What science says about homosexuality

[Skaloop]

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.

So once the will of the governed is that SSM is acceptable, any harm goes out the window.

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.

Gay people have finances, and gay people have children. Marriage allows them to secure rights for those things through a binding agreement. If that's what it has always been about, the change allowing SSM will also be little more than superficial.

Many gay couples have kids, and many of them form semi-biological families. The benefits they can get through marriage help the parents and the children.

Additionally, getting married just so they can slip into "some sweet government benefits" is not exclusive to homosexual marriage. Heterosexual couples do it all the time. In fact, they could explicitly state that as a primary reason for getting married and they will not be refused a marriage license.

 

[Shane Roach]

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 Maybe your constitution is obsolete and majority rule is the only rule over there.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.

Behaviors that most people do not engage in are not "minorities".

 

[Skaloop]

Behaviors that most people do not engage in are not "minorities".

Which behaviour would that be?

 

[apersonsaperson]

That is a very good question. The reality is that it is presently man's nature to live in sin. My belief is that homosexuality is not what GOD intended man to be. But because of the introduction of sin through Adam, such behavior and more is a part of man's "nature."

Perhaps to say spiritual would be better. Homosexuality is not spiritual. It is fleshly.

It isn't just "fleshy" there are many cases where it is spiritual because certain men share a deep love for one another. I'm sorry, but love is very spiritual.

 

[PsychMJC]

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.

If you use the same excuses as those who ranted and raved about interracial marriage, then you are right it is going to be compared.

You have been thoroughly unable to show ANY reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry aside from your religious beliefs. Those reasons you still hold on to could be applied to a hundred other things, but you keep silent on those.

 

[Veyrlian]

Ok. If anyone here is about to claim something so obnoxious that gays are not a minority, I'm going to sleep. Enough is enough.

 

[apersonsaperson]

Behaviors that most people do not engage in are not "minorities".

If homosexuality is a behavior that would mean there are no gay people

It's okay guys, homosexuals don't exist, they're just playing a trick on us with their BEHAVIORS!




With all due respect, you're making really silly statements.

 

[KCKID]

Behaviors that most people do not engage in are not "minorities".

You know, I've held off bringing this up previously but I feel that I now should. We keep on hearing about 'heterosexual behavior' being normal and 'homosexual behavior' being abnormal. Whenever we hear this it is obviously referring to the sexual behavior of both persuasions. What else? However, it seems to me that both 'behaviors' would generally be confined to two people and generally when together in privacy. So, in other words, none of us really knows what two people get up to when they are alone. It's personal and is the business of no one else. You, Shane, could be having the most over-the-top, kinkiest and depraved sex imaginable but none of us would know this. And rightly so. It's no one elses business.

So, how do you know what the behavior of homosexuals is? Are you guessing what they are up to in their bedroom? If so, is that your problem? Do you feel that they should 'fess up' to you? Do people guess what you are up to in your bedroom? If so, is that their problem? Should you need to 'fess up' to them?

Of course not times two.

The sexual habits of anyone would not normally be known or thought about by others. These 'sexual behaviors' would certainly not be exhibited while in the company of others. So, we accept people for their performance in everyday situations, NOT what they might get up to at night. I can respect, even admire, the work done by my pastor or members of the church congregation in their sincere attempts to bring others to Jesus Christ. I may see them as being actively concerned with the poor, the unloved, the unlovely, the sick, the incarcerated, etc. I don't NEED to know whether they are 'straight' or 'gay' or what sexual practices they prefer when alone with their partner. Their sexual 'behavior' is irrelevant.

So, unless someone is exhibiting lewd behavior in public - whether 'gay' or 'straight' - one's sexual and probably nocturnal habits should be of no concern to you at all, Shane. Get your mind out of the dirt, my good man.

 

[Shane Roach]

The above is nothing more fancy than the same live and let live mantra that has led us to rampant porn, 50%+ divorce rates, fatherless kids and all the associated social and economic trouble.

Sex, historically, is one of the most heavily regulated behaviors of all, and there are very good reasons for this. If people will pair up and stay paired up, and raise their kids and take responsibility for their lives, they will find that almost no one cares what it is they are doing together at night.

