Homosexuality: What do you think?

Jay P

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Right, it's time to start posting some controversial opinions. Also, let me state from the outset that I'm heterosexual.

I don't necessarily have any problems with people who are homosexual, or bisexual, for that matter. I don't like male homosexuality stuck in my face in public places, but that's my own problem, and I'm ok with it; I'm tolerant of it whenever I do see it, and for me, that's all that's important. I'm a pretty liberal person, and I'd consider the rights of homosexuals to be open and free to express themselves--both socially and sexually--to be of paramount importance to a free, modern state. Saying all of that, I do think there's one right they shouldn't possess: the right to adopt a child.

Homosexual couples shouldn't, in my own opinion, be legally allowed to adopt a child, because doing so imposes upon that child a lifestyle that is unnatural, in the biological and evolutionary sense of the word. Homosexuality isn't, when speaking in terms of evolution, natural. Evolution, to give it a voice, dictates that males should reproduce with females. So, using that logic, anything that strays off that prescribed "rule" could, in a purely evolutionary sense, be considered unnatural. That's the key point of my argument. I don't want for that to sound callous, but it's a simple evolutionary principle of paramount importance to the continuation of a species.

Of course, I don't generally agree that evolutionary and biological principles should be used as an excuse to implement or enforce unusual or, in some cases, just plain wrong political positions or laws. I'm not a neo-Darwinist. But, I do think that children should be exposed to a parental relationship that at least follows nature's intended parental design. I'm not sure what the psychological effects of having homosexual parents would be: I haven't researched it. My own instincts tell me that what isn't naturally intended generally isn't as good as what is naturally intended, so that'd give me a reason to object to homosexual couples adopting a child.

I suppose the counter argument is that the sexual orientation of both a child's parents shouldn't matter so long as that child is brought up in a loving and caring environment. It's an equally valid argument as my own, and I suppose in some people's eyes it's probably a more valid argument. I've thought about this issue quite a lot, and I've not yet fully cemented my own position. I've actually debated this before, around a year ago, in Humanities. My argument used the premise that, from a purely--and purely is the key word--evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality could be considered unnatural. Now, I'm not saying it's unnatural in the colloquial sense of the word: I'm not saying homosexuality is immoral or, from a social perspective, wrong. So don't misinterpret me on that.

Blah, writing this has got me thinking about this whole issue again: it's got me reconsidering my own argument. I suppose that's a good thing. Because of that, I'm not going to continue with this line of argument until I've cemented my own opinion: arguing for an opinion you're not sure you hold is a foolish thing to do. I'm going to post this anyway: even though it doesn't represent my own final views on the issue, it may spark another interesting avenue for debate and discussion.

That certainly made me think about my opinions on same-sex adoption. To be honest, I was never against it because I never heard a valid argument against adoption, aside from "It's not what God wants".


But just in reply to what other people have been saying about recognising the beauty of people of the same sex. I honestly don't see it. I can see how some guys aren't good looking, but in general I just think guys are guys.

Arcade Panda

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Right, it's time to start posting some controversial opinions. Also, let me state from the outset that I'm heterosexual.

I don't necessarily have any problems with people who are homosexual, or bisexual, for that matter. I don't like male homosexuality stuck in my face in public places, but that's my own problem, and I'm ok with it; I'm tolerant of it whenever I do see it, and for me, that's all that's important. I'm a pretty liberal person, and I'd consider the rights of homosexuals to be open and free to express themselves--both socially and sexually--to be of paramount importance to a free, modern state. Saying all of that, I do think there's one right they shouldn't possess: the right to adopt a child.

Homosexual couples shouldn't, in my own opinion, be legally allowed to adopt a child, because doing so imposes upon that child a lifestyle that is unnatural, in the biological and evolutionary sense of the word. Homosexuality isn't, when speaking in terms of evolution, natural. Evolution, to give it a voice, dictates that males should reproduce with females. So, using that logic, anything that strays off that prescribed "rule" could, in a purely evolutionary sense, be considered unnatural. That's the key point of my argument. I don't want for that to sound callous, but it's a simple evolutionary principle of paramount importance to the continuation of a species.

Of course, I don't generally agree that evolutionary and biological principles should be used as an excuse to implement or enforce unusual or, in some cases, just plain wrong political positions or laws. I'm not a neo-Darwinist. But, I do think that children should be exposed to a parental relationship that at least follows nature's intended parental design. I'm not sure what the psychological effects of having homosexual parents would be: I haven't researched it. My own instincts tell me that what isn't naturally intended generally isn't as good as what is naturally intended, so that'd give me a reason to object to homosexual couples adopting a child.

I suppose the counter argument is that the sexual orientation of both a child's parents shouldn't matter so long as that child is brought up in a loving and caring environment. It's an equally valid argument as my own, and I suppose in some people's eyes it's probably a more valid argument. I've thought about this issue quite a lot, and I've not yet fully cemented my own position. I've actually debated this before, around a year ago, in Humanities. My argument used the premise that, from a purely--and purely is the key word--evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality could be considered unnatural. Now, I'm not saying it's unnatural in the colloquial sense of the word: I'm not saying homosexuality is immoral or, from a social perspective, wrong. So don't misinterpret me on that.

Blah, writing this has got me thinking about this whole issue again: it's got me reconsidering my own argument. I suppose that's a good thing. Because of that, I'm not going to continue with this line of argument until I've cemented my own opinion: arguing for an opinion you're not sure you hold is a foolish thing to do. I'm going to post this anyway: even though it doesn't represent my own final views on the issue, it may spark another interesting avenue for debate and discussion.

You just expressed my opinion a lot more eloquently then I ever could:o Thanks! I totally agree with the whole having an opinion but then being confused with it,something extrasupervery said, you really hit the nail on the head for me on how I feel about the whole thing:)

mardybumbum

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Homosexuality isn't, when speaking in terms of evolution, natural. Evolution, to give it a voice, dictates that males should reproduce with females.

Evolution dictates nothing.
It is a blind process.
Every single organism on this planet is natural; they must be, or they woulnt exist.
The fact that homosexuals are an end product of mother nature, suggests to me that they are indeed natural.
Perhaps you are confusing the term natural with advantageous.
That is an entirely different concept.


