Hravan
Journeyman
Life is a Musical
Posts: 106
|
Post by Hravan on Oct 2, 2008 19:30:07 GMT -5
I started writing a reply and as I was writing I realised something.... I don't actually believe in such a thing as heterosexual or homosexual. I don't think anyone can 100% say "yes I prefer the same gender" or "yes, I prefer the opposite gender". One day you may meet someone who you develop such a bond with that you do actually want to have a physical relationship with regardless of what your preferred choice of gender was/how you were brought up.
And marriage is a public way of stating that bond and so everyone should have the right to do so....
I might explain a bit more later but at the moment it's 1:30am and I'm pretty tired so it will have to wait....
|
|
Raivynn
Journeyman
...my winter storm
Posts: 187
|
Post by Raivynn on Oct 4, 2008 17:02:58 GMT -5
I actually agree with you, to a point. There are people who are 100% homosexual. There are people who are 100% heterosexual. There are bisexuals, some prefer the same sex, some prefer the opposite sex and there are people like me who are 50/50.
But, I do agree that there are many, many people out there that are open to opposite or same sex relationships depending on there orientation. There are many people out there that fall for the same sex that are surprised by there feelings but go with it.
All that aside..I absolutely 100% agree with this
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Oct 15, 2008 19:35:16 GMT -5
The legalization of gay marriage is a different kettle of fish, and it applies to the laws of our society, nothing more, and nothing less. Laws in a society are designed to protect society as a whole, and are by nature an infringement of individual liberty, albeit a necessary one. In this case, the social ramifications are many, many of which cannot be comprehended until they come to fruition, at which point it will be too late to change them. Yes, there will be consequences if gay marriage is legalized. Both good and bad. Sorry, I'm starting to resemble a parrot... I must have said that about 5 times on this forum now. What makes you so sure that legalizing gay marriage will have a negative effect on society? That sounds like a pretty hard thing to predict. I don't know the history of your country, so I can't speak to that. I do know the history of mine though, and what I stated was fact not supposition. They did press for both of those things, and if an when the controversy over gay marriage settles down in favor of it, they will press for it again, and eventually they will win. Again, how exactly do you know this? The only difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships is gender. These relationships all consist of two people who care about each other, two people who are in love. Polygamy? That is a totally different animal and a totally different discussion. It is the same with pedophilia. I think though that a valid argument is the fact that the brain does not fully develop until a certain age, and therefore teenagers and younger cannot make a truly rational decision concerning something like love. This could often end up damaging a person's future and can often be dangerous. If on the other hand, you believe it is solely due to external forces, then you could say that by causing people to be afraid to be thought bigoted if they don't like homosexuality, they are attempting to perpetuate their personal life style by forcing society to accept it as normal, to be allowed to expose younger people, at a more impressionable point in their lives, to the idea that not only is it okay to be gay, but that the idea of being gay should be embraced. So, either way, the push is to force homosexuality on people. If it wasn't they would happily live together, sign contracts to cover the legal aspects of that, and be married by a church willing to do so, if that was their wish, without trying to change the rest of society in the process. They want society to think that they are normal so that they will be accepted, just like heterosexuality is considered normal. That way, people who have tendencies to be attracted to the same sex won't feel ashamed. People will not become gay just because it is acceptable. If they like the same sex, that's fine. If they are attracted to the opposite sex, that's fine too. The knowledge of the existence of homosexuality will not make you gay. They are in NO way pushing homosexuality in people. They simply want it to be known that being gay is nothing to be ashamed of, and that it is just as acceptable as being straight. It is just as much about gays in the closet as it is about gays who want to marry. Gays who do not want to force homosexuality on others would not live happily ever after knowing that their marriage isn't recognized by the state while heterosexual coupes' marriages are. What? Yes, being gay should be embraced. Being straight should be embraced. Your personality, your opinions, and your personality should all be embraced. This has nothing to do with homosexuality. People who are pro-gay marriage do not think "Oh, if you wanna be straight, that's fine, it's normal. But if you're gay, awwwww you special person come here give me a hug." (*snicker*) This may be true. However, my point was that laws are designed to protect society from the bad side of human nature, and changing them to accommodate a small minority of people, and in the process negating a major building block of that society, is detrimental to society as a whole, especially when there is no need to do so to protect the individuals seeking the change from society as a whole, and the change is solely due to a desire to force social change, especially when the future ramifications to society are not taken into account. Well... we will just have to disagree on homosexuality being "a bad side of human nature".
