A closer look at Homosexuality

I was kinda bored, so I hope in the spirit of discussion what goes on here isn't taken as bigotist or 'been there, done that' discussion without at least an unbiased look at the facts.

I've been thinking about it for a bit lately, and I think I can pin down a reason homosexuality faced so much discrimination and most importantly, faces less of it now. Most discussion I hear go about talking about the 'unnatural-ness' of it all, or about religion...or even about the thoughts of homosexual sex (and why lesbian sex is so much more hailed in society than gay sex *wink wink*) yet perhaps we're not looking deep enough.
Culture. I'm not sure how many know, and if this was raised in some news article or other, but I believe it simply lies in culture, and most importantly sexual roles. That's why homosexuality is tolerated so differently in many countries. And why it seems gays are less tolerated than lesbians. We've been taught since young that men have to be tough, strong, active doers that won't let anyone else get in their way. The only people a male is entitled to be 'soft' and tender to would be a wife, girlfriend, and to a lesser extent his kids. The immediate untrained portrayal thus of a gay (I'm aware the word applies to lesbians but let me just restrict it to males) is perhaps of sissyness; feminism. It becomes worse to see two, supposedly aloof by role, males treating each other in ways that don't fit their roles.
Culture plays a huge part determining roles. Our body language, personal space...the places we are allowed by culture to touch on another person's body depending on sex and closeness (a finger-tap on a shoulder for example, instead of laying a whole hand) subconsciously program us into fixed molds. Therefore homosexual behavior throws that out of whack and explains why it's so difficult to take. It also explains why with a relaxation of cultural diversity these days and the closer look into our societies we've done in the past century it's getting easier to accept. Bottom line: it's not unnatural at all for homosexuality, apart from evolutionary problems regarding reproduction. It's just a matter of social programming.
An interesting proof: take the opposite case. How many women in past society have been 'strong' types? How hard did they live their lives? How tolerated are they now? You could never imagine women like Thatcher or the various strong-willed business women out there right now, a millennium ago. And while they are not exactly in the same class as lesbians they were indeed out of their social stereotype - and lo and behold they paid pretty dearly for their attitudes. And; they also pay less dearly than males in a reversed situation. Why? Because subconsciously people understood that by the women assuming a more 'male' role, society still benefitted...as opposed to a male falling off the 'contribution scale'. As a small proof, the idea of a house husband still carries a small stigma today.
So to summarize: the battle for homosexuality right now can be linked to the battle for feminism roughly 3 decades ago, and many other fights against what we term 'discrimination' but what i'd call merely 'social programming'. In the end, it's just irritating social habits that hold back change and cost lives.

Funny that you bring this up, Mac, because one of my professors touches on many of the same points on a regular basis in one of my classes. Live and let live.

Sorry about that guys.

OK, both of you, if you are there in the same room, deal with it between you verbally, this is also considered spamming. Thank you.

Now Mac, I agree totally, people's opinions on topics such as this vary greatly from one area to the next, society dictates to us how we should see homosexuals, or even in a lot of cases, people who are different, regardless of whether its to do with race, sex, religion, whatever.

*Message edited*: thanks guys. Otherwise; enjoy your stay here in sunny MM. :)

Leviticus 20:13
'If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.'

A very blatant opening statement, I know.

MacLeod, your statement comparing the fight for gay rights to the fight of the Women's Liberation Movement is quite bold. Women were being discriminated against due to sex alone not by the social gender they had chosen for themselves.

I have been discussing the causality of homosexuality as well as the possible need for homosexuality to return to the psychology world as a disorder in a future version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) with quite a few of my friends lately. In 1952, the original DSM listed homosexuality among the sociopathic personality disturbances. In 1968, DSM II removed homosexuality from the sociopathic list, categorizing it with other sexual deviations. Then in 1973, the DSM III showed the most striking change of all: homosexuality was considered a problem only when it was dissatisfying to the person.

It was removed primarily because of the pressure from the homosexual community and those sympathetic to their cause.

The idea that men are supposed to be tough and strong could be from the fact that men have more testosterone than women as well as higer norepinephrine levels produced from the locus ceruleus, which lead to aggression.

Also, homosexuality is inherently detrimental to society. Homosexuals cannot multiply and add to the greatness of the society through progeny.


Gen 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Gen 1:28 God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth "

Oh, by the way, those who don't believe in the bible, don't look too hard at the part in Leviticus that says "They should be put to death". Those were old testement mosaic laws that all don't necessarily apply to Christians today. Christians (at least 99.9% of them) don't believe homosexuals should be shot. Its a hate the sin love the sinner type of thing. Sorry, I've just gotten into debates like that before where people have brought up the "put to death" part and made a big deal about it. I just thought I'd head a potential problem off at the pass :)

I also do not buy into the way of thinking that homosexuality is a born-into trait. Bull. Its a choice, it always has been and always will be. I know this thread isn't about marraige or rights but, I believe Civil unions are fine, but dont call it marraige. Marraige is a religious institution and since we have a "separation of church and state" marraige should not be determined by the government. Just the same civil unions are solely a creation of the government, so the church should have nothing to do with it. Also, i believe they are entitled to all rights EXCEPT adopting children. Children should not have to be put through having to explain to their friends why they have two dads or two moms because of the way the guardians choose to live.

All of you have interesting and valid points. Please continue :)

Also, homosexuality is inherently detrimental to society. Homosexuals cannot multiply and add to the greatness of the society through progeny.

This is incorrect. In Rome, it was quite normal for an older man to take in a younger man 'as an apprentice'. This apprenticeship would not be limited to learning from books. In this culture, sexual pleasures where found with male partners, children were made with female partners.

I agree with Macleod on the fact that it is largely cultural. If I may refer to Freud and his 'horse-rider'-analogy, I would say that if instincts (read: behaviour induced by hormones (this is simplified of course, hormones are not the direct cause of behaviour)) are the horse, culture teaches how much that horse needs to be tamed.

A person living in the a rich protestant christian family roughly 100 years ago will have had much more focus on controlling the carneal lusts than a barbarian roughly 10000 ago. The position of male and female has remained roughly the same, but we see that in our culture, these positions are shifting, and that women are quite capable, despite of their hormones, to take on 'male-associated' roles.

Personally, I have no interest in homosexuals what so ever. I don't care what they do, how they do it as long as they abide the law. Noteworthy, however, I feel that the law should be equal to everyone and should not limit homosexuals in their activities when it is acceptable to the culture.

