Questions about Homosexuality

Oh and Chumly, Dorothy was a Post Modernist.

0 Replies

Dorothy is one cool pup, seaglass.

I can think of at least one cat that I know that is gay. A boy, fixed, flurry white and skinny......always roaming about the streets giving the Tom's a lil twirl n' flirt. Laughing

He smells like perfume, too, for some reason, and loves nothing better than to have his butt in your face.
Funny enough, he prefers men-humans too.

Did ya start the thread, Chum?!

0 Replies

Who ever said:

"There is no certain proof that homosexuals are born that way, and I don't accept that they are."

Is TOTALLY CLUELESS as to the facts.

I suppose the hundreds of different kinds of fish, birds, insects, reptiles and animals which have homosexual members were not born that way either?

Sorry your ignorance is just another example of the limited thinking one gets from the programmed religious robots of the far right.

0 Replies

PoetSeductress wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
Well, from what I have learned in this thread so far, there still is NO DEFINITIVE answer as to why anyone is a homosexual. There are theories and there are studies being done. However, due to some funding problems, the research for this issue has been hampered.

Sozobe, I did good, huh? :wink:

:wink: I already know what causes it, but I don't feel like posting it, right now. Maybe later. They have tried to squelch it, and have done a good job of it. It's their mission to make it appear that it's genetic. This way, they can qualify under the same category as minorities.

0 Replies

PoetSeductress wrote:

Lash wrote:
The part where you said they deserved their rights, but you wouldn't vote to help them secure their rights.

I also don't understand the part about people not voting.

Any homosexual can obtain a legal union contract, to insure miscellaneous rights that married people normally have. There are absolutely no rights that I know of, that they would be denied, other than not getting tax shelters from the government. Unless you can name some, then this is strictly an issue for the government. If it can see some kind of stablizing benefit that the homosexual marriage brings to the table, then they'll go for it.

PS, we ARE the government.

0 Replies

PoetSeductress wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Not while the fundamentalist christians deny them "marriage."

I don't get involved with that. However, I can understand how they might want to have a say, since their tax dollars will be involved. Still, this is one issue I'd rather stay out of. I'm neutral on the marriage thing.

This is a pretty feeble attempt at justification. The tax dollars of homosexuals are already involved, to whatever bizarre extent you wish to contend that matrimony directly effects the expenditure of tax revenues.

0 Replies

Re: Questions about Homosexuality

PoetSeductress wrote:

Every consenting adult has a right, both homosexual and heterosexual, to have whatever kind of sex they want to have, even it's unhealthy and nasty. They also have a right to exercise their full rights as an American citizen. But they do NOT have the right to force people to accept it as a wonderful, normal, alternative lifestyle. People should tolerate it, yes. But they should not have to suffer a barraging bombardment, day in and day out, by a radical agenda to brainwash the newest generation into thinking it's okay to experiment with it as another perfectly acceptable choice. IT IS NOT.

Just because you love someone, doesn't mean you have to approve of and endorse their actions.

As long as their actions have no impact on anyone else's ability to live their lives then I have no business judging them one way or the other.

Brainwashing the newest generation into thinking it's okay to experiment with it as another perfectly acceptable choice assumes it is a choice. IT IS NOT.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Well, from what I have learned in this thread so far, there still is NO DEFINITIVE answer as to why anyone is a homosexual. There are theories and there are studies being done. However, due to some funding problems, the research for this issue has been hampered.

Sozobe, I did good, huh? :wink:

Not bad! :-)

I'd probably want to get in there something about how lots of elements have been identified, and that cumulatively the evidence is such that you have people like Rev. Rob Schenck, a prominent evalngelical leader, saying, that homosexuality is "deeply rooted" and that "many evangelicals are living in a sort of state of denial about the advance of this conversation" [...] "If it's inevitable that this scientific evidence is coming, we have to be prepared with a loving response. If we don't have one, we won't have any credibility."

By the way, PoetSeductress, as I mentioned earlier I know many, many gay people who have adopted and who are excellent parents. That's a win-win situation, for everyone -- children who need homes are given them, and people who want to raise the next generation of contributing adults are given the opportunity to do so.

(Catching up, more stuff I wanted to respond to I think, just a sec...)

0 Replies

Re: the evolutionary angle:

The long article mentioned that it could be that the biological factors behind homosexuality offer advantages in some other way -- that, for example, a study showed that female relatives of people who are homosexual were more fertile.

Another theory I've seen that was not in the article is the "aunt/ uncle effect." That holds that children do better -- are more likely to reach adulthood -- if there are adults around who are willing to care for children but cannot have their own children.

