homosexuality

[different ki]

[QUOTE=Lunox][color=dimgray] :]

Why does homo/bisexuality exist? If indeed it is a biological/genetic thing, why did it ever occur? [/color][/QUOTE]

Another thing not a lot of people realize - Human beings are not like most mammals. We are one of the few mammals in which the female can desire sex when she's not fertile - That proves that for us, sex has some other purpose besides procreation. (Other animals like this include some primates, dolphins and goats). Most mammals have a specific breeding season and aren't sexual the rest of the time. So if the purpose of sex for humans isn't just having babies, then why NOT have homosexuality?

[QUOTE=Lunox][color=dimgray] :]
And I can never throw away the idea that homosexuality is something gained from(traumatic?) life experiences. Examples including Father-Son relationships and nature vs. nurture, or any other sort of experience. [/color][/QUOTE]

I don't remember the specifics of this, but I think Kinsey also found that some people's sexual orientation can change in extreme circumstances, for example being stuck with only members of the same gender for years (which would explain why so many priests seem to be gay) or being sexually abused as a child. But I don't think other parental relationships can do it, even if they're bad. Otherwise there would be no gay people from happy nuclear families (like me).

[AzureWolf]

[quote name='Dagger']Secondly, I don't think your question can ever be answered (unless we get a couple of genius statisticians to go back through time, and even then there'd be problems). But it's worth noting that going by what James said, cultural values or what's deemed societally acceptable shouldn't have an affect on the actual percentage. What they would affect is the number of people who come out to others or even understand that they're gay.[/quote] [COLOR=maroon]I'm not arguing with anything you said, but I just would like to emphasize that [B]this assertion is only true if we ASSUME homosexuality to be 100% biological with no environmental factors affecting it[/B], which is far from being totally proven.

In fact, research and other studies have been pushing towards the opposite. I'm not sure if Lunox is talking about the same statistical study, but when there was a big traumatic incident (was it the nuclear bomb? flood? earthquake? I can't remember), the frequency of gay people increased notably. That is to say, most women who were pregnant and had this strong emotional shock gave birth to homosexuals.

Remember, we're talking about sexual orientation, not gender identity - people tend to confuse the two and believe that if there's support for one being nature/nurture, it supports the other as nature/nurture. NO. A big NO. ^^;

While there isn't anything proven, it's just been shown time and time again that there's a greater likelihood of a person being gay if their mother had some trauma while pregnant. Person-to-person interviews asking mothers of gay people more than not give light to emotionally unstable shocks, such as abusive husband, husband leaving, robbery at gunpoint, etc.

However, [B]this does not mean all gay people arise from a shocking incident their moms experienced[/B]. In fact, interviews are very questionable, because it could very well be the way you ask the questions. "Did you have anything emotionally disturbing that could have made your child gay?" "Why yes, yes I did now that I think about it." (INSERT FABRICATION HERE) Also, a control group, where mothers of straight people were interviewed, has not been done, so they could too more often than not have trauma during pregnancy, making the point moot.

I'm not going to elaborate on the other point, because either somewhere in this thread or another one, someone's done it before. Anyway, the environment of hormones prenatally seems to have greater say than genetics, but again, that's recent studies, which haven't undergone great scrutiny yet.

Also, I'm not sure who started the "10% in all populations are gay" claim, but that's so bogus it's not even funny. It's just as ludicrous as the "100% of guys masturbate" claim. Ask yourself: how could we determine this if people don't admit it? So we obviously can't ask, because some people won't tell. How else can we do it? Genetics? Nope, because there's nothing 100% known about what genes do in terms of sexuality. Now, expand this "study" to other parts of the world where it'd be even harder to "experiment." XD So really, it's a speculation with no real basis!

Before embracing any "scientific fact," ask yourself the "science" behind it, and you'll realize how little science really knows, and how much of it is just the religion of science people blindly follow.[/COLOR]

[Sandy]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][COLOR=maroon]Also, I'm not sure who started the "10% in all populations are gay" claim, but that's so bogus it's not even funny. It's just as ludicrous as the "100% of guys masturbate" claim. Ask yourself: how could we determine this if people don't admit it? So we obviously can't ask, because some people won't tell. How else can we do it? Genetics? Nope, because there's nothing 100% known about what genes do in terms of sexuality. Now, expand this "study" to other parts of the world where it'd be even harder to "experiment." XD So really, it's a speculation with no real basis!
[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

It's actually pure maths. They do it the same way as they do watcher-ratings for tv-shows. They get a rating from a certain sized take of population (usually only few thousand individuals) and compare it with the amount of people in the country. Well, you know the drill.

