Let's clear up the ignorance about homosexuality - I hope to never hear these arguments again

Originally posted by quietlearner
first you say that gays forcing religion to accommodate them is not right, then you say you don't want christians to make fun of gays for not having a religious union? seems you are contradicting yourself

Did you miss this part of my post?

Speaking only of America - - those gays grew up in this predominately Christian country. They are as much a part of that culture as every straight hetero Christian.

I said churches that are anti-gay should not be forced to perform gay marriage.

Many gays are religious. There are many churches that will be happy to marry them in the name of their chosen God.

You and many others want to take this right away from them. Christian gays are as Christian as you are.

Originally posted by Annee
What would be the reason for doing that?

the reason will be solving a dispute

I certainly did not get the impression you were talking about puberty. I am raising an 11 year old girl (going on 25) - - just a "holler and a throw" from Hollywood.

why would you raising kids be relevant?

Ignorant means lack of knowledge. I think you lack real knowledge on homosexuality - - by what you post.

you have the correct definition all right. It is also not nice to go around calling people ignorant
plus its an argument killer

I do not see you as a hateful bigot. I see you as someone who lives/has lived in an environment that believes homosexuals are not normal.

you are correct, and you probably live/has lived in an environment that believes homosexuals are normal?
I wonder thought what is your definition of normal?
biologically speaking homosexuality cannot be viewed as normal
to be more specific if you believe that homosexuality is an intrinsic quality of gays then it must mean its in their genes. To my knowledge there is not such a thing as a gay gene, maybe someone more familiar with this subject can help me out here
the point is if its based on genes then taking in mind how evolution works, homosexuality is probably a mutation. therefore not normal.
if it is not based on genes at all then it must be based on hormones, which then it means there is an imbalance of hormones. Therefore not normal.
if its not based on either genes or hormones then it must be based on nurture. But then this would mean that homosexuality is a learned trait and not intrinsic at all.
a learned trait that deviates from the majority cannot be considered normal just for the fact that "normal" is usually defined by how the majority is.
so calling gays "normal" is nice and politically correct however is you dwell deeper into what really "normal" means it is clear that this is not correct
if you agree that gays are a minority then you cannot call them "normal" since it would be a contradiction

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by quietlearner
first you say that gays forcing religion to accommodate them is not right, then you say you don't want christians to make fun of gays for not having a religious union? seems you are contradicting yourself

Did you miss this part of my post?

Speaking only of America - - those gays grew up in this predominately Christian country. They are as much a part of that culture as every straight hetero Christian.

I said churches that are anti-gay should not be forced to perform gay marriage.

Many gays are religious. There are many churches that will be happy to marry them in the name of their chosen God.

You and many others want to take this right away from them. Christian gays are as Christian as you are.

I mentioned I consider myself agnostic, so it would not make sense to say that christian gays are as christian as I am. Unless you are saying christian gays are agnostic.
so its ok to have churches who reject gays? wouldn't that make a division in Christianity? if there is a division wouldn't it mean that they are "separate"?
now you have that thing you hate so much "separate but equal"
so you are saying you accept "separate but equal" in terms of religious marriage
if everything happens the way you want then it would be "separate but equal"
see how its sometimes impossible to not have "separate but equal"?

Originally posted by quietlearner
I was saying call it civil unions for everyone, of course that meant having all the right and entitlements that a regular marriage license has today

Originally posted by Annee
What would be the reason for doing that?

Originally posted by quietlearner
the reason will be solving a dispute

At who's expense?

Originally posted by Annee
I certainly did not get the impression you were talking about puberty. I am raising an 11 year old girl (going on 25) - - just a "holler and a throw" from Hollywood.

Originally posted by quietlearner
why would you raising kids be relevant?

Puberty

Originally posted by Annee
Ignorant means lack of knowledge. I think you lack real knowledge on homosexuality - - by what you post.

Originally posted by quietlearner
you have the correct definition all right. It is also not nice to go around calling people ignorant, plus its an argument killer

I was ignorant of gays until I worked at a company were most employees were gay. If you are not involved with gays or follow gay rights - - - you most likely lack real knowledge.