What I find important to note is that I do not judge cultures for not allowing homosexuality. I do not judge cultures for not allowing pedophilia either. It is up to a culture to decide what behaviour is and what is not acceptable, and it is a tough one. Where does personal freedom end and harming someone else begins?
I see this very much in the Netherlands right now. People are wondering how far the freedom of speech is allowed to go.

Is marriage a religious institution? I'm not sure. If it is, however, christians should have nothing to say about it. Marriage predates Christianity. Clicky! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage)

Mr U

HU defended my stand very well on the 'natural-ness' of the whole issue. While it is indeed true that we have modelled human society on rules and cultural mores based on a large part on our genetic make-up, we have wrongly assumed that this mold covers everything. Testosterone for example does not make difference on the sensitive nature of a man or a man's dedication to the healing arts instead of war, yet we have male nurses (another slightly stigmatised proffession might I add). Besides, where does one ever get the idea that the roles of women were chosen ones? Chinese women long ago bound their feet since very young and restrict their growth to form painfully deformed feet that at age 30 can fit the shoes of a girl aged 5 so that their husbands could restrict their movement. Victorian women used the poisonous Belladonna as early makeup and corset-ted their waists into painful, breath-restrictive diameters to please the men. None of these can truly be said to be chosen.
Also, I do not understand your bringing up of the laws on homosexuality. Does a toning down of the laws in any solid way show a weakness in its development or a concession to mere popular demand? A disappointing softening of laws can also be seen as a due relaxation of a harsh system.
And, the definition of contribution to the society is very mercurial. We all know there are many homosexuals in history whom society owes alot to (Wagner and Da Vinci to state just two). While yes they cannot reproduce, surely humanity has more than enough hterosexuals to keep the disgusting growth rate (yes disgusting-I see no meaning in a constantly growing population) high. We're not saying here that homosexuality is the new mankind-just that they don't seem to have a reason to be reviled.
Now, I'd like to state (as I always do) that I don't know any homosexuals well, nor am I inclined to. So I'm not exactly a tree-hugging yuppie (is the word right?) advocate who knows what he's doing. I guess the main purpose I put this up is that though I feel uncomfortable about the whole thing and as HU says would rather just let them do what they want away from me, I refused to accept the more common reasons I hear as the reasons behind my reaction, nor do I want to accept the usual 'just give them a break' reason to advocate homosexuality's existance. You could say I want to search out what exactly causes the entire set of reactions homosexuality is recieving. I am not religious, nor do presume to know what's best for evolution. Perhaps we are cheating the natural order of things yes, but we have done so countless times to produce the marvellous diversity and creativeness our species alone holds. Think on this: if a fat man is at least tolerated by an efficient society, why not homosexuals? At age 5, did you feel anything disgusting or wrong with the phenomenon? At age 22, my sensitive, more peace-loving nature has me constantly worrying if I'm gay...and I'm not sure why I'm even supposed to worry. All in all, I refuse to think homosexuality has much else left to answer to, to Natural Order or Religion.

I agree with ichi_ban1's statement that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children.

I disagree. If the parents are willing and able to provide an environment in which a child is given the education, life training, and direction they need to become a functioning member of society, gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt children. With the continuous disintegration of the nuclear family, children are often being raised by only one parent to begin with. Additionally, in families such as these, children are more likely to drop out of school, use drugs, go to jail, girls are more likely to become pregnant or mothers as teens, and the list goes on and on. Homosexual couples who adopt children are not only more likely to stay together through raising the child, the child is statistically less likely to do any of the aforementioned. As long as they allow the child to make their own choice regarding sexuality, I have no problem.

*edit* And, NIC, since I see you reading this thread, I'm going to go out on a limb, since I'm sinnning right now and being the drunkard that my genetic code dicatates that I must be, and I'll assume that you'll respond to this thread. I'm going to sleep now, but in the morning when you post some shit about how no homosexual couple should ever be allowed to adopt a child, I will come online and murk the fuck out of whatever you post. Since this edit may influence what you post, the entire discussion will then become moot and I'll be absolved from all defence of my views and opinions. Excuse the drunkenness, AO, you'll understand one day. Peace.

Two parents of the same sex cannot give a kid the loving care that a man and a woman can. There are some things that only a woman can do, or only a man can do. And the fact that in today's world divorces happen all the time is no excuse for lesbians or gays to step in.
My government teacher in my senior year(I'm a college freshman now)told me that recently research had been conducted by or affiliated with Harvard that suggests homosexuality is a disease.
Here's a site relating to the subject of homosexuality, and what causes it. One of the first things it says is that innate tendency to homosexuality actually accounts for very small portion of whether someone becomes homosexual or not. The site's pretty recent, September 21 of this year.
I don't know if this will become a link or not. I'm not sure how to create them.
http://www.narth.com/docs/bioresearch.html
type it in google if it's not a link.
Here's my opinion on the subject:
If you're a Christian, you obviously view homosexuality as a sin. At least, if you hold my views.
But get this: I know a devout Christian man, one of the best Christians I've ever known, and guess what: he's gay.
He has homosexual tendencies. He doesn't act on them, because that would be wrong. He has taken a vow of celibacy, to never act on these tendencies, because they are "an abomination to the Lord."
And on the whole gay reason, "It's natural, it's who I am."
They argue that it goes against theirselves to not be gay.
Well, guess what.
Some people have tendencies to drunkards.
Some people have tendencies to have cancer.
Some people have tendencies to have kleptomania.
Some people have tendencies to be mentally ill, and kill people without knowing it. Does this make it right?
Of course not. Basically, that whole gay argument is wrong when they say that it goes against who they are.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

And that right there is why I'm athiest, I have nothing agaist your religion NiC, but it is not open minded. And don't try to defend it saying it is when you refer to a choice people have made as an abomination.

When two people choose to adopt children because they want to love and nurture it, how and you say no to them just because they are of the same sex? I've grown up with just my mum for a very long time, I haven't had a father to give me those things "only a man can do" and it hasn't affected me. I've found other sources, teachers, family friends, uncles...you do not need a parent of both sexes to raise a normal, well adjusted child. In fact, gays probably raise better adjusted children than most opposite sex couples because they do not have the prejudices you'll often find in opposite sex couples.

Divorces do not just happen. Divorces occur because of weak people with weak minds. The divorce rate among Christian couples is something near 55% now. Not to say that Christians are weak minded people. Your insinuation that people cannot love because of their sexual preference is utterly disgusting and grotesquely dehumanizing at best, and makes you an ugly human being to a great many people, myself not being included.

