That wasn't directed at you. Well... it's not an exact comparison. Homosexuals can generally reproduce if they want to. But my point was that having a non-reproducing segment of a population is evolutionarily advantageous, or it wouldn't be so prevalent in nature. Traits that aren't advantageous don't last long.
The only people getting bad-mouthed here are the ones who are against this statement: "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights," affirms that "human rights apply equally to every human being regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity." It denounces violence, harassment, and exclusion, and calls upon the nations of the world "and relevant international human rights mechanisms to commit to promote and protect human rights of all persons, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity."
What about bestiality? It doesn't harm any people. Maybe I'm born just liking woodland animals. And unless you're a vegan, don't talk to me about animal cruelty? What if I give it a doggie treat afterwards and pet it real nicely?
So gay folk are just straight people choosing to be gay, because of their surroundings/circumstances? It does not add up.
I'm surprised it took until page 7 of this thread for the bestiality slippery slope fallacy to rear its head. Though admittedly I only read through the first page. If the tired pedophilia analogy wasn't brought up already, I'll be thoroughly disappointed. You guys are slipping.
Two friendships of mine completely changed the way I look at homosexuality. Sure, some time ago I was duped into thinking that as a Christian, one of my foremost "callings" was to decry homosexuality and pray that it would never be "tolerated" in america. Then I (wow) actually developed friendships with people who were gay. One of the guys, in my church (Baptist), was suicidal because of his sexual orientation. Watching the terrible anguish he went through really changed my heart and my mind. He would've done ANYTHING to have a "normal attraction to girls." Instead, he sat with his secret every Sunday watching the preacher rail against gay people, feeling like complete ****. I am so thankful that he has been accepted now that he is in college and is slowly letting the stigma leave his conscience. It's hard though, to forget the fundamentalism. Oh, and another thing - he still loves Jesus, which is amazing, because unfortunately a lot of gay people who grow up in the traditional church completely abandon their faith when they learn to accept themselves, because their peers can't have any sort of gay self-acceptance. By the way, I think a lot of us are still waiting for that quote from Jesus on homosexuality. Could it possibly be because it doesn't exist? Let's forget what he said about loving others, turning the other cheek, helping those less fortunate, looking at your own damn plank...I just DON'T UNDERSTAND the rationality of some people. Read the red letters instead of listening to some radical right-wing preacher tell you that Jesus condemned homosexuality. And if you're going off other verses in the bible, really...consider the context. We don't follow a lot of the laws/mores in the bible, because it would be ridiculous in the current day and age. If you're follow one archaic law, you have to follow all of them. I don't think anyone needs to point out examples.
I don't think there's a gay gene either. To make the issue vaguer than it already is, there isn't a gene for the different races. Race categorization is more social construct than biological. There is some degree on how much homosexuality is a choice and/or environmentally driven, but that can't exclude those born at the extremes where choice isn't an option. There are consistent differences in homosexuals in terms of brain size, hormone levels, and cognitive function, such as having similar approaches to solving problems as the opposite sex. It hasn't been considered a mental disorder for 30+ years. This issue is fascinating in respect to the fact that it goes beyond liking sushi over prime rib or being more shy than gregarious because sex is involved. For most, sex can't be repressed, and that's where the trouble starts. One might start angry rants about sexuality like Paul... (Those who have no sex drive at all, they are left out of the equation despite their potential 0 degree of fitness. There hasn't been moral or legal push to force them to ****.) So I think the approach of pinpointing where homosexuality evolved in the evolutionary ladder such as through genes is as fruitful as isolating why we like certain music. For one thing, we're tinkering with a complex system that has several inputs mainly because it results in one morally undesirable trait. Yet those inputs are also integral to other functions such as creativity and decision making. Another is the assumption that homosexuality confers a negative evolutionary effect (in a world of 6+ billion people that had widespread practice of homosexuality during antiquity) that is so large that it has driven other animals to extinction. Even assuming there are genetic points in time that "evolved" homosexuality, species can "evolve" that trait again and again. Since it occurs all around the animal kingdom, maybe it was never developed over time. The ingredients were always there like getting a tan. Injecting homosexuality and "unnatural" with evolution is very similar to promoting eugenics in that both are psuedoscientific props used to promote opinion... or sometimes doggedly defended belief.
Its easy for me to say that "born gay" doesn't exist and isn't natural because when I see two hot chicks making out, I lose my mind.
It also ignores that people like to have sex for fun. It's a big shocker. Condoms are a crime against humanity too. Next time, she pressures you to wrap it up, dismiss her by claiming its your evolutionary imperative to raw dog it.
Man this is a depressing thread. Some people really are narrow minded (to say it politly). I do not want to add to the discussion, since it is just no use. Some people will never change. But my gues is that some people here never actually met a gay person. Otherwise they would have some respect for them. I do want to add that I'm happy the US finally agreed with this. It was a travisty that under the Bush administration it wasn't signed. I'm so happy Bush is not the president anymore. This is a step in the right direction for the US as a country.
There is a person in my building who is a transvestite, a man who turned into a woman, but is living as a lesbian. So, he was a guy who turned into a woman... and now dates women. What is the point of that?
Yeah, but those racists were able to let go of the hate because they still had gay people to hate. What are today's bigots to do? I guess there are still Muslims out there.
The big difference being that other Americans have no right to know what a couple (gay or straight) is doing behind their own closed doors.
