Irirst, I am not gay. In fact I am not in any love relationship.

However I object to gay relationships.

Firstly, the Bible says that homosexuality is immoral and according to the law of Moses that should be death penalty. It is a 'terrible thing' according to the Bible.

Secondly, all animals live to keep the species surviving, so it is only fair and right that a man marries a woman and has children. How would you expect gay couples to do that? Adopt a child who comes home to say, "Daddy 1! Daddy 2!"
That is absurd! We are coming into another sector about whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt, but obviously since they shouldn't be gay at all, well...

I advise all gay people to consult a psychiatrist as soon as possible to fix your unholy intentions and inclinations.

you'd be suprised how many animals practise gay sex

also, I'd rather have 2 father or two mothers than growing up with neither

The Bible also says that children who insult their parents should be put to death. Do you agree with that?
What about prostitutes should they be burned alive? The Bible says that too.
What about blasphemers? Should they be stoned to death.
Leviticus 20 says all of the above.
Regarding your point about about reproduction: what about people who never have children. Is that wrong? What about Catholic priests or nuns?
Lastly homosexuality is a fact of nature. It predates the Bible, most likely by millions of year.

Was that post satirical Gobbledydook?

IMO its a free world and nobody's business but your own about who, when and how you fuck...

Canon Law says we should be indifferent to homosexuality not OPPOSED to it so therefore I am indifferent to homosexuality.
:) Christianity's not so bad after all!

@ Thucydides "Not to mention the counter-evolutionary status of homosexuality. "

Actually, I've read that scientists are beginning to understand that homosexuality isn't counter-evolutionary at all. They think that it is caused by a pregnant mother feeling overly stressed during that pregnancy. The stress is ostensibly from dealing with lack of food, lack of hygiene, etc...or anything that results from humans being very close to each other. ie. city life.

Homosexuality, they posit, is what keeps humans from dealing with the hardships of massive overpopulation.

We don't really know what causes homosexuality.

Richard Dawkins (renowned evolutionary biologist) says that perhaps "Homosexuality may therefore manifest itself in some individuals, as a spinoff from a gene's positive selection because of its desirable effect in other individuals. A particular version of this theory postulates a gene that causes homosexuality in males but a completely different, beneficial, effect in females."

With regards to the overpopulation theory (which I am not familiar with) - that should be fairly easy to test. If it is true then areas with high population density should produce a higher proportion of homosexuals than areas with a low population density. I have never come across any article in science mags or books stating that this has been found to be true.

was gobblegook being serious because if he was that is the most stupid opinion i have ever heard, and by the way the bible talks about how someone had sex with both of his daughters and he wasnt punished for that so does that mean incest is ok but being gay isnt?

At present, scientists claim that we can reasonably predict homosexuality through fetal hormone levels. Certain medical facilities are offering hormone treatment options to the expectant parents who, for whatever reason, would rather not have a gay child. This presupposes that homosexuality is purely physiological and not a matter of choice. This also presupposes that these scientists are not full of shit. This raises the issue of the morality of fetal cell therapy, specifically do we have the right to alter the sexuality of another being? This also raises the issue of the personhood of the fetus. If it is just a lump of cells that we can terminate, then what's the big deal about playing with it and trying to make it designer. "I'm not skimping on my next baby. It's going to be a Gucci!" My understanding is that gay people generally HATE this(nature) point of view, because then it removes choice from the equation and being gay is just a disability, like being blind or deaf. Of course now all such people are referred to as differently abled, rather than disabled, and such an association no longer should carry any negative implications. I'm especially passionate about the nature viewpoint, but I think that there must be a contribution from the environment in an individual's make-up. I would be interested to read comments from some of the gay phpdip members regarding the issue of nature vs nurture.

Just so no one gets the wrong idea, Canon Law says that there is no sin in homosexual tendencies and feelings, but that homosexual acts are sinful. Which even if there wasn't a prohibition on sodomy makes sense, since the Church opposes all sex outside of marriage.

i honestly think its nature your either born one way or the other, i think your environment helps or hinders you to understand your feelings but ultimately nature says who your are, which in turn would make being gay as natural as being straight!

Not just sex outside marriage, but the church forbids non-procreational sex.

In answer to the original question, I'm not gay, but I am bi. I know it's not specifically what you were asking about, but I figure it's relevant, and assume you meant to ask about sexual minorities in general.

I may or may not wade in on some of the other topics being discussed here, I've certainly read and seen enough of every single topic being discussed here, that I don't necessarily feel the need to jump in, as usually someone else says what I'd say better, but we'll see. I have a tendency to get sucked into these things ;).

I will however just throw my two cents into the "nature vs nurture" bit that's shown up here toward the end. In my experience, in just about any situation in which there is a debate about whether something is caused by "nature or nurture" it's nearly always both. Maybe in different proportions, but usually it's both.
In this discussion, chances are, there are both genetic and social reasons why anyone ends up on whatever point on the spectrum of sexuality they end up at (not to say that some people don't move around in their sexual interests throughout their life. Again probably both genetic and social reasons).

