Well, if you want to discuss what the Bible says on the topic, then...what do you guys think of Paul (a.k.a. Saul, the author of most of the material in the current version of the New Testament)?
Just what kind of personal demons did the man have on his back? >
Oh, here's what I get for reading back after I post...
Garifu wrote:
I don't agree that biological arguments stem necessarily from questions of morality...So why should that portion of the discussion be ignored?
Well, I'm not saying it should be ignored, no, as it's perfectly fine to be curious about the aetiology. I was criticising the arguments, though, i.e. assertions that have a premise, evidence, and conclusion, as opposed to mere observations.
That said, I also find the question of what 'germinates' sexual orientation to be a little less interesting than I used to due to my perspective: at this current stage I tend to simply assume that we have predispositions to some extent, and am more concerned about means and appropriate ways with which to manage them. Maybe this in itself might provide more insight into origins than simply looking for origins directly.
Thorny, did you not read the title of this forum section? If you don't feel like reading people's opinions or sharing your own then don't return to the forums. It is attitudes like yours that makes this website not fun.
Haha if you read thorny's posts on other forums he does not seem too educated in these topics, so I would not go too hard on him. On second thought, he does post on these forums willing, when he could just ignore them, so nevermind, lay it on him.
As far as homosexuality goes, I find it a strange thing really. One man, one woman = offspring, so the world moves on. But when did homosexuality come into play? I will not be so rude as to say it is some sort of mental/genetic defect, but I really do not know how to classify it...
What about this? I wouldn't call it a mental/genetic defect. As Carlie has pointed out a number of times, there are many species on earth that practice homosexuality. There is even an entire culture that practices homosexuality and only mates with the opposite sex to produce children. I think all issues with it stem from the society you live in. Bring the "unnatural" argument into this doesn't work either, it's been disputed. Right now in this thread we are currently in limbo.
See, the unnatural arguement can go both ways - yes, animals practice homosexuality, but we can't really justify our actions simply based on the actions of animals - that would make murder socially acceptable. However, we HAVE done some research which shows that the brains of homosexuals behave, in certain circumstances, similar to the brains of heterosexuals of the opposite sex (the trend is much more noticable in homosexual males, though it is noticable in females). Also, homosexuality HAS been linked to a certain gene, causing the body to release hormones it wouldn't normally release. There is a certain genetic tendency in women that causes them to have a largely unbalanced level of testosterone, and in males that releases too much estrogen. For lack of a better word, these "disorders" are not the fault of the individual, and they should not be denied the right to be happy as we would give to any individual. Therefore, they must be allowed the same rights as everyone else.
Well Asherlee, I do not know what to say about that link you put there, but I'll just say... strange? Again, I was not calling homosexuality a 'disorder', I was just saying I do not really know how to classify it.
And I think you made a mistake here: "There is even an entire culture that practices homosexuality and only mates with the opposite sex to produce children" They only mate with the opposite sex? Is that not, what society would call, normal?
No Sting, the grammar may be confusing but it makes perfect sense- the sentence means: "They mate with the opposite sex only because they have to produce children."
Think about it this way- the production of offspring doesn't have to be so instrumental to our behaviors that everything ought to be geared that way and no other. Just where did this moral imperative come from?
Ooh, antihistamine drugs? Uhm! Anyway...I mean that just because it is a requirement for some species (not all, but this is tangential) to have heterosexual relations in order to produce offspring (this being necessary for species' survival), doesn't say anything about whether we should forbid other behaviors.
To push this argument would be to say "humans are in danger because homosexuality is taking over the entire race!" Uh, what?
Calm: I've changed my mind, I'm not going to bring up the subject of Paul's alleged closet for the time being >
Ooh ooh, I just remembered something-
Mega: Most of what you write above has some accuracy (not all, but I'm not going to nitpick), but let's all consider this, because most people tend to make mistakes here...beware of lumping sexual orientation and gender together.
Because in some cases it works, but in other cases it simply doesn't.
