Homosexuality

[Cheeba Monkey]

So, I was wanting to know your all's take on this subject. Homosexuality has been present since the time of the Greeks. But here in the last 30 years, it has exploded into a controversial argument. I personally feel that homosexuality is just as natural for some people as heterosexuality is for others. I believe that it is a psychological affiliation that develops through conditioning in the early stages of one's life. One might develop a need for relationships with one's own sex as opposed to someone of the opposite gender.

Another concept I would like discussion on is peoples' takes on gay marriage and adoption. I have no problem with marriage being awarded for those who wish to have. If two individuals feel that they wish to spend the rest of their lives together through love, it shouldn't matter how they express that love sexually. If a man and a woman can get married and receive tax benefits, insurance rate deductions, etc., I feel a homosexual couple should be entitled to the same opportunities. Adoption, however, I feel could be disasterous for the child being adopted. I am actually not too sure on how other children would treat the adopted child for having "two daddies" or "two mommies", but when I was in grade school, being ridiculed would only be the beginning. I don't think our culture is that open yet. I could be wrong.

My reason for this post is that I am sick and tired of the mass majority of this country's citizens wishing to impose legislation against minorities simply on the basis of their religous affiliations. This is mainly being directed towards Christians. Not that I have a problem with the actual religion, I was one for 19 years, but I have found that Christians tend to be more judgemental and opinionated than anyone else in this country. I realize that the last statement was, in of itself, judgemental but I have made that conclusion over years of observation. It also doesn't help that I live smack dab in the middle of the Bible belt. All I am saying for this last point is this... keep your church out of my law, and I will keep my law out of your church.

[tech338]

you cant stop humanitys wants and needs~!

[Cheeba Monkey]

Originally Posted by tech338

you cant stop humanitys wants and needs~!

Is there any possible way you could define what you mean. That is a very general form of discussion. Are you suggesting that humanity is outside the psychological and metaphysical fields, so that it physically determines society's function. Society's needs arose out of our need for society. We needed structure, organization, peace, and stability. That was why tribal unity was first created. And if that is the case, then are you suggesting that homosexuality goes against these principles? Humanity refers to the state of being human, the particular nature of man, by which he is distinguished from other beings. Are you suggesting that homosexuality goes against these principles as well?

[GoofyBadger]

Though I won't go into detail, let me make the argument that keeping homosexual couples from adopting due to an unforgiving part of society is both counter-productive, and perhaps not necessary at all. To the second point, I'll bring up everyone's source rigorously applied research: MTV. Though an admittedly odd source, there exists on MTV a show detailing the lives of kids with homosexual parents. From here there are two very important lessons to learned. One, opening people's eyes to the reality of life in that situation can bring more acceptance than shouting about scripture ever will. And two, MTV is directed at the peers one would worry about most, and when viewing the show it uncommon to find kids who appear to suffer any more than most of us did at one point - though perhaps they get picked on for having gay parents as opposed to being poor, etc. As for the argument being counter-productive, true research has shown homosexual couples to have stronger, on the aggregate, inter-family communication than most heterosexual family units. Family values and love are not removed from a child's life in any way, especially considering the vast difference between an orphanage and a family. Keeping homosexual couples from adopting/having kids only reinforces the notion of oddness, as opposed to allowing same-sex couple to thrive in a true family life. Though heterosexual myself, I could name two close homosexual friends of mine who would be incredible parents given the opportunity. I can only hope more people will open their eyes and allow equality to be truely be shared by all.

[sunny]

For some reason homosexuals have decided to define themselves by there bedroom conduct rather than who they are or the contributions they make to society. In my opinion the only difference between gay and straight is the fact they choose to have sex with the same gender. As far as gay marriage I would support civil unions but you cannot force the church(es) to recognize something that they don't condone. As far as adoption I would rather see a kid in a loving family be it gay or otherwise than in the care of social services (or whatever it's called where you're from). It all comes down to the same as every other type of discrimination, as long as one person or one group is singled out for special treatment they will be discriminated against.

[james149]

Id just like to comment based on some personal expeirnce. Two of my close friends are both adopted and both have lesbian parents. They are both straight. I have met their parents and they are perhaps the nicest people you could meet. These kids are very bright and motivated with the full support of their communities behind them. Their families (both have siblings that were also adopted) are definitely more tight nit then my own (my parents are both heterosexual). These kids would have never had the opportunities they do now if it weren't for their endless support in up bringing. I think it would be a shame to deprive kids of these loving environments.

Also, one of these friends is a practicing christian. His church fully accepts and has no problems with homosexual marriage. Our country believes in freedom to practice whatever religion you desire. If a church or group of churchs believes that gay marriage is acceptable there should be no reason while their members should be deprived the right to marry (freedom of religion). Id agree that the government should also not force churches who believe gay marrige is wrong to perform or endorse and such union. People just need to get over the idea that they are somehow morally superior to people that are different from them.

[GoofyBadger]

Sunny and James, I quite agree with you both, for the most part. I would argue, however, that it is a huge generalization to say homosexuals define themselves by a singular sex act. While schools readily teach Maya Angelou's literature as amazing works from a strong African American woman, one is unlikely to find Oscar Wilde's contribution as a homosexual man to be as prominantly displayed. As late as 2003, the Supreme Court heard a case where a gay couple was arrested for deviate sexual acts. With this blunt focus on the act coming from the outside, it would be difficult to bring any self-definition (which is difficult for any race, class, or other group to build anyway) to the forefront.

