|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
posted January 30, 2004 07:43 PM |
|
|
Acu?!?!? Shame on you LOL
Let the man express his views. That's what keeps things lively! He did not say anything terrible. He just disagrees with some of the other posters... and the scientific data, by the way.
Quote:
...I want to point out that statistically, children raised in gay unions do not present any statistically significant difference in the numbers of children who grow into adulthood as gay. Either way, the percentage rides right around 10% to 11% according to present statistics.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
regnus_khan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
[ Peacekeeper of Equilibris ]
|
posted January 30, 2004 07:59 PM |
|
|
my opinion from the long times forgotten
I have always thought that gay people are so silly, because of their deficits in friendship, self-confidence.
But when I grew up I understood that gay people are wise and inseparable part of humans (alike lesbians). I think that they should have the same rights alike us. Also, I don't think normal people are above all of gays and lesbians. They have some more rights now, but I think in future there we'll be more equality between them. I think that there is no rights about wedding of the gay people or having children (there is some, but not many). I think that they should have the rights to adopt children. I don't think that this can affect the mind or intelligence of the children they have adopted. Still, it can affect if their classmates laughed at them or told bad things.
Lesbians (alike gays) should have the same rights. I think their children aren't affected so much by insults because lesbians are not common and are not so strange people. They should also adopt children, marry or do whatever they want without breaking laws.
I have a friend who is also a gay, but he doesn't show this or talk about it. I think only few people know who he is and I don't have anything against him. He's a genious person only this thing makes him different from normal people.
But why gay people should be different? They have the own rights, live at the same place, talk like us, think like us, loves like us. Let the gay people be the same - or at least, not different. I've listed so many similarities here that should affect our minds and make us think about them like about ourselves.
So the main idea is that if people are gay or lesbians, that doesn't matter. It is their own will, destiny and only they can choose it. And we must have nothing against them. Nothing...
____________
|
|
redhawk
Known Hero
Gaurdian Supreme
|
|
posted January 31, 2004 04:02 AM |
|
|
I could not get back to this sight to reply, I was jousting with mydoom/novarg. Anyhow, We as A people are all equal in my opinion, I judge people for who they are inside not what they are on the outside. I am according to the d&d test in no simple terms A lawful good Cavalier, I say Grace, I say maam, I hold doors open For everyone ( not just women ) I stop to help when someone is stranded, And I certainly will defend the weak And helpless. I'm just A friendly guy who feels good when he helps others. So if I am crazy for defending gay people then call the asylum, cause I'm on my way. P.s. I hope they have cable.lol.
____________
It's better to burn out, Than fade away !!!!!!!!
|
|
Vycka1234
Known Hero
|
posted January 31, 2004 09:47 AM |
|
|
Peacemaker: thanks for defending me.
Aculias: why did you get so angry on my?
____________
|
|
redhawk
Known Hero
Gaurdian Supreme
|
|
posted January 31, 2004 02:17 PM |
|
|
Vyka1234 Me thinks Aculias was being funny hence the lol. but on the subject, yes gay people can raise straight children homosexuality is an individual choice not a learned traight. besides the peer pressure has more influence on a child then parents ever will.
____________
It's better to burn out, Than fade away !!!!!!!!
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted February 02, 2004 03:22 AM |
|
|
“Imagine being raised by gays you will become a gay ofcourse, everyone would tease you.“
Well, Vycka, simply put, that was the reason (my fear) why I’m not sure if we should allow gay-couples to adopt children.
“homosexuality is an individual choice not a learned traight.”
I don’t believe this is true. I think that the way we are (and what choices we make) is influenced almost entirely by our surronding.
“besides the peer pressure has more influence on a child then parents ever will.”
What? Peers have more influence than parents? Even in the early years of childhood when sexuality is being formed?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
redhawk
Known Hero
Gaurdian Supreme
|
|
posted February 02, 2004 03:30 AM |
|
|
|
There is also A very good chance that the child will do A 180, And be the opposite of there parents. How many of us have followed in there parents footsteps, not I.........
