What science says about homosexuality

[IzzyPop]

There have been conflicting results from twin studies as shown in this website:
New Twin Study shows little Genetic / Utero Hormonal causation of homosexuality

Yeah. That is from NARTH. Not saying it is wrong, but I would much prefer to see something from an unbiased source.

This statement is more of an appeal of emotion than anything. The topic is about genetics and homosexuality and you have implied that I am a less moral person because I do not condone homosexuality.

Funny, that.

You are close. I don't care if you condone it (I don't condone water sports in my example). I just care that you don't treat them as inferior unless you can demonstrate that they are causing harm.

If we want to use your line of argument, we could also say that "show me the harm that one man loving many wives causes anybody." or "show me the harm in a man loving a 10 year old girl." Clearly when worded in this way, all examples appear to be harmless and innocent. And that is the major flaw in your argument.

Ummm. Big difference between polygamy and pedophilia. I actually don't have much issue with polyamorous marriages as long as all involved are above the age of consent. I can show the harm caused by practicing pedophilia, so that example goes right out the window.

 

[LightHorseman]

Originally Posted by LightHorseman

Traumas change people, this much is true. However, once a person is changed by a trauma, then the way they are is who they are. So while the traumatic episode is a tragedy, and in a perfect world the person never would have taken on the new traits, we don't live in a perfect world. It is not the traumatised person's faulty that they suffered the trauma, presumabley, and it is wrong to persecute them for the person they become as a result.

Perhaps an easily visualisable analogy would work here...

Imagine a healthy, happy, "normal" person gets hit by a drunk driver on a pedestrian crossing, and becomes a paraplegic. It is obviously not the new paraplegics fault, and this is a tragedy. However, just because this never SHOULD have happened, and the new condition is "unnatural", doesn't make it OK to deny the paraplegic access to wheelchair ramps.
​

[/indent]While I appreciate the analogy, it just is not the same. One we are dealing with physical ailments and homosexuality and sexual abuse that has to do with physical and psychological trauma intertwined with the complexities of sexuality.

Sorry Steeler, I missed your post.

I don't understand why the physical trauma is different to the mental trauma. I'm glad you say you can appreciate the analogy though, so perhaps, allow me to try again, this time with a mental issue. I. myself, am by some definitions, mentally disabled. (laugh now lurkers , ha ha. Got it out of your system? Good) I suffer from a condition called "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder". This condition stems directly from traumatic experiences I have experienced. They aren't particularly my fault, they certainly weren't natural, the condition has changed traits of my personality, and I require concessions be made. Most people, in fact, when learning about this condition, are more than happy to make the necessary concessions I require, in both my professional and personal life, and, as a society, we have declared that it is wrong to discriminate against people and deny them access to such necessary concessions when they need them.

So... due to traumatic experiences, I have a condition, and I require concessions, most of which most people are more than happy to accomodate. Some homosexuals are homosexual due to traumatic experiences, and they require concessions. Why should people be any less prepared to grant homosexuals those concessions than they are prepared to grant them to me? I don't see the difference.

Furthermore, the sexual abuse example is clearly one of nurture and environment which undermines all genetic theories...so, I understand why you would discredit it.

Discredit? Moi? I never did any such thing! Right there in my quoted statement I clearly said it is a fact that trauma CAN result in homosexual traits. However, while trauma CAN account for homosexuality in some cases, there is almost certainly a genetic predisposition in those cases to begin with, and further, for the majority of homosexuals, they are so oriented due to genetics predisposition and healthy nurture, not necessarily trauma.

Can you think of specific areas of a person's life that may nurture homosexuality?

Wow. I'd love to give you an answer, but thats way beyond my knowledge of the subject. The whole "nature vs. nurture" debate is a long way from finished, and for everyone who wants you to believe "x environment causes Y behaviour", you can find someone else to say "no, Z environment causes Y behaviour!". We are more familiar with the negative effects of traumatic, abusive and neglectful environments on children, because these are the ones most closely studied. But in terms of more general "nurture influences", the short answer is, we just don't know. Does an environment with a greater emphasis on music, bright colours and literature make someone more inteligent? Possibly, some would even say probably... but no one knows for certain. And thats for INTELIGENCE which is a great deal more studied than homosexuality.

