Homosexuality: What's up with that? (V.2)

There is also the concept of forgivness if one turns from their ways and repents.


Somehow that's just...ridiculous..sexual attraction isn't something one can control, although some religions would have you believe it's as easy as turning on a light switch.

 

Again, I don't think it's a matter of determining who you're attracted to. It's a matter of whether you embrace that attraction.

 

That attraction is part of who I am. What am I to do if not embrace it, and accept it as part of myself? It's not as though I can simply get rid of that attraction. Am I to be ashamed of it for the rest of my life?

 

I view Homosexuality from a biologist's point of view. If the main purpose of life is to propagate one's genes, and ensure the survival of the species, then homosexuality defeats that purpose. If Homosexuality became the norm in Human Society, then the human race would doom itself to extinction. Also, I personally don't believe that homosexuals are smitten by god, or doomed to hell...but I also believe that homosexuality does not occur naturally in nature. Of course, it isn't easy to quantify human beliefs and emotions, so this is a very intricate subject.

Also, I firmly believe that Homosexuality should not be taught to kids as being common or the "norm". Sometimes, when you suggest things like this to kids, they start believing it.

However, in light of this opinion of mine, I believe that people should be allowed to live how they want to. And they should definitely not be harassed or persecuted for who they are.

 

Sorry Knightwriter. Edited.

I just personally believe that kids should be taught to accept homosexuality. It is something that is going to come up in their lives and rather then fearing it or telling people they think it's unnatural - they should just accept it.

Kithera

 

Was that really necessary?

There's a difference between agreement and acceptance, I believe.

 

Remember, the driving force behind fitness is sucessful reproduction of offspring that in turn produce offspring. The act of producing offspring alone does not equate to greater fitness. There are instances in the animal kingdom where an animal will forego its reproduction in order to ensure the reproductive sucess of its sibling. This is called kin selection. Through kin selection, the animal that doesn't reproduce has a greater fitness because they ensure the propogation of 50% of their genes through their sibling's line. In contrast, if they did not help their sibling, their fitness would be lessened because the likelyhood of them sucessfully reproducing would be slim.


What's this have to do with the topic?

What I am saying is that you cannot say homosexuality is unnatural just because it does not result in the production of offspring. You could say that it is not *favored*, but it certainly isn't unnatural. There may be evolutionary factors that influenced the rise of homosexuality that you haven't taken into account.

 

Don't forget, that with artificial insemination, some Homosexual partners are using it to conceive children of their own.

I have a gay brother and a lesbian sister, and I've met their partners. They all just live their lives quietly, are decent people, and their lifestyle is OK by me.
They all have decided against having children, just as some hetero couples I know have, mainly because they work and travel so much of the time. But they all are very kind to their nieces and nephews.

BTW -- what about Bi-sexuals? What's up with them?

 

"Also, I firmly believe that Homosexuality should not be taught to kids as being common or the "norm". Sometimes, when you suggest things like this to kids, they start believing it."

It's not the case to teach them that homosexuality is the norm (I somehow am starting to dislike this word). Of course it is not, but just because it is a variation doesn't mean it has to be treated like an abnormality. Tolerance is the word.

For example:
Here were I live, people with curled hair are not the norm. Let's discriminate them, ban them to gettos, or show them how to straighten their hair, because that is the norm.

 

That attraction is part of who I am. What am I to do if not embrace it, and accept it as part of myself? It's not as though I can simply get rid of that attraction. Am I to be ashamed of it for the rest of my life?

It's not as if I'm expecting homosexuals to be unique in their denial of certain aspects of their personality.

People who have unusually quick tempers should deny that part of themselves and keep it in check. Heterosexuals must keep their own sexual attractions in check: the unmarried must abstain, and the married must remain faithful.

If morality is a real and important thing, and if our natural selves do not completely align with morality, then we should deny those parts that are immoral. Fortunately, I believe that we are not alone in our efforts, that God Himself can help those who ask. But what is required of us as a first step is the recognition that self-denial is not an unusual prerequisite for morality.

