Homosexual Books for First Graders

[The Muffin Man]

1.I'm a lazy lazy man.
2.I don't need you claiming you have it then claiming "OMG WRONG LOLZ I WIN GAY IS EVIL"
3.See #1

[Sorovis]

Wow, I expected you to make up a definition and then a nonexistant dictionary, assuming that I had no way of finding out it was fake anyways. You could just admit you don't have the dictionary.

Pariah, I forget. Does it matter that I'm a minority? I thought homosexuals were a minority. So I guess that means it's okay to discriminate against me.

[The Muffin Man]

What the hell? You're the one calling homosexuality wrong o_O;; I wouldn't talk about discrimination if I were you.

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

Well, I have the definition of homophobia here:

Homophobia /n/ - irrational fear of, inversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. (Merriam Webster's Dictionary, Copyright 1997)

Well, that pretty much hit the nail on the head. I don't have homophobe but that pretty much sums it up. In a way, you don't like them because what they do is wrong in your opinion. In a way, that's kinda like saying what we think is wrong and you don't like us because we're not on the same track as you.

In my words, I say get over it. You're going to have to live with the fact that homosexuals are out there, just like there's always someone out there that disagrees with you on an issue.

[Sorovis]

Your definition said irrational, and my disagreement with homosexuality is certainly not irrational. And above all things, I do not fear or discriminate against them.

I've said it many times before, I treat all homosexuals as equals, but I disagree with homosexuality as a practice or preference. I know I will have to live with homosexuality all my life, as it is only a matter of time before it is legalized in the States. However, I am tired of seeing those opposed to homosexuality mocked and insulted with no one to stand for them, and that is why I make my stand here.

[The Muffin Man]

So it's not because you disagree, but because it's not the norm?

[Sorovis]

Where exactly did I say that?

[The Muffin Man]

I've said it many times before, I treat all homosexuals as equals, but I disagree with homosexuality as a practice or preference. I know I will have to live with homosexuality all my life, as it is only a matter of time before it is legalized in the States. However, I am tired of seeing those opposed to homosexuality mocked and insulted with no one to stand for them, and that is why I make my stand here.

Quite loudly states "I stand up for homophobes because no one else will."

Sounds like you're trying to be "cool" with the anarchy crowd ;(

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

However, I am tired of seeing those opposed to homosexuality mocked and insulted with no one to stand for them, and that is why I make my stand here.

That's kinda what I got as well. From the way it looks and the way I'm interepting it, you say that you're against homosexuality because other people who are against it as well get mocked and insulted. But then again, I could be looking at face value here than into the deeper part of what you mean.

I know we can argue about this but may we slowly re-rail ourselves to the book again. I've voiced my opinion as it's a neat idea to get kids used to the idea so that there isn't as much hating in the world. Though yes, we should teach our kids friendship and stuff like that, that's mostly not what's happening when they reach third grade where I live. It's always "Standardized tests this," and "standardized tests that." Kids are doing schoolwork as homework for school because of this and teachers get in trouble if the students don't pass.

At least she'll know about way before others do.

[Sorovis]

I did indeed have a further meaning to that. I am here to voice my opinion, one that is commonly looked down upon by people here in particular. Since no person has yet stayed defended my opinion for me, I am here to do it myself.

But yes, back on track.

This seems to me very similar with what I've heard people say, that religion being tought to children at a young age gives them no choice to decide whether it is right, as they are being brainwashed. Here, however, it is homosexuality, which, like religion, some people still oppose. What comes to mind when I think of this topic is a Sesame Street episode planned to be shown in Africa. One where a character is introduced who has HIV. I'm not sure it ever happened, but I think I saw it being discussed here.

When children are tought something at a very young age, they accept it without question. Frequently storybooks are designed for this purpose, to instill in the reader's mind right and wrong on important issues with a definate right or wrong answer. Homosexuality is still a heavily debated issue and should not be introduced to impressionable children.

