What science says about homosexuality

[LittleNipper]

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.

Well, I would have to disagree that homosexuality causes no harm. 30 years ago, who even imagined that the rest of society would be faced with a redefining of marriage to suit sexual preferences. Mommies and Daddies were always grown-up girls and boys.

 

[Veyrlian]

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.

This actually really ticks me off.
AS IF IT WERE A RELIGION. As if a religion is something so special that it should be most FAVORED in status. What is so special about a religion? There a a gazillion of them. Why should religious institutes have a favored status on expense of other equally strongly felt about philosophies or ideologies? Why is it that somehow if you belong to a religion, everyone else must tiptoe around your morals and views? Are religious people somehow more fragile than, say atheists? Or liberals? Homosexuals? Leftists? Vegetarians? Animal rights activists? Communists? Is religion something that makes people who hold them better at giving judgement? Is everything religious people say somehow more normal, more right?



I feel rather strongly that homosexuality is perfectly normal and perfectly moral. Why shouldn't my view be equally favored among a society? Apparently everything SHOULD be made into a religion so that then everyone could live happily with equal rights, and no one would get special treatment. Yeah, lets make a Gay Church. And an Atheist Church, and a Leftist Church, a Church for the Sanctity of Animals etc etc.. Apparently this way everyone can finally happily do and live however they wish and criticize the other views as much as they wish, but finally no one can force their moralities on anyone else. Halleluyah.

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.

Yeah. I choose normalcy and acceptability. You can choose otherwise, and hold anyone you want as an abnormal, unacceptable monster from Mars, if you like. That doesn't give you the right to take away theirs.

 

[Mercy Medical]

Well, I would have to disagree that homosexuality causes no harm. 30 years ago, who even imagined that the rest of society would be faced with a redefining of marriage to suit sexual preferences. Mommies and Daddies were always grown-up girls and boys.

Where is the harm in that? How does "redefining" marriage cause any sort of harm or how does the idea of mommy and mommy or daddy and daddy for children cause any sort of harm?

 

[*Starlight*]

Well, I would have to disagree that homosexuality causes no harm. 30 years ago, who even imagined that the rest of society would be faced with a redefining of marriage to suit sexual preferences. Mommies and Daddies were always grown-up girls and boys.

How does this prove that homosexuality causes harm?

 

[apersonsaperson]

How does this prove that homosexuality causes harm?

I firmly agree.

Changes in society are quite normal. I remember when cell phones and computers were just getting big. I heard religious arguments made against the integration of such technology.

This may not make sense to you, as it didn't make sense to me when I heard such arguments being made. This is how i sense the argument for gay marriage hurting our culture or society. I don't think it's right that if two men or women love each other they can't go about making ir official just as a man and women would do. If anything I think some of the marriage laws have to be reworked down south. I remember hearing that it's legal to marry someone once you are 16 in Kentucky, I believe.

Also if gay marriage were to be made legal in all parts of the country (It's just a matter of time. This is a civil rights movement no matter how you look at it and just as the blacks prevailed so shall homosexuals) it's nothing to fear. it won't change, affect, or undermine the value of male on female marriages. I am a firm believe the only way to lessen the value of a marriage is if it isn't founded on love. If you follow love you can't go wrong.

 

[apersonsaperson]

This actually really ticks me off.
AS IF IT WERE A RELIGION. As if a religion is something so special that it should be most FAVORED in status. What is so special about a religion? There a a gazillion of them. Why should religious institutes have a favored status on expense of other equally strongly felt about philosophies or ideologies? Why is it that somehow if you belong to a religion, everyone else must tiptoe around your morals and views? Are religious people somehow more fragile than, say atheists? Or liberals? Homosexuals? Leftists? Vegetarians? Animal rights activists? Communists? Is religion something that makes people who hold them better at giving judgement? Is everything religious people say somehow more normal, more right?



I feel rather strongly that homosexuality is perfectly normal and perfectly moral. Why shouldn't my view be equally favored among a society? Apparently everything SHOULD be made into a religion so that then everyone could live happily with equal rights, and no one would get special treatment. Yeah, lets make a Gay Church. And an Atheist Church, and a Leftist Church, a Church for the Sanctity of Animals etc etc.. Apparently this way everyone can finally happily do and live however they wish and criticize the other views as much as they wish, but finally no one can force their moralities on anyone else. Halleluyah.



Yeah. I choose normalcy and acceptability. You can choose otherwise, and hold anyone you want as an abnormal, unacceptable monster from Mars, if you like. That doesn't give you the right to take away theirs.