 

It's not as if I'm expecting homosexuals to be unique in their denial of certain aspects of their personality.

People who have unusually quick tempers should deny that part of themselves and keep it in check. Heterosexuals must keep their own sexual attractions in check: the unmarried must abstain, and the married must remain faithful.

If morality is a real and important thing, and if our natural selves do not completely align with morality, then we should deny those parts that are immoral. Fortunately, I believe that we are not alone in our efforts, that God Himself can help those who ask. But what is required of us as a first step is the recognition that self-denial is not an unusual prerequisite for morality.

Yes and all of that is a pretty big 'if'. I just have to snicker at that little comment you made though the unmarried must abstain what if you're homosexual? They're unmarried and can't get married so what do you suggest for them?

 

Become a christian priest

 

It's not as if I'm expecting homosexuals to be unique in their denial of certain aspects of their personality.

Yes, it is. You're asking homosexuals to forever deny a very basic and potent biological drive.

People who have unusually quick tempers should deny that part of themselves and keep it in check.

And yet again homosexuality is lumped into a category in which it is equated with behaviors that specifically harm others. Amazing.

Heterosexuals must keep their own sexual attractions in check: the unmarried must abstain, and the married must remain faithful.

This is flawed on so many levels:

1) With the advent of reliable birth control, no one ever need wait until marriage to get jiggy with it.

2) You're asking homosexuals to fight their sexual urges for their entire lives, while the happy fun heteros only need wait for marriage. Nice.

3) Wonder of wonders, homosexuals have life-long commitments, just like heterosexuals. If ducks can do it, so can fags.

4) All of this works under the presumption that your faith is 100% correct and faiths that see things differently are wrong. It operates under the concept that everyone should be a part of your little religion - Christianity is by no means the most populace religion in this world.

If morality is a real and important thing, and if our natural selves do not completely align with morality, then we should deny those parts that are immoral.

Life is immoral. We live in an immoral world. Life operates thanks to death. In order to survive, we must kill. This is a horrific fact of life and something that, in human terms, in human morality, is terrifying. We only cope with it because myth and religion have helped us to find ways in which to embrace this vile way of life.

Fortunately, I believe that we are not alone in our efforts, that God Himself can help those who ask.

Give us the hotline number, then.

It has been my experience that God hasn't said much of late, and even when He did make assertions, thousands of years ago, it was via a solitary person who came down from a mountain or out of the desert - the kind of person that would, by today's standards be termed a raving looney.

But what is required of us as a first step is the recognition that self-denial is not an unusual prerequisite for morality.

I'll deny myself only to improve myself or to help others - not because of ancient dogma or because someone on a pulpit told me to do so. As it stands, denying my sexuality would do no one any good and do me a bitch of a lot of harm.

 

"I view Homosexuality from a biologist's point of view. If the main purpose of life is to propagate one's genes, and ensure the survival of the species, then homosexuality defeats that purpose. If Homosexuality became the norm in Human Society, then the human race would doom itself to extinction. Also, I personally don't believe that homosexuals are smitten by god, or doomed to hell...but I also believe that homosexuality does not occur naturally in nature. Of course, it isn't easy to quantify human beliefs and emotions, so this is a very intricate subject."

JediBeowulf, answer me a question. Do you believe ANY kind of sexual act not specificly designed to reproduce offspring to be unnatural? Do you believe it is unnatural for a couple to have sex if they do not intend to reproduce?

Survival is alot more complicated than reproduction. The human race are not facsists that kill those who we consider weak and obsolete, for example those that cannot have children anyway.

Teaching the next generation everything we know is every bit as important as reproduction itself. And it is important to teach children to accept homosexuals. Just as we teach children to accept handicaps, people of different races, people of different religions, etc. We do NOT teach our children to look down on others, or to ignore other cultures, etc, as though they don't even exist. To ignore homosexuals in the education system would be doing that.