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

One of the reasons why I also stated in my first post in this thread that when children start actually learning about 'Healthy Choise/Sex Ed.,' which happened around fourth or fifth grade for me, is when they should teach about it. For a slip is handed out to the children to get it signed by their parents for whether they're child can learn about the topic(s). Without it, the kids don't get to learn about Healthy Choices at all until the next year. In this letter is always what issues will be covered and homosexuality can or will be one of them. Simply, a parent can converse with the teacher about not teaching their child this or write a note.

It all works out but then there's the discussion about how the kids learn about it from their friends because heck, you can't protect your kids completely from the "bad" of the world.

[Sorovis]

Yes, you cannot completely protect the children who have been chosen not to read it, which is why it should not be done. If the parents wish to explain homosexuality to their children, they can do it themselves.

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

Yes, you cannot completely protect the children who have been chosen not to read it, which is why it should not be done. If the parents wish to explain homosexuality to their children, they can do it themselves.

If it should not be done because parents don't want their children to learn about it, then what do we do about the other topics that are still extremely debatable that parents don't want their children to know about (War in Iraq, terrorists, etc.)? They'll still learn about it in books no matter what, including textbooks.

And heck, we have all this 'OMG, you're plagarizing me!' about that this is such a different idea that nobody will claim it as plagarism.

This actually reminds me of a painting done by someone (sorry!) called 'The Italians' that is in the MOMA exhibit. All it is is a bunch of scribbles in black and red crayon I believe on a huge canvas and looks like it was drawn by a two year-old. The thing that a kid in my class pointed out was that since no one had done the idea before, it was original enough to be in this classical exhibit.

It sometimes pays to be original, no?

[Green_Pikachu]

I know I will have to live with homosexuality all my life, as it is only a matter of time before it is legalized in the States. However, I am tired of seeing those opposed to homosexuality mocked and insulted with no one to stand for them, and that is why I make my stand here.

1). being gay isn't illegal

2). you're incredibly narrow-minded.

[Green_Pikachu]

When children are tought something at a very young age, they accept it without question. Frequently storybooks are designed for this purpose, to instill in the reader's mind right and wrong on important issues with a definate right or wrong answer. Homosexuality is still a heavily debated issue and should not be introduced to impressionable children.

first off, its taught, not tought. secondly, if homosexuality shouldn't be TAUGHT because its a heavily debated issue, then really the only thing that can be taught is basic math, and your ABCs. Religion is certainly a debated topic. Science is a debated topic, because we are still ever-changing. And which version of American history do we teach them? The edited version where we make America out to be the hero in every scenario, or the REAL truth?

[Pokemaster Matt]

I've said it many times before, I treat all homosexuals as equals, but I disagree with homosexuality as a practice or preference

Homosexuality is natural, not a preference. If you're gay, you can't just decide to not be gay, its not just a choice.

[Sorovis]

First off, you could of done that all in one post. Second of all, at least I'm not so desperate as to correct someone's grammer. If it offends you that much, maybe you shouldn't be debating with me, as it happens often.

The things 'tought' in school are things we agree on. Obviously opinions differ, but we can generally agree on the history about George Washington, or Abraham Lincoln. In case you are so incredibly dim-witted as to miss the fact that religion is NOT 'tought' in public schools, then you will note that currently debated things are not taught as absolute fact. There is certainly a difference between science and opinions on homosexuality, and please tell me you aren't so 'narrow minded' to not see that difference.

Pokemaster Matt, I still have no evidence on how homosexuality is natural. Once again, it is not genetic, and there have been cases where homosexuals have gone 'straight'. And please don't tell me they are just fooling themselves or denying themselves, because I am tired of hearing such nonsense. If you want me to believe homosexuality is natural, then find me some proof. I mean real proof, not the entire board's reassurance that it is natural, because I've said it again and again, I'm not going to accept that.

Until tomorrow, please keep insulting my intelligence, grammer, and please keep posting your collective opinions until I return to continue this endless debate.

[Damian Silverblade]

The existence of homosexual behaviors among animals would tend to indicate it's a rather natural thing - unless of course one concede that such animals are capable of complex inteligent reasoning that woudl lead them to acting in unnatural ways for reasons we do not at present know.

Also, do you have any proof of it not being genetic?

