Ask Me Help Desk - Is Homosexuality Wrong?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuscany

How can you have standards for normal when normal is so subjective?

Bravo! Well said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kia

Simple answer: Its wrong and unnatural because it doesn't ever repeat itself in nature. There are no homosexual animals right? Basically when other creatures " mate" there is a male and female. Sex is fundementally for reproduction purposes only; humans made it for enjoyment. If it was right, or how nature intended, there would be other creatures on earth who mate with the same sex as well. I believe homosexuality is a choice; but not always a conscious one ( due to chilhood trauma, rape, etc..)

Apologies if someone else has already corrected you... but there are homosexuals in just about (if not all) species where there are 2 sexes (at least vertebrates). It occurs with the same ap 10% frequency as in humans.

Bonobos, a species once thought to be the same as chimps, have free sex all the time. It is a matriarchal society and they use sex almost as a greeting, as well as to diffuse arguments. They also don't care which gender they are having sex with - male-male, female-female, male-female.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesushelper76

Repent and ask for forgiveness and do your best to walk away from that sin and never commit it again.

JH- you know that I love and respect you. But honestly, as a Catholic this is the biggest issue for me (and I know that our discussion is not about having the church recognize gay marriage), How can the Catholic Church condemn people who are doing nothing but loving another human being? Its not like homosexuals are going on a crazed rant and shooting up the joint. They just want to live, love, and marry like the rest of us.

If the church does not want to recognize the marriage that is fine with me. The US government should though because the government is "for the people, by the people."
And the last time I checked homosexuals were people too.

Quote:

If the church does not want to recognize the marriage that is fine with me. The US government should though because the government is "for the people, by the people."
And the last time I checked homosexuals were people too.

Denying one section of society equal rights, then we can all be denied our rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Denying one section of society equal rights, then we can all be denied our rights.

EXACTLY my point. Thanks for clarifying Tal!

The human is never being denied, their actions are. Society has and can always put limits on actions, wear clothing, sex with minor children and prevoius and in some nations homosexual activity.

Homosexual activity is not a right in the US, it is not promosed in the US, they have all the same actual RIGHTS as anyone else. They just wish to have their sexual desires made into a right. I get so tired of this, I have a "right" no there is no right, Read the US Bill of Rights and see who the Government says gave you any rights, and see what is given, homosexual life style is not listed anywhere. And they enjoy every right everyone else has,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Homosexual activity is not a right in the US, it is not promosed in the US, they have all the same actual RIGHTS as anyone else. They just wish to have thier sexual desires made into a right.

Is heterosexual activity a right in the U.S.

Wait... how is "marriage" equal to "sexual desires"?

Seriously--I thought marriage was about love, not sex.

If you tried to tell a heterosexual couple they could not get married because they enjoy fellatio, or anal sex, or whatever---can you imagine the social uproar that would cause? Yet causing two people who love each other not to be able to marry simply because they have homosexual sex is ridiculous.

It's not their "lifestyle" you disapprove of--it's their sexual acts. So if you have no problem with them living together--why should there be a problem with committing to each other?

Heterosexual activity is not a "right" in the US--yet people claim they have the right to marry! Having children is not a right in this country--but try to take that privilege away from people sometime. Having enough to eat is not a "right" in this country--yet try taking away those food stamps sometime. There are a LOT of things in this country that are not "rights", but yet if you tried to take that away from people, there would be outrage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

The human is never being denied, thier actions are. Society has and can always put limits on actions, wear clothing, sex with minor children and prevoius and in some nations homosexual activity.

Homosexual activity is not a right in the US, it is not promosed in the US, they have all the same actual RIGHTS as anyone else. They just wish to have thier sexual desires made into a right. I get so tired of this, I have a "right" no there is no right, Read the US Bill of Rights and see who the Government says gave you any rights, and see what is given, homosexual life style is not listed anywhere. And they enjoy every right everyone else has,

Apparently you have forgotten a founding tenet - Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And while some conservatives disagree, I read a right to privacy in the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court also agreed (suit against state of Conn - senior moment and I can't remember the case name) that the gov has no right interfering in folks bedrooms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Homosexual activity is not a right in the US, it is not promosed in the US, they have all the same actual RIGHTS as anyone else. They just wish to have thier sexual desires made into a right. I get so tired of this, I have a "right" no there is no right, Read the US Bill of Rights and see who the Government says gave you any rights, and see what is given, homosexual life style is not listed anywhere. And they enjoy every right everyone else has,

Last time I check, heterosexual marriages weren't based on sexual desires... I'm pretty sure this is an ugly stereotype. For some reason, some people seem think homosexuals just want to have sex. Apparently they're incapable of feeling love?