I agree heavily with what you are saying. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and feelings. EVERYONE. Even, no, especially if they differ from yours. But no one has the right to push their morals, feelings, and opinions onto other people.

Also I'm seeing much talk about my first post so I'd like to say...

Even if homosexuality was derived from something different (environmental aspects, genes, at birth, a gene not activated until later in life, like an allergy) should it even matter? Once an adult male is homosexual that's who he is. If you grew up in a family who was obsessed with boats and later on in life you retained this interest in boats, it was environmental but it defined and shaped your personality.

A human being is a human being. Unless they are a serious threat to our culture love them. Embrace them. Fight for their rights. To all you people who have a fear or disliking of gay men and women and i feel pity for you. Just as some of us have racist grandparents we can't understand that is how your future grandchildren are going to very likely view you. Because in the next 20 years gays will have their civil rights on a federal level in the United States i believe. The only thing from stopping this happening today is fear and ignorance.

 

[Norbert L]

I feel rather strongly that homosexuality is perfectly normal and perfectly moral. Why shouldn't my view be equally favored among a society? Apparently everything SHOULD be made into a religion so that then everyone could live happily with equal rights, and no one would get special treatment. Yeah, lets make a Gay Church. And an Atheist Church, and a Leftist Church, a Church for the Sanctity of Animals etc etc.. Apparently this way everyone can finally happily do and live however they wish and criticize the other views as much as they wish, but finally no one can force their moralities on anyone else. Halleluyah.



Yeah. I choose normalcy and acceptability. You can choose otherwise, and hold anyone you want as an abnormal, unacceptable monster from Mars, if you like. That doesn't give you the right to take away theirs.

Religion is perfectly normal too however what constitutes morals between interest groups vary. A person doesn't need to be religious to have issues with any other particular group. It's just as likely a gay person would take exception to Atheists, leftists and a church for the santity of animals.

As a matter of fact there are gay churches claiming to be Christian (gaychurch.org), but how ethical is it to form one of these for the gay community? Seeing the plain statements within the Bible that are clearly anti-gay and that a big majority of Christians hold these churches as utterly apostate.

Could it be just as likely a few gays would hold other gays as being "abnormal, unacceptable monster from Mars" because they call themselves Christians?

 

[Shane Roach]

My point remains. Medicine can make decisions on whether or not something is treatable. It can state honestly, "this study indicates this percentage of people are homosexual." It can go on to claim that it is normal or a certain percentage of people to be homosexual. What it cannot do with any authority is claim that something that is clearly abnormal overall is in fact normal, nor is there any authority in the medical community to force leftist morality on a populous that does not believe it is acceptable.

People act as if it is the government or Christians oppressing people, but the fact is that the government and homosexuals are attacking the people, not the other way around.

 

[*Starlight*]

People act as if it is the government or Christians oppressing people, but the fact is that the government and homosexuals are attacking the people, not the other way around.

Homosexuals aren't trying to limit other people's rights, while some conservative Christians want to limit other people's rights by promoting discrimination. Not even all conservative Christians do it, there are those who believe that homosexuality is a sin, but also realize that the same religious freedom which allows them to believe that also allows other people NOT to be forced to conform to a particular religion's beliefs, so they don't push to make their religious beliefs a universal law that applies to everyone.

 

[Veyrlian]

Religion is perfectly normal too however what constitutes morals between interest groups vary. A person doesn't need to be religious to have issues with any other particular group. It's just as likely a gay person would take exception to Atheists, leftists and a church for the santity of animals.

Well, maybe not as likely, but entirely possible, yes.

As a matter of fact there are gay churches claiming to be Christian (gaychurch.org), but how ethical is it to form one of these for a gay person? Seeing the plain statements within the Bible that are clearly anti-gay and that a big majority of Christians hold these churches as utterly apostate.

What is unethical about interpreting the bible as they see fit? Every Christian sect does it.

Could it be just as likely a few gays would hold other gays as being "abnormal, unacceptable monster from Mars" because they call themselves Christians?

Yes. And they have that right too. They can think other gays are green jelly if they want, as long as they don't try to treat them as such and take away their rights. Obviously I'd disagree and probably criticize them for their rather ignorant views on the subject, but that is my right.

 

[Veyrlian]

My point remains. Medicine can make decisions on whether or not something is treatable. It can state honestly, "this study indicates this percentage of people are homosexual." It can go on to claim that it is normal or a certain percentage of people to be homosexual. What it cannot do with any authority is claim that something that is clearly abnormal overall is in fact normal, nor is there any authority in the medical community to force leftist morality on a populous that does not believe it is acceptable.

People act as if it is the government or Christians oppressing people, but the fact is that the government and homosexuals are attacking the people, not the other way around.