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 20, 2008 20:19:07 GMT -5
We wandered into this subject over in the Who would you vote for thread. And, while I understand that this is an election issue for many people, as we were getting more into the philosophy behind the issue, so I decided to respond over here. But the thing is, a gay couple is neither single nor really old people. They can be just as stable, safe, secure, loving, financially stable and healthy as the straight couples they approve. The only reason they'd be declined is because they happen to be two males or two females. Plus, it's also hard to be that married stable couple when you're not even legally recognized as one. See my problem with the issue here? If a child brought up by a gay couple suffers emotionally it's most likely not due to its same sex parents but due to the society and its peers for giving them a hard time about it. Perhaps so, but the fact is you will not change society by legislation. It doesn't work that way. So, at this point in our history, homosexuality is not considered main stream. It is not considered normal by society. And a child in a home with two homosexual parents faces being ostracized for that abnormality. You are right that they are not single, old, or poor, they are also not the ideal situation for a child. Most people don't get to pick their parents. But if a child is placed in a situation of being placed for adoption, which will already leave them open to feelings of abandonment and insecurity when they begin to think that their birth parents didn't want them, why would you then also want to saddle that child with additional emotional trauma. Do I believe that would be how it is in every case? Not at all. I'm sure that there are happy homosexual couples. I'm sure that there are stable homosexual couples. I'm sure that there are homosexual couples that would be able to overcome those problems, and possibly teach the child to overcome those problems as well. I just don't believe they are necessarily the norm, and I don't believe that the future of a child should be subject to social experimentation. If we as a society are given the gift of choosing a home for a child, then it is our inherent responsibility to choose the best possible circumstances, and as I said, it would be selfish of us, as adults to put our needs or wants above those of the children we have been given charge of.
|
|
Rhovanion
Apprentice
La Danse Macabre
Posts: 53
|
Post by Rhovanion on Oct 21, 2008 4:30:40 GMT -5
I understand your point of view, ladytera. But if we never take those first steps, when will it ever be a non-issue in mainstream society? If we don't let gay couples adopt now because the children might suffer emotionally due to the crude harshness of society - when will society ever learn to accept them? We have to start somewhere.
Having two mommies or two daddies is hardly abnormal these days with all the divorcing going on (with divorced parents finding new partners). In a homosexual relationship you just have those two mommies together instead of apart.
Families come in all shapes and forms these days. I just don't personally see what the big deal is about a couple's sexual orientation. It shouldn't have to matter. They are human beings just like everyone else. I know that religious views comes into play for some people. But you also have to remember the time and place in which the basis of those religious views were founded. Thousands of years ago in the Middle East. We all know the Middle East isn't exactly the most tolerant place on the planet and it certainly wasn't all those thousands of years ago either. Second of all, we're talking thousands of years ago!!! Back when people were sold off left and right for slave labor, freedom and democracy were unheard of, people were stoned to death for even the most pettiest of 'crimes'. I could go on forever. We're living in different times. Different times call for different measures.
The Bible (and the Tanakh) was written accordingly to how society worked back then. Had Jesus been born today in the 21st century and the Bible written now - it'd be a whole other reading experience I tell you.
How do you feel towards adoption when one of the partners in a gay relationship is expecting a child of their own? Should the other partner be able to adopt that child?
