legitimate concern really, and one which is hard to test scientifically.

"oooh but Iiiiim not religious"

Well if you ask any obstetrician one big change over the last 10 years is the amount of lesbian couples having kids has increased dramatically. The next generation is going to see a lot of same sex teens and adults. I suppose we'll find out how fcuked up they are then.

jaffa20

Jakkass wrote: »

Why wouldn't you want to further understanding? I personally think research should be done on just about everything so that we can understand it more clearly. I'm relatively supportive of the research that is going on about "the God part of the brain" which is essentially trying to figure out what theists are like and what effect religious experiences actually have on their brains. People research because they seek knowledge.

The suggestion that seeking knowledge is to cure people is a bit absurd. If seeking knowledge was to cure people, I should be very concerned about the research they are doing on how theists work.

I've always disagreed with your conception of research Jakkass. Research is objective and one can never fully understand something from an objective opinion or if someone writes about something without fully experiencing it.

I'm not against research completely but a bunch of stats and surveys do not make someone more knowledgeable when studying sensitive issues like this. It in fact, can lead to misconceptions. I believe subjective research may be of more value. As in someone is thrown into another person's lifestyle, observes them, lives like them. They would probably understand something more that way and perhaps realise the futility in the end of what research can actually do.

ejmaztec

CamperMan wrote: »

Funny!!

Camperman because I sell caravans and camper vans for a living!!

ps. I am not a knacker either!!

I bet you say that to all the boys, boss. :P

philologos

jaffa20 wrote: »

I've always disagreed with your conception of research Jakkass. Research is objective and one can never fully understand something from an objective opinion or if someone writes about something without fully experiencing it.

I can actually relate to this jaffa20. You're right sometimes objective research doesn't cut it. However, even if we can never have a full understanding of it through objective research, surely it is better than nothing?

jaffa20 wrote: »

I'm not against research completely but a bunch of stats and surveys do not make someone more knowledgeable when studying sensitive issues like this. It in fact, can lead to misconceptions. I believe subjective research may be of more value. As in someone is thrown into another person's lifestyle, observes them, lives like them. They would probably understand something more that way and perhaps realise the futility in the end of what research can actually do.

Well, nobody can truly 100% know about someones personal experience through objective research, I'm willing to concede that much. I don't know people outside a particular demographic can carry out subjective research, and I don't know how widely subjective research can be trusted in comparison to objective. This is an issue which goes far beyond the issue we are discussiong, but I agree with you objective research can't give a full image, but it gives part of an image of a given situation.

Kerrio

Please sign the petition at www.TheRightCampaign.blogspot.com to legalise civil marriage for same-sex couples in Ireland.


Please sign, and tell others.

Thank You.

The_Minister

An online petition!

We really are in the 21st Century!:)