Edit: Looking back, my post may seem a tad condescending. It certainly isn't meant to be. I have just seen the term "unnatural" thrown about a few times on this thread. Grinds my gears something else.

degausserxo

I have nothing against homosexuals in the slightest; you love who you love, that's cool.

What I do hate, however, is the attitude and mindset of some gay people (this is really a qualm about certain people and not their sexualities.. I mean if someone straight did any of these things they'd be dzopes as well). Two of my best friends have come out in the past two years; one male, one female. Around my female friend, you'd never be able to tell who she was into, unless you're one of those people who equate short hair on girls to them being gay :rolleyes: My male friend is a completely different story. He seems to flaunt being gay, getting off with nameless, faceless (literally :eek:..mmmaybe not) guys and getting attention from the same sex. Not a day will go by where he doesn't mention his sexuality in some way, to the point where he'll post a tonne of Facebook statuses about guys/gay bars/whatever. We get it, you're gay! He's been out for a while, and people have completely accepted him to the point where they're (in this case, I mean my friends and I) pretty much ignoring him whenever he goes on about it. We don't push our sexuality into other peoples' faces, and it really bugs me when gay people do. The amount of times I've had to stop myself from updating my status to 'I'm straight lads, WAHEEEEEEY!' is getting a bit ridiculous at this point

me_right_one

Careful there Jammydodger, ya might get a warning:rolleyes:

Bugnug

mardybumbum wrote: »

Evolution dictates nothing.
It is a blind process.
Every single organism on this planet is natural; they must be, or they woulnt exist.
The fact that homosexuals are an end product of mother nature, suggests to me that they are indeed natural.
Perhaps you are confusing the term natural with advantageous.
That is an entirely different concept.


Edit: Looking back, my post may seem a tad condescending. It certainly isn't meant to be. I have just seen the term "unnatural" thrown about a few times on this thread. Grinds my gears something else.

The purpose of all organisms on this planet is to procreate. This is impossible between two creatures of the same sex. There is no gene in the human body that denotes being gay. Therefore nobody is born gay, this is a biological fact. I believe that people who are gay are so because of psychological issues. I have no peoblem with gay people but I can honestly say that I have never met a truly happy one. Imo this is because they are simply doing what is completly wrong for them on all levels of being human and their bodies and minds are constantly at odds with this.

Boston

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Right, it's time to start posting some controversial opinions. Also, let me state from the outset that I'm heterosexual.[

I don't necessarily have any problems with people who are homosexual, or bisexual, for that matter. I don't like male homosexuality stuck in my face in public places, but that's my own problem, and I'm ok with it; I'm tolerant of it whenever I do see it, and for me, that's all that's important. I'm a pretty liberal person, and I'd consider the rights of homosexuals to be open and free to express themselves--both socially and sexually--to be of paramount importance to a free, modern state. Saying all of that, I do think there's one right they shouldn't possess: the right to adopt a child.

Homosexual couples shouldn't, in my own opinion, be legally allowed to adopt a child, because doing so imposes upon that child a lifestyle that is unnatural, in the biological and evolutionary sense of the word. Homosexuality isn't, when speaking in terms of evolution, natural. Evolution, to give it a voice, dictates that males should reproduce with females. So, using that logic, anything that strays off that prescribed "rule" could, in a purely evolutionary sense, be considered unnatural. That's the key point of my argument. I don't want for that to sound callous, but it's a simple evolutionary principle of paramount importance to the continuation of a species.


Of course, I don't generally agree that evolutionary and biological principles should be used as an excuse to implement or enforce unusual or, in some cases, just plain wrong political positions or laws. I'm not a neo-Darwinist. But, I do think that children should be exposed to a parental relationship that at least follows nature's intended parental design. I'm not sure what the psychological effects of having homosexual parents would be: I haven't researched it. My own instincts tell me that what isn't naturally intended generally isn't as good as what is naturally intended, so that'd give me a reason to object to homosexual couples adopting a child

I suppose the counter argument is that the sexual orientation of both a child's parents shouldn't matter so long as that child is brought up in a loving and caring environment. It's an equally valid argument as my own, and I suppose in some people's eyes it's probably a more valid argument. I've thought about this issue quite a lot, and I've not yet fully cemented my own position. I've actually debated this before, around a year ago, in Humanities. My argument used the premise that, from a purely--and purely is the key word--evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality could be considered unnatural. Now, I'm not saying it's unnatural in the colloquial sense of the word: I'm not saying homosexuality is immoral or, from a social perspective, wrong. So don't misinterpret me on that.

Blah, writing this has got me thinking about this whole issue again: it's got me reconsidering my own argument. I suppose that's a good thing. Because of that, I'm not going to continue with this line of argument until I've cemented my own opinion: arguing for an opinion you're not sure you hold is a foolish thing to do. I'm going to post this anyway: even though it doesn't represent my own final views on the issue, it may spark another interesting avenue for debate and discussion.

By your argument single parent families are unnatural and children would always be better off being raised by two parents, regardless of who the two are. But that's an aside;

You talk about evolutions, biology, natures design. You even throw in "neo-Darwinism" but to my knowledge you're only a 17 years old child whose never studied any of these topics. It amazes me the people who talk about homosexuality as unnatural, while ignoring all all the empirical evidence showing its occurrence in the animal kingdom. If homosexuality is against natures design, then how did it come about? Are you honestly arguing its a social construct? If so it's one which has been with us for a millennia and beyond.

The major flaw in your hypothesis is that homosexuals cannot be natural since they themselves cannot procreate. But who are you to determine "nature's intended parental design". There are many lifeforms whose major roll in nature is to act as a surrogate "parent" to either members of the same species or other species. Research into homosexualities role in nature has suggested that homosexuality is a species imperitive. There is a correlation between the number of older brothers a male has and the likelihood of him being gay. The suggestion is that by the time the homosexual sibling comes about the heterosexual ones are older and less capable of taking care of their own young. A Homosexual is an extra adult male who does not compete for females, can protect the young and can hunt. A boon to any tribe. The title of the paper was "Homosexuals, natures parents".