It is the invasion of the public square by those who have sexual proclivities that shock and in some cases disgust -- through porn, parades, legal actions, and attempts to make major changes in our social fabric without even so much as a please or explanation to the rest of society, that is causing all the hubbub in my view.

 

[Skaloop]

The above is nothing more fancy than the same live and let live mantra that has led us to rampant porn, 50%+ divorce rates, fatherless kids and all the associated social and economic trouble.

None of which has anything to do with homosexuals or homosexuality.

Sex, historically, is one of the most heavily regulated behaviors of all, and there are very good reasons for this. If people will pair up and stay paired up, and raise their kids and take responsibility for their lives, they will find that almost no one cares what it is they are doing together at night.

Gay people do pair up, stay paired up, raise their kids, and take responsibility for their actions. Yet for some reason, you still seem to care quite a bit about what they do together at night.

It is the invasion of the public square by those who have sexual proclivities that shock and in some cases disgust -- through porn, parades, legal actions, and attempts to make major changes in our social fabric without even so much as a please or explanation to the rest of society, that is causing all the hubbub in my view.

Most gay people don't take part in any parades, don't do anything inappropriate in the public square, don't push legal action, and have nothing to do with porn. They don't need to explain anything because they aren't doing anything different than you are.

 

[Shane Roach]

None of which has anything to do with homosexuals or homosexuality.



Gay people do pair up, stay paired up, raise their kids, and take responsibility for their actions. Yet for some reason, you still seem to care quite a bit about what they do together at night.



Most gay people don't take part in any parades, don't do anything inappropriate in the public square, don't push legal action, and have nothing to do with porn. They don't need to explain anything because they aren't doing anything different than you are.

Same mantra. "People are looking at porn in their own privacy." "It's none of your business why people get divorced."

And always the assertion, with no evidence, that gays are perfectly normal, staying together in long term relationships, not hurting anyone.

Until you look at the reality. That's where this thread was actually supposed to be going -- what science has to say. People have concerns about kids, about gays themselves and how healthy it really is to tell them that something that is just never going to be quite right for them is somehow nothing they should ever worry about changing.

The flood of judgment that comes out of the far left regarding every single one of the destructive sexual liberation pushes they have made over the decades since the 60's is astounding. No one could possibly have any reason for resisting except that they are nosy busybodies up in other people's business.

We care. We care enough to want the truth. Gay radicals and their supporters who do not want to look into this deeply before jumping into it seem to me to be the ones who are demonstrating irresponsibility and insensitivity.

 

[KCKID]

The above is nothing more fancy than the same live and let live mantra that has led us to rampant porn, 50%+ divorce rates, fatherless kids and all the associated social and economic trouble.

The 'live and let live' example that I suggested in regard to one's intimate life, Shane, is a very healthy frame of mind to have. Why on earth would prying into one's bedroom somehow prevent rampant porn, 50%+ divorce rates, fatherless kids and all of the associated social and economic troubles? And what has this got to do with homosexuality anyhow? Aren't all of the above problems associated with heterosexuals and their lack of commitment to one another?

Sex, historically, is one of the most heavily regulated behaviors of all, and there are very good reasons for this.

Yes, in public venues and such where any lewd behavior should not be tolerated. I'm all for that. In fact, I think that most people would agree with and adhere to the idea of public decency whether they be 'gay' or 'straight'. One of the reasons for regulated behavior, however, should not involve one poking their nose into another's bedroom. That should be off-limits since no one is being 'damaged' by what they don't - and should not - know. I'm talking about adults here, obviously. If I should 'fess up' to being 'gay' you would no doubt sum me up as being nothing more than 'sexual behavior'. Yet, if I should 'fess up' to being 'straight' ...such a thing would probably never cross your mind.

If people will pair up and stay paired up, and raise their kids and take responsibility for their lives, they will find that almost no one cares what it is they are doing together at night.