[The Rusted One]

Pokemaster Matt, I still have no evidence on how homosexuality is natural. Once again, it is not genetic, and there have been cases where homosexuals have gone 'straight'.

Prove to us that it is not genetic, or stop making such claims. Besides which, if it weren't natural, then why are so many people gay or lesbian or bisexual? Why would someone choose to be that way when society, thanks to people such as yourself, is oh-so ready to denounce love between two men or women as wrong and "sinful"?

Now, I'm sure you've also heard of the "straight" people who have "gone gay" in this world, too? Your argument of gay people going straight is invalid as evidence if you ignore the point I just made.

And please don't tell me they are just fooling themselves or denying themselves, because I am tired of hearing such nonsense. If you want me to believe homosexuality is natural, then find me some proof. I mean real proof, not the entire board's reassurance that it is natural, because I've said it again and again, I'm not going to accept that.

Do you choose to be heterosexual? Or is heterosexuality what you feel is what you are, and therefore is natural for you? I'd say you were someone who never had to "choose" to be heterosexual, given your attitudes; so why should you think a gay person would "choose" to be gay? Could they not just "be" gay, as you are "just" straight? If you think it's "natural" to be straight, you'll have to think it's natural to be gay, too - otherwise, you'll have to say that being sexual in any way is unnatural. Nobody has control of who they fall in love with, who they're attracted to - and really, nobody should be able to tell someone else that they're just making a "bad choice". I note that when you asked me last time about how I was more "right" than you about what homosexuality is really like, and I responded with the fact that I'm bisexual, you didn't reply - surely, if you're so sure of yourself, you wouldn't have let that slip, right?

In response to the main issue, I see the fact that a book about a homosexual relationship between two people being in a library at a school as a good thing; the fact that it's about two people of the same gender doesn't mean it's about two people of the same gender having sex in the least - and if a child makes the logical connection between the two, then they're also going to do it with a book about a man and a woman - so should this also be taken out of the library? No.

I'm glad someone brought up the statistics about redheaded people being less common than gay people - this was something I was certain of, as well - and I've never understood why they, too, are never told that they can't have red hair naturally, and that they must be choosing to be red haired. I personally have never been told that I'm unnatural and that I'm evil, and yet I've got red hair. This is not to say I've never been teased - but on the whole, people have admired my hair colour; and yet, people are very quick to tell a person who is gay that they're evil and a sinner. Why? Neither hurts anyone else; and neither are choices.

Also, just to make a point - a child may be impressionable, but if he or she is not gay, then they will not be "turned" gay - the only thing that can happen for them if they're taught about homosexuality is that it isn't wrong. And you know, the only thing that says it is is the Bible, that oh-so-holy book of "love".

[Razola]

Agree with most of what you said, but the red-hair thing is a litle sketchy. While you can see red hair and determine is was natural (technically, you CAN choose to be a redhead, after all) sexuality is not visible, and can be seen as a choose like food preferences.

That's where I think people have a problem with: it's harder to believe that because it's a mental thing.

EDIT: The Bible only says it wrong in the Old Testament, which is almost wiped clean due to Jesus and the New Testament.

[Animelee]

http://fn2.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~martinh/8svriend.htm

I'm a devout Christian, by the way - but even I can admit it's genetic. If we're going to debate homosexuality, then we're going to also have to debate the eating of lobsters or shrimp, or the mixing of different kinds of cloth.

[Mewtwo-D2]

Actually, the food and clothing laws were revoked in the New Testament. Before God sent Paul to go be a witness to a Gentile, he gave him a vision of all kinds of "unclean" animals and basically told him to eat up. Those laws were put in place at the time because these were people who were wandering the desert. They didn't bathe much, and they prepared food squatting over campfires. It was to protect their health. And I believe the blended fabric was a potential irritant at the time. They didn't have a method for making a smooth poly-cotton blend, any blended fabric would be rough and heavy, not the kind of thing you want to be wandering deserts with.