The following quote ruins your argument:
If you're a Christian, you obviously view homosexuality as a sin. At least, if you hold my views.
Assumtion that all Christians are like you and hold your views does nothing to reinforce your point. If anything, you will cause dissent among people who are Christians and belong to different denominations, have different interpretations of the Holy Bible, or see anything else different than yourself.

I see homosexuality as a choice as well, as something that resonates better with one's person than heterosexuality. However, this choice has very little, if anything, to do with their ability to love another human being as their own child.

And for your boy who's gay yet one of the best Christians you've ever met, oh well. He's scared of consequence later because he holds two truths in his life and cannot decide between the two. He obviously holds his religion above his "tendencies," desires, or whathaveyou, and that is commendable, but at the same time he has been taught by the church to fear what he is. And fear, it is easy to teach fear.

Seriously man, how is a government teacher a valid authority on disease and homosexuality....separation of church and state, no matter how hard Bush tries to make it not so, still exists in the United States. This whole discussion is becoming just as boo boo as world peace and creation v. evolution, which is why I might not continue it anymore, and just continue on being happy that I'm here now and not trying to change anything, unlike the more Western thinkers here.

I did not say that gay or lesbian couples could not love or nurture a child. I said that given a choice between a gay and/or lesbian couple and a straight couple, a straight couple would be infinitely more beneficial to a child.
As it grows up, the child, if raised by homosexual parents, will have to face up to the fact that he is one of the very few people around who doesn't have a mommy and a daddy. This can severely affect the child's mental growth.
Correct, Eon, our religion is not open-minded, and that's one of the things that separates it from other religions.
I believe that when a man or woman is gay or lesbian and they choose to act on their homosexual tendencies, that is an abomination to the Lord. It is wrong.
Love is not all it takes to raise a child, DPD, and I never said that gay couples couldn't love.
Anyone who doesn't truly understand the Christian faith always blames our blind faith on fear and fear of going to hell. It just goes to show how much you know, DPD. My friend, his name is Dave, is not afraid. He believes that homosexuality is a sin, and so he does not act on it.
It has nothing to do with fear. Please don't insult him like that.
My government teacher is probably more knowledgable than you'll ever be in terms of what's going on in the world, DPD. There have been tests conducted by or affiliated with Harvard that strongly suggest that homosexuality is a disease.
And in my book, diseases should be eradicated. Not the person, mind you, but the homosexual tendencies.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

Amusing how this was suddenly brought back from the dead. I'll only need to say something, though.
Look back at my first post. Consider carefully what you have said after that, all of you. How many statements did you raise? Now, how many are opinionated? Truly? Can you name influences in your lives that affected your choice of that view, and in its absence, might explain the choices anyone else makes? You'd be surprised, no matter if you're right or wrong, how much of your view society, or perhaps dissatisfaction with society, shaped. Just something to note before continuing.
Personally, NIC, the comparison of homosexuality to ills like drinking or violence is prickly. The line is not an explanation of this situation, it's a result. People opposing your view will just as easily see homosexuality as compared to choice of religion, or the arts over sciences, or clothes. We'd be back at square one.
When the situation faced is more a matter of society and humanity than science, discussions tend to be difficult. This will be interesting.

Divorces do not just happen. Divorces occur because of weak people with weak minds. The divorce rate among Christian couples is something near 55% now. Not to say that Christians are weak minded people. Your insinuation that people cannot love because of their sexual preference is utterly disgusting and grotesquely dehumanizing at best, and makes you an ugly human being to a great many people, myself not being included.

Off topic, and I disagree. Divorces don't just happen to weak people. Times change, people grow older and not always together. Life sadly isn't digital, its not black or white but shades of grey.

NIC, I think you need to go back to your bible mate. The bible does say that homosexuality is wrong in the old testament, it also says that you shouldn't eat pork a few chapters before that and that women on their periods are unclean. We aren't discussing these points of old testament theology are we?

The cornerstones of the christian faith are Grace, Love and Acceptance. Look at the characters Jesus hung around with. The people who's social status didn't necessarily fit in with everyone elses world view. Tax collecters' cripples and prostitutes. People who were different. People who's ideas offended the institution of the day. People who were percieved to be living 'sinful' lives.

You view homosexuality as sinful, thats your choice. You are a christian, thats your choice too and one I respect in an age where people are often lax in standing up for what they believe. You need to start and apply the New Testament principles of acceptance and love, rather than being judgemental and predjudiced.

Just a thought.....

We are all who we are because of society.
Classic.
But not necessarily correct.
Our choices are ultimately ours. Sure, things strongly pushed me in the direction of becoming a Christian, but it was my choice in the end.
Just like, even if a person has homosexual tendencies ot begin with, it is their choice whether or not to act on it.
I don't see my relating it to disease being prickly. It's true. All I'm saying is just because it's natural doesn't make it right.
In response to you, Swampy, I do accept and love homosexuals; it's the sin that I condemned. Sure, Jesus hung out with bad people, the poor, the tax collectors, all that jazz, but he still condemend their sin. It's like ichiban said, it's a case of hating the sin, but loving the sinner.
And saying that the old testament isn't valid is bull. Some of it isn't, but homosexuality still is. Those other laws in there were made for people's safety. Homosexuality, it says, is an abomination to the Lord. And it still is. Don't agree with me, if you want, it's your choice.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

I beg to differ NiC

Two parents of the same sex cannot give a kid the loving care that a man and a woman can.
Note I've highlighted the key word there that you used, "cannot". They can acually, they still possess the same love for their child as any other straight couple who adopts.

Homosexuality is not a disease, it's a choice. It's a way of life for many people today, far more than at any time in the past because the majority of the world is open minded about this kind of thing. Watch the movie Far From Heaven, it covers the ideals that were around in the 1950's regarding homosexuality and the "cures" they tried to find for it, just for society. Society has changed and so have people's ideals, being gay is not a disease as I have already stated, listen to your own sig for a change and free your mind, or at least open it a little and look at the world you live in.

In the late 1800's, masturbation was viewed as the cause of most forms of mental illness. Using science to back up a moral stand point, ie being homosexual is a disease, only marginalises you and what you believe. Data from one study says that homosexuality is a disease. I conducted a study yesterday at work which concluded that production runs of less than 100 pieces are ideal for the place I work. I then reprocessed the data, adding in a few more factors and, suprisingly it gave me a different result.

