If Homosexuality is Genetic ......

[LuvRPgrl]

(Sigh) I think that incest is not wrong. I think that inbreeding is wrong. Here is a difference. Please use a dictionary and don’t change my words. Sheesh.

Besides, it is all relative. (Pardon the pun) We allow smoking but it is harmful. We allow over-eating though it is harmful. We allow people do all sorts of things that are not good for them and are a cost to society.

care to explain the difference and how it is pertinent to this topic?

Uh, smoking etc, hurts oneself, incest damages many others, not limited to the possible offspring.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH,......When it comes to sex, I think that incest should be allowed. As long as there in no inbreeding, informed consenting adults should be allowed to engage in sex. That is all that there is to it. Do you think that incest should not be allowed? Why?

Uh, you care to explain how you could possibly enforce no inbreeding if you allow incest to occur. Thats like saying its ok to smoke pot, just not ok to get loaded.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Interesting point. But wouldn't that disappear too after millenia?

Not neccessarily. Look at other genetic defects, (YES! Im calling homosexuality a defect!)

take cerebal palsy for example. I think they are incapable or very unlikely to have offspring, yet the recessive gene for it is carried on anyways. Also, dont forget that homosexuals sometimes do force themselves to have sex with a woman just for the sake of having offspring.

If IF the condition is due to genetics, then if the person is carrying the gene and forces themselves to have sex with a woman for offspring, then the response that if a person can force themselves to have sex with the opposite sex, then they arent a "true homosexual", would become irrelevant, because we would be defining a homosexual as one who carries the gene and displays it for the most part.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Alright. Here's what I think about homosexuality, definitively:
1. It is natural.
2. It is not a mental illness..

but it is a defect.

3. Gays, in marriage / civil union / whatever, should be able to have the same rights as a married heterosexual couple (taxes, hospital visits, etc,) since they are (ideally) going to have the same commitment to one another that a married heterosexual couple does..

I couldnt disagree more. The religous aspect of marriage is to keep a commitment. But the legal aspect is to promote families, both health wise (monogamous partners have healthier lives) and in numbers. Financially, it is a drain to have kids, so the govt allows taxes to be construed to help the family with kids to make up for it. Hence, some who would othewise not have kids, may make the decision to go ahead.

Second, they are not rights, marriage is a privledge. Please show me once in the Constitution where marriage is mentioned.

Lastly, for a homosexual male couple to remain monogamous for a lifetime is extremely rare. Men are naturally promiscuous. Women arent. With two men, you dont have one partner requiring fidelity as often.

As for hospital visits, I think that can be dealth with using current laws.

Cool. Someone who read it as I did.

Yes, but I can easilly see how someone could read it as contradictory. At first glance, it appears to be so.

 

[Reneer]

I couldnt disagree more. The religous aspect of marriage is to keep a commitment. But the legal aspect is to promote families, both health wise (monogamous partners have healthier lives) and in numbers. Financially, it is a drain to have kids, so the govt allows taxes to be construed to help the family with kids to make up for it. Hence, some who would othewise not have kids, may make the decision to go ahead.

Second, they are not rights, marriage is a privledge. Please show me once in the Constitution where marriage is mentioned.

Lastly, for a homosexual male couple to remain monogamous for a lifetime is extremely rare. Men are naturally promiscuous. Women arent. With two men, you dont have one partner requiring fidelity as often.

As for hospital visits, I think that can be dealth with using current laws.

You're correct, it is not 'rights' that I should be referring to, but rather privileges. I'll rephrase that as 'privileges granted to heterosexual couples upon marriage.'

And in response to your generalization of secular marriage, you are correct - but I don't see anyone stripping infertile couples of their marriage licenses because they can't have children. I also don't see how some of the benefits granted to heterosexual couples have anything to do with creating a family, like Burial Determination or Bereavement Leave or even Sick Leave to Care for Partner. Mind explaining how a homosexual couple could possibly get those benefits if their union isn't recognized by the state?

And honestly? You have not a leg to stand on when heterosexual couples get divorced roughly 50% of the time, and people re-marry multiple times. So what does it matter if homosexuals may not necessarily be married for life under a civil union / marriage?

 

[007]

Alright. Here's what I think about homosexuality, definitively:
1. It is natural.
2. It is not a mental illness.

1). There is NOTHING "natural" about homosexuality. It's a mental choice by a person to act upon "unnatural" urges.
2). It is a mental illness. It was deamed an illness for ions, only to be reclassified under intense homo/lesbo pressure. But recently the President of the APA has said he once again considers it a mental illness. It appears he's found his back bone and is taking a stand against the homo/lesbo pressure tactics. I started a thread with an article on it in the health section, check it out.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=474016&postcount=1

3. Gays, in marriage / civil union / whatever, should be able to have the same rights as a married heterosexual couple (taxes, hospital visits, etc,) since they are (ideally) going to have the same commitment to one another that a married heterosexual couple does.