Originally posted by quietlearner
biologically speaking homosexuality cannot be viewed as normal

Of course they are biologically normal. There is nothing wrong with them.

Originally posted by quietlearnert
o be more specific if you believe that homosexuality is an intrinsic quality of gays then it must mean its in their genes.

Probably not in their genes. Studies strongly indicate it comes through the mother. Also brain chemicals.

As there is nothing medically wrong with being gay - - - funding for studies is limited. Also there is some real fear that if the cause is found - - parents who fear their child is gay - - will seek treatment for a cure.

Originally posted by quietlearner
homosexuality is probably a mutation. therefore not normal.

Everything is a mutation. We are all mutated in some way.

Originally posted by quietlearner
But then this would mean that homosexuality is a learned trait and not intrinsic at all.

Did you learn to be straight?

Originally posted by quietlearner
if you agree that gays are a minority then you cannot call them "normal" since it would be a contradiction

10% of the population is left handed.

Originally posted by quietlearner

I mentioned I consider myself agnostic, so it would not make sense to say that christian gays are as christian as I am. Unless you are saying christian gays are agnostic.

I would not say your arguments are coming from an agnostic position. You may consider yourself agnostic - - but your arguments are certainly from religious belief.

so its ok to have churches who reject gays? wouldn't that make a division in Christianity? if there is a division wouldn't it mean that they are "separate"?

Freedom of religion. Its in the Constitution.

A person is Christian.

see how its sometimes impossible to not have "separate but equal"?

NO.

Originally posted by quietlearner
its called being decent, respectful, etc without it we would be living like animals in the jungle
I think people who don't understand this concept should go live in the jungle were they can do whatever they want without bothering anyone.

Did I say that we should get rid of ALL rules of respect? No, so don't put words in my mouth...

Originally posted by quietlearner
statements like this are very shortsighted and show a selfish inability to give while taking , usually people saying things like this only know how to take.

I'm not sure what is "selfish" about mentioning the fact that the natural human body is considered "rude" for some reason, especially when you don't have to look at it. You can also NOT look at a person that you don't want to see.

reply to post by Annee


I don't consider left handed people "normal". they are obviously not the average person. it is also dangerous for left handed people to operate machinery designed for right handed people.
I guess "normal" might have different significance for different people however taking the strict definition of "normal", anyone who is not the average person is not "normal". I don't consider myself "normal" and anyone with a hint of individuality should not consider him/herself "normal" either.
my point was that saying something is "normal" doesn't really mean anything and it sure does not mean its good or bad.
people dying is "normal" doesn't mean its good

you say I have christian views even though I said I consider myself agnostic why is this?
does anyone who has an against gay stand must be a christian?
what about muslin countries with strict anti gay laws? I guess they must be christians too?

I mentioned that I'm more on the fence on the gay issue, so I'm not here to change people minds
I'm just stating my current reasoning and way of thinking
however if you just state your opinions without much back up then you force me to respond and say why I agree or don't agree with it. This probably makes me seem like I'm trying hard to change peoples views or bash pro gay arguments but I'm not.

Originally posted by arpgme

Did I say that we should get rid of ALL rules of respect? No, so don't put words in my mouth...

I'm not sure what is "selfish" about mentioning the fact that the natural human body is considered "rude" for some reason, especially when you don't have to look at it. You can also NOT look at a person that you don't want to see.

I'm sorry I think I might have come a little rude there, it was just a rant.
and I have met little communities living far from modern civilization, not exactly "jungle people" but still living without potable water and not electricity.
they were all very nice people, and very respectful to me and their community. They would surely thing twice before doing something that would disrupt the rest, maybe because they considered their community to be a big family.
I think people doing things that they know offends other can learn from them.

One of the first things I said in the original post is that being gay is natural because even animals are gay which means that it is something which happens in nature.

The word normal just means what is usual...

Originally posted by quietlearner
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

I think calling all marriage permits given by the government "civil unions" is a fair middle ground to this problem
seems like a good idea to me, specially since I don't like religioun meddling with the government

Then you agree that gays should be allowed to legally marry each other in the EXACT same way that straights legally marry each other. I'd say that's good progress!

about gays not feeling at ease by talking about their significant other in public, I think even if the government acknowledges gay marriage and puts gay protection laws they will never feels at ease. Mainly because there will always be people who will feel disturbed by it.
so I think a world were gays can talk freely about their sex lives to heteros is only possible in fantasy, no matter how many pro gay laws are passed. I know it sounds pessimistic but that is the way I see it.