If you are setting out to achieve a particular aim in a study, starting from a biased view point, you can make the results say what you want. Homosexuality isn't a disease, Predjudice is. Its a lifestyle that some people choose to live. I am not going to get into nature v nurture. Its not necessary and has nothing to do with the point you are trying to make.

You are entitled to your opinions, you are entitled to disagree with seemingly everyone else that is posting in this thread and you are entitled to express your opinions too. Conversely, we are entitled to argue with you, tell you that your are predjudiced and small minded and a product of your narrow minded up bringing, and that you need to reread what i said earlier.

The faith you profess to follow preaches love, grace, acceptance and forgiveness above anything else. Right or wrongs are always going to be viewed as absolutes, as are what people see as right or wrong and thats fine. All we are asking here is that you respect the fact that other people disagree with you. You aren't gonna change any minds here, all you are doing is further marginalising yourself and your beliefs and damaging your chance to share the positives of your beleifs with people.

Anyone who doesn't understand the Christian faith always says that we preach love above anything else.
What people don't understand is that we need to take into account other Biblical things besides just love.
We preach love, we preach grace, we preach forgiveness BUT WE DON'T PREACH ACCEPTANCE. Oye vey. Jesus preached love.
The greatest commandment is this: "Love the lord your god with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind." The second is this, "Love your neighbor as yourself." I'm sick and tired of everyone saying that Christians should be accepting of other religions and views. That's not true. Our job is to tell you, in essence, that you're wrong, and to direct you to the right path. We don't accept.
I am respecting the fact that other people disagree with me, but I'm not going to sit back and pretend like it's all good.
You call me narrow minded.
There's the pot calling the kettle black.
You won't accept my view.
I hate it when people say that all's good, except for the possiblity that there's only one good. That's narrow-mindedness if I ever saw it; a huge double standard.
I am narrow-minded, and proud of it. No offense meant to any of you, but I find your arguments hilarious.
Jesus Christ is my lord and savior, and I'm going to heaven when I die because of it.
Our job is to tell you that you need Jesus to save you. I'm following that duty. But all of you have already rejected me, so I know there's no point in preaching.
And I'm not going to pretend that homosexuality is okay.
And to Eon: They may possess the same love, but they are physically unable to give the child the better care of a mother and father.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

You need to be careful here kid, I've grown up in the church, I know my way round the bible and I know what it does and doesn't say.

The bible doesn't say homosexuality is right. I know that. The old testament states that it is wrong, but as I've already covered, it also says not to eat pork.

The bible does preach tolerance, acceptance may have been the wrong word, I'm willing to concede that to you. Jesus welcomed people and loved and accepted people as they are. I agree that it doesn't preach acceptance of everyone elses beliefs, John 3:16, way truth and life etc. I understand that. What it does say is that as a christian you are to be the gospel to people, to share God's love. it does say about rebuking and highlighting a brother/sisters sins, but you don't teach a dog to behave then take it to training classes. People will accept, beleive and then if God wants them to change, he will reveal that to them, not use some self righteous little shit to start telling people he hardly knows that they are a bunch of sinners going to hell.

I am gonna say this one last time. YOU are the only bible you that these people might ever read. The bible says that christians are to be salt and light, to be the catalysts for change. So far all you are doing is further marginalise yourself, you can't bring change when everyone thinks you are a knob.

I left the church because of people like you who know but don't understand the scripture. Its not a blunt stick, it has a lot of truth and weight to it but you seem to insist on taking shit out of context. Please, I accept you have only ever been brought up with these beliefs, I've been where you are and I can sympathise with you. You need to relax. I'm not saying go get yourself a boyfriend and try it, all i'm saying is that you need to learn to communicate your beliefs in a way that isn't going to make you think you are a dick head, which is all you've achieved so far.

Hopefully this is the last time I'll have to say it. Homosexuality isn't a disease, Your beliefs are fine and will be accepted when you learn to share them properly and your input into the site is welcome, just chill the fuck out, stop being so bloody homophobic, and for fucks sake, grow up and smell the real world before you marginalise yourself out of play completely

Hmm, I think somebody's mad.
Don't tell me what to do Swampy. It seems you're the one with the problem. You said you left the church because of people like me. Oh, yeah, THAT did a whole lot of good. If you see people like me as a problem, then dont' bitch and moan about it if you're not willing to do anything to make it happen. Sounds to me like you didn't even try to make a difference.
Next, you can't say homosexuality isn't a disease. You don't know that. None of us know, that's why there's all this new research going on.
I'm allowed to express my views, and once again, don't tell me what to do. My beliefs will never be accepted here because people are unable to accept that this is the only way.
The only reason people are mad at me is because I'm taking the minority point of view here, like I usually do. You guys can't handle just a teenager expressing his views.
Live with it, and don't tell me what to do. Telling me to chill out isn't gonna work when you're all worked up in a tizzy.
Sorry, but I don't take advice from double standards.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

Actually, everyone here can handle a teenager expressing his views, I'm a teenager expressing my views so don't try to pull that shit. Also, don't start making this a flame session, I, nor anyone else here wants it, as you say, we are expressing views, and you have no right to call people "double standards" or anything else for that matter. He made a choice, as you did, as I did as did every other person in this forum.

My beliefs will never be accepted here because people are unable to accept that this is the only way.
That right there is why your beliefs will never be accepted here, which in itself is a lie, because we all accept your beliefs. Do not preach to us as you are so doing, you said yourself that there was no point yet you continue to. Your beliefs are not the only way, nor is hinduism, buddism, or any other religion for that matter, accept it.

Next, you can't say homosexuality isn't a disease. You don't know that. None of us know, that's why there's all this new research going on.
So you can't say it is a disease in that case, if you are going to try and pull it one way, you have to take it the other way too. Lets compromise, this is ongoing research, therefore cannot be used as an argument either way.

I did not start flaming, Eon did when he started swearing and told me basically to stop saying my views so loudly.
I believe my beliefs are the only way, but I don't know it.
Example:
A chair.
I'm in a room, looking at a chair. I BELIEVE it will hold me if I sit in it, but I don't KNOW it will.
My belief that my way is the only way is just like that. I BELIEVE it, but I don't KNOW it.
Homosexuality research is ongoing, just like creation and evolution, if you'll remember the other thread. Since it is ongoing, we can present research as it comes up. I see nothing wrong with that. We just can never say for sure.
And in response to my views being accepted, I believe I've probably been yelled at the most for the short amount of time I've been here. I must have set some kind of record.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

You need to think about why. There are other christians who post here, who's views are accepted. The reason people keep shouting at you is nothing to do with you having views. The reason you keep feeling the sharp end of peoples keyboard is the way you share those views. I happen to agree with some of them, but i take issue with the way you post them.