When people talk about "nature's intended parental design" they inevitable start from the modern parental paradigm, completely ignoring the fact that this business of two people raising children is a 20th century invention. Children used to be raised by the entire extended family. Even my mothers generation in rural 1940's Ireland, the children pretty much belonged to the community as much as they did uncles and aunts. Today, children are cared for by strangers for money while mammy and daddy both assume the "Hunter gatherer" role. Your idea of "nature's intended parental design" would seem Alien and bizarre 50 years ago, and completely disgraceful 100 years ago.

So please, next time you spout drivel about natures way, have a think about how applicable your way was when we all lived in mud huts and ate wild animals for supper.

Finally, one last thing. Have you ever broken an arm, needed antibiotics or needed surgery? By nature's design you would be dead by now. Natures design has a 25-30% infant mortality rate. I find it incredibly hypocritical that people so fervently defend the righteousness of "nature's design" on this issue, but have no problem when time and time again human advancement goes against that design? Or do you really believe people were meant to fly around in giant artificial birds?

mardybumbum

Bugnug wrote: »

The purpose of all organisms on this planet is to procreate.

No its not.

This is impossible between two creatures of the same sex.

There are many homosexuals who procreate with the opposite sex.

There is no gene in the human body that denotes being gay. Therefore nobody is born gay, this is a biological fact.

Its true that no gene has yet been found (despite some reports) that can be held responsible for the trait. However, just because it hasn't been found yet doesnt mean that the second part of your statement is true.
Think about that for a second.

I believe that people who are gay are so because of psychological issues. I have no peoblem with gay people but I can honestly say that I have never met a truly happy one.

Thats your opinion, not fact.

Imo this is because they are simply doing what is completly wrong for them on all levels of being human and their bodies and minds are constantly at odds with this

I implore you to do more research on the subject. You obviously dont have a ****ing clue.

mardybumbum

Boston wrote: »

...

You said it better than I ever could.

Nebit

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Right, it's time to start posting some controversial opinions. Also, let me state from the outset that I'm heterosexual.

I don't necessarily have any problems with people who are homosexual, or bisexual, for that matter. I don't like male homosexuality stuck in my face in public places, but that's my own problem, and I'm ok with it; I'm tolerant of it whenever I do see it, and for me, that's all that's important. I'm a pretty liberal person, and I'd consider the rights of homosexuals to be open and free to express themselves--both socially and sexually--to be of paramount importance to a free, modern state. Saying all of that, I do think there's one right they shouldn't possess: the right to adopt a child.

Homosexual couples shouldn't, in my own opinion, be legally allowed to adopt a child, because doing so imposes upon that child a lifestyle that is unnatural, in the biological and evolutionary sense of the word. Homosexuality isn't, when speaking in terms of evolution, natural. Evolution, to give it a voice, dictates that males should reproduce with females. So, using that logic, anything that strays off that prescribed "rule" could, in a purely evolutionary sense, be considered unnatural. That's the key point of my argument. I don't want for that to sound callous, but it's a simple evolutionary principle of paramount importance to the continuation of a species.

Of course, I don't generally agree that evolutionary and biological principles should be used as an excuse to implement or enforce unusual or, in some cases, just plain wrong political positions or laws. I'm not a neo-Darwinist. But, I do think that children should be exposed to a parental relationship that at least follows nature's intended parental design. I'm not sure what the psychological effects of having homosexual parents would be: I haven't researched it. My own instincts tell me that what isn't naturally intended generally isn't as good as what is naturally intended, so that'd give me a reason to object to homosexual couples adopting a child.

I suppose the counter argument is that the sexual orientation of both a child's parents shouldn't matter so long as that child is brought up in a loving and caring environment. It's an equally valid argument as my own, and I suppose in some people's eyes it's probably a more valid argument. I've thought about this issue quite a lot, and I've not yet fully cemented my own position. I've actually debated this before, around a year ago, in Humanities. My argument used the premise that, from a purely--and purely is the key word--evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality could be considered unnatural. Now, I'm not saying it's unnatural in the colloquial sense of the word: I'm not saying homosexuality is immoral or, from a social perspective, wrong. So don't misinterpret me on that.

Blah, writing this has got me thinking about this whole issue again: it's got me reconsidering my own argument. I suppose that's a good thing. Because of that, I'm not going to continue with this line of argument until I've cemented my own opinion: arguing for an opinion you're not sure you hold is a foolish thing to do. I'm going to post this anyway: even though it doesn't represent my own final views on the issue, it may spark another interesting avenue for debate and discussion.

i have to say this is a very good post, although i disagree
im a posting this again as it may have been overlooked :

if you look at the past, history would seem to disprove that homosexuality is unnatural, for example in ancient rome and greece, it was perfectly normal to see a man with another man.

It has really only been the coming of monotheism that homosexuality began to be frowned upon, this again if you look at history makes sense, monotheism was new and followers needed to have a children to insure the survival and expansion of the religion, therefore sex was made only acceptable for procreation.

This is similar to the banning of pork in some religions as 'unclean' at the time pigs carried diseases which could kill, thereby killing off believers.

>>> from a nature and evolutionary prospective one could say it is a way of balancing the population maybe, this can be seen in species of toads for example.
Therefore my stance is that nothing is unnatural if 'nature' has made it so. only that the way people are conditioned produces views such as this. i am not blaming this on religion btw

Boston

Bugnug wrote: »

The purpose of all organisms on this planet is to procreate.

Anything to back this up

Bugnug wrote: »

There is no gene in the human body that denotes being gay. Therefore nobody is born gay, this is a biological fact. I believe that people who are gay are so because of psychological issues.

I see. I was born with a full head of hair. Theres no gene for that, so I guess it must have been a psychological issue? The more you learn about genetics, the more you'll realise they don't explain everything. There are many factors which go into the formation of a human life, including a fair bit of chance. It's not an area which is fully understood. And a geneticist would laugh in your face if you suggested genetics explained everything.

