something to make the blood boil

[haarewin]

it is your opinion there is nothing to fix, it is just as valid argument to say there is something wrong with them as there is to say there isn't for the reasons highlighted in the previous posts

It is "stupid", to say that people who believe being gay is wrong are stupid as they are far from it if they have just as valid reasons against it that you have for it.

well in the same breath i could say that heterosexuality is what needs fixing. just because being straight is everywhere doesnt mean its normal.
arguably, the birth rate of humans on the planet is getting too high and homosexuality is natures fix.
on the same argument, one could say cancer, AIDS and any other 'disease' is a fix for the ever increasing population, and who do people think they are trying to cure them?

 

[NikonL]

well in the same breath i could say that heterosexuality is what needs fixing. just because being straight is everywhere doesnt mean its normal.
arguably, the birth rate of humans on the planet is getting too high and homosexuality is natures fix.
on the same argument, one could say cancer, AIDS and any other 'disease' is a fix for the ever increasing population, and who do people think they are trying to cure them?

Nature is not a concious process, it is brought about by evolution. You can't claim that homosexuality is natures answer to over-population, simply because no species "thrives" by artificially reducing its numbers. Natural selection is the process at work here, not a species suddenly going "oh, there's quite a lot of us on this planet, maybe I'll start fudge packing to ease the problem".

Remember, homosexuality appears in the animal kingdom as well. In all sorts of different species. It's hardly a question of over-population with them is it?

Male = penis. Female = vagina. These two things lead to reproduction during intercourse. That is how things have evolved, that is the "natural order". I'm not trying to get all eveangelical on you, but how can you possibly argue that sexual intercourse with a greater risk of infection, and zero possibility of reproduction (i.e. homosexual intercourse) is a natural thing? And yes, i apply the same logic to protected sex. Sex with a condom is not natural either. But both homosexual intercourse and safe sex are perfectly fine in my book. (joke goes here).

This is not about whether being gay is "wrong" or "evil". Of course it isn't, it's about whether homosexuality is natural or a defect. In which case, I lean towards the side of defect.

 

[haarewin]

Nature is not a concious process, it is brought about by evolution. You can't claim that homosexuality is natures answer to over-population, simply because no species "thrives" by artificially reducing its numbers. Natural selection is the process at work here, not a species suddenly going "oh, there's quite a lot of us on this planet, maybe I'll start fudge packing to ease the problem".

Remember, homosexuality appears in the animal kingdom as well. In all sorts of different species. It's hardly a question of over-population with them is it?

Male = penis. Female = vagina. These two things lead to reproduction during intercourse. That is how things have evolved, that is the "natural order". I'm not trying to get all eveangelical on you, but how can you possibly argue that sexual intercourse with a greater risk of infection, and zero possibility of reproduction (i.e. homosexual intercourse) is a natural thing? And yes, i apply the same logic to protected sex. Sex with a condom is not natural either. But both homosexual intercourse and safe sex are perfectly fine in my book. (joke goes here).

This is not about whether being gay is "wrong" or "evil". Of course it isn't, it's about whether homosexuality is natural or a defect. In which case, I lean towards the side of defect.

obviously i didn't explain my point well enough. i haven't got the time right now but when i'm back from my japanese lesson i'll try again.

 

[Ormorof]

its to do with how the mind works i suppose, like being left handed or right handed?

cant choose it, so no need to condem it (or try and cure it ) and as has been said its pretty "natural" considering theres nearly 1000 species of animal out there that do have fun in this way

but tbh the whole natural argument is bunk, we are smart enough to have sex for pleasure, so why not let people do it in whatever way they choose? (and the bit about greater risk of infection, isnt that a myth? as long as its wrapped up nicely the risk is the same? )

but i dont think that was what ezteq was trying to bring out from this discussion tbh (but is what it turned into hehe)

and i have to agree with ez that helping people is all nice and well, but saying"you have an illness! but hey! only come get help if it makes you happy" is not exactly the best way of dealing with the situation

 

[tris-]

and i have to agree with ez that helping people is all nice and well, but saying"you have an illness! but hey! only come get help if it makes you happy" is not exactly the best way of dealing with the situation

i dont see why its bad. people have a choice to go or not and they can listen or not and they can decide if he is right or wrong and...

well it goes on really doesnt it.