I'm sorry if this seems like a cop out. I can speculate, if you like, but thats all it would be, speculation. So far as I know, there is no clearly identified non-abusive environment which is more likely to lead to homosexuality than not.

 

[Everlasting33]

Yeah. That is from NARTH. Not saying it is wrong, but I would much prefer to see something from an unbiased source.

Where does it say its from NARTH? Did you see the same study on NARTH's website?

Who determines the unbiased source, you or I?



Funny, that.

You are close. I don't care if you condone it (I don't condone water sports in my example). I just care that you don't treat them as inferior unless you can demonstrate that they are causing harm.

Do I personally treat them inferior? No. So, who determines the causation of harm? Is this not subjective?

Ummm. Big difference between polygamy and pedophilia. I actually don't have much issue with polyamorous marriages as long as all involved are above the age of consent. I can show the harm caused by practicing pedophilia, so that example goes right out the window.

I was challenging the way your phrased your question in order to adhere a particular emotional response (now, why wouldn't she want two people to love each other?!)

So, is NOT practicing pedophilia healthy?

Is there a genetic component to pedophilia and other alternative sexual orientations?

 

[Everlasting33]

Sorry Steeler, I missed your post.

I don't understand why the physical trauma is different to the mental trauma. I'm glad you say you can appreciate the analogy though, so perhaps, allow me to try again, this time with a mental issue. I. myself, am by some definitions, mentally disabled. (laugh now lurkers , ha ha. Got it out of your system? Good) I suffer from a condition called "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder". This condition stems directly from traumatic experiences I have experienced. They aren't particularly my fault, they certainly weren't natural, the condition has changed traits of my personality, and I require concessions be made. Most people, in fact, when learning about this condition, are more than happy to make the necessary concessions I require, in both my professional and personal life, and, as a society, we have declared that it is wrong to discriminate against people and deny them access to such necessary concessions when they need them.

So... due to traumatic experiences, I have a condition, and I require concessions, most of which most people are more than happy to accomodate. Some homosexuals are homosexual due to traumatic experiences, and they require concessions. Why should people be any less prepared to grant homosexuals those concessions than they are prepared to grant them to me? I don't see the difference. Discredit? Moi? I never did any such thing! Right there in my quoted statement I clearly said it is a fact that trauma CAN result in homosexual traits. However, while trauma CAN account for homosexuality in some cases, there is almost certainly a genetic predisposition in those cases to begin with, and further, for the majority of homosexuals, they are so oriented due to genetics predisposition and healthy nurture, not necessarily trauma.Wow. I'd love to give you an answer, but thats way beyond my knowledge of the subject. The whole "nature vs. nurture" debate is a long way from finished, and for everyone who wants you to believe "x environment causes Y behaviour", you can find someone else to say "no, Z environment causes Y behaviour!". We are more familiar with the negative effects of traumatic, abusive and neglectful environments on children, because these are the ones most closely studied. But in terms of more general "nurture influences", the short answer is, we just don't know. Does an environment with a greater emphasis on music, bright colours and literature make someone more inteligent? Possibly, some would even say probably... but no one knows for certain. And thats for INTELIGENCE which is a great deal more studied than homosexuality.

I'm sorry if this seems like a cop out. I can speculate, if you like, but thats all it would be, speculation. So far as I know, there is no clearly identified non-abusive environment which is more likely to lead to homosexuality than not.[/quote]

I will have to answer this later. My computer is becoming very slow and I need to get to bed.

 

[quatona]

While this certainly is an interesting scientific question in itself, I seem to have problems understanding the relevance of the "nature vs. nurture" question has for the ethical/moral discussion of a trait/behaviour.

If at any point in time it should turn out that being straight is not genetically coded but the result of upbringing/nurture/environment, I wouldn´t see any moral/ethical implications whatsover.
Same with right-handedness, left-handedness or being gay.