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Oct 21, 2008 6:11:17 GMT -5
If we as a society are given the gift of choosing a home for a child, then it is our inherent responsibility to choose the best possible circumstances, and as I said, it would be selfish of us, as adults to put our needs or wants above those of the children we have been given charge of. Ah, that is true. But so many of these children are left unadopted or are passed around from household to household that I really don't think there will be any less emotional "damage" from being raised by a homosexual couple.
|
|
Raivynn
Journeyman
...my winter storm
Posts: 187
|
Post by Raivynn on Oct 21, 2008 12:27:52 GMT -5
I understand your point of view, ladytera. But if we never take those first steps, when will it ever be a non-issue in mainstream society? If we don't let gay couples adopt now because the children might suffer emotionally due to the crude harshness of society - when will society ever learn to accept them? We have to start somewhere. Having two mommies or two daddies is hardly abnormal these days with all the divorcing going on (with divorced parents finding new partners). In a homosexual relationship you just have those two mommies together instead of apart. Families come in all shapes and forms these days. I just don't personally see what the big deal is about a couple's sexual orientation. It shouldn't have to matter. They are human beings just like everyone else. I know that religious views comes into play for some people. But you also have to remember the time and place in which the basis of those religious views were founded. Thousands of years ago in the Middle East. We all know the Middle East isn't exactly the most tolerant place on the planet and it certainly wasn't all those thousands of years ago either. Second of all, we're talking thousands of years ago!!! Back when people were sold off left and right for slave labor, freedom and democracy were unheard of, people were stoned to death for even the most pettiest of 'crimes'. I could go on forever. We're living in different times. Different times call for different measures. The Bible (and the Tanakh) was written accordingly to how society worked back then. Had Jesus been born today in the 21st century and the Bible written now - it'd be a whole other reading experience I tell you. How do you feel towards adoption when one of the partners in a gay relationship is expecting a child of their own? Should the other partner be able to adopt that child? It's like you reached inside my head and saw what I was thinking.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 21, 2008 12:39:57 GMT -5
Please understand, I didn't say the system was perfect. As to taking the first steps, that is not a thing that you can force on society. It is different from all the other civil rights issues it tries to mimic. Black folks are born black, and have no choice. Disabled folks are born disabled, and have no choice. Women are born women, and have no choice. So far as science can tell yet, homosexuals are not born homosexual. It is a choice. All choices have consequences. If you live in a country where your choice limits your options (please note that is different than a country that limits your options), it is then up to the individual to determine if the benefit outweighs the loss, it is not up to society to remove the consequence. As to your comments on religion, you may want to look back at what you just said, as you get a little touchy when people are condescending. Personally, I'm pretty hard to offend, so I kind of get what you're trying to say without getting cranky. But, in essence, you just stated that the beliefs of Christianity and every other religion that believes homosexuality is a sin, are outdated and that God and Jesus really didn't think those things. And that we should all just look through our beliefs and see which ones we should discard because society has moved on and knows so much better than the God we believe in (whichever god that might be). Can you see where that might annoy people of faith, and how they might take that as an insult? Marriage, to a Christian, is sacred. It is a sacrament given to us by God, and a commitment we make. Having failed at it twice, I won't say we're all very good at it, but our failure does not make the sacrament any less sacred or important, nor does the fact that we can't live up to the ideal mean we should adjust the ideal downward to make it attainable for all. Would the Bible be a different read, if it was written today? Probably so. But, I don't think homosexuality, promiscuity, murder, theft, adultery, or any others of the major sins would be left out. I'd guess there might be a lot of new ones added in though. While I may be able to argue the religious aspect of this with you here, that isn't now, nor has it been, the basis of any of my arguments on this subject. This is a legal matter. All legal proceedings dealing with the custody of children a bound by law to be made based on what is in the best interest of the child. As of now, there is ample evidence that it is not in the best interest of the child, in most cases, to be adopted by homosexual couples. Therefore, it is not the place of the government to dictate that the best interest of the homosexual couple should take priority over the best interest of the child. The other people in here have argued emotion and fairness, but the government is not designed for either one, nor should it be. The law isn't supposed to be what we consider fair, because fair changes from case to case and person to person, and fair is really nothing more than an emotion. The law is designed to be just, and as it pertains to children, it is designed to protect them above protecting those who can protect themselves. As to the so many are left unadopted theory, I don't know the numbers on that, and cannot really speak to it. Seems to me, what you're saying is that gay couples should be a last resort for kids no one else wants. Kind of an odd argument to make, and I'm not entirely sure I'd disagree with the premise in that light. I'd have to give that some more thought. And the question of if a woman should be able to adopt the child of her female partner. That's totally different kettle of fish. And, I don't think it's actually hard to do in most states, although I'm not sure. That is simply one biological parent assigning parental rights to another adult in the child's life. Do I agree with it on a personal level? No. Would I want the government making that decision? NO!!! That is a parental rights issue, and the government, unless you can prove imminent and tangible danger to the child, it is the parent's right to decide who the other adoptive parent will be. I don't object to the courts requiring some stability in the relationship to make that legal step, but beyond that, it's none of their business.