So it's [I]not[/I] completely "bogus". If 1000 people out of 10.000 admit they're gay, it's only logical that 10% of the whole population is gay.

However, I've read of studies claiming that the amount of homosexual people is anything from 1% to 10%. Either way, we gay people may be a minority, but we're a [I]huge[/I] minority.

I don't believe any sane person can claim anymore that homosexual people don't really exist. All this talk about the origins of homosexuality is quite irrelevant as well - gay people will be gay by nature no matter what anybody does or says.

Many gay people - especially in older generations - live in a straight relationship, but that doesn't make them any less gay. Nobody just knows about their true orientation, but I reckon their sex life is pretty much a mess.

[Dagger]

[QUOTE=Sandy]
So it's [I]not[/I] completely "bogus". If 1000 people out of 10.000 admit they're gay, it's only logical that 10% of the whole population is gay.[/QUOTE]
Not to put words in anyone's mouth, but I believe what Azure's saying is that this doesn't necessarily reflect the [i]real[/i] percentage. 10% of people in the sample may say that they're gay, but there could be others--a few, or many--who don't admit to it, thus skewing the results. Worse, a higher proportion may admit to it in some cultures than in others, so the location of the study could also have a large effect on the outcome. Or, younger people may admit to it in higher numbers than older people (or vice versa), and so on. I don't think that the two of you fundamentally disagree, since you also used the word "admit."

I don't feel that the scientific studies which produce these percentages are totally bogus, heh, but I agree that one needs to approach them with a certain level of skepticism.

~Dagger~

[Sandy]

[QUOTE=Dagger]
I don't feel that the scientific studies which produce these percentages are totally bogus, heh, but I agree that one needs to approach them with a certain level of skepticism. [/QUOTE]

I concur, but Azure said that those kind of studies are "pure speculation with no real basis", which is untrue. The 10% (or whatever the number is) might just present those gay people who are "out and proud", so to speak, but at least it gives some insight on the true percentage.

With all the scientific factors and arguments aside, you can still use your common sense to deduce that the "true" percentage isn't 50% nor is it 0,001%.

My last point was that the percentage doesn't really matter. Even if homosexuals were only [I]0,00001%[/I] of the population, that [I]still[/I] doesn't allow anybody to discriminate us.

I am just as much human as any straight person, and my relationship with my boyfriend shouldn't be anybody else's business than ours - whether one agrees with it or not. We're not hurting anybody with our mutual love, and that should be enough to give us peace. Maybe we're endangering our place in heaven, but as I'm not Christian, I don't really care.

There are really no sensical reasons to discriminate us homosexuals. So what if some people think that it's "fashionable" to turn gay - it most probably won't last past the teen years, as it's not their true nature. It's just one more experiment to their life.

[eleanor]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][COLOR=maroon]
In fact, research and other studies have been pushing towards the opposite. I'm not sure if Lunox is talking about the same statistical study, but when there was a big traumatic incident (was it the nuclear bomb? flood? earthquake? I can't remember), the frequency of gay people increased notably. That is to say, most women who were pregnant and had this strong emotional shock gave birth to homosexuals.

Remember, we're talking about sexual orientation, not gender identity - people tend to confuse the two and believe that if there's support for one being nature/nurture, it supports the other as nature/nurture. NO. A big NO. ^^;

While there isn't anything proven, it's just been shown time and time again that there's a greater likelihood of a person being gay if their mother had some trauma while pregnant. Person-to-person interviews asking mothers of gay people more than not give light to emotionally unstable shocks, such as abusive husband, husband leaving, robbery at gunpoint, etc.
[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[color=dimgray] I have no idea why a physical trauma such as a nuclear bomb or flood or earthquake would make people gay, but when I was talking about homosexuality rising from traumatic experiences, I was leaning more towards like... guys who didn't have a strong father figure or something.

Also, there have been some sort of study that claimed that approximately 60% of the population was bisexual to a certain degree, but most people are 'straight' due to societal ideas and standards. I guess this can tie back to Ancient Greece's ideas of beauty in both genders, although it would be a loose tie to point out. I actually don't know what to think of this, other than the fact that I can find plenty members of both genders to be beautiful, but I label myself as straight.