Yeah, and this BBS is such a good representation of what real life is like in the US. Christians have it so much tougher in this country than gays do. That's why residents of California recently voted to deny Christian people the right to go to church.
Homosexuality has been transformed into a religious crusade by the Religious Right movement in America. I personally believe that is wrong and just a sin of self righteousness. I have preached hundreds of sermons and never once preached one on homosexuality. I personally think these are moral issues, issues of right and wrong choices- at least from a Biblical perspective. I have had many friendships over the last 20 yrs within the gay community. I don't see any difference in lying, adultery, stealing or homosexuality from a moral perspective. In my own opinion any right that a homosexual has should be the same for a liar. I know many men who have told me privately that as far as they can remember they were adulterers, unable to stop lusting after other women. I cannot think of one time Jesus said anything in the Bible about incest, rape, or p*rnography; I do not recall him speaking once on the practice of torture or cannibalism. But these also are matters of choice and morals for me, at least I believe all of my own sins, which are many, have been choices. The apostle Paul wrote letters to churches and addressed some of these including homosexuality. Many young people today are reacting to so much hypocrisy in the churches. So they are embracing those who have been so hurt and attacked by unloving and ungodly Christian leaders. I agree; they need our embrace, Jesus did the same thing- remember the woman caught in adultery in the bible. Jesus didn't condemn her. But He made a point that He understood her moral choice was still wrong. He offered mercy because she was guilty (if you are not guilty you don't need mercy, justice will do just fine) He told her go and sin no more. I have an 11 year old son at home and the thought of him performing homosexual acts such as a**l sex and o**l sex with another man does not bring to my mind the thought of genuine love, but it does make me think of the lusts that are in all of our hearts. I am very OK with the thought that people are very very attracted to the same sex. Just as I am OK that people are attracted to p*rn and adultery. To me that is normal humanity and nothing to crusade against. Parents bear an awesome burden to provide a healthy, loving, and encouraging environment for children to grow up with a strong sense of acceptance, self worth and wisdom. This is just the beginning of making very difficult decisions, but moral decisions. I don't want to debate whether homosexuality is right or wrong. For those who believe it is correct behavior there is nothing to argue. For those who believe these sexual acts are not correct do not become so self righteous and judgmental (the sin of pride is more evil). All sins are just sins, attaching stigmas to a select few shows hypocrisy. I have shared my Christian faith with many homosexuals and I never felt the need to point a finger, I can't remember bringing their sexual choices up once. I have shared the same need for repentance and forgiveness that I have needed in my life. In my opinion because of church hypocrisy many Christians are embracing behaviors and choices that are specifically unloving, harmful and self destructive, I see it alot in the lives of people I know and counsel. Homosexuality is a sexual choice. Love and sex are different. I love many men. I have sexual relationships with none of them. Jesus' love has no self satisfying motive, there is no lust involved. A lust is just a personal, selfish gratification. No matter how good it feels it doesn't make it a right choice. An old song once said 'how could it be wrong when it feels so right?' I personally think it is a non issue if gays have rights etc. As a parent I wouldn't want someone else taking control over my children on moral issues. I would want to be supported in basic morals by others. But how our society defines morals is changing and we have to adapt. I can certainly see how others would think homosexual behavior is 'love' or has some protected 'right' I personally would love my wife if she was in a hospital bed and we could never have another sexual relationship. Love goes far beyond sex... way far beyond sex. To think that the New Testament does not address this issue is not reading enough and pondering the scope of the New Testament. It is selectively reading and looking for a few verses or lack of verses to support a viewpoint. While I am glad the Christian pendulum is swinging away from hypocrisy and hate, I regret deeply that it is swinging past the centerpoint of love and truth and landing towards men's ideas and thoughts that I am convinced do not honor or please Jesus. Jesus loved every 'sinner'. He suffered greatly because it was unselfish love, without lust and pride. He was a sacrificial lamb for the liar and the thief; for sodomy and lust, for the hypocrit and the self righteous. The bible and Jesus talks alot about a fire that is everlasting, a torment, a lake of fire, a judgment... what are these things- I couldn't possibly know for sure but I understand the moral implication of my own choices. When Jesus speaks of a place like 'Gehenna', which was the valley of Hinnom- it is often translated hell. There has been confusion about this because the analogy Jesus is using is missed by leaving out the context of his comments. When Jesus speaks of the valley of Hinnom he knew the Jews understood that to be the place where dead animals and filth were taken- it was known at that time as the valley of fire; and he uses the term to indicate the fate of the wicked adding such specific descriptions as everlasting fire and fire that will never be quenched. Those specific contextual concepts would never be attributed to the valley of Hinnom but specifically reference a future judgment. Jesus spoke of a future judgment irrespective of any earthly location; He even said he would call forth all in the grave some to life and the wicked to eternal punishment. Judgment is a moral issue, one of right and wrong. That is why we all need forgiveness, mercy and grace and that is exactly why Jesus suffered such torture Himself to the point of death. As a payment, a satisfaction of justice for our own moral wickedness. Whether we are prideful, liars or hypocrites, we are by nature imperfect. I see no reason to condemn anyone when I am no different. So, I think a Christian should reach out to a homosexual or a father who has regular incestual relationships with his own daughters. There is a message of forgiveness for everyone in the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross. Except for the hypocrit, the self righteous I believe have the greatest guilt upon them, they say one thing but secretly live a lie.