|
|
Raivynn
Journeyman
...my winter storm
Posts: 187
|
Post by Raivynn on Oct 21, 2008 13:57:36 GMT -5
Ah..I have to take up a point about your first paragraph.
I myself am bisexual. This is not, as you put it a choice. I didn't wake up one day and say "hey I know I'll be as equally attracted to women as I am to men". It doesn't work that way. Why would anyone choose to be homosexual? To be ridiculed, attacked verbally and physically and treated with fear and contempt?
Was I born this way? I can say with absolute truth. Yes I was. I fought it for a very long time, because being straight was the only option allowed. Everything else was condemned and you were made to feel ashamed for having non-heterosexual feelings.
I was not made this way. I simply cannot erase that part of myself. Believe me, I tried. I am who I am.
|
|
Rhovanion
Apprentice
La Danse Macabre
Posts: 53
|
Post by Rhovanion on Oct 21, 2008 14:12:46 GMT -5
As to taking the first steps, that is not a thing that you can force on society. It is different from all the other civil rights issues it tries to mimic. Black folks are born black, and have no choice. Disabled folks are born disabled, and have no choice. Women are born women, and have no choice. So far as science can tell yet, homosexuals are not born homosexual. It is a choice. All choices have consequences. If you live in a country where your choice limits your options (please note that is different than a country that limits your options), it is then up to the individual to determine if the benefit outweighs the loss, it is not up to society to remove the consequence. Homosexuality is not a choice. How can it be a choice? Do you choose to be heterosexual? You don't choose who you are attracted to, let alone what gender you are attracted to. Homosexuality exists among several species of the animal kingdom, not just among human beings. Countless of now open gay people say that they knew they were "different" or they knew they were attracted to members of the same sex from a very early age. My sister even knew back in day care she liked girls. It's not like she knew what homosexuality was at that point but she had a very deep and for her age serious crush on several girls. She's never ever been interested in boys. Never. She had a boyfriend in 4th-6th grade sort of as a "cover up" because she didn't want anybody finding out she liked girls. That boy moved away after 6th grade was over. They stumbled upon each other years later when they were both adults. Funnily enough, that boy was now openly gay. As to your comments on religion, you may want to look back at what you just said, as you get a little touchy when people are condescending. Personally, I'm pretty hard to offend, so I kind of get what you're trying to say without getting cranky. But, in essence, you just stated that the beliefs of Christianity and every other religion that believes homosexuality is a sin, are outdated and that God and Jesus really didn't think those things. And that we should all just look through our beliefs and see which ones we should discard because society has moved on and knows so much better than the God we believe in (whichever god that might be). Can you see where that might annoy people of faith, and how they might take that as an insult? Marriage, to a Christian, is sacred. It is a sacrament given to us by God, and a commitment we make. Having failed at it twice, I won't say we're all very good at it, but our failure does not make the sacrament any less sacred or important, nor does the fact that we can't live up to the ideal mean we should adjust the ideal downward to make it attainable for all. I apologize if I might have offended you or any other Christian reading my post. Trust me, it wasn't my intention. I did not say anything about your God not thinking those things so that is not what I meant. But yes, I do feel the Bible is outdated. But that's a whole other discussion I think. About the "And that we should all just look through our beliefs and see which ones we should discard" comment; Christians are already picking and choosing what to follow these days anyways so how is this really any different? Let me just give you one wee (though trivial as it may seem) example. I suspect the majority of Christmas-celebrating Christians decorate a Christmas Tree for the Holidays even though that's strictly spoken against in the Bible since it's "the ways of the Heathen". Yet I don't see any Christians in uproar over Christmas Trees (or any kind of decked out trees). So should I take it then that they either haven't read the Bible properly or that they've gone about the good old "let's pick and choose from the Bible what we want to follow" route? The "nor does the fact that we can't live up to the ideal mean we should adjust the ideal downward to make it attainable for all" comment makes it sound like you're talking of