Actually, all the unclean laws are quite logical when you apply them to people wandering a desert in ancient times. If you can't wash yourself thoroughly afterwards then oral, anal, and menustration cycle sex are very unclean and can lead to a number of infections. They're not even that clean when you can wash yourself thoroughly afterwards. Putting people who had commited sodomy to death prevented the risk that they would pass on bacteria and disease. Pigs, shellfish, scavenger animals, pelicans, and snakes often have bacteria in their meat that only more modern cooking can eliminate. If all you had to cook meat on was a campfire, more likely then not, you'd get food poisoning from those animals. Touching dead people isn't a great idea if you can't wash your hands with soap and hot water afterwards. It spreads bacteria. So when you think of it that way, the laws do make perfect sense.

As for homosexuality being genetic, I think it is in some cases, maybe in most cases, but there has been an upsurge in young people claiming to be bi or gay to shock their parents. Also, there will always be those women who turn lesbian because they hate men, and men who turn gay because they hate women. Those kinds of people bother me severely. Then there are the people who claim to be bi because they think some members of the same sex are attractive, yet would not date and certainly not have sex with them. Those are people who simply need to understand definitions. I know a few girls who decided they were bi because they thought Japanese girls were cute and were attracted to feminine-looking men. Yet I find some girls cute or pretty and I like pretty young men, and somehow managed to escape any crisis in my orientation. Meh...

[Bulbasaur4]

Well, I think that the book isn't wrongly put in the schools at all. I mean, it says they share a kiss at the end. If kids ask why, they can be explained that two males love each other. Nothing to do with sex. And people can say, "What if the child asks about how this pairing have children?" well it's teh same as if a child were to ask how 'mommy and daddy' have children as well. I agree with whoever said it was better that they learn it early (I think it was L_P) because then it would create a generation that grows less hateful of homosexual relationships.

Besides, I believe that homosexuality isn't a choice. I don't think anyone decides, "Hey, today I'm gonna like the people of the same gender!" It's some thing that they are born with, but under today's society they might not realize it until they are older and exposed to more independence. It's so sad that in today's world, we are so narrow minded to think that homosexuality is wrong. There's nothing wrong with it... love is love. Who are we to define what boundaries love has?

I personally do not think God cares if a man loves another man or not. He loves us all, and we'll all go to heaven as long as we believe in him. He's not going to condemn someone to the depths of hell because they 'loved' some one who was not of the oppisite sex. Of course that's just my opinion. Some people may say that 'The Bible' states that it's morally wrong or whatever. However, it's proven to historical fact that much of the bible was fabricated or altered, so for all we know some guy could have just thrown that in t here. The bible becomes especially vague during the battle of Paganism, (Did you know that a paganist forsaw that the religion Christianity was going to overpower the Paganists, so he joined with Christianity but put a few Paganist symbols in the culture? Such as SUNday. Why is it called Sunday? Well we just think it's a day, but in fact that man put 'sun' in there for the hidden meaning of one of the aspects the Paganists worshiped- the sun! Sorry... off on a tangent.)

Anyway, I just don't see much wrong with it. As time goes on, children of the world are going to be exposed to more things. It's a fact of life. And I believe that if we banned some thing such as a simple book (a freedom of expression and media mind you), it would prove to be 'sexist?' in a way. I mean, we were all hell-bent long ago (not all... but you get my point) during slavery. A lot of people believed that African Americans were second class citizens, adn were racist pigs. Now we've grown out of that... but some how sexuality is different. We're not racist anymore (most), but now we're becoming sexist in teh differences between heteros/bis/homosexuals. It's not their choice, so why should we treat them like second class citizens...

Um, yeah, keep the book.

[The Rusted One]

Agree with most of what you said, but the red-hair thing is a litle sketchy. While you can see red hair and determine is was natural (technically, you CAN choose to be a redhead, after all) sexuality is not visible, and can be seen as a choose like food preferences.

That's where I think people have a problem with: it's harder to believe that because it's a mental thing.

Which would be a good argument if it were applied to perhaps one or two people - but how many million people are gay or lesbian in this world today, and how many of them are saying that they didn't choose to be gay or lesbian but just are? A food preference is "I like this more than that," but a food aversion is, "I cannot make myself eat that, or I'll vomit"; much like most sexual "preferences". A straight man is going to picture himself engaging in homosexual activities as something he would never do because it wouldn't feel right, and may even make him feel personally ill - and this is just as likely in a gay man thinking of himself engaging in heterosexual activities.

