Homosexuality ? Where do you stand...

Better to think about what you are saying before you post, 6Yuri9.

We need to inform the media and the society we live in that we are normal. We are not mentally retarted, it is not a psycological disorder to be gay or lesbian. Even if it is a choice we make, then fine, leave us alone. We love this person because we love them. It shouldn't make a difference what their sex is.

I will stand with Shewolf before the firing squad for my opinion.

Ban churches and the problem will go away!

BBB

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

I will stand with Shewolf before the firing squad for my opinion.

Ban churches and the problem will go away!

BBB

WHO has the authority
to DO that ??

The search for a gay gene itself is homophobic. .

Nobody's looking for a heterosexual gene.

nobody's trying to find a genetic cause for left-handedness, which could even be less prevalent than homosexuality and therefore even more "abnormal".Its not a big deal because left handedness like heterosexuality is considered natural... homosexuality isn't considered natural. that is why a cause is being searched for.

Still i can see how it might be tempting for people - striaght or gay - to embrace the idea. If a gay gene is discovered, then we can claim it's like being left handed. We'd be acting as nature intended and could then expect equal treatment. The gay gene might mean an end to all of the standard arguements used to block our legal rights and may be enough to persuade legislators that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unconstitutional. Parents might not be afraid if their kids have a gay teacher, and adoption agencies might be less reluctant to let gay couples adopt kids. They wouldn't be worried that the kids are going to grow up gay because homosexuality would be natural.


BUT would that really fix anything? People might be forced to tolerate us, but it wouldn't make them accept us. What makes us think that given how cruel and punitive so many have been towards us that the gay gene won't be seen as pathological? To a lot of people we would still be mutants, just not social mutants anymore. We'd be genetic mutants. We'd be able to claim that homosexuality is no different than skin colour or left handedness but our opponents could claim that instead of a natural gene, it is a genetic defect. That doesn't do much for gay and lesbian liberation, does it ?

The question of cause should be irrelevant. If more people believed that homosexuality is as natural and normal as heterosexuality, no one would want or need to search for a cause.

Still scientists continue to hunt for a cause for homosexuality, as if being gay is something bad or defective. People are all too willing to accept this. Maybe it is because it reaffirms their own heterosexual lifestyles. If gay is bad then heterosexuality is good. If heterosexuality is the norm then anything different is abnormal. If something is abnormal then there must be a reason.

We need to inform the media and the society we live in that we are normal. We are not mentally retarted, it is not a psycological disorder to be gay or lesbian. Even if it is a choice we make, then fine, leave us alone. We love this person because we love them. It shouldn't make a difference what their sex is.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

I will stand with Shewolf before the firing squad for my opinion.

Ban churches and the problem will go away!

BBB

WHO has the authority
to DO that ??

Me! I know churches won't be banned but it's OK to point one's finger at the cause of the problem---isn't it? Religious dogma is the problem.

BBB

didn't private clubs get slapped on their fingers for not accepting african americans and/or women into their ranks? i think there were some lawsuits around that...though i don't remember any details. isn't it illegal to deny services to african americans or women in churches? if it is, why should sexual minorities be treated differently?

i think churches, like private clubs, should follow the laws.

in theory it sounds good if it's up to the church and parishioners to decide such things....except that the rule of the majority is rarely tolerant towards minorities.

I will stand with Shewolf before the firing squad for my opinion.

Ban churches and the problem will go away!

BBB

6Yuri9 wrote:

The search for a gay gene itself is homophobic. .

That's only an opinion, and a bad one if you ask me.

You are discriminating researchers.

Like any other research, take the search of the flat foot gene for example, it's a perfectly valuable research.

At least for the sake of knowledge.

Now, the use people will make of that knowledge, it's completely a different matter..

Do you really think that once a gay gene is found, homophobia wil lgo away ? NO.

dagmaraka wrote:

didn't private clubs get slapped on their fingers for not accepting african americans and/or women into their ranks? i think there were some lawsuits around that...though i don't remember any details. isn't it illegal to deny services to african americans or women in churches? if it is, why should sexual minorities be treated differently?