Establishments were legally allowed to prohibit black people from entering. Blacks were not allowed to drink from the same water fountains as whites. Blacks were relegated to the backs of public buses. Blacks were relegated to their own public schools - poorly funded schools where they weren't given the same level of education opportunities as whites. The civil rights movement in the 1960's forced laws to change all this. Do you think once the laws were changed that everyone was all of a sudden okey dokey with it? There was SO much resistance to these changes. But, over time, and with much awareness raising efforts, people began gradually to accept the changes. Now, most people just accept it as the right way to be. And with each new generation born into this changed environment, it just becomes the norm. The new generation doesn't know any other way to be. When I tell my 10-year-old daughter how scary it was for a black child to walk into a white school after segregration was outlawed, she is stunned. " Why would anyone have a problem with this?", she asks. Oh, but they did.

There will always be prejudiced people against blacks. But they are not the "norm". There will always be people who hate gays, or who feel uncomfortable with gays. But I can guarantee you that if the laws change to protect the rights of gays, our children or our children's children will be totally comfortable with it, and won't understand why anyone had a problem with it.

Originally posted by quietlearner
I think people doing things that they know offends other can learn from them.

Don't you know that your attitudes towards gays is offensive to them? If we're one big family, shouldn't each member of the family have equal rights?

Originally posted by quietlearner
I mentioned that I'm more on the fence on the gay issue, so I'm not here to change people minds
I'm just stating my current reasoning and way of thinking
however if you just state your opinions without much back up then you force me to respond and say why I agree or don't agree with it. This probably makes me seem like I'm trying hard to change peoples views or bash pro gay arguments but I'm not.

I'm sorry, but your posts really don't sound like you are on the fence at all. What kind of back-up are you looking for?

You mean like this?

www.post-gazette.com...

Or this?

www.splcenter.org...

Or maybe this?

www.hypersync.net...

What other back-up are you looking for?

reply to post by kaylaluv

if it was for me gays would have all the rights they want, however I have a problem with naming their civil unions marriage. This is more of a naming issue to me, not the rights they entail.
I know currently civil unions don't have the same rights and entitlements a normal marriage license has, and I think they should. What we name it is another issue and I think just by naming it something else does not mean the rights or entitlements lose any significance.
that is why I do agree with calling all government licensed marriages
'civil unions" and keep the world marriage for the original intent of religious marriage. I think you agree with this since you are the one who mentioned this idea.

as far as the complete integration of gays in society in two or more generations once the laws are set is really up to question for me. blacks were integrated because people realized that they were just humans like themselves.
in the case of gays, it was never the question if gays are humans or not.
the hate towards gays is more of a hate towards a preference so its different to racism towards blacks.
Another major difference is that for for this integration to happen the same, you have to assume that anti gays are fundamentally the same as racists. I don't think its fair or correct to group them together.
I can imagine many scenarios where people who have no hate towards gays can be put in a uncomfortable situation. For example locker rooms or bathrooms.
also I really don't see any good outcome for teenage gays in high school if it is made public that they are gay. Everyone knows how mean kids can be.
I think this is something we will never know unless it is allowed to happen but I think my doubts are well grounded and realistic.

for the studies, I'm not particularly interested in them. It does not help that most of them end with "further studies are required" or something similar to that.
also it does not help that most studies are reactionary to common preconceptions or myths and usually operate with an agenda. Basically they are set to prove or disprove a claim such as "gay people have shorter lives" or "children of gay people don't turn gay"
these studies do not affect my reasoning since I know that gays are just people only with different sexual preferences.