Normal and abnormal are entirely related to the cultural background through which these are viewed. There is nothing absolute about them, they are subject to change along with the culture and it's people.

How is leftist morality forced upon you? Do they lock you away or take away some of your rights unless you comply? Which rights are these? Are you not allowed to marry any more? That would be awful and very wrong.

How are homosexuals attacking "the people" and which people are these?

 

[PsychMJC]

Well, I would have to disagree that homosexuality causes no harm. 30 years ago, who even imagined that the rest of society would be faced with a redefining of marriage to suit sexual preferences. Mommies and Daddies were always grown-up girls and boys.

You would disagree, but be unable to give a reason why. Nice.

50 years ago who even imagined that the rest of society would be faced with a redefining of marriage to suit uppity negros.

Marriage has been drastically changed since its inception.. which would you like to go back to again? Which is the right one?

Oh and by the by, more than likely a few of those happy "mommies and daddies" weren't really very happy in their relationship. I'd be willing to bet there were even homosexuals back then! *GASP*!

 

[Shane Roach]

Homosexuals aren't trying to limit other people's rights, while some conservative Christians want to limit other people's rights by promoting discrimination. Not even all conservative Christians do it, there are those who believe that homosexuality is a sin, but also realize that the same religious freedom which allows them to believe that also allows other people NOT to be forced to conform to a particular religion's beliefs, so they don't push to make their religious beliefs a universal law that applies to everyone.

There is something called a community standard that has been under attack by the left for some time. According to previous law, community standards could be used to set up limits on things like porn. They have come back into vogue I think as porn has progressed past the limits of simple bad taste and on into the realm of documentation of the illegal.

The issue of course is that the Federal government never had a right to attack the concept of a community standard to begin with.

Socialist, atheists, and their allies get to play this game because the majority also happens to be Christian, but you can bet, given the evidence so far, that if or when they are the majority, the same legal precepts will not extend to Christians.

The bottom line is that the majority have a perfect right to legislate minimal expectations on behavior. It has nothing to do with race, religion, or anything else.

 

[Shane Roach]

You would disagree, but be unable to give a reason why. Nice.

50 years ago who even imagined that the rest of society would be faced with a redefining of marriage to suit uppity negros.

Marriage has been drastically changed since its inception.. which would you like to go back to again? Which is the right one?

Oh and by the by, more than likely a few of those happy "mommies and daddies" weren't really very happy in their relationship. I'd be willing to bet there were even homosexuals back then! *GASP*!

The harm is in the destruction of the fabric of society. A government that habitually ignores the will of the governed causes people to deeply distrust it. Undermining the expectations of society is not the government's reason for existence.

Also, the form and purpose of marriage has changed only in the most superficial ways. It's always been about securing financial rights and rights regarding children. It is supposed to be a binding agreement having to do with the biological family, not a way to feel good about one's self and slip into some sweet governmental benefits that were intended to help mothers, fathers and children to begin with.

 

[*Starlight*]

The bottom line is that the majority have a perfect right to legislate minimal expectations on behavior. It has nothing to do with race, religion, or anything else.

That's called tyranny of the majority. It's imposing restrictions that harm minorities, but don't actually help anyone. Without such restrictions, the life of the majority wouldn't change at all, but it would make it possible for the minority to have the same standard of living as the majority. I'm heterosexual, and I know that the legalization of gay marriage wouldn't harm me at all, because it's something that doesn't affect heterosexuals at all.

 

[Shane Roach]

That's called tyranny of the majority. It's imposing restrictions that harm minorities, but don't actually help anyone. Without such restrictions, the life of the majority wouldn't change at all, but it would make it possible for the minority to have the same standard of living as the majority. I'm heterosexual, and I know that the legalization of gay marriage wouldn't harm me at all, because it's something that doesn't affect heterosexuals at all.

No, it's not called "tyranny of the majority". It's called democracy, and it includes republican forms such as ours.

I'm from a broken home, and I know that legalization of gay marriage will harm others just as the acceptance of routine out of wedlock sex and divorce has damaged millions of kids.

The legalization of homosexuality itself damages people in many ways. It breaks down the cultural barriers against sexual practices which the majority find more and more disturbing, encourages a psychological attitude in many of hatred towards their neighbors who are merely trying to maintain a decent atmosphere to live in, and appears to lead straight to attacks on the most fundamental issues of family and culture.

Demonizing the majority is really not good social policy at all.