Ps; There may be a gene which causes homosexuality. Only very recently did they map the entire human genome. There are still alot of questions relating to exactly how it all works. However, current biological research point to hormones, not genes, as the cause. There is some correlation between the two, but causality has not been established.

Bugnug wrote: »

I have no peoblem with gay people but I can honestly say that I have never met a truly happy one.

How old are you and are you in an environment where you are likely to encounter happy homosexuals? I've met alot of seriously unhappy hetrosexuals, who are unhappy due to the pressures placed upon them by their sexuality. Girls with self image issues, men with feelings of inadequacy. I bet if you looked closely at the thing which bothers you most about yourself, it will in some way be linked to your sexuality.

Bugnug wrote: »

Imo this is because they are simply doing what is completly wrong for them on all levels of being human and their bodies and minds are constantly at odds with this.

Maybe it's due to social stima, and people like you who may tolerate them to some degree, but will never accept them. You've come to conclusions based on nothing. I bet you've never even talked to one of these many many homosexuals you know about why they seem unhappy.

Nebit

Bugnug wrote: »

The purpose of all organisms on this planet is to procreate. This is impossible between two creatures of the same sex. There is no gene in the human body that denotes being gay. Therefore nobody is born gay, this is a biological fact. I believe that people who are gay are so because of psychological issues. I have no peoblem with gay people but I can honestly say that I have never met a truly happy one. Imo this is because they are simply doing what is completly wrong for them on all levels of being human and their bodies and minds are constantly at odds with this.

wrong, the reason so many people are unhappy is because where ever one goes with another man (im not camp btw so its purely just being with a dude) you get hassle. i am cool with this now as i live in dublin, but im unhappy with the thought that i could not bring my partner to my home town in maigh eo.
When i came out a year ago in maigh eo i was chucked off several sports teams and spat at in the face by old class mates, i have no quarals with it now as it made me apreciate what i had in dublin, but seriously think about things like this and then you will see why people can be unhappy at times.
For all those interested i now live in dublin and im very happy and again playing on sports teams for uni, and noone give a dam about my sexuality

don vhalt

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3008-homosexuality-is-biological-suggests-gay-sheep-study.html
This study suggests that homosexuality is in fact biological, so it isn't unnatural.

I know gay people who are normal happy people. In all probability homosexuals are more likely to be unhappy if they try to repress their sexuality.

WanderingSoul

I personally have no problems with homosexuals; one of my best friends is a homosexual. However that said, I wouldn't be totally comfortable with homosexual PDA, but I amn't totally comfortable with heterosexual PDA either.

I've never really thought much about homosexual adoption: you've all got me thinking about it now.

BTW I'm a heterosexual.

hitlersson666

Can't peolpe just be who they want to be! are they doing harm?? no so why do we bother hunting them down and attaching stigmas?? its retarded and we all need to grow up and yes i find pda's on both sides gross. anyway we all need to cop on
My 2 Cents

bythewoods

I'm heterosexual, but I love the gheys. Usually.
There are a few occasions where I might feel uncomfortable or whatever, but I'm definitely accepting.
There are a few exceptions, most notably people who say things to the effect of "Being bi/gay is WACKY, you straight kids are so dullllllll" **** off. Just **** off.

I think it'd be pretty tough being homophobic or whatever in College; you'd be ruling out way too many great people from your life

cocoa

gotta commend JammyDodger on an articulate post and the maturity to acknowledge his (or her?) uncertainty.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Blah, writing this has got me thinking about this whole issue again: it's got me reconsidering my own argument. I suppose that's a good thing. Because of that, I'm not going to continue with this line of argument until I've cemented my own opinion: arguing for an opinion you're not sure you hold is a foolish thing to do.

I'd disagree most strongly. Arguing in the pursuit of the truth, aware of the fact that it may not be the stance you are personally promoting, instead of arguing in pursuit of glory and owning the truth, is surely a wise way to approach life. Personally, I seek and hope to live by the mantra 'It matters not who is right, but what is right'.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I don't necessarily have any problems with people who are homosexual, or bisexual, for that matter. I don't like male homosexuality stuck in my face in public places, but that's my own problem, and I'm ok with it; I'm tolerant of it whenever I do see it, and for me, that's all that's important. I'm a pretty liberal person, and I'd consider the rights of homosexuals to be open and free to express themselves--both socially and sexually--to be of paramount importance to a free, modern state.

Too right. To be honest, I don't really understand this concept of sticking it in someone's face. In my experience, most people engaged in public displays of affection (not to be confused with personal digital assistants) have their attention focused on affection, as opposed to, as the phrase misleadingly suggests, displaying. Then again, perhaps my perception is wrong, at any rate I operate on the basis of if I don't want to look at it, I won't, and seeing it for a moment is hardly traumatic. However I can fully comprehend a desire not to see it and to keep such events in the private domain.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Homosexual couples shouldn't, in my own opinion, be legally allowed to adopt a child, because doing so imposes upon that child a lifestyle that is unnatural, in the biological and evolutionary sense of the word. Homosexuality isn't, when speaking in terms of evolution, natural. Evolution, to give it a voice, dictates that males should reproduce with females. So, using that logic, anything that strays off that prescribed "rule" could, in a purely evolutionary sense, be considered unnatural. That's the key point of my argument. I don't want for that to sound callous, but it's a simple evolutionary principle of paramount importance to the continuation of a species.

It's a sound idea on the surface, but I'd like to offer a possible (not proven!) alternative. Say, for example, there are two tribes, on two separate islands with limited resources. One tribe has a genetic make-up which causes some people to be born homosexual, the other does not. One tribe's population grows (as populations do) and then drops as it exceeds the resources available, and then grows, oscillating until an equilibrium is found, the other tribe's population explodes, exceeding the resources available to such an extent that it dies out shortly after. Evolution doesn't just work at an individual level, it also works at a group level. The dodo died out because it was very, very good at being very, very bad at mating, which is what the environment demanded before humans arrived.