As for the constitution, it's a shame there aren't any provisions IN the constitution, to CHANGE the constitution. This seems like it might be a good time for that. I mean, that would allow us to give women the right to own land, and to vote. Maybe african americans could be citizens then, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Read the US Bill of Rights and see who the Government says gave you any rights, and see what is given, homosexual life style is not listed anywhere. And they enjoy every right everyone else has,

Is the heterosexual lifestyle listed? Homosexuals do not enjoy every right that everyone else has... I am sorry Fr. Chuck, but I have to disagree.

Talk to my Aunt sometime. She loves her girlfriend, they have been together for years, they have more love and compassion for each other then some parents I interact with at school. They maintain a loving home for their daughter and work hard as social workers. They offer so much to society and yet society denies them the ability to marry. It just makes me so sad.

As I stated in my nature argument... sex was made for reproduction primarily. If you look at the body of a man and woman, they were made to fit together... in order to reproduce. Homosexuality is not natural, sorry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kia

as I stated in my nature argument... sex was made for reproduction primarily. If you look at the body of a man and woman, they were made to fit together...in order to reproduce. Homosexuality is not natural, sorry.

So you do not have sex for pleasure?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kia

as I stated in my nature argument... sex was made for reproduction primarily. If you look at the body of a man and woman, they were made to fit together...in order to reproduce. Homosexuality is not natural, sorry.

So what should we do with people who are born with deformed genitals? Or people who are born sterile? Or people who become sterile as a result of medical treatments? They can't reproduce, they might not even be able to have sex for pleasure. Should they not be afforded the same rights as those who are "normal"?

And how do you explain homosexuality found in the animal world?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

Here's my problem WHENEVER this "discussion" begins - the words "ignorant" and "confused" get thrown at people with opposite points of view. Suddenly it's a racial issue, too. I see no connection between gay unions and bi-racial unions, think it's a stretch, but, hey, maybe it's just me. And, by the way, for a very long time bi-racial unions WERE against the law in some States and people had to fight to change those laws and marry the person they loved.

I digress -

And as far as the legality is concerned - ANY COUPLE, straight, gay, that is together without marriage MUST make legal arrangements for a variety of "what ifs." The gay couple not being "allowed" to make medical decisions for each other is no different from the straight couple, never married, not being "allowed" to make medical decisions for each other. Neither category (gay nor straight) has the edge here.

I believe it's a mistake to throw the "medical decision" (and I've seen in here, on similar threads before, and have said nothing) argument into the discussion.

If you love your partner (again, married or unmarried, whatever the situation) and want that person to make your medical (and possibly legal) decisions PUT IT IN WRITING. If you love someone you owe it to them to protect them when you are too sick to make a decision and they might/could have a fight on their hands.

Mothers, fathers, children, try to step in front of legal spouses and make these decisions all the time - PUT IT IN WRITING. Anyone remember Terri Shiavo? I was MARRIED and we had mutual Powers/Attorney, Living Wills, Medical Authorizations, notarized letters - that's how my husband protected me when I was too grief stricken to focus on anything but him.

The ability to make a medical decision for someone else is NOT a gay/straight issue and should NOT be part of a gay/straight discussion.

Clunk! Off my soapbox!

Lol... Yes I fully agree with you. The whole medical decisions thing is weak argument. And to connecting gay couples to interatial marriages is a stretch beyond words.

Sassy and Judy-
So you would be good with not having any rights if your husband or wife needed medical attention?

There are always exceptions to the rule, or a few odd instances where nature goes wrong... but those instances a far and in between; and they are out of the person's control. You are asking if homosexuals should be allowed to be married. Basically, a mass group of people who are DECIDING to be with the same sex regardless of what nature intends; and they want the state to validate it to make them feel better. I don't agree. You can do whatever you want behind closed doors; be common law or something, but don't ask for the government to sign on with this UNNATURAL behavior.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kia

There are always exceptions to the rule, or a few odd instances where nature goes wrong....but those instances a far and in between; and they are out of the person's control. You are asking if homosexuals should be allowed to be married. Basically, a mass group of people who are DECIDING to be with the same sex regardless of what nature intends; and they want the state to validate it to make them feel better. I don't agree. You can do whatever you want behind closed doors; be common law or something, but don't ask for the government to sign on with this UNNATURAL behavior.