But, you're talking here about heterosexual marriage. You are not applying this wisdom to 'gay' people because you don't approve of their being and staying paired up, raising their kids and taking responsibility for their lives. You are, in fact, encouraging the opposite for 'gays' and then slapping them for being promiscuous.

It is the invasion of the public square by those who have sexual proclivities that shock and in some cases disgust -- through porn, parades, legal actions, and attempts to make major changes in our social fabric without even so much as a please or explanation to the rest of society, that is causing all the hubbub in my view.

Any people that have been oppressed for as long as homosexuals have will eventually cut loose somewhat when enough of them get together and say, "Enough!" It's a (natural) form of rebellion (and generally peaceful) even though I too would prefer that these parades and mardi gras' be a little less exaggerated sexually. And, 'exaggerated' is the key word here. It's a sham and lasts for only as long as it lasts. The following day most will probably return to being Mr & Mrs Average Citizen and partake in the generally same boring daily pursuits as do most of us.

 

[*Starlight*]

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

Well, democracy without protection from such tyranny of the majority is wrong, because it harms innocent people - the minorities that must obey whatever the majority decides for them.

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 difference is that cheating on your partner, or getting a divorce (especially when you have children) is something that harms people. While one person falling in love and living together in a relationship with another person of the same sex isn't something that causes harm to anyone. It brings these two people happiness, and is totally neutral towards everyone else.

By the way, do you believe that divorce should be illegal? That would cause even more harm. It's true that getting a divorce isn't a good thing, but it's a lesser evil. People aren't all-knowing and sometimes make wrong decisions about who they should have a stable relationship with, so there must be some way to be able to correct these wrong decisions.

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

If a cultural barrier forbids something that doesn't cause harm, then such a barrier should be destroyed. Such cultural barriers are good when they protect people from harm (for example, rape) and wrong when they prevent people from pursuing happiness without harming anyone (for example, homosexual relationships). By the way, people used to believe that interracial marriage is very disturbing and that legalizing it breaks down important cultural barriers.

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.

There's a lot of hatred among many people against homosexuals who just want to live in peace in their relationships.

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

It's good when the majority harms others.

 

[David Brider]

I'm from a broken home, and I know that legalization of gay marriage will harm others...

How exactly do you believe it will do that, though? Homosexuality isn't the same thing as a broken home, so I'm not really sure how you make that connection.

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...

Do you have any data to support your assertion that "the majority" find same-gender sexual practices (which aren't quite the same thing as homosexuality, but anyway) "more and more disturbing"?

Why do you (presumably) find same-gender sexual practices disturbing? Would it help any to simply not think about them? As KCKID has pointed out, what two (or indeed more) consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is their own business - why do you feel the need to obsess about it so much on an internet forum?

...encourages a psychological attitude in many of hatred towards their neighbors who are merely trying to maintain a decent atmosphere to live in...

I think most people, straight, gay and bi (and pan- and a-, for that matter), are just interested in "trying to maintain a decent atmosphere to live in". I'm not sure why you think legalising homosexuality is going to encourage hatred towards people who have such a desire.

...and appears to lead straight to attacks on the most fundamental issues of family and culture.

I guess that depends - what do you see as the most fundamental issues of family and culture? How do you feel they're being attacked by the legalising of homosexuality?

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

Neither is demonising a minority by allowing the majority to ride roughshod over that minority. Which isn't, I don't think, quite what is happening - but certainly it seems that people purporting to speak for the majority don't seem to give a fig about a fairly sizeable minority (if about 5% of people are homosexual, then in the UK that's about 3 million people, in the US about 16 million, IIRC).

 

[Norbert L]

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



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

Because the Bible contains moral instructions, a precept on moral behavior that same sex should not occur. Wouldn't that involve hypocrisy when the OT teaches something as plainly immoral, which by rights should never of been immoral in the first place?

Obviously that has a BIG theological implication, but within the scope of ethics and morality alone, wouldn't that label the gay churches worshipping a god that was at one time immoral?

 

[LightHorseman]

Because the Bible contains moral instructions, a precept on moral behavior that same sex should not occur. Wouldn't that involve hypocrisy when the OT teaches something as plainly immoral, which by rights should never of been immoral in the first place?