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted February 02, 2004 10:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
“Imagine being raised by gays you will become a gay ofcourse, everyone would tease you.“
Well, Vycka, simply put, that was the reason (my fear) why I’m not sure if we should allow gay-couples to adopt children.
“homosexuality is an individual choice not a learned traight.”
I don’t believe this is true. I think that the way we are (and what choices we make) is influenced almost entirely by our surronding.
“besides the peer pressure has more influence on a child then parents ever will.”
What? Peers have more influence than parents? Even in the early years of childhood when sexuality is being formed?
I'm telling you guys as a gay person. I never 'learned the trait'. I had no way to learn it. My mum and dad are straight, I had no contact with gay people, I played with boys toys. Nobody could point at my upbringing and say 'oh he's going to be gay'. I imagine it's true for an awful lot of others. I have talked about the idea of 'choice' in a previous post, you should all read it if you hold this view, see what you think. Especially since I would have apparently 'chose' my lifestyle at the tender age of 9.
I'm not saying your views may not have some validity as we aren't 100% sure why homosexual behaviour arises by a long shot. But they're just not true for me.
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted February 03, 2004 04:53 PM |
|
|
I’m not saying that homosexuals consciously decide to be that way. I think it’s a subconscious urge, feeling they have, which is the result of a complex mix of all the factors of one’s surrounding. No normal person would one day wake up and say: ”Ok, from now on I’ll be gay.”
This also doesn’t mean that you can’t become a gay if your parents are not or if you have played with boy-toys, as Asmodean says. But there are surely factors in his life which made him feel the way he does. And age 9, in my opinion is not “a tender age”. A child’s sexuality is starting to be formed much earlier than then, probably as early as 5. If you think that it’s a genetical trait and you were just “born that way”, than that means that trait runs in your family. Also you mentioned the example with the twins who have the same genes and yet they are not both gays. All these examples show that it’s not likely that homosexuality is something we are born with, but rather something we acquire unconsciously from experience.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
redhawk
Known Hero
Gaurdian Supreme
|
|
posted February 03, 2004 07:25 PM |
|
|
Well put, Svarog. It still comes down to A choice that you have to make in your life, weather to be gay or not. It does not matter how old you are, although you have to be having thoughts about sex in order to be gay or straight for that matter, and I don't believe that A five year old thinks about doing the nasty, unless it involves a mud puddle, or shoving something up his nose.lol.
____________
It's better to burn out, Than fade away !!!!!!!!
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted February 04, 2004 04:12 AM |
|
|
Lol! Funny comments. But 5-year olds sometimes touch their sex organs or think about naked people, even though they don't know what sex is. Research more about Froyd on this issue.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
posted February 04, 2004 05:29 PM |
|
|
The Ohio legislature just passed a bill to ban recognition of same-sex unions.  Thankfully, I don't live in Ohio, but this is an alarming trend. I'm mad and inspired to post for the 234,564th time that alternative sexualities are not a choice!
Point 1:
Quote:
First there is the scientific/psychological aspect. Studies seem to indicate that there is a genetic link to homosexuality, while on the other hand literature indicates that the environment also has a strong impact. We know that homosexuality is not completely genetic as the twin studies indicate that homosexuality is prevalent in about 40-50% of those identical twins who are reared separately and in different environment. If homosexuality was completely genetic then there would be a 100% correspondence.
This quote is from Dargon's post on the first page. He's right; a completely genetic cause would result in 100% correspondence between twins. However, there's another point that seems to have been lost in this debate: a completely non-genetic cause would result in correspondance similar to the general population, something between 5-10% depending on your source. 40%-50% is a considerable difference. There is a smaller, but still significant, correspondence between fraternal twins and non-twin siblings. The correspondance between adopted siblings is not significantly different that that between two complete strangers (in the same culture). Conclusion: Genetics is not an all-or-nothing proposition. There is some genetic cause behind homosexuality.
