Homosexuality in Australia (3 Viewers)

[withoutaface]

But I don't think anyone "desires" a "lifestyle preference"- I don't think sexuality is a choice at all (if that's what you're implying- I may have interpreted what you said incorrectly, though).

Thanks for clarifying your views. I believe that sexuality is majorly based in genetics, however it is lifestyle experiences that influence how individuals convey/practise/realise their sexuality e.g. someone who is gay but brought up in a conservative Christian household may not come to terms with their sexuality until well into adulthood, however I have been brought up in a very open minded and accepting family, so was able to recognise that I was gay and become comfortable with it at a very young age. I don't think childhood experiences alter a person's sexuality, but they may influence a person's attitude towards their sexuality.

Depends. If you're born bisexual but have a traumatic experience with one or another sex I'd say your sexuality could almost certainly be altered.

 

[Se!zuRe.]

Depends. If you're born bisexual but have a traumatic experience with one or another sex I'd say your sexuality could almost certainly be altered.

very interesting i like this idea and also agree its most prob a very possible scenario

 

[skip89]

And what about the fact that there is a multitude of documented cases showing homosexuality amongst animals, which clearly disproves the idea that it's "unnatural"?

Are you saying that homosexuals are animals?

How bout polygamy? or killing your partner after mating? There are documented cases of these as well.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

But along with this comes the idea of homosexuality being a disorder that has been a part of the childs upbrining. Some researchers have infact indentified abnormal patterns of upbringing and relationships that seem to lead to homosexuality. hence homosexuality is said to be the result of some disturbed or traumatised upbringing in this childs life.

So whose to say whats wrong and whats right its simply an opinon and everyone is due to their own opinion. i just thought i wuld shed some light on some scientific data. xD

But why do we care why it happens? It doesn't change the original debate on either gay marriage or gay parenting. I think you will find many many gay people who were raised by a mother and a father, in a normal nuclear family, free from domestic abuse, alcoholism etc.

Having said that, I;ve heard this theory before. It's supposed to be something along the lines of (for gay males): few male role models, weak relationship with father strong identification with mother who is usually a single mother.
and (for gay girls): weak relationship with mother, strong relationship with father, or a traumatic sexual experience with a male usually when they are very young.

Personally I think its unlikely, especially the last bit (I mean, any straights guys going to switch teams if they are raped by a girl?) but that could just be because I know many gays who don;t fit any of those stereotypes.

"Are you saying that homosexuals are animals?"

All humans are animals.

 

[skip89]

Marraige refers to not just a legal, but a spiritual binding of a man and a woman. Just because a person might think they have the same kind of spiritual connection with another of the same sex doesnt entitle them to hijack the term marraige which is defined by and has always traditionally been between a man and a woman.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Marraige refers to not just a legal, but a spiritual binding of a man and a woman. Just because a person might think they have the same kind of spiritual connection with another of the same sex doesnt entitle them to hijack the term marraige which is defined by and has always traditionally been between a man and a woman.

So you feel each long standing construct of society should remain as is?

Why are some constructs mutable (such as black people being slaves and an inferior race) and some are not? What makes this particular construct different?

 

[dieburndie]

Marraige refers to not just a legal, but a spiritual binding of a man and a woman. Just because a person might think they have the same kind of spiritual connection with another of the same sex doesnt entitle them to hijack the term marraige which is defined by and has always traditionally been between a man and a woman.

Civil unions for the non-religious and homosexuals = everybody wins.
The god squad can have the term marriage, stupid fuckers.

 

[dieburndie]

Religion works in absolutes, ignoring all changing circumstances.
That's why we can't change the definition of marriage according to those who are religious, because it would equate their bond to one which they see as abhorrent.
I say the rest of society should go forward and ignore them, not let them weigh us down with unnecessary boundaries that are irrelevant to anyone else.
Why the fuck does the word marriage mean so much?

 

[dagwoman]

Are you saying that homosexuals are animals?

How bout polygamy? or killing your partner after mating? There are documented cases of these as well.

All humans are animals...

I think if people want to be polyamorous and they have an agreement with the people they're seeing, that's fine, it doesn't affect me. And comparing homosexuality with murder just doesn't fly.

 

[dieburndie]

I believe all humans are animals...

I think if people want to be polyamorous and they have an agreement with the people they're seeing, that's fine, it doesn't affect me. And comparing homosexuality with murder just doesn't fly.

Hate to play devil's advocate here (not really), but it kinda does.
You said that homosexuality is natural because it occurs in other animals.
He basically said that by that logic killing your mate following breeding is natural because it occurs with other animals.
You have to explain why it doesn't fly.

 

[jhopkins]

i see my previous message agains homosexuality has been taken off. porbly due to the harsh language and the reality and logical argument it presenjted.

 

[ur_inner_child]

i see my previous message agains homosexuality has been taken off. porbly due to the harsh language and the reality and logical argument it presenjted.

If you could string proper sentences and be mature and objective about the issue, perhaps your posts won't keep getting deleted by me.

Please read the forum rules before posting.

EDIT: Another thing. Dare I say that anal sex is not exclusive to homosexual couples, so your idea of homosexuality being abnormal because of this act is flawed.

 

[jhopkins]

so u are telling me that all that what i said was illogical and immature simply because i put in terms and a simplicity that everyone could understand.

Its true, ther is no right in homosexuals

 

[ur_inner_child]

You give nothing to the argument except that it's wrong and that is all.

Back up your statements.

 

[dagwoman]

Because killing someone after sex isn't a genetically imposed predisposition, and because of this, we as humans are able to understand the morals of taking someone's life. Also, killing someone hurts others. Two people having consensual homosexual sex doesn't.

I think it's ridiculous to use that comparison. It should be obvious why killing in nature vs. killing amongst humans is not something that should be compared with homosexuality in nature vs. amongst humans.

 

[skip89]

I wasn't making a point about how homosexual unions shouldn't be recognised (although you can probably guess this is my view) it was just about using the term marraige to denote the union.

Also you presented a perceived conflict bewteen natural action and moral action. I would like some clarification, and more imoportantly, your opinion on which takes precedence.

I thought when you introduced the argument about homosexuality in the animal kingdom you eliminated morality as a factor. So it is just a little confusing when you start referring to morality.

 

[dagwoman]

^ I don't know what you're talking about/referring to.

 

[dieburndie]

dagwoman, if you're talking about that "stop trolling" post it was at the crazy guy and his post was deleted for the most part and there were about 6 posts after it so it wasn't really relevant.

 

[dagwoman]

No, I'm referring to skip89's post. I don't really understand what he's saying.

 

[skip89]

I'm saying you can't argue that homosexuality is alright because it happens in other animals and then refer to morality. you have reduced humanity to animals and then referred to what distinguishes us from them.