sub-class human beings not even worthy trailer park trash. Just... wow! Would the Bible be a different read, if it was written today? Probably so. But, I don't think homosexuality, promiscuity, murder, theft, adultery, or any others of the major sins would be left out. I can't believe you just likened being in a relationship with another fellow human being that harms NO ONE to murder and theft. And while I think murder and theft would still be listed as sins I don't think homosexuality would be, had the Bible been written today. Homosexuality does not kill. It does not rob anyone of anything. It does not harm anyone whatsoever. It's a tolerance issue, not a crime issue. Jesus was a very tolerant man for the era in which he lived in but like all of us, he was a "child of his time" meaning he was just as affected by the culture and era in which he grew up in as we are. Had he lived today I have no doubt he'd be the head of Amnesty International. But of course, this is just my humble opinion and I'm sure you'd disagree. I also think that the bottom line is; we've all been raised in different cultures. Sweden has always had quite a relaxed and laid-back view on things that are considered controversial in other parts of the world. We're quite liberal and generally tolerant here. You should have seen Gay Pride week in Stockholm back in August. The entire city was decked out in rainbow colors and flags (even the governmental flagpoles sported them). Every single bus had wee Pride flags on top of the roof. In other words, for that week, we were all Gay! It made me very happy.
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Oct 21, 2008 15:50:45 GMT -5
As to the so many are left unadopted theory, I don't know the numbers on that, and cannot really speak to it. Seems to me, what you're saying is that gay couples should be a last resort for kids no one else wants. Kind of an odd argument to make, and I'm not entirely sure I'd disagree with the premise in that light. I'd have to give that some more thought. Ah, I apologize. I worded my post badly. I didn't mean to imply that being raised by homosexual parents would result in emotional scarring. What I meant was I think it's a bit odd to say that we should try and provide the best homes for these children and let so many of them never find a home when there are perfectly capable parents available. Here are a few statistics I dug up... Some are relevant to the topic, others not. I couldn't find exactly how many kids leave foster care without ever being adopted. www.adoptioninstitute.org/FactOverview/foster.htmlHere are a couple that I think are relevant: In 1999, the latest year for which totals have been finalized, there were about 581,000 children in foster care in the United States. Twenty-two percent of these children -- about 127,000 kids -- were available for adoption. Even with the recent increases in adoptions from foster care, the number of children waiting for adoption on September 30, 1999 was more than two-and-a-half times the number of children adopted during that year.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 21, 2008 17:40:40 GMT -5
Keyodie, part of the problem there, and I'll be brief, because we've wandered off topic, is the process of adoption here in the US, and the idea that has promoted quite strongly in many faith based communities that it is necessary to promote adoption from other countries. I personally have little strong opinion on the matter. I can't say as I believe the children here are more or less deserving than those overseas. What I can speak to is that many organization are set up to help US citizens adopt children from Lativia, China, various countries in Africa, etc. Many people looking to adopt choose to go that route, because as difficult and expensive as it is, it is still easier than adoption here in the US can be. On this particular topic, any homosexual couple looking to adopt but finding they cannot do so in the US, might want to look to countries that already have societies accepting of homosexuality as an option for adopting. There would probably be fewer road blocks.
I'll get back here later today or tomorrow to address the specifics that have been posted on homosexuality in the last few posts. At this moment, I want to stress, it was not my intent to offend your sensibilities, nor insult any person on this forum or elsewhere directly. I will not sugar coat my opinions, but I also recognize that they are just that, opinion. And for me, those opinions apply to action and philosophies, never to people. This is the one and only time I will bring this up in this thread, because to constantly apologize for things I believe in is silly and counterproductive to the conversation, but by the same token, unknowingly giving offense because I am not clear in differentiating between my beliefs on a subject in general and the people themselves.