 

[Fin12]

No, because I stated that there are two considerations. One was reproduction the other was physiology.

With regards to physiology, it's apparent that the organs of the sterile and the eldery still complement each other while that of gays does not.


Perhaps you can go back and address my point about justifying one set of behavior on a biological basis while condeming other biologically-based behavior as that was my point.


I'm not very patient of people who condescend to the religious as you just did with "learnt." Either we can hold an intelligent, adult conversation, or you will have to continue the debate without me.


For the purpose of debate, who are you to tell two consenting adults, related or not, what they should be doing sexually or maritally? If you are going to restrict one group of people's sexual behavior, then all groups are up for subjective scrutiny.


But morality, ethics, or some other subjective standard must be used as there is no scientific answer to this issue so we must defer to some sort of subjectivity.


Thanks for the welcome.

Ethics has plenty of room in our law. I want doctors to be ethical. I want those dealing in business to be ethical. I want lawyers to be ethical (yeah, I know that's never going to happen).

Without a set of values, we need no laws. Victimization does not exist without a set of values? Those rights you allude to in your last paragraph are based on a concept of morals or ethics (and religious ones at that). Without ethics all you have is survival of the fittest.

1. Why is physiology an ethical factor?

2. I will ahve to repeat, the whole nature argument for pro GLBT is not about justification. The difference between paedophillia and homosexuality is in the potential abuse of human rights.

3. How did I speak in a condescending manner? if your going to take up a victimised stance, the least you can do is properly explain it, rather than quoting a word then throwing up a shield of indignation.

4. Yes all groups ARE up for subjective scrutiny, the reason I would not be in favor of inscest couples having children is becuase of the chances that the child would suffer deformities and not be able to live a full life.

5. Theirs is a scientific answer, and that is that it would do no harm to give them have equal rights, now ou may argue that your church does not support their marriage, but their are other denominations that do.


I WOULD disagree if your church was forced to provide a gay marriage, but there are places that homosexuals could be married without having to interfere with those who disagreed with their behavior.

It's like a strip bar, now you and I may not neccessarily enjoy such an enviroment, but that doesn't stop us from going to a bar where their are no strippers.

6. I view morals and ethics as a personnal matter, as a society the only safe thing you can do is look at the facts, and look at what works as a society.

Like, Doctors giving the best care they can.

Brining criminals to justice and Re-habilitating them.

Installing road laws.

If we made our laws on ethics and morals, then what ethics are using.

I've probably mis-stated myself, the ethics that a government should use, should be the ones that protect others human rights, and allow people to live in peace.

Religious arguments towards minorities, and behaviour which affects no one.

Should not be in their, communism is an ethically awesome society, everyone gets a fair share, but that does't mean it works.

 

[Guyfoo]

Property need not consent. A parent can consent for a child. Consent ages are somewhat arbitrary.


Then you support incestuous marriages and polygamous marriages and since animals do no consent, a man marrying his property, right?

And in that case, we can agree to disagree but thanks for your view nonetheless.

Okay... i didn't intend to reply to this thread, but after reading through a few of your posts i fear you are under the impression that people can enter contracts with their property. Well just incase it hasn't been already, i would like to point out that you can't. You enter contracts with the owner of the property not the property itself. So in the case of renting. You enter a contract with the person leasing to you. Not the property. In the case of buying a property. You enter a contract with the person selling. Not the property. If you are getting a morgage, you enter a contract with the bank. Not the property. In the case of insurance, you enter a contract with the insurance company not the property. Why? Well because a property can't consent, nor can it sign a contract.

Maybe i am missing something here, i am no expert in law. So if i am please point it out.

 

[Shane Roach]

The significance of the argument that homosexuality is inherent is that people were much more sympathetic toward the idea of gay rights if they believed homosexuality was in some way unique and unalterable.

There are certainly people for whom the point is superfluous, but for many, polls showed it was a key point.