if there ever is a study that would interest me is the long term social effects of making gay marriage the same as marriage or the long term social effects of making gay partner adoption legal. I would like to see what effects it would have on heterosexual marriages, religion, income, job levels, education levels, the economy, population growth etc
but its not possible to have such long term and widespread studies unless the hypothetical scenarios are actually made real.Therefore its impossible to have such studies and if there is and negative effects are found then it would be too late anyways.
with all these reasons what I would do is to approach the gay issue slowly and with caution.
and I think the people on power know this, this is probably one of the reasons why any progress with gay rights have been so slow to progress.
they are probably just relaxing here and there a little bit and then seeing the results, if they don't like the results then they take it back instead of approving everything the gay movement wants all at once.

basically my standing is that of doubt, maybe not exactly "on the fence" like I said before but I don't think I stand on any side strongly. I think careful consideration of all aspects is necessary, this is the reason why I post in thread like this. I try to debate many different aspects and try to come with an answer based on knowledge and logic.

sorry for the long post, if anyone cared to read through this then I hope you reply

EDIT: I add more

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Don't you know that your attitudes towards gays is offensive to them? If we're one big family, shouldn't each member of the family have equal rights?

its different if you offending someone is a reaction of you being offended in the first place. I'm not saying its justified but sometimes it is needed.
the equal rights portion I already responded to at the top of this post

Originally posted by quietlearner
you are correct, and you probably live/has lived in an environment that believes homosexuals are normal?
I wonder thought what is your definition of normal?
biologically speaking homosexuality cannot be viewed as normal
to be more specific if you believe that homosexuality is an intrinsic quality of gays then it must mean its in their genes. To my knowledge there is not such a thing as a gay gene, maybe someone more familiar with this subject can help me out here
the point is if its based on genes then taking in mind how evolution works, homosexuality is probably a mutation. therefore not normal.
if it is not based on genes at all then it must be based on hormones, which then it means there is an imbalance of hormones. Therefore not normal.
if its not based on either genes or hormones then it must be based on nurture. But then this would mean that homosexuality is a learned trait and not intrinsic at all.
a learned trait that deviates from the majority cannot be considered normal just for the fact that "normal" is usually defined by how the majority is.
so calling gays "normal" is nice and politically correct however is you dwell deeper into what really "normal" means it is clear that this is not correct
if you agree that gays are a minority then you cannot call them "normal" since it would be a contradiction

I don't really want to get in on the "normal" debate, as it is such a subjective term. What is normal to an individual (being gay, being left-handed, being black) may not be normal to the society as a whole, because it does not represent the majority. But we accept left-handed people and blacks in our society, and give them equal rights -- regardless of the fact they are not "normal" to the whole (btw, if you google the ancient history of left-handers, you will see the stigma they used to face as well - they were associated with the devil and tortured - thank goodness we have evolved beyond that!). I'm sure that killing people is normal to a murderer and having sex with children is normal to a pedophiliac as well. What is important is for us as a society is to decide what we will allow and accept. If someone is different from the "norm" and they are not taking away anyone else's rights, then they should be accepted and their rights respected, and they should not be ridiculed or made to feel like second class citizens.

Regarding whether homosexuality is nature or nurture - here is an interesting article about studies being done right now.

web.mac.com...

Most reputable scientists agree that people don't choose to be gay, and there is just so much evidence that gay males don't become that way because of their environment. Most studies agree that gay males are born that way, there just isn't a definitive answer as to how or why that happens. Lesbians are a much more complex issue.

One part of this article that really intrigued me is when they posed the question - if there is a gay gene, why hasn't it been forced out by evolution due to the natural need to pass on genes through reproduction? This made me start to wonder if homosexuality is nature's way of helping to curb population explosions. Since homosexuality exists in the animal world as well, maybe it is just another safeguard against overpopulation, like predators and disease? I haven't thought this through, so maybe there's big holes in this theory. I know that we currently have a problem with overpopulation in the world even with homosexuals, but maybe the percentage of homosexuals is actually much larger than previously thought, because many don't act on it due to the stigma. There are probably many, many homosexuals who live their lives as heterosexuals, get married and have biological children, who wouldn't have if was no stigma. Maybe homosexuality is just nature's "birth control", and a necessary and important component to civilizations. Maybe?