So, for the record, if you are a homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual, I really don't care. Mainly, because that is not who you are, it is simply an aspect of you as a person. I tend to form my thoughts on individuals based on if they are nice, if they are capable of having a reasonably intelligent conversation, if they are interesting to me (please note, if you're not interesting to me that doesn't make you a bad person, it just means I tend to spend my time with people I find interesting, as do most people). Their sexuality, religious beliefs, skin color and gender play little to no role in what I think of them. So, when I speak to this subject, or any other subject that involves judgment of behavior, please, please understand that does not involved judgment of the people. 'Tis no different to me than some of you are liberals, I vehemently disagree with most things liberal, but I like you all anyway as people.
Now, I'll be back later on the topic of nature vs. nurture that has been raised as to how one becomes homosexual or bisexual. I have some thoughts and opinions there, but little hard knowledge.
|
|
Raivynn
Journeyman
...my winter storm
Posts: 187
|
Post by Raivynn on Oct 22, 2008 6:25:16 GMT -5
Now I don't know if you've misunderstood my annoyance and seen it as me being offended. Anyhoo..
The only part that annoyed me is the belief that I, and others, chose to be this way. Chose to be abused, attacked and ridiculed. Chose to be shun by some people and perceived as something less than human. It is not a choice, the attraction to the same sex or both sexes is as much a natural thing as it is for heterosexuals to be attracted to the opposite sex.
I also wasn't singling you out. I'd be annoyed with whoever said it. I'm also not saying you do the things above. Just that these things have and continue to happen to homo/bi-sexuals.
I'm interested in the other things you want to address. Look forward to your next post.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 22, 2008 7:20:30 GMT -5
My next post probably won't come until this evening. My work schedule is jacked as usual.
Nope, I didn't misunderstand, nor did I figure you were particularly offended by me specifically. I just figure at some point, when I get into philosophical differences, there are bound to be some generalizations that come up that will piss off people with a different point of view. When this forum was relatively tiny, with only a few active posters in the debate and discussion forum, the people I was conversing with already knew, from reading my other posts, that I differentiate between people and concepts. The forum has grown since then, and I have watched misunderstandings blossom and mess with the conversation. There is a lot of talk about being offended in many of the more emotional topics. Just wanted to head that off at the pass so to speak.
A little bit on what you said about choice. I'm not gay, never have been, never really thought about it. So all I have to go on is the things I've been taught and told. Growing up, I heard a lot about homosexuality being a "lifestyle choice", and in much of the literature and much of the public debate about introducing the subject in schools, it is still portrayed that way. Several years ago, the idea that it was a genetic thing, rather than a choice was introduced into the equation. Now, as I said, I don't have personal knowledge of how or why people end up homosexual. But, scientifically, there has been no proof put forth that it's genetic. Therefore, we cannot base laws on that idea. Anymore than I can solidly object to abortion on the idea that life starts at conception. I can make the case for it, but science has not yet proven it, and therefore there will always be someone who objects, and justly so.
As to it being a "lifestyle choice", for some, or so I've been told, it is. And yes, there are personality types that invite exactly the kinds of treatment you refer to. Don't ask me why, I don't know. For some it's a form of rebellion. For some it's a result of abuse by members of the opposite sex that have left them so scarred they can only envision having any kind of relationship with someone they don't envision as a threat. Is that the case for everyone? No, it's not.
Now for the part that'll probably piss you off. If it is a choice, then the consequences of that choice is the individuals burden to bear. If it is genetic, then it is a disorder. And a cure should be being sought, even as we treat the individuals afflicted by it as we would anyone else with a genetic disorder. Within the boundaries of society, we teach disabled children to be as independent as they can, and give them the best support we can, and do our best to treat them as equally as possible. But, as a disorder is a disorder, we none the less look for the means to keep others from suffering the same difficulties. That's why we have organizations like the March of Dimes, and many others.
Now, my guess is, you'd object to it being called a disorder or a disease. That's fine, you can object. But simply put, anything that falls outside the parameters of normal behavior or normal body function is considered just that.