Point 2:
Genetics are undoubtably outside of our conscious control, but they are not the only factor of our lives that we don't choose. In an earlier post (in this thread? or another?), I pointed out that one's mother language is not genetically determined, but it's certainly not something we choose. Another analogy would be intelligence as measured by IQ. It, too, has both genetic and enviromental factors, discernable in the many twin studies on the subject. The correspondance is about ~70-80% in most studies -- much higher than average, but not quite 100%. Yet, no one assumes the variance to be attributable to choice. Similarly, I submit that the other influences of sexual orientation which act in concert with genetics are also not under our control.
Point 3:
This one has been made before but apparently needs to be brought up again. If homosexuality is a choice, than all sexuality is a choice. At what point did you straight folks actively decide, "I'm going to be straight, not gay"? Could you choose to be gay if you wanted to? Or are your passionate attractions beyond the scope of rational decision-making? (Ever tried to get rid of a doomed crush?) Also, in order to support the choice theory, you must explain why someone would choose to be gay, and why they would stay gay, when there is so much to lose and so little to gain in that minority-status identity.
And now, having repeated myself and others yet again, I withdraw. 
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 04, 2004 08:16 PM |
|
|
I recently watched a program on the History Channel about the origins of the Christian Bible. Apparently at one time long ago, there was a whole book titled "Psalm of Songs" (I think that's what they were saying) which was a tribute to erotic love as an act standing alone and as one of God's greatest gifts to humanity.
Over the centuries, there were increasing pressures from a Christian constituency who followed St. Augustine and the Apostle Paul, both of whom grew to be repulsed by any desire that they perceived was a threat to, or that rivaled their love of God. This campaign condemned any kind of sexual desire as a sin, and held the position that the only justification for engaging in the carnal, sinful act of sex was for the sole purpose of creating children. (I believe this is also the impetus behind celibacy in the Priesthood.)
If you will notice, no current book of the Bible includes the Psalm of Songs any longer. The reason for this is that the campaign against erotic love as a sin eventually won out -- not because of anything Jesus ever said, but because the individuals in control of which portions of the Bible are to be included, and which of them are to be excluded, were incluenced by this trend in the institution of Christianity. This theory of the sinfulness of sex became so pervasive in the thinking of the Church that for a long period in history, Catholics and other more orthdox Christians engaged in the parochal practice of making love with their clothes on through holes in the bedsheets.
While this campaign successfully, permanently impacted the institution of Christianity, its origins have long been as forgotten as the Psalm of Songs. I have seen many people of Christian influence in this and related threads (e.g. Same Sex Marriage) argue against the idea that innate feelings of erotic love toward another human being justifies homosexuality because the only purpose of having sex is to produce children. Perhaps the influences I have stated here should be acknowledged as a weakness in that argument, and should be taken into consideration when confronting the argument that the inherent "wrongess" of homosexuality is evidenced by the fact that the purpose of producing children is not fulfilled in acts of erotic love between people of the same sex.
I just have one thing to add here. This is one of many influences of Christianity in this society that we watch being played out every day. Using these religious arguments to justify denying people who are different the same rights, has the tacit effect of placing all people under the influences of a certain religion (or religions).
Wolfman, you and I have spent a whole weekend working together on related issues. So I just want to point something out here, mainly in response to some of our dialogue this weekend. It is true that the Founding Fathers were largely a Christian bunch. I think it was James Madison who, you pointed out, directly connected the Ten Commandments to the Constitution and the laws of this country. But many of those same Founding Fathers were responsible for the Bill of Rights. Under the First Amendment, they explicitly protected the rights of American individuals to practice religion, or not, as they see fit -- not as any government institution would impose:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
This clause is more commmonly referred to as the "Establishment Clause." It is the cornerstone of the separation of Church and State in this country. It has historically been interpreted to stand for the complete non-involvement of religion in state laws and other affairs.
If this country is to be as religiously egalitarian as the First Amendment to the Constitution expressly states it is, then it is unconstitutional on its face to press religious doctrine as the justification for any law under which all free Americans must live.
Thanks for reading!
EDIT: For an accounting of three different versions of The Ten Commandments (none of which say that homosexuality is a sin by the way), go here:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.pdf
(Sorry to some of you for the title of that site.)
|
|
Shadowcaster
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
|
|
posted February 04, 2004 09:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you will notice, no current book of the Bible includes the Psalm of Songs any longer.