It would be accurate to say that some private organizations were required to eliminate discrimintory policies that were based on gender and/or race but not all organizations were required to do so. There are several tests that are applied to individual cases that end up determining which way the axe falls on each. There have been other cases where the private groups were allowed to continue to discriminate. There is no set standard that applies to all private organizations.

And while a Church is required to allow women or other minorities into the building (assuming it is open to anyone that arrives at the doorsetp as a general practice) each church is allowed to determine it';s own religious practices and rituals and control it's own religious direction and organization. The Catholic Church, for example, is fully within the law when denying women the ability to become priests. All churches are given pretty wide lattitude in setting their own rules for who they will and won't perform marriage ceremonies for. No one has any legal right (in the U.S. anyway) to force any church to marry them. Any church can deny a religious marriage to anyone. In that respect, sexual minorities are treated exactly the same.

Quote:

i think churches, like private clubs, should follow the laws.

Churches are within the law.

Quote:

in theory it sounds good if it's up to the church and parishioners to decide such things....except that the rule of the majority is rarely tolerant towards minorities.

The same problem arises when the church members become the minority and the general public becomes the majority. Your concept simply reverses the siutuation of who is the minority and who is the majority. It doesn't eliminate the problem however.

That is exactly why the government's ability to interfere with religions is limited. I can't use the government to force you to accept my religious beliefs and you can't use it to force me to accept your's.

6Yuri9 wrote:

Do you really think that once a gay gene is found, homophobia wil lgo away ? NO.

You are hypothesizing the future.

Homophobia will go away with education, not only of the heterosexual but also the homosexual. It happens in Europe.

They should stop to pretend having a special status.

For example, it happens to me to deal with homosexual people.

As long as they don't try to convince me that they are special because of that, everything is ok, some are even my friends.

But when they use their way of life as a plateform for claims, then I've no sympathy..

fishin wrote:

dagmaraka wrote:

didn't private clubs get slapped on their fingers for not accepting african americans and/or women into their ranks? i think there were some lawsuits around that...though i don't remember any details. isn't it illegal to deny services to african americans or women in churches? if it is, why should sexual minorities be treated differently?

It would be accurate to say that some private organizations were required to eliminate discrimintory policies that were based on gender and/or race but not all organizations were required to do so. There are several tests that are applied to individual cases that end up determining which way the axe falls on each. There have been other cases where the private groups were allowed to continue to discriminate. There is no set standard that applies to all private organizations.

And while a Church is required to allow women or other minorities into the building (assuming it is open to anyone that arrives at the doorsetp as a general practice) each church is allowed to determine it';s own religious practices and rituals and control it's own religious direction and organization. The Catholic Church, for example, is fully within the law when denying women the ability to become priests. All churches are given pretty wide lattitude in setting their own rules for who they will and won't perform marriage ceremonies for. No one has any legal right (in the U.S. anyway) to force any church to marry them. Any church can deny a religious marriage to anyone. In that respect, sexual minorities are treated exactly the same.

Quote:

i think churches, like private clubs, should follow the laws.

Churches are within the law.

Quote:

in theory it sounds good if it's up to the church and parishioners to decide such things....except that the rule of the majority is rarely tolerant towards minorities.

The same problem arises when the church members become the minority and the general public becomes the majority. Your concept simply reverses the siutuation of who is the minority and who is the majority. It doesn't eliminate the problem however.

That is exactly why the government's ability to interfere with religions is limited. I can't use the government to force you to accept my religious beliefs and you can't use it to force me to accept your's.

you are right, they are within legal bounds. many bad, unjust and outright discriminatory things are.

they are not within the spirit of human rights, but that's a realm of theory, philosophy and conscience. my conscience.

one thing i disagree with though is that non-interference is always the best policy. not so when it comes to human rights and protection of minorities... whether churches or within churches. protecting a minority that discriminates minorities within its ranks makes no sense to me. so it really is not the same thing as you're trying to say.