The history of our legal and medical treatment of homosexuality basically goes as follows. At first, it was illegal. This represented the moral attitudes of the populace, and is legitimate just as laws against public sex or indecency are legitimate. Then, certain mental health professionals began to argue it was a disease, and not something to be criminalized. This changed sentiments toward the law, but did not result in the behavior being accepted.

This eventually led to the point where gays openly defied society and the law, demanding their behavior be legal, and going further, insisting that their behavior is normal and acceptable. The APA, in a direct response to these demands, made a conscious decision to support this movement. It did so by taking the rather remarkable action of declaring homosexuality no longer an illness, yet at the same time insisting there is nothing wrong with it.

Note the overreach. An unelected bureaucracy of mental health professionals are now declaring what can and cannot be considered wrong.

So, the importance of the scientific debate is that it brings honesty and light back to the subject. Much of the support for gay rights is predicated on years of dishonest propaganda, not on science, and people need to know this. As they come to understand it, they will realize that, like many scientific assertions of the past that had affects on society, this one was not well researched before the medical community began to push hard for regulatory change. Like the saccharine scare, the whole "homosexuality is innate" argument is slowly drying up and blowing away.

I think people will be very disappointed to see how the APA actively attempted to push a moral agenda on the people of this country merely to support a leftist cause.

 

[KCKID]

The significance of the argument that homosexuality is inherent is that people were much more sympathetic toward the idea of gay rights if they believed homosexuality was in some way unique and unalterable.

There are certainly people for whom the point is superfluous, but for many, polls showed it was a key point.

The history of our legal and medical treatment of homosexuality basically goes as follows. At first, it was illegal. This represented the moral attitudes of the populace, and is legitimate just as laws against public sex or indecency are legitimate. Then, certain mental health professionals began to argue it was a disease, and not something to be criminalized. This changed sentiments toward the law, but did not result in the behavior being accepted.

This eventually led to the point where gays openly defied society and the law, demanding their behavior be legal, and going further, insisting that their behavior is normal and acceptable. The APA, in a direct response to these demands, made a conscious decision to support this movement. It did so by taking the rather remarkable action of declaring homosexuality no longer an illness, yet at the same time insisting there is nothing wrong with it.

Note the overreach. An unelected bureaucracy of mental health professionals are now declaring what can and cannot be considered wrong.

So, the importance of the scientific debate is that it brings honesty and light back to the subject. Much of the support for gay rights is predicated on years of dishonest propaganda, not on science, and people need to know this. As they come to understand it, they will realize that, like many scientific assertions of the past that had affects on society, this one was not well researched before the medical community began to push hard for regulatory change. Like the saccharine scare, the whole "homosexuality is innate" argument is slowly drying up and blowing away.

I think people will be very disappointed to see how the APA actively attempted to push a moral agenda on the people of this country merely to support a leftist cause.

I cannot comment effectively on what you state above. However, I need to ask a question that has likely been asked before but, to my knowledge, not answered. I'll make it as simple as I can. Why would an increasing number of heterosexual people feign some bogus orientation merely so that they can have sex with a gender that they are not naturally attracted to?

Do you understand my question, Shane, or do you need me to reword it?

 

[Shane Roach]

I cannot comment effectively on what you state above. However, I need to ask a question that has likely been asked before but, to my knowledge, not answered. I'll make it as simple as I can. Why would an increasing number of heterosexual people feign some bogus orientation merely so that they can have sex with a gender that they are not naturally attracted to?

Do you understand my question, Shane, or do you need me to reword it?

I don't think it is possible for people to "feign" the ability to perform sexually with folks of the same gender. You either can or you can't. Likewise, I do not think people are "feigning" their romantic inclinations. Rather, mental health professionals as a group have feigned knowledge of how this works, and declared it is of a nature that it demonstrably is not.

Clearly, if choice exists at all (and there is no settled scientific basis that it does) some people have a lot of choice in their sexual attractions and behaviors, as they are bisexual. What remains to be seen is, are people who are more or less exclusively homosexual this way because they choose to be, or because they cannot change? The mere fact that they say they did not choose is not proof one way or the other.

