Why is being gay bad? (Part II)

[Brandye]

My earlier point is that homosexuality is "natural." As we find more and more basis for genetic coding of our sexual orientation, it is difficult to say it is "not natural." "Normal" is a sociological word describing what most people do; "natural" is a biological word simply meaning nature (evolution?) makes some one way and some another.

So, sirene, if we are so encoded, genetically, that is the way nature intended us to be. And sera has given a good example of how other members of society can destroy one whom they perceive to be wrong.

[Brandye]

Chino,

You are almost correct. Men are driven to sex because throughout their lives (after puberty) spermatogenesis is ongoing. They are constantly manufacturing sperm and the semen to deliver it. The imperative to divest themselves of the excess shows up in wet dreams if no other way. They (you) distribute up to 400 million sperm in every ejaculation. This is insuring propogation.

Women, on the other hand, are born with a fixed number of eggs and they make no more. They mature, but no more are made. The genetic nature of women, then, is to be selective. In the last five years it has been discovered that even the egg, itself, in the fallopian tube is a bit selective and rejects many sperm before choosing the one it wants.

Men, then, are responsible for causing procreation and women for the quality control.

[lookingforspice]

Just out of curiosity, if someone disagreed with the bi/homosexual lifestyle, and their reasons for disagreeing weren't religious based, would you still consider them ignorant and closeminded? In what situation, or for what reasons would you allow someone to disagree with that lifestyle without considering them ignorant or closeminded? Does such an opinion against the lifestyle exist in which it would be accepted and people to say "Okay, I accept/respect their opinion and thier decision not to like the lifestyle".

[Thresher_V]

I feel I should chime in.....

First of all, I am in no way against any form of sexuality, but....from a certain point of view, isn't attacking a believed weakness considered natural.....often I see that humans label actions "good" or "evil", when in reality neither exist.

Is it evil when a predator feeds on a prey, or merely eating to live. Same goes for when one male lion attacks another, dueling for prime hunting grounds and mating rights.

So in a way violence is one of the more natural ways of life. As a sentient species we merely give the different forms a name...

For the record, I do not believe being gay is a weakness, but to others it may appear to be and thus giving them a "right" to act in a harmful way.

[Chino]

Thanks Brandye - Once again...further proof that women GET to have sex and men are ALLOWED to have sex...

[Chino]

Thresher_V...interesting point. I never would have thought I would find this type of discussion here, but in general, it is my belief that humans do not pay enough attention to animal instincts. We think too much. Complicate things too much. Ultimately, we assume that humans are totally free thinking beings that are in no way affected by thousands of years of genetics. I think it could be quite plausible that homosexuality is attacked simply as a way for individuals to place homosexuals beneath where they see themselves in the pecking order.

Starting to get a bit off topic, but I think that we as a species could evolve further by being more in tune with our animal instincts if only to understand our deep feelings and change our thought process rather than simply "conforming" to the thought of being open minded. For some people, especially here in the US, simply telling them they have to be open minded is like trying to put a band-aid on an axe wound.

[Thresher_V]

Sorry to stray, I just never did like how people use their emotions to try and explain the world. I go with one basic philosophy, if it feels good do it, if it doesn't feel good, don't do it. Of course that's an over-generalized statement and it does have it's degrees....I do liek to workout although it does cause pain because I know it will eventually make me feel good when I heal.

Again, sorry to stray and I'll try to keep my opinions on the topics in the future.

By the way, I was suprised someone did agree with me, usually I'm verbally attacked----who knows, I still might be, lol.

[DVDBear]

Originally Posted by lookingforspice

Just out of curiosity, if someone disagreed with the bi/homosexual lifestyle, and their reasons for disagreeing weren't religious based, would you still consider them ignorant and closeminded? In what situation, or for what reasons would you allow someone to disagree with that lifestyle without considering them ignorant or closeminded? Does such an opinion against the lifestyle exist in which it would be accepted and people to say "Okay, I accept/respect their opinion and thier decision not to like the lifestyle".

You're putting the shoe on the wrong foot. How 'bout "I respect their opinion and their decision not to like people being Jewish". Is that ever okay?

[lookingforspice]

So pretty much, anyone who ever disagrees with anyone else's choice of lifestyle is automatically wrong and close minded? I'm not trying to fan the fire here, I'm trying to understand. When is it okay to not like something? Is there even a line able to be drawn as to what is or should be considered acceptable? What about all of the other alternative lifestyles? Do we then all have to accept and like them to not be considered closeminded? Again, I am NOT trying to stir up trouble or anger anyone. I am trying to understand where everyone is coming from.

[DVDBear]

Originally Posted by lookingforspice

So pretty much, anyone who ever disagrees with anyone else's choice of lifestyle is automatically wrong and close minded? I'm not trying to fan the fire here, I'm trying to understand. When is it okay to not like something? Is there even a line able to be drawn as to what is or should be considered acceptable? What about all of the other alternative lifestyles? Do we then all have to accept and like them to not be considered closeminded? Again, I am NOT trying to stir up trouble or anger anyone. I am trying to understand where everyone is coming from.

Well, first let's separate out "lifestyles" from the rest of your statement. Someone is either gay or they're not. Someone can be annoyed by or find "gay culture" distasteful, that's their right (just as they might find any other culture the same way). But to present a point of view that says "I don't like you for what you are" be it black, Catholic, gay, whatever I think defines itself as always ignorant and closed minded.

Some people get around it by the "being gay is a choice" argument, but logically that holds no water when you debate it out.

And by the way, I think your line of questioning is thought provoking so it's not "fanning my flames" one bit.