Homosexuality has been a debate that's been going on for quite some time between Religious people and Doctors, Scientists and Physicians (whoever had a hand in this debate). And it seems that one side always reaches a conclusion of it's own just to end up walking on the other.
So, what do you feel about Homosexuality?
Pro (Alright with it) or No?
You can add your reason whatever it may be, your own thoughts.
- As for myself -
I support Homosexuality, it's the same as any other sexual orientation, (sorry for this to you readers) It requires a hole and a hole it shall find.
Some people deem it man-made, some see it as just "wrong" deny it as it "contradicts" their morals. But for myself, everyone deserves to live their life the way they want, it's not their "fault" because they are who they are, there's no "fault". My say is, people need to be more understanding about their position on this society, so they can at least learn not to show hate towards them and humiliate them. Homosexuality for me is not a choice, as is Heterosexuality and Bisexuality. I don't get to decide what attracts me, I don't get to decide which pheromones go in and out.
As of now, I haven't really found attraction to Females or Males, but Abs do have a way to trigger (not in that way, just aesthetically) me.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Everyone has the freedom to choose what their sexual orientation.
It's impossible for me to care less about what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. We could probably stand to see a spike in homosexuality, it may do wonders for population control.
I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone on this forum that doesn't support gay rights. The exceptions will generally be evangelical trolls.
I know right! That's what I've been thinking, take China and India, they need gayness, a lot of it (not implying homosexuality is man-made). Plus, have you ever noticed how many Gay people are sassy, outgoing and do-not-fuck-with-my-friend-or-I-will-stab-you-bitch?
Do a quick Google search Bonobo.
Is this a search I can do on a work computer-ha?!?!
Just did, hmm, never knew they were more interesting than other Apes, along with the Orangutan or the Gorilla.
Well into lesbian monkey sex?
They're having such a good time!
Yes, the Bonobo's are a good example.
I think the Bonobo's are far more human and humanistic, than us humans are...
Homosexuality, like any sexuality isn't a choice. In nature, many animals are attracted to the same instead of the opposite gender.
Many homosexuals say they do not have anal sex and it seems a certainty that some heterosexuals do have, so anal sex and homosexuality shouldn't be automatically linked. There are strong grounds for objection to anal sex. There is no excuse for discriminating against people based no their sexual orientation.
In my experience, many religionists "object to homosexuals" because they do not understand what distinguishes anal sex and homosexuality. Such ignorance is commonplace and unfortunately is not confined to religionists.
The Bible is the only thing they've had sex with for years.
you asked: "So, what do you feel about Homosexuality? Pro or No?"
Pro? I'm no more nor less 'pro' homosexuality than I am 'pro' heterosexuality or 'pro' brown eyes or size 10 feet. They are what they are.
By Pro or No I meant - Alright with it or dislike it, against it.
Yeah, I noticed it was kind of wrong to call it "pro".
I am pro-homosexuality. It is somewhat similar to being pro-red heads for people who like red heads, and pro-golfers for people who want to sleep with golfers. If someone wants to be with someone else, I am pro-go be with them. So yeah, I'm completely pro-homosexuality.
I recall a scientist (maybe Dawkins) suggesting that a certain percentage of homosexuals could be an evolutionary adaptation, since the presence of childless uncles and aunts to assist with child-rearing might aid survival.
I heard that. It's a fascinating idea.
My personal position is that everyone is free to do as they will, this includes homosexuality. The reason why I never really thought it was a choice was because being straight was never really a choice for me. When I see an attractive women, I do not decide to be attracted to her, it just happens. So there must be some criteria I hold subconsciously as to what is or is not attractive and therefore I do not think it is any different for homosexuals.
That being said, it does raise an interesting question, do what extent could one argue that homosexuality is a psychological disorder? That due to factors of hormones, chromosomes, cellular expression, or environmental influence they are in some way outside the norm? This question also applies to transsexuals as well. Now where homosexuals are concerned, even if it can be shown to be a psych disorder it does not really matter because, no one is getting harmed. But for transsexuals it could be significant because of the trend to undergo surgery to alter there biological gender or sex.
This is an extreme example but to make my point clear, if someone had a condition where they are driven to cut off every other finger on their hands, would we as a society be inclined to not only allow this, and even go so far as to suggest that letting them do it is moral. My opinion is, your body your choice. But that alone does not really answer the question.
I agree with the point AlphaLogica makes about not having chosen heterosexuality. I never made that choice; it's just innate in me. The same things applies to homosexuality, bisexuality, and whatever other sexualities exist. I support any and every kind of sexuality, including homosexuality.
Being natural and innate is a huge argument for leaving people alone regarding their homosexuality. But even if it were a direct and conscious choice by a person, it is their business and has nothing to do with anyone else. A human is their own; people have complete autonomy and authority over their persons and their lives.
I have no patience at all for puritans who seek to limit other peoples' lives. They are hateful and homophobic, even if they don't recognize that they are. The cold, hard truth is that because ignorant goat herders in ancient Palestine didn't like homosexuality there are billions today who are biased against homosexuals. Bastards. Vicious, heartless bastards.
