-
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.
What science says about homosexuality
- Thread starter apersonsaperson
- Start date
- Status
Mercy Medical
Newbie
What in the world are you talking about or trying to say?
Why would homosexuality be wrong after sexual abuse? It's the sexual abuse that was wrong, not the homosexuality. While it may be a causation of the sexual abuse, I see no fault in homosexuality nor why it should be labeled bad under those circumstances.
Upvote
0
Mercy Medical
Newbie
That is not a fault of homosexuality, that is a fault of people being irresponsible with their sex lives which can occur for anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Upvote
0
Yes, it is behavior but the behavior is extremely disproportionate among gay men in America than any other demographic. It seems probable that the same-sex attraction of gay men also results in a prediliction to risky behavior.
Upvote
0
Mercy Medical
Newbie
Are you surprised? They are men. Two men in fact. One man alone is enough testosterone in a relationship...but two men together who are attracted to each other and I'm sure the testosterone is going to fly...
Because one has a same sex attraction does not instantly mean they are going to partake in risky sexual behavior. Is it honestly that difficult to see the disconnect between the two?
Upvote
0
Then, by your logic, every marriage type should be recognized and that would be utterly ridicuolous.
Upvote
0
Perhaps the stigma of being homosexual contributes to this. For a long time, a gay couple would be viewed very negatively and ostracized and perhaps even attacked within a community. This forced many, who did not want to publicly admit to being homosexual, to not be able to have a prolonged relationship with a single person. This would lead to more risky behavior if one were to desire to engage in sexual activity.
Upvote
0
Answered in my response to b&wpac4. http://www.christianforums.com/t7371966-11/#post51887002
Upvote
0
I predict the "marriage with children" and "marriage with animals" arguments will be brought up next. I will then counter with the fact that animals and children cannot consent to marriage as they are not recognized with having the ability to agree to contracts.
Sometimes this descends to an odd discussion about laws being passed to allow them to consent, but, truly, that argument is grasping at straws. Were the country to get so far as to grant contract rights to a dog, the country would already have ceased to exist as the nation it is today.
Upvote
0
How about... "homosexuals WANT to get married"?
Isn't people's desire for something reason enough? Generally speaking, I believe you should let people do whatever they like so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. If you want to stop someone from doing something, then I believe you'd better have a darned good reason... and I see no reason to stop homosexuals getting married other than small minded habit.
Upvote
0
If it were a matter of merely hormones, the numbers wouldn't be so disproportionate. The first paragraph says it all.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/pdf/msm.pdf
Upvote
0
Perhaps a million things. We don't know yet despite the horrific incidence of AIDS among gay mne, people will continue to jump through hoops to present them as normal.
Upvote
0
And yet, that was exactly your logic. You claimed that because gays can enter into a marriage that they have no interest in that they have equal rights. That is exactly the same logic as stating that Christians have equal rights in Iraq since they can worship Allah in a mosque like any other person. In both cases, it shows that just because the law treats everyone the same it is not equality.
And gays have families too, therefore their relationships should be promoted just like straight couples. Not quite sure what you mean by the "natural physiology" buy my best guess is you mean penis/vagina. Yet in some marriages, as someone pointed out previously, a man may have had an "accident" and lost his penis, yet it does not remove his right to marry. Nor is fertility required for marriage.
To repeat, I made no claim that there is a connection between gay marriage in the United States and religion in Iran, I was instead pointing out your faulty logic in stating that just because the law treats everyone the same that it is not equality.
Because a dog cannot legally consent or enter a contract. The same reason children below the age of consent may not marry.
From what I know from previous decisions, incest is in part not allowed because of the increased chances of birth defects. For example, some states will allow first cousins to marry only if they provide evidence that they are unable to have a child (man has had a vasectomy or woman has gone through menopause or had a hysterectomy, or one or both are otherwise sterile). Beyond that, much of the reasoning has to do with the mental problems it can cause, particularly since there can be some coercion (mental or otherwise) in these types of relationships.
If that is the reason, it is too late. Homosexuality is already legal -- as such it already has governmental recognition.
Again, you need to explain what you mean by "physiology". As for the "values" this country was founded on, while I agree that there was a Christian majority, they purposely did not create a nation founded on Christianity. Rather, they founded a nation on "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness". The constitution specifically states that all citizens should be treated equally under the law. Not to mention, there are Christians that believe God recognizes gay marriages.
Red herring. The teaching of "homosexuality" that is so objected to (such as the book the Parker's objected to in Massachusetts) merely point out that some couples are made up of two people of the same sex. That is fact, gay couples exist (and raise children together) regardless if same sex marriage is legal or not. All these schools are doing is teaching that some children have a mother and a father, some families have only a mother or father, some have a mommy and daddy lives in another place with the new mommy, some have two mommies, etc. Even if you don't teach this, the kids will still find out -- not to mention that children with "different" families may get picked on (and in some school districts, such as those with high divorce rates, it may well be the children with both a mother and daddy that get picked on).
Further, gay marriage has no influence on whether homosexuality is taught as "normal and natural". Again, homosexuality is legal, normal (for homosexuals), and natural (found in nature).
Again, you missed my point. The point was that it is not Blacks that are bad or that gays are bad -- instead, STDs don't infect people merely because they are gay or Black. Rather, STDs are a negative outcome of being sexually promiscuous and not having safe sex. A same sex married couple is no more likely to get STDs than an opposite sex married couple. And with the recent study stating that 1 in 4 teenaged girl has an STD, and 1 in 4 Americans having genital herpes, it's not like heterosexuals are much better.
Upvote
0
To give you an example I'm sure you can relate to:
In the early days of Christianity, Christians had to meet in secret out of fear of persecution by the Romans who basically viewed Christianity as some weird Jewish sect, and as they were having many problems with the Jewish people at the time, Christians got to feel the brunt of that as well.
Had some sort of highly infectious disease spread through the Christian ranks, the Romans would have simply said that the gods were punishing the Christians with this disease. Since they had to meet in secret, presumably in tight quarters, it is not impossible to believe that an airborne disease could have done this quite easily. It was a good thing such a disease did not sweep though them, of course.
The point is that it is easy to say that a group has a problem with certain diseases, but you are not looking for the root cause. The root cause I see here is a failure for many to be allowed to live in a two-person relationship and feel they must go "underground" to satisfy their sexual cravings.
In the early days of Christianity, Christians had to meet in secret out of fear of persecution by the Romans who basically viewed Christianity as some weird Jewish sect, and as they were having many problems with the Jewish people at the time, Christians got to feel the brunt of that as well.
Had some sort of highly infectious disease spread through the Christian ranks, the Romans would have simply said that the gods were punishing the Christians with this disease. Since they had to meet in secret, presumably in tight quarters, it is not impossible to believe that an airborne disease could have done this quite easily. It was a good thing such a disease did not sweep though them, of course.
The point is that it is easy to say that a group has a problem with certain diseases, but you are not looking for the root cause. The root cause I see here is a failure for many to be allowed to live in a two-person relationship and feel they must go "underground" to satisfy their sexual cravings.
Upvote
0
No need to. Either there are standards or there are not. I advocate the standards that have supported our nation's prosperity for over 200 years and relieves me of the need of drawing arbitrary lines on who can and cannot marry with no consideration for values.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