There was also reference to the fact that homosexuality is found in nature. Which, if you ask me is kind of redundant, as humans are as natural as any other animal, but I digress (see this is what happens when I write while I'm tired). In most, if not all of those situations, in the animal kingdom, there is an external force of some kind that causes this. The ones I know of are overpopulation, starvation, and dominance behaviors, usually on the part of males in the species. The homosexual urge in most animals is to preserve the species by limiting reproduction or to impose the will of one over the others in a pack or herd. Does it happen for other reasons? Quite possibly. In nature, that trait would generally die out however, because those that carried it as a genetic problem (meaning non-external), would not reproduce, thus culling the trait from that group within the species. You know, evolution and all that. Humans are uniquely weird in this respect. Because we don't look at is a disability or disorder, and therefore do not seek a cure, but it is still abnormal, people try to hide it by entering into "normal relationships". So, if it's a genetic thing, then that trait gets passed on into new generations, to continue the cycle of torment.
Now, before I get labeled a Nazi or compared to some other horrid regime that I'm sure has used similar arguments for the eradication of homosexuals, please not I do not advocate the elimination of any folks, except on the grounds that they pose an imminent physical threat to myself or those I love. So, I am not saying you should all be rounded up and shot, or anything else of the kind. What I am saying is that the people advocating for the cause of homosexuals need to make up their mind as to whether it is a choice or a disorder, and deal with it from there. And they need to quit trying to teach my children that it's perfectly normal and natural. While it may be to you, and to many others, it is not something anyone else has the right to teach my children without my consent. If and when my kids need to understand this particular subject, I will deal with that myself.
That is, quite frankly, the issue with most of the people who have problems with the gay movement. When is comes to gay marriage, it hits a lot of other things as well. In a perfect world, within our governmental system, I'd say leave that whole subject up to the states. The beauty of this country is that if you don't like the laws in one state, as long as it hasn't been usurped or assigned to the federal government, you can go to another state. The trouble with that with this subject is that legal marriage has already been taken as part of the federal government's purview. It has instituted laws that say if you are married in one state, it must be legally recognized by all states. Therein lies the rub of this topic, and I have not so far heard a solution that would be acceptable to the majority of the population here.
Those are my very disjointed ramblings for this morning. I really need to go back to using the quote function and addressing this stuff point by point. I have a feeling I'm wandering a little. Ah well....
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 22, 2008 7:31:11 GMT -5
Ah..I have to take up a point about your first paragraph. I myself am bisexual. This is not, as you put it a choice. I didn't wake up one day and say "hey I know I'll be as equally attracted to women as I am to men". It doesn't work that way. Why would anyone choose to be homosexual? To be ridiculed, attacked verbally and physically and treated with fear and contempt? Was I born this way? I can say with absolute truth. Yes I was. I fought it for a very long time, because being straight was the only option allowed. Everything else was condemned and you were made to feel ashamed for having non-heterosexual feelings. I was not made this way. I simply cannot erase that part of myself. Believe me, I tried. I am who I am. Can I ask you, because I'm curious, and only that, do you like yourself? That sounds a little funky, but I tend to study people, a lot. You say you are who you are, and you describe a tremendous struggle to get to that realization. I've had some struggles of my own, in a bit different areas, and just wondered. I am sincerely hoping the answer to that question is yes. (sorry I get weird and personal when I'm sleep deprived)
|
|
Raivynn
Journeyman
...my winter storm
Posts: 187
|
Post by Raivynn on Oct 22, 2008 7:49:52 GMT -5
You guessed right. I do object. It's neither a choice not a disorder. I'd have to disagree with it being genetic also. When I think genetics, I think height, eye colour, hair colour ect. You cannot inherit homosexuality from genetic make up. The exact same impulses you feel for the opposite sex are the same impulses that someone who is gay or bisexual feel. It's really not any different at all. It's that simple. It's an instinctual attraction. You could not be anything other than heterosexual as you feel no attraction to the opposite sex. The only choice involved is to accept it or not. You cannot make someone gay or make someone straight. Can people hide it well? Of course. Some people fight it for most of there lives. Some embrace it fully without guilt or shame. The very idea of a cure for homosexuality is abhorrent to me. It's not a disease. It's not a physical abnormality. Instead of trying to change a person, they should be getting acceptance. The reason it's being taught as natural and normal is because it is. Wether you accept or believe that or not is up to you. The cycle of discrimination will never end unless acceptance and tolerance is given. The majority of gay people do not want to force Churches into marrying them. But to at least have a choice in doing so and by having it as legal as a man and a woman. Laws can be changed. They've been so before and will so in the future. ...I should try that quote thing too. Might work better lol