Could you answer my question please... you said that sex is for procreation... do you not have sex for pleasure?

My definition of natural is love between two people. It is unnatural to show hate and not accept others.

And I have to take time and validate that article because for all I know it could have been written or influenced by people trying to promote homosexuality as being right. People skew information to be what they want it to be anyway. The media, special interest groups, etc. do it all of the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kia

And I have to take time and validate that article because for all I know it could have been written or influenced by people trying to promote homosexuality as being right. People skew information to be what they want it to be anyways. The media, special interest groups, etc., do it all of the time.

Kia-
Your "side" does the same thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

That may be true, but your statement was based on your religious beliefs and nothing else.
It was fair to point that out on a board like this one.

So is it fair for you to base your responses on YOUR secular humanistic religion?
You have such double standards :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kia

and they want the state to validate it to make them feel better. I don't agree.

Hello Kia:

If you're going to argue, it would help if you had the facts... You can take your "feel better" argument and stick it. They don't want to FEEL GOOD. They want RIGHTS - the rights that people get when they get married. The same rights YOU have that THEY DON'T.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuscany

Sassy and Judy-
So you would be good with not having any rights if your husband or wife needed medical attention?

Like judy said, if a gay couple wants to make med. Decisions for one another they can put it in writing and get POA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kia

And I have to take time and validate that article because for all I know it could have been written or influenced by people trying to promote homosexuality as being right. People skew information to be what they want it to be anyways. The media, special interest groups, etc., do it all of the time.

I'm having to remember an the article from yesterday---so forgive me if my mind is sketchy--but wasn't one of the articles given from National Geographic?

Yes, but you are talking about the issue of marriage, and government recognition. Adultery and polygamy is against the law because it is unlawful to have the government recognize a union between 2 people, and then have people sleeping around for pleasure.; or even sleeping with more than one person.
I can have a boyfriend and sleep around for pleasure; but I'm not asking the state to recognize my union until I am committed and ready to start a life with that person. Its natural for families to be made by 2 people of the opposite sex, each sex have roles physically and emotionally to raise new healthy human beings. Homosexuality is a lot of substitution and confusion because both gender roles are not there. That's another reason why its unnatural in my opinion..

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Kia:

If you're going to argue, it would help if you had the facts.... You can take your "feel better" argument and stick it. They don't want to FEEL GOOD. They want RIGHTS - the rights that people get when they get married. The same rights YOU have that THEY DON'T.

excon

Gays do Have rights! They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. So don't say they don't have rights because they do.

And if a gay couple wants their partner to be their "next of kin", can they just put it in writing? How about inheriting? What about custody of children?

I have an idea!

Let's make everyone equal by taking away those assumed things like custody, and inheritance, and the right to view financial information (in some states anyway) and the ability to have joint credit--let's just take those away from everyone unless it's put in writing. Basically--if you don't have a will, it goes to the state. Everything. Any will produced can no longer be contested unless an ALTERNATE will is also produced.

Custody of children will now go to the state. The state can then decide what's best for the children, which may include giving them for adoption to someone completely unrelated and unknown, depending on the state's view of the fitness for parenting that the partner of the deceased and the family of the deceased.

The state will no longer recognize marriage as a tax break, nor will any couple be able to file joint taxes.

All medical decisions must be put into a legal document, and NO ONE is allowed to see the person being treated, nor can they receive information on the status of the patient, until the lawyer is called who has the document on file to find out WHO can be given that information. Disclosure agreements must be filled out and signed by anyone being admitted to the hospital who can be trusted to fill out their own forms at the time of admittance.

So basically--instead of GIVING homosexuals the privileges of marriage--let's just take them away from heterosexuals and we'll all be equal.

So then should bisexuals be able to marry both sexes as well? I mean when is the foolishness going to stop. I think as individuals we should put more time and energy into more important issues of the world like homelessness, disease, etc. Stop focusing on such minor issues like why a guy can't marry his boyfriend... geez.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuscany

Sassy and Judy-
So you would be good with not having any rights if your husband or wife needed medical attention?

Why have you come to the conclusion that I "would be good with not having any rights if my husband ... needed medical attention"?

What part of my postings led you to that conclusion?

Honest to goodness--

I can not WAIT until it's PROVEN that homosexuality is genetic, that it's as much a part of a person as their race.

I'd like to see the arguments for discrimination at that point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kia

so then should bisexuals be able to marry both sexes as well? I mean when is the foolishness going to stop. I think as individuals we should put more time and energy into more important issues of the world like homelessness, disease, etc. Stop focusing on such minor issues like why a guy can't marry his boyfriend...geez.