 

[Veyrlian]

The significance of the argument that homosexuality is inherent is that people were much more sympathetic toward the idea of gay rights if they believed homosexuality was in some way unique and unalterable.

There are certainly people for whom the point is superfluous, but for many, polls showed it was a key point.

The history of our legal and medical treatment of homosexuality basically goes as follows. At first, it was illegal. This represented the moral attitudes of the populace, and is legitimate just as laws against public sex or indecency are legitimate. Then, certain mental health professionals began to argue it was a disease, and not something to be criminalized. This changed sentiments toward the law, but did not result in the behavior being accepted.

This eventually led to the point where gays openly defied society and the law, demanding their behavior be legal, and going further, insisting that their behavior is normal and acceptable. The APA, in a direct response to these demands, made a conscious decision to support this movement. It did so by taking the rather remarkable action of declaring homosexuality no longer an illness, yet at the same time insisting there is nothing wrong with it.

Note the overreach. An unelected bureaucracy of mental health professionals are now declaring what can and cannot be considered wrong.

So, the importance of the scientific debate is that it brings honesty and light back to the subject. Much of the support for gay rights is predicated on years of dishonest propaganda, not on science, and people need to know this. As they come to understand it, they will realize that, like many scientific assertions of the past that had affects on society, this one was not well researched before the medical community began to push hard for regulatory change. Like the saccharine scare, the whole "homosexuality is innate" argument is slowly drying up and blowing away.

I think people will be very disappointed to see how the APA actively attempted to push a moral agenda on the people of this country merely to support a leftist cause.

Emphasis mine. The declaration might have seemed remarkable at the time, but in these days it sounds very much like common sense. I don't see anything wrong with my gay friends' gay behaviour, neither do they seem mentally ill in any way. Besides, I'd trust the opinions of mental health professionals more than some people's uneducated guesses and emotional responses.
Besides, I don't really care whether homosexuality is innate or chosen or umm. leftist. That is irrelevant to the issue of equal rights.

 

[Shane Roach]

Emphasis mine. The declaration might have seemed remarkable at the time, but in these days it sounds very much like common sense. I don't see anything wrong with my gay friends' gay behaviour, neither do they seem mentally ill in any way. Besides, I'd trust the opinions of mental health professionals more than some people's uneducated guesses and emotional responses.
Besides, I don't really care whether homosexuality is innate or chosen or umm. leftist. That is irrelevant to the issue of equal rights.

Whether something is or is not an illness is a problem mental health professionals have something to say about. Whether or not it is normal or moral is not. The fact that mental health professionals now see their role as a new church further illustrates that humanist, atheist, and socialist thought is being used as if it were a religion and given favored status by our government.

If homosexuality is not a mental health issue, then that's really all the APA etc. have to say on the issue that is relevant. Its "normalcy", acceptability, etc., are things for people to decide in whatever way they choose.

 

[LittleNipper]

And that might very well be the case for some. I am not denying the fact that it is possible, but I am saying that is not the case for every LGBT individual as everyone comes from different background and different homes and is brought up differently.

As I said before, sexuality is a very, very complex thing. It is not black and white. There is no one cause or another. Actually, sexuality isn't just the complex thing, the human brain is a very complex thing. One cannot just assume that there is one cause for it and that applies to everybody. That's not the way it works.

And your last point in regards to television also only applies to some people. While that may be the cause for some, it is not the cause for all. I watched A LOT of TV growing up and I do not have ADD nor do I have any sort of speech development issue.

That is true. There could be the result of rebellion on the part of the "maturing" teen towards the parents, society, conventionality, his/her peers. It could be the direct result of early sexual rejection. It might involve a sour relationship that went too far... It might just be a result of trial and error and the misunderstanding of one's comfort zone vs waiting for marriage at a later age with maturity.

I married as a virgin my virgin wife at the ripe old age of 31 (she was 25). I don't know what I'd have been like had I experienced sex at say 16 or 17 and been rejected or insulted. All I can say is we waited and we met later in life, and I do feel strongly that influenced my choices to some degree.