(Boston's points are also great and far less hypothetical than my own)

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Of course, I don't generally agree that evolutionary and biological principles should be used as an excuse to implement or enforce unusual or, in some cases, just plain wrong political positions or laws. I'm not a neo-Darwinist. But, I do think that children should be exposed to a parental relationship that at least follows nature's intended parental design. I'm not sure what the psychological effects of having homosexual parents would be: I haven't researched it. My own instincts tell me that what isn't naturally intended generally isn't as good as what is naturally intended, so that'd give me a reason to object to homosexual couples adopting a child.

Nature doesn't have a design, a design would imply intention and a mind, both of which are lacking unless you want to get into an Intelligent Design debate. I'd argue that statistics (not personal anecdotes!) on child welfare in such situations are far more important than any such theory of design. (they are in favour of the idea that two parents of any sex have the ability to provide care and love for a child)


Thanks again for a well thought out post Arguing with people who have no chance of changing their mind is no fun! =P

Personally, I clicked heterosexual, but I've considered it and given the opportunity I think I might explore being with a guy, but it'd be a very nice (both looking and otherwise) guy. I've never had a problem with anyone who is gay or bi, currently living with a girl who's bi and it's cool. I just treat them like I treat anyone else I'm not interested in sexually, which covers most people.

Personally, I try to avoid using gay in a negative sense. I'm sure that homosexual people who are self-confident can happily laugh it off, and I suspect that's the way they had to respond in the past when it was meant more maliciously. But I have no idea how that feels for someone who's still unsure of themselves, so I try not to use it like that.

apologies for the monster post!

It's going to take me quite a while to reply to all posts, but before I do, let me point out one thing:

I didn't say that what I said in my other post represented my final opinion on that matter. I said, very clearly, that it was a tentative opinion, and an opinion that I posted to encourage and create new discussion down a different avenue. From what I can see it has done that.

Boston

As the topic goes.

I'm a bi-sexual male. I've been out since I was about 18/19 years old. I messed around with a girl for a bit but the experience left me somewhat unmoved. Not because I didn't like girls, but rather because I didn't like her. I really clicked with my best friend at the time, the only sumbling block being his gender. I began to question what I wanted in a partner and gradually came to the realisation that gender was way down the list of priorities. Once that realisation was made, my logical mind found it silly not to peruse a relationship. We were together for a little bit over two years, and had a completely monogamous relationship.

I went through the self-hatred phase like allot of non-straight males will. I allowed it to alienate me from friends, family and love ones. After 2 years avoiding introspective soul searching I got myself to a place where I just don't care about my sexuality any-more. I don't care if you think it's great, I don't care if you think its sucks, I don't care what you call me, nor do I care if you attack, I'm just "OK" with it. Now I'm happy, life is good.

Anyway, thats a somewhat abridged version. Anyone looking for advice, support or a place to chat without having defend your existence should check out the Lesbian & Gay & Bisexual forum. and the references sticky

mardybumbum

I'm not sure why I'm continuing to argue for a position I'm not sure I hold, but I do like arguments, so I'll continue.

mardybumbum wrote: »

Evolution dictates nothing.
It is a blind process.
Every single organism on this planet is natural; they must be, or they woulnt exist.
The fact that homosexuals are an end product of mother nature, suggests to me that they are indeed natural.
Perhaps you are confusing the term natural with advantageous.
That is an entirely different concept.

Edit: Looking back, my post may seem a tad condescending. It certainly isn't meant to be. I have just seen the term "unnatural" thrown about a few times on this thread. Grinds my gears something else.

Of course, you're right. Evolution is a completely blind process (unless you subscribe to some modern hypotheses, such as Anne-Dambricourt Malassé's, which I don't), in my other post I didn't want to get into the intricacies of evolution, but I at least should have defined it right, I suppose. My understanding is that the basis of evolution--at least at the level of the individual--is the passing of genes from one generation to the next. My simple argument, which followed from that premise, was that a homosexual, or somebody who was infertile for that matter, couldn't do so, so they could be considered "unnatural".

Unnatural was a completely wrong word to use, though, so let me replace it with aberration, even though that doesn't entirely suit either. Somebody who can't pass on their genes could be considered an aberration, whether the reason for their failure to pass on their genes is genetic, physical or psychological. Because of this, they don't comply with evolution's basic "goal" (I hate to use a word that implies evolution has a future planned, as it's a blind process, but you know what I mean) of passing on their genes. I didn't say it was an infallible argument, nor did I say it was a perfect argument. It's just an argument, one that I thought I'd share to spark discussion, which it has.

Boston wrote: »

By your argument single parent families are unnatural and children would always be better off being raised by two parents, regardless of who the two are. But that's an aside;

Not necessarily. My argument is that a child brought up by a homosexual couple didn't fit with nature's intended parental design, be that design, depending on the era, to have two parents of different sexes, or have one parent take care of you while the other disappears to copulate with more females. How would I know what nature's intended design is? I don't. But, I can bet it wasn't to have homosexual parents. Why? Because homosexual parents cannot produce offspring naturally, so they simply could not form a natural parental design. It's a simple logical argument.

You can't extend my argument to claim that I said single parent families are unnatural.

You talk about evolutions, biology, natures design. You even throw in "neo-Darwinism" but to my knowledge you're only a 17 years old child whose never studied any of these topics. It amazes me the people who talk about homosexuality as unnatural, while ignoring all all the empirical evidence showing its occurrence in the animal kingdom. If homosexuality is against natures design, then how did it come about? Are you honestly arguing its a social construct? If so it's one which has been with us for a millennia and beyond.

Ah, ad hominem, I haven't come across you in a while.

I said in my reply to mardybumbum that my choice of the word unnatural was wrong. I shouldn't have used it, as, as mardybumbum points out, whatever is the end product of a natural process cannot be unnatural. If I'd have thought that my original post would have come across this level of retort, I would have constructed it more carefully. Instead I'll use the word aberration, even though that isn't a perfect word to use, either.

I don't know how homosexuality has come about. Until either a "gay gene" is discovered or completely ruled out I won't have a definite answer as to whether it is a genetic or psychological phenomenon.

