Do I believe that what is right?
The study? I don´t know.
Sexual abuse? No.
Identfying with being homosexual? Why sure.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Do I believe that what is right?The study I provided in another post suggests that many homosexuals identify with being homosexual only after sexual abuse. Do you still believe its right in this context?
I've seen arguments like this many times and typically when the answer is provided, it is ignored.Back to square one, Zaac. AND, we ALWAYS come back to square one. YOU are a sinner ...correct? So, why is a homosexual MORE of a sinner than you are? The question is real, by the way. I can never figure this one out. I mean, "I" can't point the finger at anyone because I'm unworthy ...how come you can?
Yet, there are many blacks who say there is absolutely no parallel between racism and the issue of homosexuality. And despite the claims of parallels, many blacks are making it a point to make sure gay behavior is not promoted as a civil rights struggle by voting down gay marriage.Ah yes, before interracial marriage was allowed, blacks had every right whites had. They could marry within their own race, but marrying with another race was against god's law. So it was all perfectly equal. If a white woman loved a black man or a black woman loved a white man, well, too bad for them, they should just find someone in their own race, after all, we all have the freedom to choose who we love. If someone chooses to love someone of the wrong type, then they deserve punishment.
Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation
And?
Thier are plenty of homosexuals who say they were born that way.
You're simply siding with that postion becuase it is the one that your prejudice backs.
I don't personally believe people are "born that way", thier are definatly aspects of nurture in it, something like 85-90% of us straights are to some extent homo-sexual, along with similar statistics for gays.
I take that as a sign that our sexuality has an ability to fluctuate.
Edit: Steelers post intrigued me, I think the out-come of homosexuality after abuse stems from people having a messed up experience which toys with their identity.
However to say that homosexualities cause is abusation is redundant, homosexuality serves it's evoloutionary purpose, and thier are plenty of homosexuals who have no history of abuse.
But nonetheless and intriguing study in the world of psycho-sexuality. (I believe this is the correct term)
Homosexuals have the same right to marry as heterosexuals. They can marry a person of the opposite sex who is not closely related to them and is of consenting age just as a heterosexual can. the legal rights are exactly the same.From the article I linked:
Here are four of the arguments they used:
1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."
You're attempting to equate being gay with a particular act, declaring that act as unnatural, and stating it's contrary to god's will. Your arguments are the same arguments used against interracial marriage.
And now I must be off to work. Be well.
Homsexuals have the same right to marry as heterosexuals. They can marry a person of the opposite sex who is not closely related to them and is of consenting age just as a heterosexual can. the legal rights are exactly the same.
Those advocating gay marriage say that gays can't marry the person they love but the law specifies nothing about love. Just as homosexuals cannot marry, niether can those into bestiality, incest, polygamists, etc. And arguably, polygamists would have a greater claim to marriage as there would theoretically be more "love" involved in such a case.
If you think there is nothing adverse to homosexuality, then I'd refer to the Centers For Disease Control webiste on their Fact Sheet on AIDS. While the incidence of AIDS among lesbians is extremely low, that among gay men is extremely disproportionate for their demographic as compared to every other demographic.If by "something is amiss in the mind of the homosexual" you mean that something is different, then yes...I would agree. Something IS different in the mind of a homosexual in comparison to a heterosexual...however, I would not go so far as to say it is necessarily "abnormal."
And why should we look for a cure? Even if I were to adhere to the idea that it is somehow a biological disorder, why cure it? Is it doing it harm to the individuals who have it? No. Is it doing any harm to society? No. There are zero negative outcomes of anyone being a homosexual...unless you are a Christian who believes it to be sin. Society is not in danger of extinction because of homosexuality as they make up a very, very small portion of the population and it's quite obvious that the heterosexuals are doing a pretty good job of reproducing on their own considering the number of unplanned pregnancies in this world. And even if, for some reason homosexuality became the majority and heterosexuality the minority, science offers the ability to create new life without the standard heterosexual "nature" method of reproduction.
If you think there is nothing adverse to homosexuality, then I'd refer to the Centers For Disease Control webiste on their Fact Sheet on AIDS. While the incidence of AIDS among lesbians is extremely low, that among gay men is extremely disproportionate for their demographic as compared to every other demographic.
The Supreme Courts opinion that this is a Christian Nation...Added to the Pledge during the Red Scare and found nowhere in the Constitution of the United States.
Homsexuals have the same right to marry as heterosexuals. They can marry a person of the opposite sex who is not closely related to them and is of consenting age just as a heterosexual can. the legal rights are exactly the same.
No, because I stated that there are two considerations. One was reproduction the other was physiology.1. So you would agree that contraceptivs are immoral along with elderly and sterile couples that have sex?
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.2. Rape theft and murder are not sexual orientations. However as for paraphilia such as paedophillia you have to remember that in the context of homosexuality the chance of people being abused is the same as with hetero relationships.
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.3. The reason homosexuality is genetic would be a victory for the LGBT crowd, would not be a justification, for their is no crime to justify. It is rather that it would shift peoples perspective of homoexuality to something less based around. "It is a behaviour that is learnt through sin"
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.4. I persoanlly as long as their is no reproduction involved see no problem with incestious marriage along with the alcoholic I would like to see a different sentance handed out if he was incapable of any real cognitive thought.
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.5. As for who's morality, no ones, if your going to argu that we may as well have no laws, becuase they are all "subjective".
Thanks for the welcome.Rule of thumb, if no ones rights are being abused then it continues such is law. Ethics should not come into government, merely what works for the to create the most effecient society.
Welcome to CF
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.
And this is pretty much the same as claiming that people in Iran have Freedom of Religion; everyone has an equal right to attend mosque and worship Allah.
As for bestiality, incest, and polygamy, they are not allowed because the government has compelling reasons (at least as has been decided by the Supreme Court thus far) for denying these types of marriages. There is no such "compelling reason" to deny marriage to same-sex couples.
That's some twisted logic.And this is pretty much the same as claiming that people in Iran have Freedom of Religion; everyone has an equal right to attend mosque and worship Allah.
The compelling reason for a man not to marry a dog is?As for bestiality, incest, and polygamy, they are not allowed because the government has compelling reasons (at least as has been decided by the Supreme Court thus far) for denying these types of marriages. There is no such "compelling reason" to deny marriage to same-sex couples.
I'm sorry, but the claim was made that, "There are zero negative outcomes of anyone being a homosexual..." so can you tell me where my response did not refute that claim?So is there something adverse to being Black? They incidence of AIDS among Blacks (both here in the US and in Africa) is extremely disproportionate for their demographic. In fact, Washington, D.C., because of Blacks, is the "AIDS capital" of the US because of their high Black population.
Agreed, but I see no compelling reason to recognize same-sex marriage.And if same-sex marriage is allowed, the legal rights will still be the same for everyone.
Who said I wanted them to marry? I merely stated that they had the same exact legal rights as heterosexuals.And do you really want homosexuals marrying opposite-sex people just so they can achieve their right to be married? How is that protecting the sanctity of marriage?
I'm sorry, but the claim was made that, "There are zero negative outcomes of anyone being a homosexual..." so can you tell me where my response did not refute that claim?
Who said I wanted them to marry? I merely stated that they had the same exact legal rights as heterosexuals.
I refer you back to my first post.What about someone who, say, was castrated for some reason? Can they marry even if they don't have the requisite organ?
Also, plenty of parts complement each other. Penises need not go only into vaginas, and vaginas need not be penetrated only by penises.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?