 

[*Starlight*]

Its "normalcy", acceptability, etc., are things for people to decide in whatever way they choose.

Not really. Homosexuality is normal, no matter what some people say. It's just something that naturally happens sometimes. Some people fall in love with other people of the same sex, just like most people fall in love with other people of the opposite sex. The fact that someone falls in love and has a romantic relationship with a person of the opposite sex doesn't harm anyone, so logically it shouldn't be treated any worse than when a person is in such a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. These are all objective, observed facts, not opinions. That's why it's not something people can decide, just like people don't decide what, for example, the shape of the Earth is. They simply observe and accept it, just like all other scientific facts, including the nature of homosexuality and homosexual relationships.

 

[KCKID]

I cannot comment effectively on what you state above. However, I need to ask a question that has likely been asked before but, to my knowledge, not answered. I'll make it as simple as I can. Why would an increasing number of heterosexual people feign some bogus orientation merely so that they can have sex with a gender that they are not naturally attracted to?

Do you understand my question, Shane, or do you need me to reword it?

I don't think it is possible for people to "feign" the ability to perform sexually with folks of the same gender. You either can or you can't. Likewise, I do not think people are "feigning" their romantic inclinations. Rather, mental health professionals as a group have feigned knowledge of how this works, and declared it is of a nature that it demonstrably is not.

Clearly, if choice exists at all (and there is no settled scientific basis that it does) some people have a lot of choice in their sexual attractions and behaviors, as they are bisexual. What remains to be seen is, are people who are more or less exclusively homosexual this way because they choose to be, or because they cannot change? The mere fact that they say they did not choose is not proof one way or the other.

Shane, I'm sorry, the hour is late here and I'm tired ....are you saying that you believe homosexuality to be a 'natural' orientation for some or not?

 

[Shane Roach]

Shane, I'm sorry, the hour is late here and I'm tired ....are you saying that you believe homosexuality to be a 'natural' orientation for some or not?

I think our discussion is suffering from the effort you are making to place it squarely in a box of your own design. I do not assert it is impossible that there is a very natural element to homosexual orientation. In that sense, it could be possibly inborn. But no person, in my opinion, has ever been or will ever be proven to be incapable of change of this orientation.

There is a difference between cannot and will not that is simply impossible to distinguish.

 

[Shane Roach]

Not really. Homosexuality is normal, no matter what some people say. It's just something that naturally happens sometimes. Some people fall in love with other people of the same sex, just like most people fall in love with other people of the opposite sex. The fact that someone falls in love and has a romantic relationship with a person of the opposite sex doesn't harm anyone, so logically it shouldn't be treated any worse than when a person is in such a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. These are all objective, observed facts, not opinions. That's why it's not something people can decide, just like people don't decide what, for example, the shape of the Earth is. They simply observe and accept it, just like all other scientific facts, including the nature of homosexuality and homosexual relationships.

Quoted for untruth, to coin a phrase.

There is nothing in this entire paragraph that is settled either by science or by law. Further, sex and love are two entirely different things, although I have certainly wished in my life that people did not separate them, they can and often do.

 

[IzzyPop]

Where does it say its from NARTH? Did you see the same study on NARTH's website?

There is a little link towards the top that says 'from here' and it leads to NARTH.

Who determines the unbiased source, you or I?

Me, of course.

I try avoid links to sites and organizations that have a horse in the race. I get extra skeptical even if I like what they say.

Do I personally treat them inferior? No.

So you support same sex marriage?

So, who determines the causation of harm? Is this not subjective?

This could get a little fun...

Yes and no. And that is the basis of these discussions of morality for me, really. I look at it as 'no harm, no foul'. If somethings harms someone, it is wrong unless the harm caused prevents a larger harm. Moral relativity at its finest, no?

Homosexuality may well cause some small harm upon society at large. I don't think so, nor has anyone shown me where this is the case, but it may. I think the harm done to homosexuals and society at large by keeping them as second class citizens greatly out weighs the small harm homosexuality possibly causes.