The major flaw in your hypothesis is that homosexuals cannot be natural since they themselves cannot procreate. But who are you to determine "nature's intended parental design". There are many lifeforms whose major roll in nature is to act as a surrogate "parent" to either members of the same species or other species. Research into homosexualities role in nature has suggested that homosexuality is a species imperitive. There is a correlation between the number of older brothers a male has and the likelihood of him being gay. The suggestion is that by the time the homosexual sibling comes about the heterosexual ones are older and less capable of taking care of their own young. A Homosexual is an extra adult male who does not compete for females, can protect the young and can hunt. A boon to any tribe. The title of the paper was "Homosexuals, natures parents".

Again, that flaw only arises because of my incorrect use of the word unnatural. Of course homosexuals sexuals are natural, otherwise they wouldn't exist. It was a stupid oversight in my last comment to say they were unnatural: I can't find the word I'm looking for, but for now, I'll use the word aberration, as I've already used. Also, that's an interesting hypothesis. I'm not very familiar with evolutionary topics along that line, such as group selection, so I can't really comment. Any reading I've done into evolution has been at the genetic or individual level.

When people talk about "nature's intended parental design" they inevitable start from the modern parental paradigm, completely ignoring the fact that this business of two people raising children is a 20th century invention. Children used to be raised by the entire extended family. Even my mothers generation in rural 1940's Ireland, the children pretty much belonged to the community as much as they did uncles and aunts. Today, children are cared for by strangers for money while mammy and daddy both assume the "Hunter gatherer" role. Your idea of "nature's intended parental design" would seem Alien and bizarre 50 years ago, and completely disgraceful 100 years ago.

So please, next time you spout drivel about natures way, have a think about how applicable your way was when we all lived in mud huts and ate wild animals for supper.

That's all well and good, but it's beside the issue relevant to this thread. My argument is that a homosexual couple cannot naturally produce their own child, therefore they do not comply with any natural parental design. You can't argue that a child having homosexual parents is in any way natural, can you? If you can, I'd be interested to see the argument.

Finally, one last thing. Have you ever broken an arm, needed antibiotics or needed surgery? By nature's design you would be dead by now. Natures design has a 25-30% infant mortality rate. I find it incredibly hypocritical that people so fervently defend the righteousness of "nature's design" on this issue, but have no problem when time and time again human advancement goes against that design? Or do you really believe people were meant to fly around in giant artificial birds?

Good points, but they're completely irrelevant. You're seeking to obfuscate one issue by surrounding it in perceived similar issues; you're also exaggerating my argument to the point of absurdity: reductio ad absurdum. Of course the above don't follow "nature's intended design", but that doesn't matter: I'm not going to argue their cases along with the one I've already decided to argue. My argument is that raising a child in a family with homosexual parents imposes upon that child a parental construct that cannot be considered natural.

Nebit wrote: »

i have to say this is a very good post, although i disagree
im a posting this again as it may have been overlooked :

if you look at the past, history would seem to disprove that homosexuality is unnatural, for example in ancient rome and greece, it was perfectly normal to see a man with another man.

Wouldn't that just mean it's not unnatural from a social and cultural perspective? Can you really extend that to biology?

It has really only been the coming of monotheism that homosexuality began to be frowned upon, this again if you look at history makes sense, monotheism was new and followers needed to have a children to insure the survival and expansion of the religion, therefore sex was made only acceptable for procreation.

This is similar to the banning of pork in some religions as 'unclean' at the time pigs carried diseases which could kill, thereby killing off believers.

Again, that's a comment on homosexuality from a cultural perspective. It's an interesting thought, though.

>>> from a nature and evolutionary prospective one could say it is a way of balancing the population maybe, this can be seen in species of toads for example.

Again, I can't really comment on that, as I'm unfamilar with concepts relating to group selection and the like.

Therefore my stance is that nothing is unnatural if 'nature' has made it so. only that the way people are conditioned produces views such as this. i am not blaming this on religion btw

You're right, it's not unnatural. As I've said above using the word unnatural was a mistake on my part.

Boston

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Of course, you're right. Evolution is a completely blind process (unless you subscribe to some modern hypotheses, such as Anne-Dambricourt Malassé's, which I don't), in my other post I didn't want to get into the intricacies of evolution, but I at least should have defined it right, I suppose. My understanding is that the basis of evolution--at least at the level of the individual--is the passing of genes from one generation to the next. My simple argument, which followed from that premise, was that a homosexual, or somebody who was infertile for that matter, couldn't do so, so they could be considered "unnatural".

A common assertion which fails to hold up in the light of day. Recessive genes would explain how homosexuality is present generation after generation despite the supposed inability of homosexuals to pass on their genes. Another explanation is that a large number of people have a genetic predisposition towards homosexual behaviour but other natural imperatives towards procreation prevent exclusive homosexuality. Some animals will only mate with a female of the species for the purposes of procreation, and default to same sex coupling the rest of the time. History has shown that when it was socially acceptable to engage in same sex relationship, many a "heterosexual" male did so.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Unnatural was a completely wrong word to use, though, so let me replace it with aberration, even though that doesn't entirely suit either. Somebody who can't pass on their genes could be considered an aberration, whether the reason for their failure to pass on their genes is genetic, physical or psychological. Because of this, they don't comply with evolution's basic "goal" (I hate to use a word that implies evolution has a future planned, as it's a blind process, but you know what I mean) of passing on their genes. I didn't say it was an infallible argument, nor did I say it was a perfect argument. It's just an argument, one that I thought I'd share to spark discussion, which it has.

Negative, evolution is all about the survival of the species, not the individual. Your genes are pretty much the same as your direct siblings, if you have a homosexual sibling, the chances of your off spring's survival increases due to the benefit of having an extra parents. This line of conversation is rather pointless since we no longer live in huts and fear predators. The natural way has long been replaced.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Not necessarily. My argument is that a child brought up by a homosexual couple didn't fit with nature's intended parental design, be that design, depending on the era, to have two parents of different sexes, or have one parent take care of you while the other disappears to copulate with more females. How would I know what nature's intended design is? I don't. But, I can bet it wasn't to have homosexual parents. Why? Because homosexual parents cannot produce offspring naturally, so they simply could not form a natural parental design. It's a simple logical argument.