Originally posted by quietlearner
I don't consider left handed people "normal". they are obviously not the average person. it is also dangerous for left handed people to operate machinery designed for right handed people.
I guess "normal" might have different significance for different people however taking the strict definition of "normal", anyone who is not the average person is not "normal". I don't consider myself "normal" and anyone with a hint of individuality should not consider him/herself "normal" either.
my point was that saying something is "normal" doesn't really mean anything and it sure does not mean its good or bad. people dying is "normal" doesn't mean its good

Normal. Born physically and mentally healthy - - can function in society independently.

You seem to be grasping at anything to sway this debate your way.

you say I have christian views even though I said I consider myself agnostic why is this?
does anyone who has an against gay stand must be a christian?
what about muslin countries with strict anti gay laws? I guess they must be christians too?

Your postings are mostly from a religious perspective. I really don't care which belief. I do believe you have mentioned Christian in your postings. But I'm not going to read back to verify.

I mentioned that I'm more on the fence on the gay issue, so I'm not here to change people minds
I'm just stating my current reasoning and way of thinking

I do believe you are.

however if you just state your opinions without much back up then you force me to respond and say why I agree or don't agree with it. This probably makes me seem like I'm trying hard to change peoples views or bash pro gay arguments but I'm not.

I worked for 5 years as the minority being a straight female. I've researched this for 20 years.

I think you may be in conflict with what you have been raised to believe.

My lack of patience is in reading the same incorrect - slanderous - misguided - and insulting rhetoric I've been reading for 20 years. Not really directed at you specifically.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Then you agree that gays should be allowed to legally marry each other in the EXACT same way that straights There will always be prejudiced people against blacks. But they are not the "norm". There will always be people who hate gays, or who feel uncomfortable with gays. But I can guarantee you that if the laws change to protect the rights of gays, our children or our children's children will be totally comfortable with it, and won't understand why anyone had a problem with it.

My 11 year old granddaughter asked me (when she was 9) does gay mean men like men and women like women. I said "Yes" - - she said "Oh - then ran outside to play".

The kids really don't care. If its their friend - its their friend. Parents need to guide kids to live in their generation - - not a past generation.

I swear 11 year olds today are like 16 year olds in my generation. They seem to be much more aware. This child who is physically striking is practically on lock down.

Anyway - I explained to her how our bodies produce chemicals to find a mate. That is called LUST - - - LOVE is different - - it is a commitment and responsibility. I explained to her sometimes those chemicals which are natural in your body attract same gender. It is just how we were made.

Originally posted by quietlearner
This is more of a naming issue to me, not the rights they entail.

I know currently civil unions don't have the same rights and entitlements a normal marriage license has, and I think they should.

"Normal" marriage. Your word usage reveals a lot.

That is why I do agree with calling all government licensed marriages 'civil unions" and keep the world marriage for the original intent of religious marriage.

As previously stated: the history of marriage is nothing to be proud of. Sanctity of Marriage is a bogus argument. Especially with the high rate of divorce. Plus all the gays I've known are religious.

You do not deny a right and take it away to create an equal right.

What we name it is another issue and I think just by naming it something else does not mean the rights or entitlements lose any significance.

Really? And you think gays are just fine with changing the name marriage - - so they can't use that term?

blacks were integrated because people realized that they were just humans like themselves.

Again - - word usage.

. . Continued (didn't want you thinking I didn't read the rest - following that last statement).

In the case of gays, it was never the question if gays are humans or not. The hate towards gays is more of a hate towards a preference (it is not a preference) so its different to racism towards blacks.

Another major difference is that for for this integration to happen the same, you have to assume that anti gays are fundamentally the same as racists.

They are for the most part - - the same group.

Originally posted by quietlearner
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

if it was for me gays would have all the rights they want, however I have a problem with naming their civil unions marriage. I think you agree with this since you are the one who mentioned this idea.

I said I was fine with civil union licenses being handed out by the government for everybody, but I have no problem with anybody saying they are "married". Atheists call themselves "married", and religion has nothing to do with their union. And, there are plenty of churches who perform religious ceremonies for gays, sanctioning the marriage from a religious standpoint. It's just a word, QuietLearner, and it means different things to different people.

Another major difference is that for for this integration to happen the same, you have to assume that anti gays are fundamentally the same as racists. I don't think its fair or correct to group them together.