Obviously that has a BIG theological implication, but within the scope of ethics and morality alone, wouldn't that label the gay churches worshipping a god that was at one time immoral?

OR... OT law is based on tribal pragmatism more than actual morality...

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Same mantra. "People are looking at porn in their own privacy." "It's none of your business why people get divorced."

And always the assertion, with no evidence, that gays are perfectly normal, staying together in long term relationships, not hurting anyone.

Until you look at the reality. That's where this thread was actually supposed to be going -- what science has to say. People have concerns about kids, about gays themselves and how healthy it really is to tell them that something that is just never going to be quite right for them is somehow nothing they should ever worry about changing.

The flood of judgment that comes out of the far left regarding every single one of the destructive sexual liberation pushes they have made over the decades since the 60's is astounding. No one could possibly have any reason for resisting except that they are nosy busybodies up in other people's business.

We care. We care enough to want the truth. Gay radicals and their supporters who do not want to look into this deeply before jumping into it seem to me to be the ones who are demonstrating irresponsibility and insensitivity.

What science says about society is One in Four teen girls have an STD.

From the Free Love Hippy Sixties to Homosexual Marriage in less than Fifty years.

The blind leading the blind into a pit.

Just keep YOUR eyes open and help those that will hear you to open theirs.

 

[Psudopod]

What science says about society is One in Four teen girls have an STD.

From the Free Love Hippy Sixties to Homosexual Marriage in less than Fifty years.

Sex without care for the consqueces is obviously a bad thing. But surely supporting monogamous relationships is the opposite of that?

 

[Shane Roach]

The 'live and let live' example that I suggested in regard to one's intimate life, Shane, is a very healthy frame of mind to have. Why on earth would prying into one's bedroom somehow prevent rampant porn, 50%+ divorce rates, fatherless kids and all of the associated social and economic troubles? And what has this got to do with homosexuality anyhow? Aren't all of the above problems associated with heterosexuals and their lack of commitment to one another?



Yes, in public venues and such where any lewd behavior should not be tolerated. I'm all for that. In fact, I think that most people would agree with and adhere to the idea of public decency whether they be 'gay' or 'straight'. One of the reasons for regulated behavior, however, should not involve one poking their nose into another's bedroom. That should be off-limits since no one is being 'damaged' by what they don't - and should not - know. I'm talking about adults here, obviously. If I should 'fess up' to being 'gay' you would no doubt sum me up as being nothing more than 'sexual behavior'. Yet, if I should 'fess up' to being 'straight' ...such a thing would probably never cross your mind.



But, you're talking here about heterosexual marriage. You are not applying this wisdom to 'gay' people because you don't approve of their being and staying paired up, raising their kids and taking responsibility for their lives. You are, in fact, encouraging the opposite for 'gays' and then slapping them for being promiscuous.



Any people that have been oppressed for as long as homosexuals have will eventually cut loose somewhat when enough of them get together and say, "Enough!" It's a (natural) form of rebellion (and generally peaceful) even though I too would prefer that these parades and mardi gras' be a little less exaggerated sexually. And, 'exaggerated' is the key word here. It's a sham and lasts for only as long as it lasts. The following day most will probably return to being Mr & Mrs Average Citizen and partake in the generally same boring daily pursuits as do most of us.

Again, suffering consequences for engaging in illicit behavior is not "oppression". Sexual conduct is one of the most regulated behaviors throughout history due to the sensitive nature of relationships, the deep feelings it illicits, and of course the relationship to family.

As I said, responsible people meeting minimal community standards of behavior are not going to have problems with people nosing around as to exactly what they do in the bedroom. What is being proposed now is public policy, not private sexual behavior.

 

[Psudopod]

As I said, responsible people meeting minimal community standards of behavior are not going to have problems with people nosing around as to exactly what they do in the bedroom. What is being proposed now is public policy, not private sexual behavior.

I would! The idea that someone can come round and see if I'm having sex right is down right creepy in my opinion.

Besides, the private sex acts are not the issue. Gays can and do have sex quite legeally and happily and I've not seen any proposed legislation to limit that.