As for homosexuality being genetic, I think it is in some cases, maybe in most cases, but there has been an upsurge in young people claiming to be bi or gay to shock their parents. Also, there will always be those women who turn lesbian because they hate men, and men who turn gay because they hate women. Those kinds of people bother me severely. Then there are the people who claim to be bi because they think some members of the same sex are attractive, yet would not date and certainly not have sex with them. Those are people who simply need to understand definitions. I know a few girls who decided they were bi because they thought Japanese girls were cute and were attracted to feminine-looking men. Yet I find some girls cute or pretty and I like pretty young men, and somehow managed to escape any crisis in my orientation. Meh...

Could you provide evidence for this "upsurgence" of young people claiming to be homosexual just to shock their parents? I mean, I know Raz did it here in order to get attention, but it's more than slightly different. And I'm yet to meet, or hear of, a person who hates one gender and so sleeps with the other on principle, too. I agree that a lot of people aren't clear about "definitions" - but then, if they are only claiming that they're bi because they think someone of the same gender is attractive, but not in a sexual way, then they can't actually be used as examples of bisexuality or homosexuality anyway. If you can see that they're not actually bisexual, and they actually in reality aren't, then they cannot be "lumped" into such a category, and should not be used to represent any of the actual proper members of such a "group".

[Sorovis]

Well Rusted One, here's your 'proof'. Whether or not you accept it as that is up to you.

http://www.equip.org/free/DH055-1.htm

As for your question as to why there are so many homosexuals in the world when it is openly opposed, there are also a large number of criminals in the world, too. That is generally opposed by the populace, is it not?

As to animals exibiting homosexual behavior, they also eat their babies. To me that does not seem the best thing to do, but you can decide on that.

I would also like to note that the reason I did not reply to you, The Rusted One, in the last debate, is because by the time I came back from my vacation, the thread had already disappeared.

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

Sometimes the criminals are made by society itself. Quite a few poor people must steal to eat, eat to live. Others are actually insane or have a small mental defect that makes them believe it. Others it is done in hot rage or in a sudden rush of adrenoline (sp?). But yes, some criminals are there for the fun of it, just like smoking once was. And though it is opposed, sometimes there's nothing anyone can do but hope for the best.

And yes, animals eat their children. But, there is a good reason. To live, to decrease the population before the animals starve to death, and other scenarios, depending on the situation and the way of life animals have.

[Checkmate]

Personally I'd like to back up Sorovis (you're not in this alone anymore) Anti-homosexuality is in the New Testament. Check Romans 1:26

And please, no one say that the phrase "so God gave them over to their lusts" says that God okayed it because the phrase lusts effectively calls it wrong. In fact, that explains how people 'turn' gay as you put it.

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

For some reason, I most probably would've believed the research report if, I quote:

Today, through the grace and mercy of God

In 1973 he turned back to Jesus Christ

[ex-gays] who have been transformed by the power of Jesus Christ.

had not been in it.

I know this is by the Christian Research Journal but with several people different religions, some atheists, those phrases don't appeal to them.

Now heck, I'm Christian but not that much of a Christian to follow the Bible from cover to cover (like someone in my class, trust me, I've heard his preachings and they are informative, I just have an open mind). I've learned there is other things then just church. There are other religions in the world than Catholism that have different opinions about this.

Another thing that would have made me believe it more is the fact it isn't too recent. Some things have changed since 1992 including policies and further research on the topic.

And then the last thing that knocked me away was that they advertised for people to join their church right at the end of the paper.

Though yes, I'd have to agree with the first part about how the homosexuals changed to heterosexuals. But the thing is, they don't give examples of the other people who changed, the only one they gave was the one who had been abused. If they had given one where there was no abuse or such, then it would've been more valid.

Though, I don't like the example they gave. AA? Heck, that isn't relavent. Alcohol can be addictive, homosexuality is not. That's a big difference right there now.