And, for the record, Eon didn't say this is a flame yet, she said be careful that it doesn't head that way. I did swear, but I am not mad with you, more disappointed at your unwillingness to see sense and wisdom for what they are.

I think this bantering has gone on long enough. I'm sick and tired of the conversation in these sorts of places always diverging to my unacceptance of other people's views.
Back to the subject: homosexuality.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

You have to ask yourself NIC, do you trouble trouble or does it trouble you? I find it amusing that every second post of yours lately is how you are sick of others observations into your unacceptance of peoples views, yet blinker yourself to the fact that they are 100% correct. This is a privately run forum, as are others out there. You have to remember that before you cry foul or personal injustice. No one on here has centred you out and you aren't 'special'. You're basically telling everyone "It's my way or the highway" and not even my son would dare pull a baby stunt like that, as he has more respect for others views. And in here it won't be tolerated by anyone.

NOW BACK ON TOPIC. - UT

UT, you're saying that "my way or the highway" won't be tolerated by anyone, when in fact you are saying the exact same thing. The majority rules, and here I'm the minority.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

given a choice between a gay and/or lesbian couple and a straight couple, a straight couple would be infinitely more beneficial to a child.
As it grows up, the child, if raised by homosexual parents, will have to face up to the fact that he is one of the very few people around who doesn't have a mommy and a daddy. This can severely affect the child's mental growth.
Very few children without a "mommy" and "daddy"? You're not serious, are you? There are increasing numbers of single-parent children each day. Additionally, these children are more often than not children of low-income parents, and often are not given the love, nurturing, education, time, and life training that children need to be able to prepare themselves to go out and face the world. That affects a child's mental growth more than having same-sex parents raising one.

Love is not all it takes to raise a child, DPD, and I never said that gay couples couldn't love.
No shit, sherlock. I pointed that out in my first post. Read.

My friend, his name is Dave, is not afraid. He believes that homosexuality is a sin, and so he does not act on it.
It has nothing to do with fear. Please don't insult him like that.
Once again with your queries not to insult people, when you're the one who throws the first blow. You can't be serious.

My government teacher is probably more knowledgable than you'll ever be in terms of what's going on in the world, DPD.
Wrong. Your government teacher will NEVER know more than me in terms of what is going on in MY world. Additionally, you say it like having knowledge of what's going on in the world is the only choice or only way to be in tune with things. dotdotdot

There have been tests conducted by or affiliated with Harvard that strongly suggest that homosexuality is a disease.
And in my book, diseases should be eradicated. Not the person, mind you, but the homosexual tendencies.
Suggestion and opinion. This way of thinking is the result of living in an action-based, slant-viewed, angry society. I'm sorry.

*EDIT*
UT, you're saying that "my way or the highway" won't be tolerated by anyone, when in fact you are saying the exact same thing. The majority rules, and here I'm the minority.
Bill Gates' #1 piece of advice for young people. "Life is not fair. Get used to it." You are not the one in power, so the "my way or the highway" really does not work. Also, what is being referred to is your method of presentation, not your points themselves. You cannot just come in and tell administration what to do, dues have to be paid and you've got to earn your stripes, just like when joining a new church. I'd think you'd have learned that by now.

The majority rules, and here I'm the minority.
You're like a Mexican in Minnesota.

I'm saying don't tell me not to say, "My way or the highway." Because all of you are screaming it out as loud as possible, "OUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!!"
Don't give me crap about tolerance. You people are not tolerant in any way. You're only tolerant of people who are tolerant. You're intolerant of people who are intolerant. Some example you're setting.
And one the gay couples or single parents, I never said single parents were better than gays or lesbians. I'm saying citing straight people getting divorced as reasons for gay marriages is no good argument. And what I meant by not a mommy and a daddy is that he has both. Two daddies or two mommies, and that can be traumatizing to a kid. And don't give me crap about, "Oh, but divorcing also traumatizes a child!" Very true. Divorcing is just as sinful as homosexuality. Just because straight people divorce doesn't give gay people the excuse to marry. There are no statistics that say gay or lesbians stay together longer. In the long run, gays and lesbians will get divorced just as much as straight couples.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

I wasn't talking about divorce.

I'm saying don't tell me not to say, "My way or the highway." Because all of you are screaming it out as loud as possible, "OUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!!"
Don't give me crap about tolerance. You people are not tolerant in any way. You're only tolerant of people who are tolerant. You're intolerant of people who are intolerant. Some example you're setting.

If you cannot handle that this is a place in which like-minded people are having a renaissance and striving to make themselves better people through supporting one another, then perhaps this is not the place for you to have a personal renaissance.

I've been wondering, NIC, what denomination of Christianity are you with? More importantly, which one were you baptized as?

Don't give me crap about tolerance. You people are not tolerant in any way. You're only tolerant of people who are tolerant. You're intolerant of people who are intolerant. Some example you're setting.

Well duh... It's like all those people that are only prejudice against prejudice people. For example, I'm pretty sure the consensus is that UT is a nice person. However, she can turn into quite a vicious lil' beast when someone unjustly insults her or anyone she cares about. I like to think of myself as a nice guy, but if you throw a shoe at me, actually trying to hurt me, you better damn well know that I'll stick that show up your ass. The same principle is applied here. You can't expect tolerance and acceptance if you don't show any yourself, just as you won't get any respect if you don't show any yourself.

I'm diverging from the subject of the thread here, but this needs to get cleared up. Swampy and the others are absolutely right. I'm indifferent to you. I don't know much about you, hence I can't say I like you or not. What I cannot stand however is the way you're presenting your opinions. I could care less if you're a proponent of incest, but if you go around screaming "THE ONLY TRUE PATH TO ENLIGHTENMENT IS THROUGH SLEEPING WITH YOUR SISTER, IT'S A FACT AND THE REST OF YE HEATHENS WILL SNUFF IT IN HELL IF YOU DON'T CONFORM," I'm going to take a bit of offense.