And I was thinking back to why homophobia started mostly when Christianity spread all throughout western Europe. Was it simply because the monotheistic leaders wanted to eradicate all practices exclusive to polythesitic views? Since gay sex in ancient history is often linked to religious practices in polytheistic religions, I guess the theory could work... *shrug* This would also tie into how homophobia in cultures that accepted gay sex grew only after encounters with Europeans and western society. [/color]

[AzureWolf]

[COLOR=maroon]Yeah, what Dagger said, btw. I'm not saying the statistic is flat-out wrong, but don't balance any other assertions on it is all. It's fine to tell, but don't flag it as proof of anything. [quote name='Sandy']My last point was that the percentage doesn't really matter. Even if homosexuals were only 0,00001% of the population, that still doesn't allow anybody to discriminate us.[/quote]I'm willing to accept that, but why call me on it? Why not call the person who first mentioned the percentage? Is it because I made a point to disprove a false statistic that supported homosexuality? The fact that you didn't say anything when someone brought out the statistic in support of homosexuality, but then said it's pointless in the first place when it's disproven... I don't know, I strongly feel you should be telling the person who brought it up and not me. =(

Secondly, statistics [B]are[/B] important. If there was only one person who was gay, that'd be considered an anomaly, and easily considered wrong. Think about it: when only one person is different from EVERYONE else, would you honestly (HONESTLY) say he's just different and not consider that there's something wrong with him? To illustrate, if one person had a sixth digit on his finger and made him do things differently (or, if I phrase it otherwise, incorrectly), then would you call it a deformity or an adaptation (or something else entirely)?

If a person is 600 pounds overweight, would you say he's perfectly normal? Overweight is a term that only works if you have a reference, which is a NORMAL weight. We now know that a good percentage of people overweight are overweight due to heredity, and so people are more accepting of that.

And even if you personally would tolerate, think about the rest of the population: would they? I'm betting that's a big no.

We need to know the norm in order to understand the norm, its deviations, and why those deviations occur. Staying ignorant of matters like this doesn't increase tolerance, it hinders it.[quote name='Lunox']I have no idea why a physical trauma such as a nuclear bomb or flood or earthquake would make people gay, but when I was talking about homosexuality rising from traumatic experiences, I was leaning more towards like... guys who didn't have a strong father figure or something.[/quote] A lack of a father figure doesn't seem to affect children much. Hell, it seems like there is no effect on children whatsoever (in regards to sexual orientation, of course). If you want an explanation, no one knows for sure, but Freud posits it as the fact that the child will project the father figure onto the closest male figure in the child's life, and so you have the whole Oedipus Complex and Castration Anxiety happening anyway, and on to a normal, heterosexual male.

Freud attributed sexual orientation to events much earlier in life (yes, he believed it was environmental, not biological), and so the type of trauma we're talking about wouldn't affect the child's sexual orientation (once again, according to Freud, not me).[quote name='Lunox']Also, there have been some sort of study that claimed that approximately 60% of the population was bisexual to a certain degree, but most people are 'straight' due to societal ideas and standards. I guess this can tie back to Ancient Greece's ideas of beauty in both genders, although it would be a loose tie to point out. I actually don't know what to think of this, other than the fact that I can find plenty members of both genders to be beautiful, but I label myself as straight.[/quote] O_o Lunox, you talk about the hardest effin' stuff... *scratches head* There's a lot of ways to address this I guess. I'll just toss a bunch of stuff out there and hopefully something will stick and address your comment. XD

Bisexuality... that's a toughie. Physiologically, there's support for this orientation arising in gay people (and ONLY gay people) affected by society. There's a pair of nuclei in the hypothalamus, referred to in psychology and neuroscience as "the sexually dimorphic nuclei," which is simply a fancy way of saying "nuclei that have two possible forms based on your sexual orientation." Straight women have one form, straight men have the other. Homosexual men - that's right - have the same form as straight women.

Bisexual men? Currently [B]without exception[/B], have the form of straight women (i.e., they are physiologically gay men). Bisexual women? I don't know. However, if it's the same as straight women, that would raise a whole slew of questions and ideas about sexuality and sexual orientation. If it is the same as straight women's, then that could mean the form females have is simply more ambivalent.