I was challenging the way your phrased your question in order to adhere a particular emotional response (now, why wouldn't she want two people to love each other?!)

I wasn't phrasing it that to elicit any emotional response. I phrased it that way because that is how I see it.

So, is NOT practicing pedophilia healthy?

In the same way that not smoking is healthy.

Is there a genetic component to pedophilia and other alternative sexual orientations?

I'm not sure that pedophilia is an orientation, but I will answer your question.

I don't know and it doesn't matter. The practice of pedophilia harms the child in a profound manner. It is wrong.

 

[Mercy Medical]

That is true. There could be the result of rebellion on the part of the "maturing" teen towards the parents, society, conventionality, his/her peers. It could be the direct result of early sexual rejection. It might involve a sour relationship that went too far... It might just be a result of trial and error and the misunderstanding of one's comfort zone vs waiting for marriage at a later age with maturity.

I married as a virgin my virgin wife at the ripe old age of 31 (she was 25). I don't know what I'd have been like had I experienced sex at say 16 or 17 and been rejected or insulted. All I can say is we waited and we met later in life, and I do feel strongly that influenced my choices to some degree.

And while those all might be perfectly viable reasoning for someone coming into their own in regards to their sexuality, it is not limited to just that. I do believe that homosexuality is a choice for some. I'm sure there are a number of women and even a few men out there who are just tired of dating the opposite sex and want to try out the same sex. However, just because it may be a choice for some does not mean it is for all.

There are some people who are just born that way, born with those feelings towards those of the same sex. People's sexuality and their brain in general is a very, very complicated thing that (like I've said many times) cannot be put into black and white categories. People come to find out their sexuality on their own whether it be them being born that way, whether it be nurture or their own personal experiences later on in life. Regardless of how you come to "find yourself out", it does not make it wrong. It is natural. And just because it may seem "different" to some does not mean that individuals who are homosexual (regardless of how they came to be that way) should not be able to get married to the person they love.

I understand that it is a difficult concept for some to grasp if they have never experienced it themselves. Even my own mother said that she just didn't understand because she had never had those kinds of feelings before. It's significantly easier for someone who has never experienced those feelings before to say "well, it's wrong, it's sin and you should refrain from it." Imagine if God had told you that it was morally wrong for you to love your spouse, someone you cared for and loved very, very deeply. Would you just abandon that relationship because God said so? I suppose if you say yes, then I applaud you on your dedication to God and to your faith...but I just do not feel that way and just because I feel differently on the subject matter then someone else does not warrant the government restricting who I can and cannot marry.

Everyone deserves the right to be happy, regardless of how much their opinions may differ on certain subject matters then others. As a homosexual myself, I would never ever EVER want to take away the right of freedom of religion from religious organizations and individuals. I would expect any state that legalizes same sex marriage to maintain the freedom of religion along with it and give churches and religious organizations the ability to refuse service to those who are homosexual if they do not agree with it.

I mean, isn't that kind of the beauty of this country? That we are all so different and have so many different views on life and that we're all capable of practicing what we believe and being who we are without any sort of prosecution from others (I understand this is somewhat of an idealistic standpoint considering that really isn't the case for everyone in this country 100%, but in my personal opinion it should be).

(And understand that all the previous statements come with the caveat that people have the right to be who they are and live life as they please as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others or harm other individuals in any way).

 

[*Starlight*]

Quoted for untruth, to coin a phrase.

There is nothing in this entire paragraph that is settled either by science or by law. Further, sex and love are two entirely different things, although I have certainly wished in my life that people did not separate them, they can and often do.

I simply said that homosexuality happens sometimes, and that it doesn't cause any harm. What's untrue about that? The first thing is settled by science, and it's proven by the fact that homosexuals exist. And the second thing is proven by common sense. The fact that two people fall in love with each other isn't something that affects negatively other people, no matter what genders these people have. Unless that person is already in a relationship with someone, that's an exception when such a situation does harm, but it still doesn't depend on whether it's homosexual or heterosexual.