Imagine two colonies of early humans, who each have 200 members. The first colony is made up of 5 lesbians, 5 gay men, 80 straight adults in 40 pairs, and 100 kids. The 10 gay/ lesbian members are able to help out with the 100 kids rather than trying to get their own kids ahead, while the kids also have the benefit of their own parents trying to keep them healthy.

The second colony has no gay/ lesbian members, 100 adults in 50 pairs, 100 kids. All of the parents are trying to get their own kids ahead, and in competition.

It would make sense that the first colony would be more likely to have healthy children who survive to adulthood and have their own kids. (The prime imperative in evolution, preservation of genes.)

Where do you stand now, Momma Angel? What are your current questions? (Sorry if I overlooked some.)

0 Replies

Quote:

The reason the government does this at all for married couples, is because it's a reward to the people for doing something which benefits the country. Marriage is a stablizer, in that you get married, settle down, have children, become more responsible, etc. This is of course a generalization, but it's a valid one. On the whole, homosexual marriage can't offer that same kind of contribution to the country. The government doesn't have a vested interest in it.

Do you have any links to studies that show that homosexual couples don't settle down, aren't responsible and can't raise children?

0 Replies

(My math was off a bit in my colonies example -- 5 lesbians and 5 straight men, and 90 straight people in 45 couple relationships.)

Butrflynet, yeah, I'd be interested in seeing that supported. It's one of the more interesting circular arguments -- if the goal is to have people in stable family units raising children, gay marriage furthers that goal.

Not every gay couple will have/ adopt children, but not every heterosexual couple does, either -- should having children be a condition of marriage?

0 Replies

Quote:

1) Access to a spouse's medical, life and disability insurance
2) Hospital visitation and medical decision-making privileges
3) Workers' compensation survivor benefits
4) Spousal benefits under annuity and retirement plans
5) The right to refuse to testify against one's spouse
6) And many others.

If I'm not mistaken, all those things can be had with a legal union and a simple will. If not, then I would of course be for their right to marry.

Pardon my ignorance. I don't have access to the language written into the laws that form legal unions. Since you sound familiar with such, do you have links to it so I can better educate myself about the protections of such benefits?

0 Replies

seaglass wrote:

Actually Chumly I think a separate thread on homosexuality in the realms of nature would be fascinating. Why don't you start it.

I had a lesbian dog once. Her name was Dorothy and she had been fixed. Now I don't know what her sexual preference was before she was fixed, but man let me tell you she was gay!

She had a girlfriend (dog) named Ursula and they were constant companions. Ursula would come over every morning and scratch at the door. til I let Dorothy out to play.

Dorothy was hit by a taxi in the South End of Boston and was killed. Ursula would still come to the house every morning looking for Dorothy. Ursula was very depressed about the loss of her friend and went into a decline and went on a hunger strike until she died.

Hi Seaglass,

Quite the tale of two dogs. Very touching. I don't have the time to start a gay animal thread but I think there are many particulars that are comparable to humans.

After all we are animals and at a minimum it demonstrates that homosexuality is far from unique to Homo Sapiens and thus helps support the argument that homosexuality is natural.

I can tell you this much; I suspect that if homosexuality was unheard of in the animal kingdom, the anti-gay camp would try and claim that because animals do not engage in homosexuality, the fact that humans do it must make it unnatural.

So my reference to animals has a threefold porpose:

1) Some well needed humor.

2) As a sort of preemptive strike against the anti-gay camp as per arguments that homosexuality is unnatural.

3) To demonstrate that Homo Sapiens are far from the only species to engage in homosexuality, and that there are animal behaviorists / biologists who have put forward theories and observations about animal homosexuality which may well have parallel merit in Homo Sapiens.

0 Replies

Nicely stated, Chumly.

0 Replies

Remember many behaviorists / biologists use animals studies to help the congruence of human studies. Skinner and Pavlov come to mind.

0 Replies

Including those that have sex changes, because their bodies are wrong for their minds. God plays nasty tricks on innocent humans all the time.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Nicely stated, Chumly.

Very cool of you to say so, I always like your posts too Smile

0 Replies

God DOES NOT play nasty tricks on innocent human beings at all, much less all the time.

0 Replies

So there must be a good reason why he makes some people homosexual... ;-)

0 Replies

Sozobe,

That's a good one :wink: . But, I'm still learning about why people are homosexuals so I can't debate that point with you yet. Laughing

0 Replies

Questions about Homosexuality

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know