|
|
Raivynn
Journeyman
...my winter storm
Posts: 187
|
Post by Raivynn on Oct 22, 2008 7:56:38 GMT -5
Ah..I have to take up a point about your first paragraph. I myself am bisexual. This is not, as you put it a choice. I didn't wake up one day and say "hey I know I'll be as equally attracted to women as I am to men". It doesn't work that way. Why would anyone choose to be homosexual? To be ridiculed, attacked verbally and physically and treated with fear and contempt? Was I born this way? I can say with absolute truth. Yes I was. I fought it for a very long time, because being straight was the only option allowed. Everything else was condemned and you were made to feel ashamed for having non-heterosexual feelings. I was not made this way. I simply cannot erase that part of myself. Believe me, I tried. I am who I am. Can I ask you, because I'm curious, and only that, do you like yourself? That sounds a little funky, but I tend to study people, a lot. You say you are who you are, and you describe a tremendous struggle to get to that realization. I've had some struggles of my own, in a bit different areas, and just wondered. I am sincerely hoping the answer to that question is yes. (sorry I get weird and personal when I'm sleep deprived) I do. After coming to the realisation that I am who I am. I'm very happy. Before I came out I was miserable, suffered from depression. After I accepted that it was okay to be who I was, no matter what anyone else said or thought, things began to get better for me. The struggle really wasn't with the realisation so much as accepting it within myself. I slowly began to open up to my friends and even my own partner (which was more nerve racking than my dad lol). Everyone I knew was great, a lot of people even said they had already suspected lol. My partner didn't care because he loved me regardless. My father, while a bit weirded out. But like my partner, loves me regardless.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 22, 2008 16:02:44 GMT -5
Lovely, and much as I'd figured. You seem like a person who's comfortable in their own skin. That's pretty much the way I feel toward my kids, my husband, and even my ex-husbands. Each of us is different and has different things going on in ourselves, and we have to come to peace. I guess when it comes to being gay or bi, my frustration lies in the idea that the process has become really public, and it pisses me off.
I'm pretty content with myself. I realize that I will keep growing and changing over the course of my life, but who I am is somebody I like, and I worked really hard to get there. Things is, it's based on my own acceptance of myself, not societies acceptance of who I am. I get a little frustrated when groups of people demand that society accept them or they can't be happy. That's not just homosexuality either. It ticks me off when it's women, blacks, latinos, indians, old people, or white guys for that matter. I totally rubs me the wrong way because it's completely against everything I know about what actually makes a person happy.
|
|
Raivynn
Journeyman
...my winter storm
Posts: 187
|
Post by Raivynn on Oct 22, 2008 16:46:16 GMT -5
Sometimes acceptance is the last part of what a person needs to be truly happy. Sometimes it's with friends, sometimes family and sometimes it's society. Acceptance of others and the willingness to change or at least be tolerant of them can be a difficult thing.
If humanities willingness to change stalled many years ago. We women would never had the vote. Perhaps slavery would still be seen as an acceptable practice. There'd still be seperation of blacks and whites on transport ect.
While I may not understand the misgivings people have about it. Giving gay marriage full and legal recognition is just another step in the direction of tolerance.
|
|
|
Post by Caunion on Oct 22, 2008 19:10:08 GMT -5
I agree with what Draivynn said and would like to object to what ladytera said about:
As Draivynn said earlier, acceptance plays a role in people's happiness. Every day, children strive to be accepted by their parents. Why? Because in their minds, if their parents are happy with their children, chances are the children will also be happy. It helps with self-esteem and builds confidence in them.
It's the same with homosexuals (though I'm not comparing them to children). Like most human beings, homosexuals will lack confidence if they are not accepted. I know that looks needy but it is likely they'll be happy with just tolerance, really. It's really not asking much. We're not giving them more rights than heterosexuals. We're just giving homosexuals the same right as heterosexuals, that's it. Much like we give blacks relatively the same rights as whites.
|
|