[Mewtwo-D2]

TRO, I'm basing the statement on recent cases that have been in the news, such as the one a few months ago where two lesbians were convicted of severe child abuse, male only. One of them had had four sons and one daughter before her husband abandoned her. So, she decided men were scum and hooked up with another another man-hater. Her partner kept the boys in the attic, hardly fed them, and beat them regularly. The girl was treated like a princess. Those are not real lesbians, they are man-haters.

As for the upsurge, it's mostly with girls. Girls kissing and touching each other in schools to tease and tantalize boys is quite common. Homosexuality seems to be the big 'Shock your parents!' thing right now, or maybe it's only on the coasts, in middle class areas. Also, there are 'bi' people who don't care who or what they're sleeping with, as long as it has a pulse. My sister had a friend like that, who strung along his truly gay boyfriend because the boyfriend cooked for him and was always available for sex. It's sad really. And I'll provide articles later, but I'm extremely tired right now.

[Sorovis]

I can't help whether religous research papers don't sit well with some people on this board.

And about how recent it is, I can understand that. That is why I have found a more recent article that you may find of interest.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=28505

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

I can't help whether religous research papers don't sit well with some people on this board.

And about how recent it is, I can understand that. That is why I have found a more recent article that you may find of interest.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=28505

Yes, but this is another example of 'an abused childhood.' I understand this, how people can be scared or have no hope in a relationship with the opposite sex to the point where the people turn to the same sex.

Though I would have to say this has gone a bit far for the average concern...

But I've been viewing through sites and found a very pro-homosexual site that is quite insulting to Christians and other anti-homosexuality people...I quote from http://www.teenopendiary.com:

"christians" HATE gays, ITS SICKENING!! 9/23/2002
Ok, I’m gonna start this with a disclaimer. READ IT!

I put hate and Christians in quotes for one main reason. These are not real Christians I’m talking about and I do not hate Christians. I do hate the concept and I hate radicals (yes I hate, I’m a human) but I do not hate people for simply believing in the concept. Thank you. If you don’t read this, you add to my support of hard headed… stupid people.

Got some emotions riding there.

Technically I agree with the abuse part, I just don't see how other people who were not abused as a child are cured as you have to find a problem to get the solution.

[Sorovis]

Finding the problem may not be necessary. Homosexuals becoming heterosexual only happens when the person truly wishes for it to happen. In the case of those who suffered abuse, the cause was easier to find and therefore deal with, as they knew that at one point they had been heterosexual. With those who do not know the cause, the change will be harder to come by because they have no memorable point in their life where they were heterosexual, and so this causes difficulty as they do not have an immediatly palpable goal. The change is still possible in everyone, however difficult it may be.

[Checkmate]

I would merely like to clear up any possible misconceptions. I speak for myself and probably Mewtod2 and Sorovis. We do not hate homosexuals. We despise homosexuality.

[Leon-IH]

Mewtwo-D2 I SECOND THAT MOTION!!

[Checkmate]

I would just like to clear up some possible misconceptions. I speak for myself and probably Sorovis and Mewtod2. I do not hate homosexuals. I despise homosexuality. I do this for reason of it's basically wrong. No use hiding it. I have many reasons to believe the Bible to be correct. Reasons decent enough to step out on the limb I'm currently stepping out on. (btw the I'm speaking for probably the two afforementioned comment only applied to the not hating homosexuals part)

If you want to attack my reasoning, attack the Bible. That's really what 90% of this debate is about. We all know it. There's no use hiding it.

[Green_Pikachu]

the bible is pointless. it's a piece of literature, and nothing more. and it's not even very good literature. and, it actually never explicitly says God is against homosexuality. it was an adopted translation by anti-gay propagandists.

also...
"I do not hate homosexuals. I despise homosexuality."

explain how despising homosexuality doesn't lead to hating the homosexuals themselves.

[The Rusted One]

Well Rusted One, here's your 'proof'. Whether or not you accept it as that is up to you.

http://www.equip.org/free/DH055-1.htm

Please - you do realise that that's religious propaganda, right? Basically anything with "CR" in it, for example, "ICR", and "FCR", is going to be anti-homosexuality because it's religious bigotry. If you want me to take your "proof" seriously, make it impartial, unbiased, and unprejudiced against what it's supposed to be presenting information about, okay? Okay.