[i]Just on the aside, as you can see, nothing on this matter is solid at all. Expect more fluff and philosophical BS than any definitive, hard science, because that's really all either side has at the moment.[/i]

I think it was Freud who said that bisexuals are sexually active people - straight or gay - who just have an excess of libido and so it "overflows" onto the other gender. They are 100% straight or gay, but they have so much sexual energy that they think they are attracted to the other sex. Bisexuals usually do prefer one gender, so there's that to consider. *shrugs*

But the point of me telling you about Freud is that there are many prevailing theories, and no one has the right theory pegged. Some people see sexual orientation as a spectrum, a gradient, where everyone is somewhere in the middle, never in the extremes; while others see it as distinct, one or the other, not both (like my man Freud).

Was I anywhere in the ballpark with what you were talking about? [quote name='Lunox']And I was thinking back to why homophobia started mostly when Christianity spread all throughout western Europe. Was it simply because the monotheistic leaders wanted to eradicate all practices exclusive to polythesitic views? Since gay sex in ancient history is often linked to religious practices in polytheistic religions, I guess the theory could work... *shrug* This would also tie into how homophobia in cultures that accepted gay sex grew only after encounters with Europeans and western society. [/quote] O_o ... ... Bloody hell. See, it's times like these that make me regret not caring about any of my history classes, haha.

This is PURE, unadulterated speculation, but aside from what Dagger talked about in regards to the difference between love of another man and love of a woman during Greek times (which were considered different levels and for different reasons - not even the same kind of love), wouldn't it be safe to say that European cultures and possibly other cultures around the world shunned homosexuality? I mean, I know old societies where homosexuality was allowed, praised, or simply tolerated have been put on the spotlight since this issue has been getting bigger, but I'm rather confident in believing that more cultures did not accept homosexuality than what the media would have you believe.

But again, I have no clue.

[B]My take-home message to anyone who doesn't want to rummage through all my bantering: no one knows anything for sure. Anyone who says "it's biological" is blindly accepting something that hasn't even been proven. Anyone who says "it's choice" is also going on faith. Whether it's right or wrong, that's worth discussing, but be careful not to fall for fake "scientific" data![/b][/COLOR]

[Justin]

I think it's a matter of acceptance. The people who don't embrace it gradually grow used to it, growing tolerant of it, and over time, they become accepting of it. By that general acknowledgement of homosexuality as a general part of our culture, more people become open to it. More people become open to it, and more people take part in it, and do so openly in the light of general acceptance.

Having said that, I think the majority of 'homsexuals' and the VAST majority of 'bi-sexuals' are simply, as previously suggested, experimenting.

On the matter of choice v. birth, I believe it's a bit of both, depending upon who you are. I won't get deep into what I think from that aspect, as it would drag this thread into the quagmire of theology. If anyone is interested in a serious session on this, you may PM me. I'd be happy to discuss it.

-Justin

[different ki]

[QUOTE=Kam]Having said that, I think the majority of 'homsexuals' and the VAST majority of 'bi-sexuals' are simply, as previously suggested, experimenting.

-Justin[/QUOTE]


An experiment that lasts someone's whole life?

[Retribution]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][COLOR=maroon]Secondly, statistics [B]are[/B] important. If there was only one person who was gay, that'd be considered an anomaly, and easily considered wrong. Think about it: when only one person is different from EVERYONE else, would you honestly (HONESTLY) say he's just different and not consider that there's something wrong with him? To illustrate, if one person had a sixth digit on his finger and made him do things differently (or, if I phrase it otherwise, incorrectly), then would you call it a deformity or an adaptation (or something else entirely)?

If a person is 600 pounds overweight, would you say he's perfectly normal? Overweight is a term that only works if you have a reference, which is a NORMAL weight. We now know that a good percentage of people overweight are overweight due to heredity, and so people are more accepting of that.

And even if you personally would tolerate, think about the rest of the population: would they? I'm betting that's a big no.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
[size=1]It doesn't matter what the rest of the population is doing. Just because other people wouldn't tolerate the difference doesn't mean that it's alright to shun those different from you.

No, statistics don't matter when you're talking about acceptance of the difference. Sure, everyone knows that there are homosexuals, and the entire point is that it doesn't matter whether it's a choice or biological. The point is that despite [i]how[/i] a person became homosexual, [i]they are homosexual and you must accept that.[/i]

I'm just trying to say that it doesn't matter if I have a sixth digit or if I'm 600 pounds overweight. What matters is that you accept that there is a difference between us and regard me as equal to you.[/size]

[AzureWolf]

[QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]It doesn't matter what the rest of the population is doing. Just because other people wouldn't tolerate the difference doesn't mean that it's alright to shun those different from you.