Just look at the diversity of this place. You have me, a relaxed Christian from America; FYM, a Jew from Israel; HU, a Dutch atheist; UT, an atheist hailing from Australia; DPD and NMN with whatever they believe, in America; and a multitude of others, yet, somehow, we all manage to get along and have a good time, despite our varying beliefs and backgrounds. HU is the only member that I've seen that presents his beliefs as nearly as matter-of-factly as you. The key difference is that he is either:

A) Kidding around in his assertion, making light of it.
B) Providing some pretty concrete evidence to back him up (nothing as subjective as the bible).

Furthermore, he never condemns our actions or seemingly forces his beliefs on us. Most of us here are aware of your strict adherence to the teachings of Christianity. That, however, is not a free pass to assert your beliefs as superior. As I said several times, I'm Christian, but if I go to a synagogue (which I have, in the past), I stand when the congregation stands to pray. Likewise, if you're an atheist and you attend a Christian Mass, you stand when everyone else does so to pray the Our Father. You stand during the Gospel reading, with the others. This is not due to believing in Judaism or Christianity, but due to respect. When expressing your beliefs and opinions on these boards, I suggest you stand.

Son of a whore. Why do I type things so long.

Don't give me crap about tolerance. You people are not tolerant in any way. You're only tolerant of people who are tolerant. You're intolerant of people who are intolerant.

Yes that pretty much sums it up mate. I make no apologies of being intolerant to intolerant, blinkered people. Seriously this has got to be the dumbest statement you have made to support yourself in here yet.

If I didn't know any better I would swear you are my mother's long lost son. Then again, the way she would carry on in the past it's highly plausible..

Regardless of what a persons sexual preference (omitting paedophilia of course) is it should not be judged as a disease by any man. What you are actually saying to me (though I am not blinkered and highly tolerant so I don't care what you personally think of me as a human being) is that I have a disease and am not fit to be a mother. All of which is bullshit.

To quote the great Nigel Powers:

"If there are two things in this world that I hate... it would be people intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch."

In answer to your question, NMN, I am not sure what denomination of Christianity I am with. I was baptized when I was 8, so I forget what denomination I was baptized into. My family has gone to particular denominational churches in the past, but none of us affiliate religiously with a particular denomination. The Christian church is probably the closest to what we believe.
As for your quote, I've said it before, but you people are intolerant of my "culture."

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

To quote the great Nigel Powers:

"If there are two things in this world that I hate... it would be people intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch."

LOL. Get out of my head damnit.

In answer to your question, NMN, I am not sure what denomination of Christianity I am with. I was baptized when I was 8, so I forget what denomination I was baptized into. My family has gone to particular denominational churches in the past, but none of us affiliate religiously with a particular denomination. The Christian church is probably the closest to what we believe.
As for your quote, I've said it before, but you people are intolerant of my "culture."

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool
Not exactly. We have a problem with the way you express your views, not your culture. To have a problem with your culture is to have a problem with the entire Christian culture, and that would be intolerant of the American culture. As much as I don't like the way America is going, I'm am VERY tolerant of Christians.

And Christian is not a denomination of Christianity. It's the whole entire thing. I'm talking about Mormon, Episcopal, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Methodist, yadda yadda yadda.

There is a Christian church.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

Alright, I'll concede defeat on that one because I went searching and found that the Church itself is called Disciples of Christ or Church of Christ. That one is the only one I found called a "Christian Church".

And I was baptized when I was 7. I'm Catholic. You'd actually have a better chance of remembering what denomination you were baptized in versus if you were baptized when you were a baby.

NIC, are you a member of The Diciples of Christ?

No, I said that I wasn't a member of any particular denomination. I think, but I'm not sure, that the Christian church is the one closest to what I believe. Second would probably be protestant, unless I'm totally wrong on the Christian denomination.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

Man, how did this become a Christianity discussion again? Hearing the finer points of faith always has me in knots. Nice breakdown though, TiNM. Not typing too long at all.
Now, on topic. Firstly, it's not fair to raise sweeping statements on the results of having homosexual parents. If you bring it down to a fair comparison, both ways can work. It might be different yes if you're a kid of homosexuals in a neighbourhood of hterosexuals, but how about adopted kids? Living under a guardian? The comparison of these systems are as equal as comparing say, a western upbringing to an asian one. Unless of course you're going to start saying because I'm an asian living in an atheist home, I'm automatically condemned.
Now, this 'disease'. I still don't get it. It's like calling a messy person sick, or a fat one. Sure, many are undesirable traits, and I can't say I'm too comfortable around homosexuals, but it's just one more thing that makes humans so wonderfully diverse. Why treat it as something so distasteful as a 'sin'?
Still, you being a Christian, I'd understand your viewpoint. I won't argue with what your culture made you. But, going beyond 'this is my view' to 'this is definitely correct, and you're making a mistake not following me' is ridiculous.
Lastly, choice. Ah. I've never believed in choice. Can you truly believe we have so much control over ourselves? Perhaps the moment you chose Christianity was yours to control, but I doubt the conversion's happening was ever uncertain. It is possible indeed to escape your culture and think/speak neutrally, but I'm not seeing very much of it here.
So let me ask, and perhaps bring this thread to a more peaceful level: can you discard your society, the situation, and think on the question of homosexuality again? NIC: can you discard 'I am a Christian, and am following the Bible'? Everyone else: 'NIC is making me mad'? Not insulting anyone of course, but this argument needs to be brought back down to neutrality, which it the only way we can approach a societal problem.

Alright, I'll concede defeat on that one because I went searching and found that the Church itself is called Disciples of Christ or Church of Christ. That one is the only one I found called a "Christian Church".
the difference is that most "Christian Churches" are just branches that broke off from the Church of Christ due to differeing interpretations of the Bible and its word.

Personally, my beliefs are along the same lines. I believe homosexuality to be a sin, and therefore wrong, but it's no more wrong than when I swear, lie, covet, etc...