Tell you what--my solutions to homelessness and disease would work just fine by your standards--

It's the problem of the homeless people and the diseased people, and since I'm not homeless or diseased, they don't really need MY help. I mean, if they just got a job, or hadn't done the activities that got them the disease (including being born, since I believe that being homosexual is genetic) in the first place--well, then there wouldn't be a problem!

Seriously--can you not see that equality is as important as any other issue?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kia

Stop focusing on such minor issues like why a guy can't marry his boyfriend...geez.

Hello again, Kia:

If these were YOUR rights that were being denied to YOU, I'll bet you wouldn't think the issue is minor. Nope, of course you wouldn't. But, as long as you've got yours, screw the rest, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kia

If you look at the body of a man and woman, they were made to fit together...in order to reproduce. Homosexuality is not natural, sorry.

I also bring your attention to the other question you didn't answer, as I doubt you'll answer this one as well.

I assume you do not have sex for pleasure. I also assume that you do not enjoy the benefits of oral sex, cause those parts weren't made for each other either. If you DO any of those things, and I'll bet you do, you're just an ordinary hypocrite.

excon

Yea... umm... but homosexuality is not genteic in 98% of the cases. I can't say 100% because just like there are hermaphrodites, people born with deformities, and other rare instances, there are natural born homosexuals. But, the masses who claim they are were not born this way. They had childood trauma that affected them subconsciously, or consciously; they want to experiment or be rebellious; or they are so bitter with one sex that they decide to try something new.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kia

yea... umm... but homosexuality is not genteic in 98% of the cases. I can't say 100% because just like there are hermaphrodites, people born with deformities, and other rare instances, there are natural born homosexuals. But, the masses who claim they are were not born this way. They had childood trauma that affected them subconsciously, or consciously; they want to experiment or be rebellious; or they are so bitter with one sex that they decide to try something new.

Regardless of why they are the way they are. Can they still not enjoy the freedom and rights just like everyone else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kia

yea... umm... but homosexuality is not genteic in 98% of the cases.

I'd like to see the studies that show this. As far as I'm aware, there is no determination yet on whether there is a genetic cause or not, though several studies point in that direction. Can environmental/situational causes lead to homosexuality? Maybe... but no gay I've ever known can point to such a cause. They all claim it came "naturally."

Quote:

Originally Posted by bushg

Regardless of why they are the way they are. Can they still not enjoy the freedom and rights just like everyone else.

Bravo!

To excon-
Yes I do. I did say that. I said that I'm not asking the state to validate my behavior. Your argument is a liitle silly.. but OK. I'm not asking the state to validate my sexual behavior so its different

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kia

yea... umm... but homosexuality is not genteic in 98% of the cases.

Do you have proof of that? Last I heard, it hadn't been proven definitively in either direction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kia

I can't say 100% because just like there are hermaphrodites, people born with deformities, and other rare instances, there are natural born homosexuals. But, the masses who claim they are were not born this way. They had childood trauma that affected them subconsciously, or consciously; they want to experiment or be rebellious; or they are so bitter with one sex that they decide to try something new.

Amazing that YOU are not homosexual, yet you can speak for all of them about EXACTLY what "caused" their homosexuality.

Sources, please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kia

to excon-
yes i do. i did say that. I said that I'm not asking the state to validate my behavior. Your argument is a liitle silly..but ok. I'm not asking the state to validate my sexual behavior so its different

No one is asking the state to validate sexual behavior.

We are asking the state to grant equal access to a social institution that gives rights a certain group, but excludes another.

And the basis for your argument for why the state should not validate these unions as 'marriage' is based upon the sexual activity you find 'unnatural'. As though sexual activity is all a marriage is based upon, and ignoring the love, commitment, and compassion that two people have for one another.

So if sexual behavior should dictate my ability to marry, it should also dictate yours. It doesn't matter how you feel towards your potential spouse... it doesn't matter what kind of relationship you have... it doesn't matter how long you've been together... no, what matters is what kind of sex you're having. And if it isn't the 'right' kind of sex, then no marriage for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kia

to excon-
yes i do. i did say that. I said that I'm not asking the state to validate my behavior. Your argument is a liitle silly..but ok. I'm not asking the state to validate my sexual behavior so its different

They aren't asking the state to validate their sexual behaviour, either.

They're asking the state to validate their love and commitment to each other.

Or did YOU marry/will you marry for your sexual behaviour?