No, statistics don't matter when you're talking about acceptance of the difference. Sure, everyone knows that there are homosexuals, and the entire point is that it doesn't matter whether it's a choice or biological. The point is that despite [i]how[/i] a person became homosexual, [i]they are homosexual and you must accept that.[/i]

I'm just trying to say that it doesn't matter if I have a sixth digit or if I'm 600 pounds overweight. What matters is that you accept that there is a difference between us and regard me as equal to you.[/size][/QUOTE][COLOR=maroon]I never said anything about shunning people who are different. I only talked about categorizing things as either "wrong" or "just different." How do you know if something is "wrong" versus simply "different?" That's usually a matter of "what's the norm." That was my point.

If half the population had a sixth finger, it would be seen as different. If only one person did, you cannot help but admit that it would be seen as "something is wrong."

Accepting a difference is very hard if you know nothing about it. Despite how a person became overweight - choice or biological - they are overweight. Very true, and I do accept that fact. I also accept the fact that it's NOT ok to be fat. How they became fat, what it means to be fat, etc. will create my basis for judging the trait in question. If I ever do see a 600+ person, I will think, "he should lose weight because being fat is not good for him." I'm not going to point and say "fatty fat fat" or anything, haha. No shunning!

So yes, it means they need to lose weight, because there is something "off" about them. That's what my analogy entails. Yes, I'm saying exactly what it sounds like: there could be something wrong with someone who is homosexual. I know it's a scary thought, but the truth isn't always the nicest thing. The more we discover, we will either find homosexuality as just different, or we may find that it is just plain wrong (which I think is the big scare factor and why people vehemently demand that scientists stop looking to explain/research homosexuality and simply remain ignorant - it is bliss, afterall).

And I honestly don't see how a person with a sixth digit or 600 pounds more than me could ever be regarded as my equal. They are granted all the same rights and opportunities, yes, but they are NOT my equal. Sure, I could [i]pretend[/i] they are my equal, that the sixth digit doesn't interfere with the person's functioning in - say - writing, or that the fat person won't have an increased risk for cancer and suffers from sleep apnea, and maybe that'll take care of their emotional trauma, but that's simply not true, and you can see what problems that will bring about. I think, while hard to swallow, the truth works better in almost every situation, and when someone can confront that thing that is wrong with them, everyone, especially that individual in society, benefits.

They aren't equal: they are different. They have equal rights, but are still different. This is why it's so important to realize differences: to become tolerant, not blind.[/COLOR]

[eleanor]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][COLOR=maroon]
A lack of a father figure doesn't seem to affect children much. Hell, it seems like there is no effect on children whatsoever (in regards to sexual orientation, of course). If you want an explanation, no one knows for sure, but Freud posits it as the fact that the child will project the father figure onto the closest male figure in the child's life, and so you have the whole Oedipus Complex and Castration Anxiety happening anyway, and on to a normal, heterosexual male.

Freud attributed sexual orientation to events much earlier in life (yes, he believed it was environmental, not biological), and so the type of trauma we're talking about wouldn't affect the child's sexual orientation (once again, according to Freud, not me).

[...]

O_o Lunox, you talk about the hardest effin' stuff... *scratches head* There's a lot of ways to address this I guess. I'll just toss a bunch of stuff out there and hopefully something will stick and address your comment. XD

Bisexuality... that's a toughie. Physiologically, there's support for this orientation arising in gay people (and ONLY gay people) affected by society. There's a pair of nuclei in the hypothalamus, referred to in psychology and neuroscience as "the sexually dimorphic nuclei," which is simply a fancy way of saying "nuclei that have two possible forms based on your sexual orientation." Straight women have one form, straight men have the other. Homosexual men - that's right - have the same form as straight women.

Bisexual men? Currently [B]without exception[/B], have the form of straight women (i.e., they are physiologically gay men). Bisexual women? I don't know. However, if it's the same as straight women, that would raise a whole slew of questions and ideas about sexuality and sexual orientation. If it is the same as straight women's, then that could mean the form females have is simply more ambivalent.