Here's an interesting thought for any Bible worshippers. The so-called holy book, the classical bible with all the thees, thous and verilys, was commissioned by King James I of England. There was a joke going around when he first became king: "Rex fuit Elizabeth: nunc est regina Jacobus" (Elizabeth was king, and now James is queen), because King James was openly gay. The book that Westboro Baptist Church quotes to condemn gays was sponsored by a gay man who was god's own anointed King of England.
I never knew that about King James! Thanks, Algebe. This is now on my research to-do list.
Yes. James I was actually quite smart, judging from his writings. His wife's son, Charles I, was a complete moron who managed to start and lose a civil war. His IQ was improved when they cut his head off. I wonder who his father was.
Sexual preference is up to the individual and nobody else's business.
I don't accept or tolerate it. You don't have to do any of those things when you truly welcome it. I just flat out embrace it. The LGBT community is full of wonderful, friendly people with a great work ethic and are also excellent wingmen/women when I need an assist for meeting a lady.
An interesting point regarding work ethic. It seems like all of my gay friends have their shit way more together than I do. Almost all of them are very successful.
I have read a great many books about James I&VI, Charles 1st, Oliver Cromwell and the English (British) Civil War. Historians aren't unanimous about his homosexuality and arguably Charles 1st was more honest and more in favour of democracy than those who killed him. The people of the time seem to have thought so. The Republic established by Cromwell (who was a religious fanatic) was detested and overthrown within ten years. Charles II (son of Charles I) was restored as the most powerful if understandably cynical English monarch's since Elizabeth I.
History is written by the victors but historians generally agree that and Cromwell's rump Parliamentarians were no democrats in the modern or US Revolutionary sense. Charles I was no fanatic or fool and he always wanted to, quote, "find a middle way" and he died doing what he believed best for the people of England. Like Cromwell, he was guilty of being a man of his time. The Civil war wasn't between Democratic forces and authoritarianism. It was between an authoritarian oligarchy and an King sworn to uphold an outdated and unsustainable system of government. Both sides of the conflict had justification for their actions in the mores, laws and community of ideas of that time and should be judged by 17th Century English standards and not by those of 21st Century global ones. It isn't a question of 'which side was right'. The questions were about what was right, what was wrong and what system of government worked in 17th Century England. Charles 1st's actions were backed by much precedent, law and the unwritten constitution which was that nobody's property or life was safe if the King's were not. It may sound crazy in the 21st Century, especially outside of England, but that was a very important principle for people of that time. People often view the English Civil War through a modern lens.
Interestingly, Charles I didn't like the kissing of hands bit and, contrary to what many think, he was no great proponent of the divine right of Kings, though his political following weren't averse to using that argument when it worked. Though a Christian, he doesn't seem to have been an extremist. It was said of him that "he knows not how to be, or be made, King". That is because he always looked for compromise.
Maybe historical orthodoxy has changed since I studied this period, but there are contemporary comments and letters indicating that James had relationships with the Duke of Lennox, the Earl of Somerset and the Duke of Buckingham. A couple of centuries later, Jeremy Bentham denounced him as a hypocrite for writing a pamphlet condemning sodomy.
Charles I inherited a Protestant kingdom that had long been under threat from Catholic powers. So he married a Catholic, obsessed about the "Divine RIght of Kings," and started to introduce Catholic elements into Church of England ritual. He also used the Star Chamber system to get rid of his enemies and dismissed parliament for several years when they protested. Maybe it was all part of some some cunning plan, but with the benefit of 21st century hindsight it looks like utter stupidity. Cromwell was a tyrant, but that's usually the case with revolutions. People fight to get rid of opressors and end up with Stalin, Mao, Kim, Castro, etc.
As a bisexual male, my opinion is simply that homosexuality or bisexuality are an aspect of nature that many theists have worked overtime at to discredit and criminalize. And since theism has had such an influence with nation states, many have followed in their footsteps.
There are many people who cannot wrap there heads around the fact that a person can be mentally, emotionally and sexually attracted both genders. Furthermore, many of those people accept homosexuality as being natural. I can attest that most homosexuals detest bisexuals.
As a side note regarding men, I prefer bisexual men over homosexual men.
Let me begin by saying that I have always been a sexual libertine. Two examples are that I have been in "the hobby" for 31 years now. That is how I met my wife that I've been married to for 30 years. I also hosted "parties" once a month for 8 years.
I can honestly say that I did not have any homosexual inclinations until I was 39 years old. That is when I had my first sexual experience with another guy. It all seemed natural to me and I still have sexual relationships with select men and women based on mutual attraction and desire.
So ... is my bisexuality innate or by choice?
I have to say, again, Sex is the same. As long as a sexual intercourse pleases both partners, it is the same. Well, I never actually knew that homosexuals detested bisexuals. But I find it quite true that a person could be sexually attracted to both genders. I'd say your bisexuality is innate, if it was by choice, then homosexuality and heterosexuality would be equally by choice also.
"So ... is my bisexuality innate or by choice?"
That is a very though provoking question.
I am convinced innate but if only by choice.... Go for it!
Pages