Not precisely true Dingleberry. The church forbids sex when the possibility of procreation has been eliminated by means specifically for that purpose. Sex (within marriage) where procreation is impossible due to sterility, age, or medically required sterilization is quite fine. Even certain forms of contraception are permissible where the reason is medical in nature, not for the prevention of conception.

Not that it affects the current discussion.

its all rubbish anyway

Sent from: destp

"Sex (male/female) is biological and is in fact not always a clear cut dichotomy. Gender, on the other hand, is a social construction (masculine/feminine/etc.) and has no necessary connection to anatomy. The binary gender system is becoming increasingly viewed as a tool of heterosexist and patriarchal oppression."

For Your information - modern science & anatomy differentiates 5 different sexes, where besides man/woman and more widely known hermaphrodite, there are 2 more sexes between those three. The different sexes have been defined mainly through the presence of reproductive organs and the actual ability to reproduce.

I thought that I will add some spice to the discussion, showing that the nature is far more complex than having binary gender system and gays who don't fit to the large picture.

Sent from: Akroma Online (3 ) Sent: 12:35 PM
"you'd be suprised how many animals practise gay sex"

I think it's not about having sex with someone (some people are enjoying quality sex with their hands). It's more about what's the general aim of their life.

to everyone of a religious persusion who is using their religion to denouse same sex couples, I would simply say maybe, just maybe god created gay people so that we could prove to God that we love all our neighbours - not just the ones who think like us and act like us and are the same colour as us, but all our neighbours and if they happen to be gay, so what. I love alll my neighbours (apart from those on the diplomacy board).

But then again, what do I know - I'm mad.

Can you really call those aberrations separate sexes? Obviously something went wrong in the womb to produce those abnormalities. It sounds harsh, but stretching the definition of gender that far is just too much.

Richard Dawkins (renowned evolutionary biologist) says that perhaps "Homosexuality may therefore manifest itself in some individuals, as a spinoff from a gene's positive selection because of its desirable effect in other individuals. A particular version of this theory postulates a gene that causes homosexuality in males but a completely different, beneficial, effect in females."

That's very interesting spyman. Another theory that doesn't make use of group selectionist nonsense. I think I also heard somewhere that homosexuality can also be a result of pleitropy in genes whereby the one gene that may express itself as homosexuality also expresses as various phenotypes that improve fitness. This theory supposes that homosexuality is not a boolean variable by nature, but rather a predisposition or tendency that can readily suppressed or encouraged by "nurture". I think this is more likely than simple nature or simple nurture.

The idea that homosexuality is the evolution's way of preventing overpopulation is absurd. For one, evolution as no foresight... and secondly, it doesn't care about the survival and fitness of the species, but rather the survival of genes in the gene pool and consequently the individuals who harbor the genes. Evolution "solves" overpopulation by killing off the individuals that can't compete for the limited resources and preserving those who survive and reproduce.

Gobbledygook, that post was meant to be satirical right...? It's not always easy to tell with these sorts of things.

I am absolutely disgusted with the amount of intolerance here.

there's really nothing else I can say

I say we burn all those who are being intolerant!

I didn't read every post in this thread, but I didn't see a huge amount of intolerance Sic. A surprising number of people offered valid scientific/philisophical thoughts. No one said "I hate gay people". What did I miss?

@Sicarius

I have to say, that while I am continually disapointed at the level of intolerance everywhere, this discussion has been surprisingly tolerant, compassionate, and intelligent. Compared with nearly every discussion of the topics of sexual orientation and gender I've seen elsewhere on the internet, this has honestly been refreshing. There are certainly a few outliers here, mostly people who I assume will grow up a bit, and probably come to realize they shouldn't be threatened by or care about other peoples sexuality, but on the whole it's been a pretty decent discussion. Especially for the internet.

gobbledygook if he was being serious

What intolerance, Sicarius? I think most everyone here has been pretty respectful on the whole.

Unless you mean that differing viewpoints must necessitate intolerance. I do not approve of homosexuality, but I do TOLERATE it. I have a few gay friends, although I admit they're not close friends. People have every right to do whatever they want to in their personal lives. There have been no kooks saying gays will burn in hell, and while I can't say homosexuality is right, I won't get on some holier-than-thou high horse. Judge not, lest ye be judged.

The basic theme I see from this thread is that most people feel about gays like this:

Do what you want, I just don't want to hear about it.

There have been no kooks saying gays will burn in hell-yes there has

I only found one that even vaguely hints at that, and even so it was expressing a religious view in a pretty adept way. What I meant was naked hate-mongering has been nonexistent.

And I'm not even saying homosexuals won't burn in hell myself, I'm just saying how do I know I won't too? Of course, that gets into different doctrines on salvation, which is an even bigger mess than all this gay stuff.

I'm pretty sure Gobbledygook was joking... otherwise I am thoroughly shocked.

how is gay stuff a mess, and salvation and hell is just one books view on things one book thats has no basis in fact at all infact goes against fact which millions of people world wide quote and use to prove points when it fact its just the worlds best selling novel nothing more!