As for your question as to why there are so many homosexuals in the world when it is openly opposed, there are also a large number of criminals in the world, too. That is generally opposed by the populace, is it not?

Criminal activities are choice, of course - the person has something to gain that otherwise they would not. How is this the same as homosexuality? If it's a choice, then what could a man gain from a gay relationship that he could not from a straight one? Nothing - so why make such a choice, given the hostile way it's viewed, once again, by people like you? Because homosexual people are masochists, and like to have themselves portrayed as sinners and objects to turn one's nose up at? Come to think of it, wouldn't heterosexual relationships be under the same sorts of pressure? I mean, if homosexuality is a choice, is heterosexuality not also a choice? It must be - given that you've never had to choose who to be attracted to, you've never had reason to think, "I could like men and not women (or vice-versa, I'm just guessing at your gender here)", right? I'd say that was about right - so why would anyone else, if they were given equal opportunity as you, think along those lines, and choose to be homosexual? Quite a problem you've got there, really - I mean, to think you're actually just as gay as a gay man, but "decided" not to have any attractions to men.

As to animals exibiting homosexual behavior, they also eat their babies. To me that does not seem the best thing to do, but you can decide on that.

Actually, not all animals do eat their babies, while some do - some exhibit homosexual behaviour, some don't. You can't give me any evidence that there's a correlation between the two - I'm yet to see any evidence that cannibalistic animals are also prone to homosexuality, or vice-versa (i.e., one act does not have any relation to the other, particularly across species, so trying to draw a comparison between a characteristic one species may have with another a totally separate species may have is fallacious). If I were to tell you that some Macaque species exhibit homosexual behaviour, but don't eat their young, you couldn't support your homophobia by stating that some animals do eat their young - because it's a totally unrelated issue. We don't eat our young - but we do exhibit homosexuality. No connection. Invalid argument.

Not only that, however - eating one's young hurts the offspring; it brings about harm and pain to the individual affected. How does homosexuality do the same? I await your grasping at straws as you attempt to argue with this.

I would also like to note that the reason I did not reply to you, The Rusted One, in the last debate, is because by the time I came back from my vacation, the thread had already disappeared.

Which, I note, is rather convenient, given that that thread was still active last week, if my memory serves me correctly. I also note that you should feel free to deal with the point I made there here, and await your doing so.

TRO, I'm basing the statement on recent cases that have been in the news, such as the one a few months ago where two lesbians were convicted of severe child abuse, male only. One of them had had four sons and one daughter before her husband abandoned her. So, she decided men were scum and hooked up with another another man-hater. Her partner kept the boys in the attic, hardly fed them, and beat them regularly. The girl was treated like a princess. Those are not real lesbians, they are man-haters.

I'd say they were also mentally unstable (though still, they may have been lesbians - perhaps they were just femenists, however, you took their anti-patriarchy so far as to actually become what they hate, or worse).

As for the upsurge, it's mostly with girls. Girls kissing and touching each other in schools to tease and tantalize boys is quite common. Homosexuality seems to be the big 'Shock your parents!' thing right now, or maybe it's only on the coasts, in middle class areas. Also, there are 'bi' people who don't care who or what they're sleeping with, as long as it has a pulse. My sister had a friend like that, who strung along his truly gay boyfriend because the boyfriend cooked for him and was always available for sex. It's sad really. And I'll provide articles later, but I'm extremely tired right now.

I'm still not quite confident that the claims of homosexuality-to-shock-the-parents thing is quite right, really. It's true that homosexual contact between women seems to be exciting to many men, but this does not mean that the people involved are actively coming out in order to shock someone. A kiss between two women is not the same as proclaiming that they're lesbian. As for the apparently liberal friend of your sister - he may be bisexual; he may at the same time also be callous and uncaring as to who he hurts. There are such people; whether they are mentally unstable, or just don't care, they still exist - but this does not mean that they're necessarily just in a homosexual relationship for the sake of convenience.