 

Bubba:

Deny an important part of yourself to satisfact other people's conception of morality: don't you think that itself is immoral?

Don't get me wrong. I think morality at a certain level is good. Is what makes us live in society. Without morals, I could kill or harm anybody without restrain. But what harm can possible do to you what other people willingly do in their beds?

 

Everyone has different ideas of morality. Bubba believes sex outside of marriage is immoral. He's aloud to think that, and it's kinda pointless to try and change his mind.

 

I wouldn't try to convince Bubba to change his views, but I do think that it is important to counter them, as there may be some reading this thread who sit on the fence with this issue and if such views go unchallenged, those people may end up siding with him. I'll have none of that.

 

Kaui-Gone-Jim,

What would you like to know about a bi-sexual? I can only speak for myself, however, I am bi-sexual, and am sexually attracted to members of both genders, it does not keep me from having long term comitted relationships with members of either gender. I have been married twice, both long term, and both ending for reasons other than my sexual orientation... Anything else you would like to know please ask.

Jaded

 

I have a question for you Lyta...

Do you have to have relatioships with other women? Or in other words, could you live a completely heterosexual life?

 

Well that is the question of the century isn't it... As stated I am bi-sexual, I am attracted to both men and women, have had relationships with both men and women, exclusive of each other. This is a BIG difference from being lesbian, which I am not. So conceivably, I could have a completely 'het' life if I found the right guy, which I thought I had for a long time. However, my ex thought encouraging my attraction to women was the thing to do, and I have this strong tendancy towards having monogomous <sp> relationships, I don't mess around on someone I am with, not my style. However, at the same time I firmly believe that gays and lesbians are attracted to members of the same gender and not those of the opposite, therefore they cannot live a completely 'het' life in a 'het' relationship, unless they are living a lie, and from those I know who have done this, they are usually very un-happy people often suffering from depression.

Just my 2 creds worth.

Jaded

 

Lyta,
I understand your POV. In my experience, women who are willing to date men who have dated men tend to be women who are turned on by the thought of two men together. Therefore, all of the women that I have dated have tried to cajole me into some sort of three way or "go pick up a guy so I can watch!" sort of deal.

 

but I also believe that homosexuality does not occur naturally in nature. Actually, it does. Pick up the book Birds do it, Too. There's an amazing account in there of two male birds setting up...ummm... nest together and raising a chick from an egg that had been laid there by a Brown-headed Cowbird. Amazing, but true!

 

*sings* Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it...

 

I can't get my links to work to save my life... if anyone can look at what I wrote and tell me where I went wrong, I'd appreciate it.

Darth Mischievous, your argument comes from Romans 1:26-27. While I will agree with you that that verse does go more into it than any other out there, I would like to point out that there has been writing to the contrary by more than a few religious leaders. One example I found within a few minutes of searching is at http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/bennett.html. In it, John S. Morgan, who was Bishop of Atlanta writes,

If it be granted that gay and lesbian identity is "natural", then St. Paul can be scrupulously honored wherever homosexuality is seen to be rooted in Paul?s own word: phooskos, meaning "agreeable to nature". As we have evolved a new and higher regard for women than was true for Paul in his time, so we are evolving a new regard for same-sex attraction than was true for Paul, and for most of us, in both his time and our own. That is why the Episcopal Church and other progressively oriented denominations are moving toward legitimizing "same-sex unions". It is a plain matter of justice. It is also a matter of providing a sacramental structure for the expression and protection of the Christian sexual ethic of monogamy, fidelity and life-long intent.

Note that he argues for monogamy, fidelity and life-long intent. That is all our homosexual friends are looking for. I'm hearing everyone who is against homosexual unions say that they are willing to deny any non-repentant homosexual any lifelong companions whatsoever. That is a very, very selfish thing, if that's true.

I have a few homosexual friends who have tried to deny their attraction. All that denial led to was stolen unions with one-night stands (not moral in anyones book) so that they could appear moral and subsequently depression that they couldn't be open about themself.

 

Sorry... double post.