Well, you've already been told that marriage isn't a right, with that said, I'll add marriage is a Holy Union between a man and a woman in the eyes of God. God makes it very clear what he thinks about queers and lesbo's. He say's it's an abomination, and that their blood will surely pay. So marriage between two men, no matter how bad they'd like to call it one, will NEVER be a marriage as a man and woman in the eyes of God. So for queers and lesbo's to want to marry, all they are doing is trying to defile the holy sanctity of marriage. They should take a civil union with all the legal benefits of a marriad couple and shut up. Leave marriage for what it was truely intended for, a man and a woman.

And here is what I think about incest:
1. It should not be practiced.

Gee... you really went out on a limb here didn't you...

 

[Nuc]

Maybe you dont have that hatred and abhorrence, but you do have that liberal snobbishness and prejudicial treatment of conservatives who think that homosexuality is abnormal and a negative in ones life, by automatically assuming that if one isnt PRO HOMO then that means you are automatically hating and abhoring homosexuals, which simply isnt true.
And yet you hold hard and fast, onto your opinion of conservatives and their views on the issue.

You guys are right there are a lot of people here who don't approve of homosexuality yet don't hate gays either. I will not tar you with the same brush as the raging obsessive homophobes on the board. Sorry, my bad!

In my own defense, the virulence of some of the people on the board is a real turn-off and I probably wouldn't like to hear it on any subject other than perhaps Hitler or Bin Laden for example. I think hating people who may be normal, or if not normal, redeemable, is distasteful.

 

[Reneer]

1). There is NOTHING "natural" about homosexuality. It's a mental choice by a person to act upon "unnatural" urges.
2). It is a mental illness. It was deamed an illness for ions, only to be reclassified under intense homo/lesbo pressure. But recently the President of the APA has said he once again considers it a mental illness. It appears he's found his back bone and is taking a stand against the homo/lesbo pressure tactics. I started a thread with an article on it in the health section, check it out.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=474016&postcount=1


Well, you've already been told that marriage isn't a right, with that said, I'll add marriage is a Holy Union between a man and a woman in the eyes of God. God makes it very clear what he thinks about queers and lesbo's. He say's it's an abomination, and that their blood will surely pay. So marriage between two men, no matter how bad they'd like to call it one, will NEVER be a marriage as a man and woman in the eyes of God. So for queers and lesbo's to want to marry, all they are doing is trying to defile the holy sanctity of marriage. They should take a civil union with all the legal benefits of a marriad couple and shut up. Leave marriage for what it was truely intended for, a man and a woman.



Gee... you really went out on a limb here didn't you...

1) That is where we differ in opinion as to what is 'natural.'
2) Even if the APA decides that homosexuality is again to be classified as a mental illness, I'd need to see some hard evidence before I would believe it to be a mental illness.

And there's a reason I said 'marriage / civil union / whatever' - in my eyes it doesn't need to be marriage, so long as the couple at least gets the same state-sanctioned benefits that are normally given to a heterosexual couple. If they want to have their civil-union recognized by a religion, I'm sure they can find one that will recognize it.

And in regards to incest... well, I think it's wrong, too. :

 

[007]

You guys are right there are a lot of people here who don't approve of homosexuality yet don't hate gays either. I will not tar you with the same brush as the raging obsessive homophobes on the board. Sorry, my bad!

In my own defense, the virulence of some of the people on the board is a real turn-off and I probably wouldn't like to hear it on any subject other than perhaps Hitler or Bin Laden for example. I think hating people who may be normal, or if not normal, redeemable, is distasteful.

If by chance you refer to me, I'd challange you to find anywhere where I said "I hate queers".

I've said I don't respect them, what they do turns my stomach, the Bible says what they do is an abomination, they're sick in the head, on and on. But nowhere have I ever said "I hate them". I've stated on more than one occassion that it is not the person I dislike, it's the choice they've made to carry out their unnatural impulses. I see that as weak.

I've known a few queers in my life. I've never treated any of them any different than I've treated anybody else. But here in this forum, I can make my disgust known. I've never known the PRO-homo crowd to hold their feelings in, so why should I?

 

[007]

1) That is where we differ in opinion as to what is 'natural.'

OK.

2) Even if the APA decides that homosexuality is again to be classified as a mental illness, I'd need to see some hard evidence before I would believe it to be a mental illness.

So for it to be classified for ions as a mental illness, and once again to correct a wrong it is reclassified that again, by knowledgable doctors and scientists that have studied the illness for all that while, you're still smarter than they are? You feel they're somehow mistaken? Maybe you should call the APA and enlighten them to the unkown information you have that say's they're wrong. I'm sure they'd be very grateful for this.

And there's a reason I said 'marriage / civil union / whatever' - in my eyes it doesn't need to be marriage, so long as the couple at least gets the same state-sanctioned benefits that are normally given to a heterosexual couple. If they want to have their civil-union recognized by a religion, I'm sure they can find one that will recognize it.

