Thread: Societal Norms Discussion

You misunderstand.

I don't mind gay people. I have a good philipino friend who's very gay and had a crush on me at one time. I really like the guy. I just don't agree with the fact that he's gay. More or less in the same way that I think smoking is wrong I think practising homosexuality is wrong.

We're going to get in to a debate about whether homosexuality is a choice.It's not. All attempts to change homosexual behaviour fail. With that fact in hand it's odd to hear that you don't mind gay people, but you don't agree with him being gay. We're back to what I said about being comfortable at this point.

Let me ask this: How if at all, does it affect you that he's gay or that he might want to marry?

We can agree that you don't agree with being gay yourself, but why should you impose your sexual preference on him?

X

Originally Posted by xman

I can understand people being uncomfortable with homosexuality. I was that way for quite a while when I was younger (much younger *sigh*). My first encounter with a homosexual was a virtual attack on me. Let me tell you, I was NOT happy with the gay crowd on that day. As I grew up and got out in the world I was confronted with homosexuals who were good friends of my good friends and I was put into positions where I had to work with them. I realised that there was a difference between being gay and being a predator I slowly began to understand and overcome my own bigotry.

It's alright that we don't understand a thing. It's alright to say we're not used to it, but unless we're prepared to let somebody remove our own rights and liberties, we'd better support everybody else's no matter how 'queer' we might think they are. That's the essence of tolerance to me and tolerance, therefore, demands that we be uncomfortable from time to time.

X

Well said, X!! Bravo!

To expand on the uncomfortable nature of tolerance: I think in the case of homosexuality a lot of the people that are the most intolerant wouldn't score a "perfect" zero on the Kinsey scale (even though they might not ever even know that it existed) and they are extremely uncomfortable with the way that makes them feel on a subconscious level.

Originally Posted by xman

We're going to get in to a debate about whether homosexuality is a choice.It's not. All attempts to change homosexual behaviour fail. With that fact in hand it's odd to hear that you don't mind gay people, but you don't agree with him being gay. We're back to what I said about being comfortable at this point.

Originally Posted by xman

Just a thought. If homosexuality is not a choice, then by default it has to be genetic. If it is genetic, then this trait has to be passed down from one generation to the next. However, true homosexuals should/do not procreate. Therefore, through natural selection, the homosexual gene should have died out long ago.

Do i think it is purely a choice, NO

Do I think it is purely genetic, NO

I don't know the reason, and will not speculate.

X, where do you find the "fact" that it is not a choice? Is there a medical treatise? a personal impression? what supports your statement that the lack of a choice is fact?

Just thought I'd throw this out there. Someone asked me this question recently and I didn't have an answer.


If we believe Homosexuality can't be cured and it is genetically based.

Why do we believe that pedophilia, also a sexual preference, is a choice and can be?

Originally Posted by Wildtim

If we believe Homosexuality can't be cured and it is genetically based.

Cure implies disease, doesn't it? Or at the very least sickness?

Why do we believe that pedophilia, also a sexual preference, is a choice and can be?

I would draw the distinction between an overt act of aggression towards a child and consensual activity between two adults.

You are at the same place I started out too but, homosexuality and pedophilia are at the root strictly the DESIRE for a particular partner not just the overt sexual act.

Your answer also doesn't address the belief in the ability to cure the one but not the other.

If the litmus test is that the action is between consenting adults, then why is plural marriage illegal? why can a man not marry to women, or two men marry one woman? I am not talking about bigamy, which is being married to two women, and neither woman knows about each other, but plural marriage, where all parties are fully aware of the multiple marriage arrangement, and agree to be married to the same person.

My point is just to demonstrate that the "consenting adults" argument only holds so much sway.

Edit: I guess I also digressed into a legality argument, and not the medical/choice/ what ever we were discussing before I brought legality into it, issue. I apologize.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

You are at the same place I started out too but, homosexuality and pedophilia are at the root strictly the DESIRE for a particular partner not just the overt sexual act.

I've never studied pedophilia. I'll have to defer comment until I've had some time to do some research.

Your answer also doesn't address the belief in the ability to cure the one but not the other.

I didn't consider it a valid question. I don't consider someone's sexual orientation to be a disease, so therefore no cure is necessary.

If we take your position that homosexuality and pedophilia are simply a desire then the difference is that as a society we have determined that sex with a child is illegal, whereas consensual sex between two adults is not. Again, no cure necessary.

there's the door to the legality issue.

So if as a society we deem that sex with a two year old little girl is legal, and justifiable because the person was born with the predisposition to pedefilia and cannot help himself, would it still by okay???

Is there no absolute right and wrong??

if there is, who defines it?

if there isn't, then how will society keep from impoding in on itself???