As for the marriage issue, my personal persuasion is that government should grant and recognize nothing more than a civil union to any person. Whether one define's their union as marriage would be left to individual choice. In this situation, no religious figure is forced to condone actions they disagree with. Furthermore, people like my own parents who had an inter-faith marriage conducted by a justice of the peace would still be married, since they define their union as such. Before this turns into a manifesto of sorts, I'm out.

[sunny]

My point exactly! Why is Maya Angelou "a strong African American woman" and Oscar Wilde "a homosexual man". Why can't they just ba a man and a woman. What other difference is there between a heterosexual and a homosexual other than who they choose to have sex with? From the dictionary;

ho·mo·sex·u·al (hō'mō-sĕk'shū-al)
adj.
Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.

het·er·o·sex·u·al (hĕt'a-rō-sĕk'shū-al)
adj.
Sexually oriented to persons of the opposite sex.

Most people would probably never refer to someone as a heterosexual male because it doesn't matter just as being homosexual doesn't. As long as they are a "special" group that has to be addressed with a specific title they will be discriminated against because of it.

[GoofyBadger]

Unfortunately, that's the result of "normalization." At least in the United States, a generic individual's qualities are white, male, heterosexual and god only knows what else. We list deviations from this as descriptions, while an absence of description holds just as much meaning.

Nevertheless, people will necessarily always be categorized. Otherwise, the police would never get decriptions of people committing crimes, and I could never ask my friend about some girl he keeps mentioning. The real difference will be when these categories exists for themselves, not as a deviation from some standard like I mentioned above.

[flying dragon]

keep your fucking sex life too yourself and dont worry about it!

[GoofyBadger]

Sorry Dragon, but this involves more than a sex life, unfortunately. When my good friend is able to marry the man he loves and have children, then I'll stick with the don't worry about it idea.

[Wanker]

I'd just like to say that the comments thus far have been very encouraging! I'm from Canada, where there is a bit more acceptance (at least legislation-wise) than the USA. Though...that may change with the newly elected Conservative government, who knows. Might as well mention that I'm 4th year University, double major in Psychology and Sociology...maybe give some insight into my biases.

Anyways, to answer the questions, I agree that 'live and let live' is a good starting point, but as long as homosexuals are seen as deviant, we have a problem Kids will get teased no matter which minority group they come from, it is a sad fact of life. Kids' family is poor? Teased, Kids' family is Black? Teased, Kid wears glasses? teased, kid is fat? teased...and the list goes on. I'm not saying teasing and bullying are the only things a child might suffer, but they are quite commonplace. Research has shown (and I'm not gonna go looking for the references, though I know I have them somewhere) that a loving, nuturing family regardless of sexual orientation of the parents is all that is required.

I'd also like to take issue with the idea that homosexuality is a learned response. Sociologists would love you, psychologists would hate you. I'm both...so here goes. I honestly believe that there is no large-scale personality trait or whatever you want to call it, that is SOLELY affected by one variable (nature or nurture). Genetics and early life experiences most certainly have a role. I would argue that there is a continuum of predispositions, at the extremes, this would basically predict 'totally straight' or 'totally gay.' In the middle, however, this predisposition is more greatly affected by early life experiences, which shape the later sexual orientation of a particular individual.

And finally I'll mention the marriage issue real quick. As of now, 'gay marriage' is legal in Canada, but is not imposed on churches. If a church wishes to perform the ceremony, they can, otherwise its not forced upon them. Civil unions are, of course, always performed. I beleive marriage is a human right, anyone should be entitled to it, for their own personal reasons, even if it is just for the tax benefit. Marriage is a deep committment to another person, that's it. Religion has imbued marriage with much more meaning than that, but it is a deep committment on the pure level.

Anyways, there is my answer..its long, but by no means is it complete.

[LittleBigman204]

Why should someones sexual orentation create a problem for them to spend their live together as a married couple. They should be entiltled to health benifits of their spouse. Think about it. Times are tuff for all of us. imagine if you and your wifeboth had to pay for benifits. Most of us if both parties are covered we can choose which one we use. and some of us even recive money to choose one program. to eliminate the cost from an employer. anyway thats just the tip. no pun intended. taxes thats whole diffrent topic. gay couples get screwed. the live as married. let them file as married.

[Manning1985]

I feel that the civil unions argument is ignorant, because while you cant make churches preform the marriges there are many that will, and that is not what technically makes it is the paperwork for the goverment. And saying that heterosexuals can have that, and homosexuals cannot stricktley on that basis, is a violation of Civil rights amendment based on the fact that it would qualify as a Seperate but, equal law.

[kpeeze]

Originally Posted by sunny

For some reason homosexuals have decided to define themselves by there bedroom conduct rather than who they are or the contributions they make to society. In my opinion the only difference between gay and straight is the fact they choose to have sex with the same gender. As far as gay marriage I would support civil unions but you cannot force the church(es) to recognize something that they don't condone. As far as adoption I would rather see a kid in a loving family be it gay or otherwise than in the care of social services (or whatever it's called where you're from). It all comes down to the same as every other type of discrimination, as long as one person or one group is singled out for special treatment they will be discriminated against.

Don't hetrosexuals define themselves by their bedroom conduct as well? How are hetrosexuals any different from homosexuals in defining their respective orientations?

Certainly, you couldn't force churches to condone it, but why can't we force changes in the law to allow legal marriage between homosexuals? The very notion of differentiating between marriage and civil unions (i.e. marriage permissible for hetrosexuals, and only civil for homosexuals) is discriminatory in that it is an affirmation by the government that homosexuals cannot enjoy the same status as hetrosexuals.