Yeah and to go with whast SeoMX said. It isn't even our buisness to interfere with their relationships. Seriously, Isn't there a right of privacy? If not, there friggen should be. Screw the government.
Some groups have done studies recently that showed that homosexuality is a congenital condition. You wouldn't punish someone for having blue eyes instead of brown, would you? You can't help being born the way you are.
it dosnt affect me in any way an pepl shud get on wiv their lives an let up on minority groups they dont do any harm pepl shud b able 2 do wot they want
Does it make a difference whether people are born that way or not? I have several friends that made a conscious decision about their sexual preference. But it seems like if you feel that it's wrong, then it doesn't matter if you choose to be that way, or are born that way. I think the congenital condition argument undermines the fundamental principle of equality and human rights that should be available to everyone. It simply should not be considered "wrong" regardless of the person's motivations. Well, let me rephrase that - people should have the same civil liberties regardless of sexual orientation; you can think it's wrong or the grossest thing ever, but I would imagine that most g.ays and lesbians don't really care what a certain individual thinks, they just want equal treatment and opportunities under the law.
That is true. I would like equality when it comes to laws and treatment. But if they turn being homosexual into a condition, then I want disability payments
But seriously if it is a disease then why don't they try to make a treatment, becuase they know it isn't and they don't want to be proven wrong by g.ayness
But seriously if it is a disease then why don't they try to make a treatment, becuase they know it isn't and they don't want to be proven wrong by g@yness
Disturbingly, recent controversy has arisen among the scientific community regarding one particular effort to locate the 'cause' of 'homosexuality' (in rams)...this in itself is not controversial. The agenda, to find the cause in order to cure it, was, however.
Speaking of which, I would think it unwise to attempt to 'cure' these things, on just about every single level. First, the way we commonly talk about homosexuality in the context of sexuality in behaviors is awfully incomplete. Secondly, it makes more sense to understand the variety of behaviors as having their own advantages regardless of their origin/causation- specifically I'd term this an "evolutionarily stable strategy", but that only works if you happen to subscribe to/understand evolution.
The problem with biological arguments is that as a whole, they all stem from an attempt to engage the arguments that start with the assertion that there is a moral right/wrong involved. Biology doesn't work like that: it is that way first, then all else either follows or is merely contingent. The remainder of the moral arguments make reference to divine authority, which is pretty much fruitless in an argument: we'd be collectively better off telling the person who used such to get over themselves.
Even though I don't have the time to read 70 pages of thread, I bet you that there has been no single clear cut definition that everybody has agreed upon. And that would be because there really isn't a good one. So, it's a big deal in this day and age, sure. But exactly what is it that everybody is making such a big deal out of?