[i]Just on the aside, as you can see, nothing on this matter is solid at all. Expect more fluff and philosophical BS than any definitive, hard science, because that's really all either side has at the moment.[/i]

I think it was Freud who said that bisexuals are sexually active people - straight or gay - who just have an excess of libido and so it "overflows" onto the other gender. They are 100% straight or gay, but they have so much sexual energy that they think they are attracted to the other sex. Bisexuals usually do prefer one gender, so there's that to consider. *shrugs*

But the point of me telling you about Freud is that there are many prevailing theories, and no one has the right theory pegged. Some people see sexual orientation as a spectrum, a gradient, where everyone is somewhere in the middle, never in the extremes; while others see it as distinct, one or the other, not both (like my man Freud).

Was I anywhere in the ballpark with what you were talking about?

[...]

O_o ... ... Bloody hell. See, it's times like these that make me regret not caring about any of my history classes, haha.

This is PURE, unadulterated speculation, but aside from what Dagger talked about in regards to the difference between love of another man and love of a woman during Greek times (which were considered different levels and for different reasons - not even the same kind of love), wouldn't it be safe to say that European cultures and possibly other cultures around the world shunned homosexuality? I mean, I know old societies where homosexuality was allowed, praised, or simply tolerated have been put on the spotlight since this issue has been getting bigger, but I'm rather confident in believing that more cultures did not accept homosexuality than what the media would have you believe.

But again, I have no clue.

[B]My take-home message to anyone who doesn't want to rummage through all my bantering: no one knows anything for sure. Anyone who says "it's biological" is blindly accepting something that hasn't even been proven. Anyone who says "it's choice" is also going on faith. Whether it's right or wrong, that's worth discussing, but be careful not to fall for fake "scientific" data![/b][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[color=dimgray] Oh Freud. *pats his gravestone*

I found this on wikipedia, so I don't know how accurate it is, but I'll just post it: [/color] [i]Freud believed that all human teenagers are predominantly homosexual and transition to heterosexuality in adulthood; those who remain homosexual as adults he believed had experienced some traumatic event that arrested their sexual development; however, he did believe all adults, even those who had healthy sexual development still retained latent homosexuality to varying degrees. [/i]*

[color=dimgray][strike]Then again, it is Freud.[/strike] All things aside, I'm inclined to agree with you on the fact that there is no real science behind anything we're writing here. I like to believe that there is a possibility in each part of the biological vs. life experiences vs. choice thing, although I learn towards biological and life experiences.

I think what you wrote about bisexual/homosexual men's nuclei in the hypothalamus was pretty interesting. Is that something that is really proven? I wasn't sure after you wrote that italicized paragraph right after it. Anyways, if it is, I'm wondering if homosexuality/bisexuality could be a biological defect. Now I really want to know about bisexual women's nuclei. >_> (Is it sad that this topic is the one that has created the most interest in science I've ever experienced? Now I feel like signing up for AP bio or something.)

As for the history part, it [i]is[/i] pure unadultered speculation. I have no knowledge of whether or not there were societies that shunned homosexuality in the times of Ancient Greece/Rome and other such cultures. We don't really discuss these topics in my history class, lol. I'm merely drawing from my own knowledge and quick searches on Google. I guess it's possible, but I really just don't know. I was mostly just trying to link the emergence of homophobia in western Europe with monotheism vs. polytheism.

P.S. I have no idea if Freud's gravestone exists and where the hell it is if it does. :]

*[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality[/url][/color]

[Retribution]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][COLOR=maroon]And I honestly don't see how a person with a sixth digit or 600 pounds more than me could ever be regarded as my equal. They are granted all the same rights and opportunities, yes, but they are NOT my equal. Sure, I could [i]pretend[/i] they are my equal, that the sixth digit doesn't interfere with the person's functioning in - say - writing, or that the fat person won't have an increased risk for cancer and suffers from sleep apnea, and maybe that'll take care of their emotional trauma, but that's simply not true, and you can see what problems that will bring about. I think, while hard to swallow, the truth works better in almost every situation, and when someone can confront that thing that is wrong with them, everyone, especially that individual in society, benefits.