 

[Ormorof]

i dont see why its bad. people have a choice to go or not and they can listen or not and they can decide if he is right or wrong and...

well it goes on really doesnt it.

ok imagine this situation, die hard christian family, son thinks he might be gay, parents find out "zomg your gay! you are going to the doctors!" so the kid can then choose to either go to this "doctor" or be cast out by parents/friends/religion he has followed faithfully all his life...

rather than simply offering advice on what to do and how to deal with it (and what not to do ) i imagine a lot of Christians would feel pressurised into getting "cured" if they were gay

 

[tris-]

ok imagine this situation, die hard christian family, son thinks he might be gay, parents find out "zomg your gay! you are going to the doctors!" so the kid can then choose to either go to this "doctor" or be cast out by parents/friends/religion he has followed faithfully all his life...

rather than simply offering advice on what to do and how to deal with it (and what not to do ) i imagine a lot of Christians would feel pressurised into getting "cured" if they were gay

surely thats the fault of the parents being totally fucking shit at parenting? im not one to judge, but if a parent will follow religion to disown their child they have many, many issues.

 

[Ormorof]

surely thats the fault of the parents being totally fucking shit at parenting? im not one to judge, but if a parent will follow religion to disown their child they have many, many issues.

yes they are to blame too (or perhaps the religion is? cant be arsed to argue that point today ) but if people could accept it rather than try and cure it perhaps the world would have less problems eh?

one example of attitudes changing? my mum had a teacher who believed that being left-handed was a sign of the devil, so as a kid she was smacked on her left wrist with a cane every time she tried to write left-handed... if someone did that these days they would likely be spending a great deal of time in behind bars

 

[tris-]

yes they are to blame too (or perhaps the religion is? cant be arsed to argue that point today ) but if people could accept it rather than try and cure it perhaps the world would have less problems eh?

but hes not forcefully doing anything. hes providing a 'service' and giving his 'views' on the whole thing. if people feel they need curing, then its the individual who has the problem.

 

[NikonL]

but tbh the whole natural argument is bunk, we are smart enough to have sex for pleasure, so why not let people do it in whatever way they choose? (and the bit about greater risk of infection, isnt that a myth? as long as its wrapped up nicely the risk is the same? )

No it isn't. Take an infection like HIV. In order for someone to contract HIV they need to ingest some form of bodily fluid from the infected person. There is a risk of this with unprotected heterosexual sex, but the risk is much less than with homosexual sex. Where there is a high likelihood of the anal tissue tearing, allowing semen to get into the bloodstream directly.

With protected sex, without sufficient lubricant there is an increased chance of the condom tearing. And i think the only thing stranger than why you don't know this, is why I DO know this

 

[old.Tohtori]

People go-ho-mo 'cause they can't get bumsex from the girlfriend.

That was a joke.

Chill won't ya

 

[tris-]

With protected sex, without sufficient lubricant there is an increased chance of the condom tearing. And i think the only thing stranger than why you don't know this, is why I DO know this

i thought anyone whos finished yr 9 in school knew this :\

 

[Ctuchik]

noone chooses to be gay. noone chooses to be straight. honestly, i dont see the big deal either way.

i bet u would see it if all of a sudden everyone turned gay.

i wont go as far as saying its morally wrong. but it sure isnt what nature had planned. thats probably the bottom line of it all.

that said i dont have a problem with gays. i just see the other side of it to. best say that now or i'l be accused as a homophobe..... *sigh*

 

[noblok]

i wont go as far as saying its morally wrong. but it sure isnt what nature had planned. thats probably the bottom line of it all.

That's because nature doesn't plan anything at all, since it isn't a conscious being with the ability to plan. Mankind has also found a solution for your problem anyway: in vitro fertilisation.

 

[old.Tohtori]

thats probably the bottom line of it all.

No pun?

 

[haarewin]

obviously i didn't explain my point well enough. i haven't got the time right now but when i'm back from my japanese lesson i'll try again.

Right, time to try again.

Sex may well be an evolutionary tool. To ensure that a species will reproduce, sex has to be a pleasurable experience. Not being able to have sex leads to tension, and the stress response. The body wants to relieve itself of any kind of pain. That is why we eat or drink, excrete waste products, and have sex. Not doing so is painful. Maybe not in a physical way for not having sex, but, it's natural to want to relieve that tension.

Anyway, my personal belief is that some force wants to guide the universe to some sort of equilibrium. I would refer to this force as 'mother nature' or 'the universe' for lack of a better term - I'm not 100% sure what I envisage this force as, words escape me. I'm not saying 'god is making people gay to balance the overpopulation'. I'm saying I believe there is a cause homosexuality. Natural disaster, drought, AIDS, cancer, obesity are all arguably forms of population control. Humans weren't meant to live past 100 - modern medicince has made it this way, and whatever this force is, is trying to restore the balance.
You may think me naive to believe that there is such a force of universal balance. I think it is naive to rule out the possibility. Colour me agnostic. (I believe that's purple.)

i bet u would see it if all of a sudden everyone turned gay.