It's a flawed argument. By your logic, yet again, no adopted parent could form a "natural parental" bound with an adopted child since they are not biologically related. Humans have the capacity to form parental bonds despite the geniality of the child. The assertion to the contrary is ridiculous.

So now that we've establish that yes, a homosexual can have a parental bound with a child, we'll move one. You say that you couldn't possibly know what nature's design is, but somehow you definitely know there is one, and furthermore you make all sorts of assumptions about what it would be. To make assumptions about something which you a) don't full understand, and b) can demonstrates even exist, is a mistake.

You completely side stepped my point that traditionally families and communities raise children, not two people. There is nothing in nature stopping a homosexual from filling a parental role.

Again a pointless line of conversation. If I accept your hypothesis that homosexually goes against natures design, so what? Why should we respect natures design. Is cancer not a part of nature, infact isn't cancer a natural part of evolution? Would you argue to a cancer patient that we should respect nature's plan for them? Fair enough if you you're a believer in the natural way, but i doubt it considering you're using a computer as a means to communicate with people potentially thousands of miles away.

This entire nature argument is nonsense. How many times could you say "Thats not right, because it's not natural" but choose not to because things are better that way. The entire adoption system is unnatural. If a child was unwanted it is simply left to die in nature.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

You can't extend my argument to claim that I said single parent families are unnatural.

Sure I can. Whats natural about a single parent family? You need two people to procreate, you can't do it on your own, ergo, therefore, it follows, clearly, [Insert massive jump in logic], single parent families are unnatural. One could argue that homosexual parenting is more natural since there's two of them.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Ah, ad hominem, I haven't come across you in a while.

I said in my reply to mardybumbum that my choice of the word unnatural was wrong. I shouldn't have used it, as, as mardybumbum points out, whatever is the end product of a natural process cannot be unnatural. If I'd have thought that my original post would have come across this level of retort, I would have constructed it more carefully. Instead I'll use the word aberration, even though that isn't a perfect word to use, either.

I don't know how homosexuality has come about. Until either a "gay gene" is discovered or completely ruled out I won't have a definite answer as to whether it is a genetic or psychological phenomenon.

Pointing out that you've no deep understanding of any of the topics you've decided to throw around is hardly a personal reproach. Someone may mistakenly believe the opinions you've put forward about nature and evolution are based on more then a smattering of random articles you read more then likely in an attempt to impress.

As you admit, you don't know how homosexuality came about, yet you still make definite statements about it's role in nature. Even your binary "genetic or psychological phenomenon" solution set demonstrates an incredibly narrow view point. How about hormonal or physiological? How about some combination of all the above, or none. How about spiritual causes? Can you truly say there's no such thing as a soul? Wise men are too full of self doubt to do more then guess but fools always talk in terms of absolutes.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Again, that flaw only arises because of my incorrect use of the word unnatural. Of course homosexuals sexuals are natural, otherwise they wouldn't exist. It was a stupid oversight in my last comment to say they were unnatural: I can't find the word I'm looking for, but for now, I'll use the word aberration, as I've already used. Also, that's an interesting hypothesis. I'm not very familiar with evolutionary topics along that line, such as group selection, so I can't really comment. Any reading I've done into evolution has been at the genetic or individual level.

Homosexuals are not aberrations. Completely the wrong word to use. In terms of genetics a homosexual human is no different to a heterosexual one, so the word is wrong in that context. In terms of evolution again homosexuality isn't rare, and occurs in each generation. Logic dictates it serves some purpose.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

That's all well and good, but it's beside the issue relevant to this thread. My argument is that a homosexual couple cannot naturally produce their own child, therefore they do not comply with any natural parental design. You can't argue that a child having homosexual parents is in any way natural, can you? If you can, I'd be interested to see the argument.

Tell me one way in which children are raised in this modern world which is consistent with how they where raised 2 millennia ago? Everything from how children are conceived to how they are raised is completely unnatural. Did you know they give pregnant women drugs to help decrease the number of miscarriages and to bring the baby naturally to term?

You've a very narrow, binary, black and white, mindset, if I say homosexual parenting is unnatural, you'll still hold that heterosexual parenting is the natural way rather then realising nothing is natural anymore. My argument, is that if you're not out in the jungle, you're not doing it the natural way, that the natural way isn't the better way. Mammy going off to work and daddy staying at home isn't the natural way either, but would you say its wrong? Something you haven't directly said, but implied through out your post is that unnatural is wrong, and shouldn't be allowed. It's the basic premise of your stance on adoption. But you've failed to demonstrate how unnatural is harmful.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Good points, but they're completely irrelevant. You're seeking to obfuscate one issue by surrounding it in perceived similar issues; you're also exaggerating my argument to the point of absurdity: reductio ad absurdum. Of course the above don't follow "nature's intended design", but that doesn't matter: I'm not going to argue their cases along with the one I've already decided to argue. My argument is that raising a child in a family with homosexual parents imposes upon that child a parental construct that cannot be considered natural.

Remember the start of your argument, that homosexuals shouldn't be able to adopt, and the unnatural aspect of homosexuality is the reason why. My points go directly to that argument. I've listed all these things which are unnatural and good thus destroying your rather simplistic "unnatural = bad" stance.

With all the back tracking it's hard to pinpoint where you stand. You've said unnatural was a mistaken choice of words, but continued to use it, even saying it was the crux of your argument.

Aoibheann

I'm straight, but apparently I have a gay boyfriend! :pac:

Ok, I have absolutely no idea where this post is going to end up, but I'll start somewhere and hopefully I shall make sense! Any posts I've thanked thus far are not necessarily because I agree with the opinion in said post (although they are in some cases), but sometimes for the thought put into the argument behind it (e.g. -JammyDodger- and Boston's posts are definitely thought provoking, along with many others).

I honestly couldn't care less what a person's sexual preference is to be perfectly honest. Nobody can help who they're attracted to, and why should they have to? In the case of any of my friends, their coming out has never changed my opinion of them. Why would it? They're still the same person they were the whole time you knew them prior to finding out. Sure, as it was said, people can grow in confidence after telling friends etc, but in essence they're still the same friend you always knew. Someone's sexual preference shouldn't be what defines them for you, so it shouldn't change your opinion of someone once you find out. I'd rather choose my friends based on them being decent people who I happen to get on with, as opposed to anything else.