Exactly, PP. I agree totally with your last statement. No sins are greater than another. We make them out to be but in fact telling a little white lie is just as bad as having sex with a person of the same sex.
I can see why the world thinks homosexuality is okay. Besides God telling us that it's wrong, there's no reason it should be, but that also applies to murder, rape, killing, lying, coveting, and so on.
And Mac, I don't believe there's any such thing as neutrality when discussing such a hot potato topic as homosexuality.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

Pity this thread got sidetracked. It had some real interesting points in its beginning. Before I start on topic I'd just like to say that I think you took the criticism of NIC a bit too far... true, he could have expressed his opinion in a more tactful manner, but we should be able to see past the presentation to the real point he's making. Essentially the guy is right - he is making a controversial statement that goes against the concensus here and instead of being rebuked he's being insulted.
I don't think the claim that homosexuality is a disease should have attracted as much fire as it did. It wasn't brought up in order to provoke people, it was backed up by the fact that a serious institution was carrying it out. My personal opinion is that even if this claim was verified it would mean nothing since it wouldn't make homosexuals a danger to society. But still, it's a point that needs to be addressed, not decried.
I think we should treat "disease" as a scientific term, and not take it as an insult or as proof that a person is unfit for anything.

My religion - Judaism - forbids any Jew from being a homosexual. Christianity apparantely forbids every person from being homosexual. So according to Christianity, people like UT are sinning. I'm sure she can live with that, and I doubt anyone seriously disagrees with that.
The other argument here, which I think is being mixed up with the first, is that gay couples cannot raise children as well as heterosexual couples. I don't think anyone has proof even from christianity to support this. If you mean that the children are less likely to become Christians if their parents are so disregarding the religion then okay, but then you have to forbid all couples that don't practise all of Christianity to the letter from marrying. Otherwise I don't see any connection.
The whole world sins on a regular basis. Why homosexuality is a hotter topic than anything else keeps baffling me.

To add another point - the fact that the bible forbids homosexuality means that it acknowledges the inclination. It doesn't deny that people may be attracted to their own sex - it is my opinion that all people are attracted to everything, and that they choose what to with these temptations - but it commands its followers to fight it. What I'm trying to say is that the prohibition is not a result of ignorance, but just another warning of things that can damage you despite giving you pleasure.
And just to clarify again (since this seems a kind of angry topic), this is a sin, or if you like, a deviation from religion, just like any other. You either accept it as part of the religion or you don't. There's nothing more to it.

Biblically, what you say is wrong. Denying God or the Holy Spirit are 'mortal sins', and though I am not entirely sure how they would be called in English, they can not be forgiven, and are much worse than killing or engaging in sex with members of the same sex.

However, it should also be said that the Bible feels the people of Isreal should condemn some crimes, not all, by death. I'm unsure, but I do not believe telling a lie, though a sin, is punishable by death. Plus, one must also take into consideration the various levels of hell, with 'bigger' sinners further down than the people who have just lied once in a while.

On regard of homosexuality, however, who are you to judge? Does Matthew 7 not tell you not to judge others, lest ye be judged? Should you not love all men equally, and leave God to his judgement, and let him leave in peace? Though I agree that, in a biblical point of view, homosexual sex is just as bad as murder, this does not apply to all religions. Should not Christianity respect other religions by condemning the sin, but leaving the sinners be? If they are aware of their sins, and they know it both, and they do no harm to others, why should you judge them?

If it is accordance to my religion that all men and women who do not masturbate at least 99 times a day should be murdered, should I start lobbying for a law forcing it unto other people, or should I stick to applying my religion in my own personal life, and accept the decision of the masses?

On the topic of Marriage, I have said earlier that if marriage is a religious institution, Christianity has nothing to do with it, nor Judaism, as marriage predates both religions. What gives you the right to declare a monopoly on it?

Mr U

There is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality. Sex/Relationships whatever... are between 2 people, not just a man and a woman.

Its as simple as that.

And no, being gay is not as bad as murder etc. Whats God got against gay people anyway?

And no, being gay is not as bad as murder etc. Whats God got against gay people anyway?
What I stated is just what the Bible says. God has nothing against the people, just the action.

I hope I don't come across as judgemental; I don't intend to. If I was, then I'm sorry.

I also believe it's something that people can have natural urges towards (yes, I'll admit I'm speaking from experience at this point), just like we also have urges to lie, cheat, hate, kill, etc...

Personally, I feel very uncomfortable in this thread. I feel like I'm constantly walking on tiptoes while in here. I have no right to say some things, so this'll be my last post on the topic unless someone feels the need to PM me about it (feel free; I promise not to bite or get too pissy ;) )

Im sorry PP, I didnt mean to sound patronising or dismissive. Youre right, this is a delicate topic.

This is the thing. If you want to post topics like this and/or continue posting replies to said topics knowing all well it is a delicate issue and there is more than one side to it, why be offended? We are not all the same, and personally I'm not a big fan of these topics, however it isn't my place to close them when the thread starter is asking legitimate questions, making legitimate statements etc etc and it continues to stay on topic. Hell, I'm gay and don't give a shit what anyone thinks of it. And I'm not the only one on here that is. So in effect some people think we the minority of bisexuals/homosexuals/lesbians should be getting slammed for being who we are? Only if we choose to let it. And it won't be the case if we take it for what it is, just someone else's opinion. I've heard a great deal of people being upset as of late because they feel they are being singled out for their beliefs and forced to believe something else. Horse shit.

I say who cares! Bah, opinions are like bumholes, everyone has them and most (most) of them stink to high heaven. Though it's not my job to wipe em, just listen and make sure all remains fair and the smell doesn't make others feel uncomfortable. Don't worry about it, just smile and think of a thread being a train. It can either turn into a royal wreck or become a nice trip with the added bonus of getting to the other side. It really isn't worth being upset over.

Sorry to see you go, PP.
FYM, thanks for your understanding of my situation.
Yes, HU, the Bible says judge not others, lest ye be judged. But in second Timothy 3:16 it says that the Bible is the inspired word of God, useful for teaching and rebuking, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped in every good work. We must rebuke others with the Bible; it says so.
And everyone out there, when I say something that offends you, live with it. In these kidns of threads somebody is bound to get offended every page. In fact, these past few posts have offended me, but I'm not going to say who or what.
This is not a "you offended me!" thread. This is a homosexuality thread, and like I said, offending someone is inevitable.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

And you should also understand and live by your words NIC. 'Live with it'. You have not been pressured to adhere and live by anothers rules anywhere on this forum, however, you will respect others who do not follow what you believe. It's as simple as that.

I do live by it. I just express my beliefs, which I am allowed to do. You people are allowed to do what you want. That doesn't change the fact that I believe you're wrong. I don't care if you guys offend me; so long as none of you make a big fuss when I say something offensive.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

Sounds good to me. Let's see how long you last.

Back on topic.