I wouldn't care. As already pointed out, if it were important to carry on the species, I.V. fertilisation would allow us to carry on. And that's not 'natural' either.

No it isn't. Take an infection like HIV. In order for someone to contract HIV they need to ingest some form of bodily fluid from the infected person. There is a risk of this with unprotected heterosexual sex, but the risk is much less than with homosexual sex. Where there is a high likelihood of the anal tissue tearing, allowing semen to get into the bloodstream directly.

With protected sex, without sufficient lubricant there is an increased chance of the condom tearing. And i think the only thing stranger than why you don't know this, is why I DO know this

Vaginal tissue tears as well. If you sleep with someone unprotected, you are putting yourself at risk to a Haribo Starmix of disease and infection.


The whole argument is almost the same as in "X-men: The Last Stand" - is mutancy a disease that requires a cure? Some say yes, some say no.

 

[tris-]

Right, time to try again.

i dont want to sound a cock, cos i think your a decent chap as far as FH loonys go

but here, are you just not trying to justify either your homosexuality, or infact, your whole life style?

or did i just read into it too much?

 

[Chronictank]

its to do with how the mind works i suppose, like being left handed or right handed?

IF its to do with how the mind works, you are using a silly argument because (there are a couple of theories but this is most popular) beign left handed is a genetic defect, the nerves in the neck are crossed over so the opposite parts of the brain is controlling the oposite side of the body (and the body learns to adapt, wonderful thing the human body). It is a well documented fact that our bodies are asymetical in nature thats why typically the right side is dominant in 96% of the worlds population

cant choose it, so no need to condem it (or try and cure it ) and as has been said its pretty "natural" considering theres nearly 1000 species of animal out there that do have fun in this way
but tbh the whole natural argument is bunk, we are smart enough to have sex for pleasure, so why not let people do it in whatever way they choose? (and the bit about greater risk of infection, isnt that a myth? as long as its wrapped up nicely the risk is the same? )

You completely missed the point, noone is saying it is wrong or condeming it here, your argument about it being natural is also wrong because it simply isnt. All the truley gay animals die out simply because they are gay this is because of natural selection, if it was indeed evolution and not a genetic fuck up then they would have the means to reproduce thus creating a new evolution of the species.
It is "natural" in the sense that it is indeed a defect, its the reason we are alive today, minor genetic differences mean the worlds population is not identical or we all would have died of a virus or disease thousands of years ago.

Right, time to try again.

Sex may well be an evolutionary tool. To ensure that a species will reproduce, sex has to be a pleasurable experience

Bingo, sec is a evolutionary tool and to ensure a species will reproduce.
Being gay removes that option, as a result it is not a evolutionary tool but a genetic mistake in my opinion

. Not being able to have sex leads to tension, and the stress response. The body wants to relieve itself of any kind of pain. That is why we eat or drink, excrete waste products, and have sex. Not doing so is painful. Maybe not in a physical way for not having sex, but, it's natural to want to relieve that tension.

Anyway, my personal belief is that some force wants to guide the universe to some sort of equilibrium. I would refer to this force as 'mother nature' or 'the universe' for lack of a better term - I'm not 100% sure what I envisage this force as, words escape me. I'm not saying 'god is making people gay to balance the overpopulation'. I'm saying I believe there is a cause homosexuality. Natural disaster, drought, AIDS, cancer, obesity are all arguably forms of population control. Humans weren't meant to live past 100 - modern medicince has made it this way, and whatever this force is, is trying to restore the balance
You may think me naive to believe that there is such a force of universal balance. I think it is naive to rule out the possibility. Colour me agnostic. (I believe that's purple.)

I partially diagree but I respect your opinion but it has nothing to do with whether it is a perfectly valid opinion to say that being gay is a evolutionary hiccup, maybe another thread would warrant that discussion

I wouldn't care. As already pointed out, if it were important to carry on the species, I.V. fertilisation would allow us to carry on. And that's not 'natural' either.

100% right, its not in any way natural, but noone said being gay is wrong in this thread, some people however believe it is a defect

Vaginal tissue tears as well. If you sleep with someone unprotected, you are putting yourself at risk to a Haribo Starmix of disease and infection.


The whole argument is almost the same as in "X-men: The Last Stand" - is mutancy a disease that requires a cure? Some say yes, some say no.