OK.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

I don't believe that homosexuality is genetic. I think the propensity for a man to be effiminate or for a woman to be masculine may be though--it's obviously a glandular/hormonal difference. Having said that, I've known of several effiminate men who are married and have kids--I've even heard of married fathers "realizing" they are gay and suddenly pursuing that lifestyle--which I think is deplorable when a woman and kids are involved. I've also heard of overly masculine men committing homosexual acts as part of some sociopathic dominance issues they have. I think it all comes down to preference in the end.

However, to answer the question posed by the thread topic--it's obvious to me how hormonal deficiencies would be passed down through generations. Then homosexuality, which I believe is either a choice, whether unconscious or conscious or subconscious has been around since the beginning of human history and I don't see it going anywhere soon. If homosexuality is a choice, then it's obvious why it continues to manifest itself. I very much doubt that it is genetic--and if it is, I think it has to do more with hormones and the endocrine system that a "homosexual gene."

 

[mattskramer]

Uh, you care to explain how you could possibly enforce no inbreeding if you allow incest to occur. Thats like saying its ok to smoke pot, just not ok to get loaded.

Think for a moment. We allow people to drink but we prohibit people from driving drunk. We allow strangers to have sex but we don’t allow people to commit date rape. We allow people to do many things that, if not done carefully, could progress to prohibited things.

 

[mattskramer]

Well for Christ sake Reneer, how do you go from the topic of homosexuality being unnatural to things in nature that might be bad for you? Where the heck is the relevance in the arguement?

It is all so simple. Take a beginners course in logic. In all practicality, you tried to make the argument that heterosexuality is good, should be tolerated, etc. because it is natural (and that homosexuality is wrong because it is not natural). You are committing the fallacy of appealing to nature. Nature is not good or bad. It is not right or wrong. What is natural is merely what is natural. There are bad things in nature. There are good things that are not natural. Read about the fallacy of appealing to nature and then try another argument opposing homosexuality.

 

[archangel]

The only predisposition that can be attributed to homosexuals being genetic is found in 'Hermaphrodites' which is very rare less than 1% of the population...
This condition can be treated medically as well as psychologically...which supports pales anology...

What we are talking about as referring to homosexual behavior is found in what is referred to as "Societal Sex"- determined after birth ie: how a person is raised (male or female or (intersex-hermaphrodites) this supports my analogy that homosexual behavior is nothing more than sexual immaturity...

Don't kill the messenger go to www.ibis-birthdefects.org/start/hermaphr.htm

 

[mattskramer]

The only predisposition that can be attributed to homosexuals being genetic is found in 'Hermaphrodites' which is very rare less than 1% of the population...
This condition can be treated medically as well as psychologically...which supports pales anology...

What we are talking about as referring to homosexual behavior is found in what is referred to as "Societal Sex"- determined after birth ie: how a person is raised (male or female or (intersex-hermaphrodites) this supports my analogy that homosexual behavior is nothing more than sexual immaturity...

Don't kill the messenger go to www.ibis-birthdefects.org/start/hermaphr.htm

I followed your line of reasoning until you stated that, this supports my analogy that homosexual behavior is nothing more than sexual immaturity…

I don’t see the connection. Would you “connect the dots” for me?

 

[archangel]

I followed your line of reasoning until you stated that, this supports my analogy that homosexual behavior is nothing more than sexual immaturity…

I don’t see the connection. Would you “connect the dots” for me?

why I am answering this question...you are weird dude....ya lost me when you admitted you believed 'incest' was okay...but I will compose my animosity for you and say simply...mutual masturbation as found in narcisstic homosexual behavior is nothing more than sexual immaturity... a learned process...now go away perv!

 

[mattskramer]

why I am answering this question...you are weird dude....ya lost me when you admitted you believed 'incest' was okay...but I will compose my animosity for you and say simply...mutual masturbation as found in narcisstic homosexual behavior is nothing more than sexual immaturity... a learned process...now go away perv!

Uh. Mutual masturbation is found on narcissistic heterosexual behavior. Does that denote it as sexual immaturity? By the way, I won’t stoop to name-calling.

 

[archangel]

Uh. Mutual masturbation is found on narcissistic heterosexual behavior. Does that denote it as sexual immaturity? By the way, I won’t stoop to name-calling.

I just call em' like I see em'...look up the term pervert...not name calling just a fact Jack...you are perverted...seek help!:blah2:


side note...mutual masturbation between homosexuals is not 'foreplay' as defined in hetrosexual activity...and as I said previously you are way out there...seek help!

 

[nt250]

How is being gay a "cause" that one would find appealing?




Wow, now you're talking out of your ass. I bet you don't even have any gay friends.

To your first question: beats me.

To your second statement: You're right. I do not have any gay friends. I don't associate with people who have disgusting personal habits.

 

[nt250]

You can determine their genetic makeup just by meeting them?????
You certainly should offer that genius trait to some police dept's detective squad.

You have never met a true homosexual.

Or you're blind.