I have still no idea where I'm going with this, I really want to get back to some of the points raised by a few posters but that will require a hell of a lot of thought on my part so I'll get to it asap!

Nebit

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

.



Wouldn't that just mean it's not unnatural from a social and cultural perspective? Can you really extend that to biology?



Again, that's a comment on homosexuality from a cultural perspective. It's an interesting thought, though.



Again, I can't really comment on that, as I'm unfamilar with concepts relating to group selection and the like.



You're right, it's not unnatural. As I've said above using the word unnatural was a mistake on my part.

well my point, which wasn't as clear as i thought it was when writing it (sorry about that) is that culture & society is the only factor in determining what is 'natural' or not. when i mentioned ancient civilisations, i meant that if you asked the same question they'd look at you and say no, because back then it was socially accepted, unfortunately religion did hinder this acceptance for centuries.

However my point is that we determin what is 'natural' and what isn't based on the society we grew up in, you may not be a homophobe but u have for years been bombarded with images of a male and woman relationship therefore ur views have been moulded accourding to what is correct in the society u grew up in, children nowadays are more accepting because they are growing up with programs with an openly gay person in it such as skins etc

cocoa

Here's another slant on the adoption issue:

If we live in an equal society, i.e., one in which most things can be done by anyone regardless of gender, race, etcetera. then homosexual partners should be allowed adopt.

Unless the sexual organs (i.e., the primary differences between men and women) should be used in raising a child post breast-feeding (do breasts count as sexual organs? they fall under the grouping I was trying to make anyway, things that are different between the genders), and I certainly hope we can agree that they shouldn't then either gender is equally capable of caring for a child. On this basis, a pair of men, a pair of women, or a man and a woman, if no other information is given, are all equally capable.

I dislike the idea that, as a man, there's something (again, other than the obvious : milk) which I cannot provide for a child in my care. I believe men and women are both capable of the love, care and openness required to raise a child. I think the idea of having things you could only talk about with a mother or a father are just social constructs and really, ideally, you could speak about anything with either parent. (which is not an attempt to attack any families in which this is not the case. I know, personally there are many things I cannot speak about freely with either parent or only one or the other. I think that such inhibitions have a lot more to do with the personalities and actions of the individual and parent than with the gender of either.)

Sorry again for the monster post, great thread, really making me think

lou91

Reading the LGB thread from time to time its crazy that some people can't seem to live their lives at all because they're afraid of coming out or even just admitting stuff to themselves, well into their 20s or 30s. Most people posting in this thread so far seem to really have a handle on their sexuality, which is great. Obviously its still not perfect - It is still Ireland after all, land of the repressed sexuality - but yeah, I'm glad I was able to grow up without learning to hate myself for not being "normal".

jumpguy

I'm straight...don't really mind gay people tbh. Infact, my opinion on gay people is pretty much the same as Aoibheann's so because I'm a lazy/tired **** I'll just quote her. If someone is sound out and is willing to be friends, that's okay by me. If one of my friends was gay, I'd have no problem whatsoever as long as he understood I was straight and "wasn't into that kinda thing".

Only thing I'd be abit uncomfortable with is extreme campness. Yes, you're gay, no need to make it obvious to everyone. You don't see me making it obvious to everyone I'm straight.

If one of my friends "came out" as gay (for most of them I'd be very surprised though) I'd be fine with it, again, as long as they didn't have a crush on me or something.

Aoibheann wrote: »

I'm straight, but apparently I have a gay boyfriend! :pac:

Ok, I have absolutely no idea where this post is going to end up, but I'll start somewhere and hopefully I shall make sense! Any posts I've thanked thus far are not necessarily because I agree with the opinion in said post (although they are in some cases), but sometimes for the thought put into the argument behind it (e.g. -JammyDodger- and Boston's posts are definitely thought provoking, along with many others).

I honestly couldn't care less what a person's sexual preference is to be perfectly honest. Nobody can help who they're attracted to, and why should they have to? In the case of any of my friends, their coming out has never changed my opinion of them. Why would it? They're still the same person they were the whole time you knew them prior to finding out. Sure, as it was said, people can grow in confidence after telling friends etc, but in essence they're still the same friend you always knew. Someone's sexual preference shouldn't be what defines them for you, so it shouldn't change your opinion of someone once you find out. I'd rather choose my friends based on them being decent people who I happen to get on with, as opposed to anything else.

I have still no idea where I'm going with this, I really want to get back to some of the points raised by a few posters but that will require a hell of a lot of thought on my part so I'll get to it asap!

LoonyLovegood

I've spent the last half hour reading this thread, and discovering some very good opinions from everyone.

I'm bisexual, but totally in the closet. I've had a girlfriend, who I loved, but who nobody except ourselves knew we were going out. And I've had a boyfriend, who I liked, and everyone knew we were going out.

The thought of telling people that I don't care about a person's gender scares me, because I've grown up in a strict Catholic family, and I honestly think that my parents would disown me.

Now, it's gotten to a stage where I'm just waiting to move out, so I can be with a guy, or a girl, or whoever I please, without fear of people getting angry at me, or caring about it. Hopefully I'll get the strength to be able to admit it to everyone, but I don't know...

phlegms

Ah sure its grand.

Ginja Ninja

I'm in an odd situation,I've 4-5 really good friends in college that are gay/bi but I'm also one of those people who make gay jokes/call something gay[I don't mean to offend anyone if it's funny,it's worth it]

personally,I'm straight,but I'm comfortable enough with the fact that i've kissed a guy,as a dare I'm not too embarassed and NO,for you paranoid folk,that doesn't mean s***.

sorry,if some of this doesn't make sense,I haven't time to read 10 pages of wall text to catch up.

phlegms

norwegianwood wrote: »

At the same time, i don't think same sex couples should be allowed to adopt, because a child should have a strong male and female influence in thier lives, but that's just my opinion.

I know you're entitled to your own opinion and all that jazz, but this is a really shítty statement to make.