Hehe there in lies the problem and solution, medicine allows us to extend the lives of people who would die natually for whatever reason. Gays should not be able to have children but they do because of the mechanisms in place, this is NOT natural but it is socially accepted by most. But right or wrong is nothing to do with the medical fact that they shouldnt be able to which is the point i am trying to make.
Women who cannot concieve have children, but again naturally they should NOT, but again it is a socially accepted practice. But the moral implications for whether we should extend life is another topic (very much related to what you said before about balance in the world)

Back to my original (i think) post, IF being gay is psychological (like radio man believes) then it is learned, taught, or caused by some other reason to do with behaviour im no expert so i dont know the other ways.. in which case it can be unlearned.
IF it is genetic, then it is indeed a genetic defect, the same as being born with an additional toe, or a 3rd nipple or whatever. But it doesnt make it any less of a defect independant of ones moral standing on the issue

 

[dub]

nature or nurture i believe the term is in english , thats the first discussion you gotta take , so far no consensus reached and hence genetics and darvinism maybe have little relevance.

personally i think freud was right on this one

 

[dub]

Back to my original (i think) post, IF being gay is psychological (like radio man believes) then it is learned, taught, or caused by some other reason to do with behaviour im no expert so i dont know the other ways.. in which case it can be unlearned.
IF it is genetic, then it is indeed a genetic defect, the same as being born with an additional toe, or a 3rd nipple or whatever. But it doesnt make it any less of a defect independant of ones moral standing on the issue

learning and stimuli received throu a childhood isnt equal , cant go with your unlearn theory , i believe processes are more complicated

 

[Thadius]

Who cares if Vladamir likes a bit of bumfun? ;(

Noone here makes he try to change back to the straght way, I guess Vladibaby just has too much fun potting the brown!

 

[Dahakon]

I point that a lot of you (seem to be) missing is that people like that vicar do go out and preach that being gay is wrong, either on the street or in their churchs, I admit this doesn't happen much in this country (England) but in the USA it happens a lot. My point is that if you want to have predjudice views then thats your problem, but when you go around preaching that a group of people are "wrong" or "evil" or "not 'real' men" for doing something that doesn't hurt anyone, then thats just taking "free speach" too far.

Oh and as for the biology of it, our closest living relatives, the Bonobo chimps, have sex a lot, both with members of the same sex and opposite sex, sex is just as (maybe even more so) important for social reasons as it is for reproduction. I would hardly call being gay a 'malfunction' of the brain, is liking blondes over brunettes a 'malfunction'? it is mearly different sexual preferences, and saying that one is ok and another is a 'malfunction' is just really insulting.

 

[Ezteq]

Oh and as for the biology of it, our closest living relatives, the Bonobo chimps, have sex a lot, both with members of the same sex and opposite sex, sex is just as (maybe even more so) important for social reasons as it is for reproduction. I would hardly call being gay a 'malfunction' of the brain, is liking blondes over brunettes a 'malfunction'? it is mearly different sexual preferences, and saying that one is ok and another is a 'malfunction' is just really insulting.

man I love those guys! Bonobo's should be what we aim to achieve, so chilleed out its great and im sure if i were to post the footage of the "gay" octopus I'd get about 20 of you all going OLD! maybe everyone who mentioned evolution as an argument against homosexuality ought to think about the world evolution again, maybe this is a natural progression hmm?

The point Orm made about left handed people is one I was thinking of because it really wasn't that long ago that it was thought to be very wrong to be left handed, when I was in physiotherapy one of the women there (who wasn't very old at all) said that her son had a teacher who used to bind his hand (he was left handed) and make him write with the right one, as soon as she found out about this she went spare.

I believe the word sinister even means from the left and was often applied to left handed people "he is a sinister character". Looking at this way of thinking now I think how idiotic and supersititious it is and I find it hard to imagine why anyone would be compelled to believe such codswallop, hopefully in 20 years time people will look back on discussions like this and think the same.

 

[tris-]

My point is that if you want to have predjudice views then thats your problem, but when you go around preaching that a group of people are "wrong" or "evil" or "not 'real' men" for doing something that doesn't hurt anyone, then thats just taking "free speach" too far.

as far as i know he isnt doing that. hes saying being gay is an illness and he can help to cure it.