Sure, it's fair and correct to group them together. It's all about hate. Hating a group of people because of their color, hating a group of people because of their sexual preference. Hate is hate. Racists hate. Homophobes hate.
Racists and homophobes are both hate groups - see, they are together.

I can imagine many scenarios where people who have no hate towards gays can be put in a uncomfortable situation. For example locker rooms or bathrooms.

That's their problem - not the gays'. One silly myth is that gays want to have sex with heterosexuals. Gays want to be with gays - they are not interested in sex with straights. I was at the beach once in my bikini and there were two lesbians next to me. They didn't give me a second glance (I'm not the most beautiful person out there, but I'm not ugly either). They knew I was straight, and they were not interested in me in the least.

also I really don't see any good outcome for teenage gays in high school if it is made public that they are gay. Everyone knows how mean kids can be.

So, you're saying it's better for teen gays to hide who they are, and stay in the shadows where they belong, is that it? That's just the kind of mentality we need to stop. That was exactly the same reason a lot of racists gave for not integrating schools. They said that it would be cruel to put those black children in those white schools where they might be taunted and bullied. Was there some cruel behavior toward the black children in the beginning? You bet there was. But they got through it, and now you hardly see any bullying based on skin color anymore. Kids become racists because their parents are racists. Kids become homophobes because their parents are homophobes. It's up to adults to teach their children tolerance and respect for others - it's not up to the gays to hide.

for the studies, I'm not particularly interested in them.also it does not help that most studies are reactionary to common preconceptions or myths and usually operate with an agenda. Basically they are set to prove or disprove a claim such as "gay people have shorter lives" or "children of gay people don't turn gay"

Not interested in studies! Don't let my scientist husband hear you say that. Scientific studies are how we find out everything in the world! If we didn't study things, we'd still be in the Dark Ages! Of course some who perform studies have an agenda. That's why it's important to have studies peer reviewed - where other scientists look at the studies, try to replicate them - to see if it was a valid study that was correctly done. Other than doing their own studies, that's what scientists do all day long! When you see a study done or approved by a large body of professionals such as the American Medical Assoc or the American Psychological Assoc, it is much more reliable. When you see a study done by a small, blatantly conservative religious group (Family Research Council), that has been publicly debunked by the large organizations -- that study can be discounted. Believe it or not, there are scientists out there who really want to know the truth of how things work.

with all these reasons what I would do is to approach the gay issue slowly and with caution.
and I think the people on power know this, this is probably one of the reasons why any progress with gay rights have been so slow to progress.

I think it's more of an issue of the anti-gay lobbyists fighting to keep the laws from being changed. Trust me, they WILL get changed - people like me are too vocal and too persistent to let this go by the wayside. And, we're in the right to fight for human liberties - and right always wins out in the end. At least it always has in America, if enough people fight hard enough.
.

Originally posted by quietlearner
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

if it was for me gays would have all the rights they want, however I have a problem with naming their civil unions marriage. This is more of a naming issue to me, not the rights they entail....
...that is why I do agree with calling all government licensed marriages
'civil unions" and keep the world marriage for the original intent of religious marriage. I think you agree with this since you are the one who mentioned this idea.

Ok, so let's say we do call all government licensed marriages "civil unions" and religious marriages "marriage".

Gay people would be entitled to both right?

There is more than one religion in America, and if a person's religious beliefs is that being gay is ok, and the person marrying them also have religious beliefs that says that it's ok, then there is no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to get religiously married. Just like there are religious beliefs saying that it's wrong, there are religious beliefs saying that it's ok. To allow one's religious beliefs a privileged that another doesn't have is not fair, it is putting one person's religious beliefs above another...

Originally posted by quietlearner
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

I can imagine many scenarios where people who have no hate towards gays can be put in a uncomfortable situation. For example locker rooms or bathrooms.

That's not the gay person's fault that other people may be uncomfortable...

If you are a guy that is attracted to women, and you are naked around a guy this is attracted to men why would there be discomfort, do you think he's gonna try to rape you or something?

Originally posted by quietlearner
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

also I really don't see any good outcome for teenage gays in high school if it is made public that they are gay. Everyone knows how mean kids can be.