Actually, I haven't seen a Bible without the book. Check between Ecclesiastes and Isaiah and you'll find it, but the name varies for some reason with different versions of the Bible. I've seen it called Song of Songs and Song of Solomon, and perhaps Psalm of Songs is a veritable title as well, but no matter the name, the book remains.
____________
>_>
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted February 04, 2004 09:27 PM |
|
|
“However, there's another point that seems to have been lost in this debate: a completely non-genetic cause would result in correspondence similar to the general population, something between 5-10% depending on your source. 40%-50% is a considerable difference.”
But you miss a very important point. Identical twins are raised in a similar surrounding, even more similar than that of siblings, because they are often treated very conformisticly. That’s why the percent is larger.
I agree 100% that sexuality is not a choice, at least not a conscious one. But I strongly believe that the environment is the sole (or at least 90%) factor which determines sexuality.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 04, 2004 09:29 PM |
|
|
<BLUSHES>
Uh Oh. Talking out of school again am I?
Well, let's make sure we're talking about the same thing. Shadowcaster, what is the substance of the book you're referring to?
I'm sorry I don't readily have a copy of the Bible handy...but they pretty clearly stated on the program that the book has been removed.
Look forward to hearing back from any of you on this.
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted February 04, 2004 10:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But you miss a very important point. Identical twins are raised in a similar surrounding, even more similar than that of siblings, because they are often treated very conformisticly. That’s why the percent is larger.
I assumed the twin studies were done on identical twins that were separated at birth. That is the usual procedure when the researchers are looking at nature/nurture. The numbers might have been from the massive University of Minnesota study on separated twins -- that's where my IQ figures came from. However, even if the researchers in question didn't control for enviroment (a serious oversight, if true), why would identical twins have a higher correspondence than fraternal twins or normal siblings and higher again than adopted siblings if there was no genetic factor?
Fun scholarly quibbles:
The Song of Solomon, King James Bible version.
The attitudes that Peacemaker describes leaked into the Church from surrounding cultural developments. At the time of Christianity's development, there were strains of pagan Neoplatonist philosophy that also degraded the material, carnal world in favor of the spiritual/intellectual realm. Gnosticism fed off this trend as well. The institution of Christianity merely incorporated ideas that were floating around at the time and dogmatized them. In addition, it wasn't just sex that got the short end of the stick; people revered saints who went for years without eating, bathing, moving, etc. Nowadays, someone who shuns the world and spends ten years perched on top of a pillar is called a lunatic, not a saint. Yet the related attitude towards sex is still alive and kicking.
Sorry, I had a whole class on Late Antiquity thought...neat stuff.
|
|
Shadowcaster
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
|
|
posted February 04, 2004 11:51 PM |
|
|
Song of Solomon is a book in which a husband and wife exchange extolling remarks, some of them rather graphic, especially considering I read this book first in second grade or thereabouts. It was definitely a topic of discussion back then.
I haven't actually read the book much since those first few times, and therefore have not surveyed it with the capacity to understand the content. From what I gather, the book portrays love and sex (when not abused) as wonderful and God-ordained practices.
____________
>_>
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
posted February 05, 2004 02:46 AM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 4 Feb 2004
|
I just read through the Song of Solomon online. It's very obviously a love poem between newly-weds. While somewhat graphic on its face for second-graders, I'm pretty sure it's even more graphic if one bothers to unpack the metaphors.  The religious imagery is minimal. In fact, aside from its references to King Solomon, it's not clear why this book is included in scripture at all. Does anyone know the history of this text? How'd it get canonized?
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
redhawk
Known Hero
Gaurdian Supreme
|
|
posted February 12, 2004 05:35 AM |
|
|
Ok, Enough about the bible and froyd. If homosexuality is not A choice, then it must be a chemical imbalance, or mental retardation. Since my first guess was wrong according to all of you. If anyone has A better explanation lets here it in plain simple terms since I am simple minded.
____________
It's better to burn out, Than fade away !!!!!!!!
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