 

[Chronictank]

Oh and as for the biology of it, our closest living relatives, the Bonobo chimps, have sex a lot, both with members of the same sex and opposite sex, sex is just as (maybe even more so) important for social reasons as it is for reproduction. I would hardly call being gay a 'malfunction' of the brain, is liking blondes over brunettes a 'malfunction'? it is mearly different sexual preferences, and saying that one is ok and another is a 'malfunction' is just really insulting.

no those chimps are bi-sexual, i.e. will fuck anything with a hole.
If they were truley gay they would be dead within one generation.

As for your blonde vs brunettes, thats evolution if you go far enough back into someones routes you will find your preference is based on your enviroment, there is a study somewhere i cant find it atm tho.
blonde hair occured to get the attention of males in a predominantly brown haired society, this trait got passed down etc. GCSE biology ...

What's really insulting is the fact you dismiss the argument without even thinking about it, there have been some very good points made to and fro in this thread so far

maybe everyone who mentioned evolution as an argument against homosexuality ought to think about the world evolution again, maybe this is a natural progression hmm?

if someone was truely gay tradtitionally their family tree will stop there, therefore is not a evolutionary trait, so there is no evolution.

Personally i think IVF is a mistake until genetic defects can be fixed in the child before its born as rather than weed out (for lack of a better phrase, no offence intended) like it usually is by natural selection we are prolonguing and extending the lifetime of a large number of illnesses and diseases by artificially creating the baby, but thats a discussion for another time

 

[noblok]

no those chimps are bi-sexual, i.e. will fuck anything with a hole.
If they were truley gay they would be dead within one generation.

Thing is though, as mankind has found a way to get round this problem (IVF), you can't consider it a defect anymore, as they are able to reproduce. True, they aren't able to reproduce in a 'natural' way, but your average man isn't even able to survive in a 'natural' way any longer. One could argue that as soon as you craft a spear to hunt, you make use technology to survive. It's exactly this use of technology which makes us the most 'fit' species.

Personally i think IVF is a mistake until genetic defects can be fixed in the child before its born as rather than weed out (for lack of a better phrase, no offence intended) like it usually is by natural selection we are prolonguing and extending the lifetime of a large number of illnesses and diseases by artificially creating the baby, but thats a discussion for another time

This doesn't apply to homosexual people or people with no disease/defect other than infertility though. The only reason why natural selection would filter them out is because they can't reproduce, not because they're not fit enough to survive.

 

[old.Tohtori]

if someone was truely gay tradtitionally their family tree will stop there, therefore is not a evolutionary trait, so there is no evolution.

Well actually it would be, in a sense, evolution. It eradicates a whole family tree from the genepool.

 

[yaruar]

it is your opinion there is nothing to fix, it is just as valid argument to say there is something wrong with them as there is to say there isn't for the reasons highlighted in the previous posts

It is "stupid", to say that people who believe being gay is wrong are stupid as they are far from it if they have just as valid reasons against it that you have for it.

Is intolerance, bigotry and ignorance a mental illness and a genetic failure, in which case i'd gladly see people expressing opinions like the ones earlier in this thread terminated in the womb. *kisses*

 

[Gamah]

 

[yaruar]

Testosterone is masculinized by receptors in the brain called 'Androgen' receptors. Low counts of Androgen receptors, or above average counts can cause psychological effects. A common theory is that homosexuality is due to a variation of this. Therefore you COULD class it as a medical disorder.

I agree with both Nikon and tris in a way. The majority of homosexuals are unhappy with how they are, and wish they could change - Only a small percentage can actually deep down say, yeah I'm glad I'm gay, and fuck what anyone else thinks. Personally I do not see any problem with anyone (of religious or non-religious belief) offering help to homosexuals, and I'd bet that the christian bloke gets a lot of men in who want to change. I feel that homosexuality is over-publicised these days, and a lot of television dramas and soaps have actors playing in-your-face gay characters, who go around parading their sexuality as if everyone should be like that. It seems to be everywhere I look. Don't get me wrong, they have as much right to life as I do, but I'd honestly prefer it if they kept it slightly more quiet.

Afterall, it isnt 'normal'.

Nothing is normal. No one on here is normal. Non procreative sex goes against the "natural urge to reproduce" Normality is a social construct. All advanced animals have a large percentage of "gay" practicing animals. Some species are exclusively bisexual in their practices (bonobos being the classic example)

And the reason why gay people are unhappy is clearly represented in this thread, because they spend their daily lives dealing with prejudice and ignorance and in a lot of cases live in fear of their lives.

As for homosexuals on tv parading their sexuality, 99 percent of tv is heterosexuals parading their sexuality, that's the nature of the beast. One can only hope that ignorant predjudices like yours die out when you fail in your natural urge to breed because no one will do it with you