Also, Sorovis - I've read such articles as the one you most recently linked to before, and nothing it says comes as a surprise. What perhaps you haven't thought about while reading that is why, exactly, studies have only concentrated on that single marker, and not a selection of gene markers? You also may not have thought about why the article states that a pair of indentical twins may have only one gay individual, while the other has only a 50% chance of being gay - how does this, exactly, prove that homosexuality is not genetic, especially given that the odds, from what we know, of a person being gay in any population is approximately 0.1, i.e., 10%? 0.1, or 10%, is not the same as 0.5, or 50%. The odds, it seems, are much higher. I'll also bring your attention to such things as differences in brain makeup, that may explain some instances of homosexuality - and perhaps there are genetic markers that cause these brain differences, a "side-effect" of which may be homosexuality? What of the effects of upbringing? Are those choice, too? No. And a final question - how is it logical to state the a gay gene would have been bred out of the population if it was, in most populations, not an accepted part of society (meaning that gay men and women would still have children and pass on their genes)? It isn't. It also isn't entirely logical to state that all people who might possess such a gene might be gay, either - two copies of the same allele may be required for it to be expressed, like red hair - or that all gay people might feel safe enough in their populations to be in homosexual relationships, rather than heterosexual relationships (which they would be in because of societal pressure) - so they might produce children with their genes, too. What if it's a combination of genes? Or perhaps, a combination of genes which cause a natural predisposition to homosexuality, which, when coupled with influences in upbringing, may result in homosexuality? Funny thing is, Sorovis, nothing so far involves choice - so how are they "sinners", or how are they "sinning", if they have no choice in the matter?

I would just like to clear up some possible misconceptions. I speak for myself and probably Sorovis and Mewtod2. I do not hate homosexuals. I despise homosexuality. I do this for reason of it's basically wrong. No use hiding it. I have many reasons to believe the Bible to be correct. Reasons decent enough to step out on the limb I'm currently stepping out on. (btw the I'm speaking for probably the two afforementioned comment only applied to the not hating homosexuals part)

If you want to attack my reasoning, attack the Bible. That's really what 90% of this debate is about. We all know it. There's no use hiding it.

How, exactly, is homosexuality wrong? Is it hurting you? No. Is it hurting anyone? No. Is it something neither person involves wants? No. It's perfectly clear you're stepping out on a limb - you aren't actually thinking for yourself, you're letting a book do it for you. You can't support your statements without saying, "the Bible says so" - indicating you have no actual legs to stand on.

And hating homosexuality but not homosexuals is nothing but homophobia; you can't say, "I hate the Black race but I'm not racist to Black people," because, despite the fact that a Black person is a person in their own right, the fact that they're Black is inseperable from that same person. It's racism, pure and simple - and so is what you're saying.

[Sakura12]

I think, although the Old Testament is more or less irrevelant because of Jesus' sacrifice, it still applies. I don't think homosexuality is right. God made us as Man and Woman for a reason. He could've made us all asexual beings, but He chose to distinguish between the males and the females, with clear rules that a man should partner up only with a woman. By having homosexual intercourse, we are violating God's rules of life. And I don't think He'll be happy with anyone who disobeys His command.

[Green_Pikachu]

why the hell do you brainwashed people keep trying to bring religion into this? can't you think of a REAL argument instead of cowering behind religion whenever something doesn't go your way? the bible is literature, and only literature.

[Bulbasaur4]

Cowering behind religion isn't a good phrase to use.

Of COURSE religion is going to fall into almost every controverisal issue such as this. What do you think the majority of most wars start from? Religion. Same goes with many debates on morally 'right' or 'wrong' issues. There's no avoiding it.


Bah... and what I like to ask, is why do some people care about sexuality? If you think it's morally wrong, then don't be homosexual. ^^;; If you don't think it's wrong, and are homosexual or want to 'turn' homosexual, then go right ahead. It's just like religion... everyone has their own. I don't think it's anyone's business but their own, so allow people to get married to who they want, and etc.. and just butt out of it.
But that's just my opinion. ^^;