They aren't equal: they are different. They have equal rights, but are still different. This is why it's so important to realize differences: to become tolerant, not blind.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
[size=1]How does having a sixth finger affect ones functionality in writing? I would think that it would either just hang off the pen, or increase the grip. *shrug*

In any event, I wouldn't say that anything is wrong with a person with six fingers -- they're certainly different, but there's nothing wrong with them. It's a thing that [I assume] would not affect their ability to function. Their 'condition' isn't detrimental to their own or others health, so how could it be wrong?

There's nothing [philosophically] wrong with a homosexual either -- I mean, sure, biologically wrong maybe, but I'm not going to try to argue that point. Homosexuals shouldn't have to confront what is wrong with them -- they are functioning members of society, and should be treated as such. They shouldn't have to come to terms with any 'wrongness.' Surey lefties don't have to come to terms with any 'wrongness' in their writing hand, and they differ from the norm in a non-detrimental way.

Towards the end, I meant that their human dignity and worth is equal to that of a straight person - their right to exist does not diminsh because of their sexual orientation. Tolerating differences is never enough -- we must accept difference. Else, we get a lukewarm, partial society where homosexuals are still shunned by mainstream society. I'm sure some people tolerate homosexuals, but do not accept them -- clearly there is a difference.[/size]

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think it's worth pointing out that the information I mentioned earlier is not "fake".

Clearly, human sexuality (like "love") is not something that is easily quantifiable. And there is much that isn't understood, on a scientific basis. But at this point, the evidence not only suggests a biological link, but there are some specific indicators as to what the various causes might be (not just of homosexuality, but of [i]all[/i] sexual orientations).

I don't think that doctors and scientists have an axe to grind on that issue. But those who have a moral agenda clearly do - and it is that type of science (or psuedo-science), which is dubious.

At the end of the day though, none of that matters anyway. There's simply no excuse to treat people differently or to discriminate against people based on any of these factors - factors which are beyond the control of the individuals in question. Discriminating against someone based on a part of themselves that they cannot change is not only ignorant, it's also cruel.

Surely no matter what someone's belief system tells them, the underlying message should be about tolerance and general respect for the dignity of all human beings.[/font]

[Justin]

[quote name='different ki']An experiment that lasts someone's whole life?[/quote]

I would think placing both terms in ' ' would signify that I was not refering to those who commit themselves for life.

-Justin

[Sandy]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][COLOR=maroon]I'm willing to accept that, but why call me on it? Why not call the person who first mentioned the percentage? Is it because I made a point to disprove a false statistic that supported homosexuality? The fact that you didn't say anything when someone brought out the statistic in support of homosexuality, but then said it's pointless in the first place when it's disproven... I don't know, I strongly feel you should be telling the person who brought it up and not me. =(
[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that [I]you[/I] were discriminating anybody, I was just trying to point out that the actual percentage doesn't really matter. I was aiming that to nobody in particular, I was just adding it to the conversation. (That's why it was on a completely different paragraph than my reply to your quote.)

[Shwa]

[QUOTE=James][font=franklin gothic medium]I think it's worth pointing out that the information I mentioned earlier is not "fake".

Clearly, human sexuality (like "love") is not something that is easily quantifiable. And there is much that isn't understood, on a scientific basis. But at this point, the evidence not only suggests a biological link, but there are some specific indicators as to what the various causes might be (not just of homosexuality, but of [i]all[/i] sexual orientations).

I don't think that doctors and scientists have an axe to grind on that issue. But those who have a moral agenda clearly do - and it is that type of science (or psuedo-science), which is dubious.

At the end of the day though, none of that matters anyway. There's simply no excuse to treat people differently or to discriminate against people based on any of these factors - factors which are beyond the control of the individuals in question. Discriminating against someone based on a part of themselves that they cannot change is not only ignorant, it's also cruel.

Surely no matter what someone's belief system tells them, the underlying message should be about tolerance and general respect for the dignity of all human beings.[/font][/QUOTE]


Its the basic premis that, as quotes from a very good cartoon show that really gets downt o the nitty gritty:

"People fear what they do not understand"
~Charles Xavier

Not everyone can be as tolerant of the homosexual community and they cannot keep their feelings to themselves if they feel something is bothering them about the topic. They act on their feelings and insticts and what they were tought as they were brought up in society. I'm one who believes that if you can find some way to explain or "find out" why we like the same sex then go for it, but everyone has their different opinions and it would seem like it's going to be a never ending battle of right and wrong. I believe its basic instincts personally, but for those who thinik its a chemical inbalance or just our of plain curiosity then prove us wrong.