One last post for me before we do; UT.
Heh now this is what I meant by neutrality NIC. Not trying to find a middle answer to a problem but to approach the problem with no preconceptions. FYM as always attentively highlighted the problems going on in our threads; one of which is of everyone bashing just about everyone's beliefs and ideals.
Yet the problem to me is not as such. The problem is not about us not respecting each others' beliefs, its about the beliefs being so dominantly here in the first place. I don't think anyone has or should attack someone just for saying 'I believe', but I feel that in the end when we finally get down and seriously analyse a situation beliefs shouldn't even be included-yet they are.
NIC, TiNM, FYM, UT, HU, PP; whoever...It is my personal...belief, that if one is to bring a belief into a discussion one should expect the incoming flak. It's behind the biggest problems we humans have had over history. Sure our opinions are important, but they also tend to prevent us from looking from ones at the opposite angle, or at least respecting them.

You say when one analyzes a situation beliefs should not be included.
They are, though, by everyone here.
It is impossible in a situation not to include your beliefs, for even if you're being neutral, your beliefs led you to choose neutrality. And I've noticed that often the "neutral" people tend to tell Christians to leave homosexuals alone, and that already shows a belief.
Basically, you can never ever separate your beliefs from discussions.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

I know, and I was counting on you to try to bring something like that up.
You did not notice however that while I (I consider myself usually neutral) indeed do not support Christians with those views against homosexuals, neither did I support the opposition in their condemnation. And I think you mixed up the meaning of neutrality. Choosing neutrality to settle a problem sensibly is not a choice: it is a requirement. Laws are made for that reason. Neutrality is also not about mediating a peace: it is about logical contemplation. Logically homosexuals are genetically and/or brought up different, as far as we can still tell. Further than that almost every deduction I can imagine has a tinge of a belief; and while that is priceless in helping us make decisions, it can also leave us prone to overdoing it.
I agree you can never separate your beliefs from discussions. It affects all of us to some degree. We can, however, learn to recognise them when they appear, and de-emphasize their effects on our judgement. It's what drives every sound action.

My thoughts on the matter: blah blah blah, yakkedy schmakkedy, hippity hoppity bippity boppity boo. *don't change anyone's opinion here* *comment that will make me perceived as an asshole here* *comment about not caring who is right or wrong here*

In other news, and loosely tied to the discussion at hand, I found this article to be a nice diversion from the discussion at hand. As a disclaimer, I am not saying the author of the article is correct, nor do I hold her same views, this is only something I read. Enjoy.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/12/12/ING92A899N1.DTL

I was reading last night on ATS (above top secret) that 11 christians were charged under the hate crimes legislation for commiting hate crimes toward gay people. No wonder this is a touchy subject as of late. Christians to stand trial for a hate crime on U.S soil! Damn.

Yeah, sure Christians stand trial for hate crimes, but so do other religions and even atheists.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

Yes, that is true. No one is special when it comes to atrocities that are commited in the name of their beliefs, no matter what that may be.

Well said, UT.
However, some religions are more prone to violence than others. Not to pick on a certain one, but Islam terrorists are much more abundant than Chrisian ones. Not that that makes the atrocities committed by Christians any less.

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

^Actually, that's not true. Historically, Christians have a much higher total deathcount than Muslims.

Is it, UT? If I am a Neo-Nazi, simply because I feel that the jewish people have no place in my society, do you truly feel I am not responsible for the actions of the Nazis that went on before me. I believe with it, philosophically, but I do not feel it goes like that in practice.

Mr U

It all depends on how guilty it makes you feel HU.;)

Thoughts are one thing, actions are another entirely.

^^Why, today, are Muslims more violent than Christians?

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

Does this part of the discussion not belong in the 'Christianity Discussion'? Perhaps a moderator could move it to a more appropriate place for discussion.

^^Why, today, are Muslims more violent than Christians?

Free Your Minds.

-neoizcool

Statistically, they are not. 'Christian' American soldiers are, according to the press, making more casualties than the Muslim 'rebels' in Iraq are.

Thought it would be a valiant effort, DPD, I do not believe it would serve it's use. Rather, let's get back on topic. Please return to your original programming. Thank you :).

Mr U

This is the 'A closer look at Homosexuality' thread if I'm not mistaken. Please stay on topic everyone. Thanks to all who are trying to steer it back on track.

UT

Ha ha. The recent posts have been interesting. ;) Hello again, guys!
Well, I spent some more time with some folks of my own country. Mind you, we're the guys who've spent a lifetime in a country where all possible abherrents are curbed as best as possible - we believe heavily in the death penalty, fines for spitting and chewing gums, and yes thinking that homosexuals are clinically sick...well, it's given me a few thoughts, and strengthened a few.
Remember my argument and ah, fallout, with T sometime ago, UT? I still believe in its cause. Remember the recent monkey-sphere-thingy thread too. We cannot help but be influenced by where we live in. My circle of friends either hate homosexuals or are the sort that tolerate them as long as they don't want to have too much contact. I'm not sure how I'll react too, and my more neutral stance is owing to a pretty Western-preferenced upbringing. Not too asian, and all that. Most of the people in my country are adverse to co-habitation too.
I'll broaden the scope. UT and Eon are from a very tolerant Australia. Mr. U (I think this is the first time I'm using this name!) hails from an interestingly neutral Holland. Last, but not least-ly, NIC comes from a American, but deeply Christian, background. The predictable and understandable effects are there; only the scale varies. Where's the choice?
Sorry to bring this discussion back to religion, but I'll use it only to illustrate the point. Why do Muslims form terrorists and kill folks so much more than Christians? Simply enough; more Muslims are poor. The Christians and Muslims in my neighbouring Indonesia are in the same standards of living: they do exactly the same amount and degree of atrocities on each other. Everytime I go to my friend's home for Christmas (I just did, too - Merry Christmas all; by the way!!), I often wonder at the extravagance and money spent on the one dinner of Xmas Eve, and why my family never goes to that extent. If the Muslims we like to talk about and associate with no-good terrorists had enough resources and time to celebrate their Christmas-sy festivals to the same extent that the folks around me do, I don't think there'd be so much hate to share. All that love, peace and joy to all mankind, hugs in the midnight mass...it only works to the people who partake in it: those who don't we can easily ignore.
That's why though we are free to express our individual feelings and views up here, it's hard to argue for a conclusion or find the true view, out of so many who live with views that work in their society and life bubbles. It'll be harder still for the people who really have to make a decision, and go beyond the views to the actions. I hope we'll all understand this before continuing.