 

[apersonsaperson]

My point remains. Medicine can make decisions on whether or not something is treatable. It can state honestly, "this study indicates this percentage of people are homosexual." It can go on to claim that it is normal or a certain percentage of people to be homosexual. What it cannot do with any authority is claim that something that is clearly abnormal overall is in fact normal, nor is there any authority in the medical community to force leftist morality on a populous that does not believe it is acceptable.

People act as if it is the government or Christians oppressing people, but the fact is that the government and homosexuals are attacking the people, not the other way around.

I really want to say how dare you make such a statement at the end. That just seems so ignorant. How can you say it is the government and homosexuals attacking the people? I don't remember the last time, or any time at all where a gay man assaulted or killed another man for being straight. But if you were to ask me a time where a man was killed for being gay a name comes right to mind, Matthew Shepard. If the government doesn't provide a country where it is accepted as OK to be gay, then the feeling is going to be that it is totally unacceptable. If this is what happens in the future more straight man will harbor hate for gay people. More men will die because they are gay.Is this what you want?

 

[Veyrlian]

There is something called a community standard that has been under attack by the left for some time. According to previous law, community standards could be used to set up limits on things like porn. They have come back into vogue I think as porn has progressed past the limits of simple bad taste and on into the realm of documentation of the illegal.

The issue of course is that the Federal government never had a right to attack the concept of a community standard to begin with.

Socialist, atheists, and their allies get to play this game because the majority also happens to be Christian, but you can bet, given the evidence so far, that if or when they are the majority, the same legal precepts will not extend to Christians.

The bottom line is that the majority have a perfect right to legislate minimal expectations on behavior. It has nothing to do with race, religion, or anything else.

I find it immensely ironic that the things you fear homosexuals (along with leftists, socialists whatever) MIGHT do to you, you are doing to them. What kind of philosophy is this? Offense is the best defense? You are waging some kind of war because you don't trust your country's Constitution?

Well, since it apparently easy to strip minorities of their rights, maybe you are right. Maybe your constitution is obsolete and majority rule is the only rule over there.

Frankly, I believe such politics will only result in dysfunction, gross unequality and misery, and you would do well to fight to ensure that everyone there would have equal rights. This way you would protect your own rights as well, and wouldn't have to constantly fight to preserve your majority status. Especially since I strongly suspect it is slipping away.

 

[Shane Roach]

I really want to say how dare you make such a statement at the end. That just seems so ignorant. How can you say it is the government and homosexuals attacking the people? I don't remember the last time, or any time at all where a gay man assaulted or killed another man for being straight. But if you were to ask me a time where a man was killed for being gay a name comes right to mind, Matthew Shepard. If the government doesn't provide a country where it is accepted as OK to be gay, then the feeling is going to be that it is totally unacceptable. If this is what happens in the future more straight man will harbor hate for gay people. More men will die because they are gay.Is this what you want?

What I want is for people to acknowledge that every behavior is not a civil right. The things against which the federal government is supposed to protect individuals from democratic outcomes is small. Part of the reason for illegality homosexuality in the past is that it encourages violence due to its extreme unacceptability by many. It rivals the levels of denunciation applied to subjects that this site does not even wish to be discussed openly, but which can be found in the Bible listed right alongside homosexuality as exceedingly unacceptable. The same behaviors are in fact unacceptable throughout most of the world, and throughout most of history.

This tactic of taking up something that most people agree is wrong and lifting it up as a civil right, and then hearkening back to slavery or segregation as an excuse to invoke civil rights in every case is slowly destroying our right to self government. That right is the single most important one enshrined in the Constitution.

 

[PsychMJC]

The harm is in the destruction of the fabric of society.

Have not shown this. Please do.

A government that habitually ignores the will of the governed causes people to deeply distrust it. Undermining the expectations of society is not the government's reason for existence.

Protecting the minority from the majority is in the governments best interest.[/quote]

Also, the form and purpose of marriage has changed only in the most superficial ways. It's always been about securing financial rights and rights regarding children.It is supposed to be a binding agreement having to do with the biological family, not a way to feel good about one's self and slip into some sweet governmental benefits that were intended to help mothers, fathers and children to begin with.

So you would, I assume, be perfectly fine with me going out and marrying a 12 year old girl? Should I expect a large dowry? Does she get a say in the matter? May I, at my discretion, rape her if she is unwilling? At any time? You seem to think marriage has some sacred history. It doesn't. Marriage was about a transfer of property. It certainly isn't anymore. If you still like to think of it that way, well, good on you. I feel bad for your spouse tho.

It is supposed to be a binding agreement having to do with the biological family..

What about married couples who adopt? Homosexual couples have children from previous relationships, through adoption agencies, surrogate parents, etc. Shouldn't those families be respected and protected? Or is it the "biological" part specifically that you are worried about.