Homosexuality

I'm confused about homosexuality.

I was sitting in Crouching Tiger and chatting to Sifu Tony about it the other day and he was saying he looks around and it seems to him a lot of homosexuals are making a lifestyle choice to be gay. 'Is it like waking up with no arm' he asked honestly in his inimitable middle eastern manner, 'If you wake up with no arm, you know it is gone'.

I suppose the answer is none of us know unless we experience it for ourselves. I would agree that many people seem to choose a certain lifestyle if they are gay. But can you help it Can you be 'cured' Or is that an incorrect attitude If it is, why

Basically, I'm interested in what the arguments are for and against integration and utter acceptance. If we acknowledge and accept homosexual behaviour as part of society and condone homosexual relationships, and have gay couples kissing in the streets etc, is that teaching our children that they can choose this behaviour as a lifestyle choice So is that OK Now, it can be argued that you are either gay or not. You can't 'turn' gay, if your children were exposed to this kind of behaviour it wouldn't necessarily 'turn them gay', but are we ignoring other problems

In the USA Homosexual men have much higher rates of alcoholism and drug abuse compared to the general population. They also have much higher rates of suicide.

Because of the rampant STD's, including AIDS, homosexual men have lower life expectancies.

Female homosexuals have higher rates of cervical cancer as well. This is undoubtedly related to a high rate of transmission of the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). The promiscuity of homosexual men is well documented (something like an AVERAGE of 30 sexual partners per year). As a result, the relationships formed among gay men are less stable and even "stable" relationships are likely to incorporate some aspect of outside sexual experience.

What about their 'right' to have children Do you think children of same sex couples have gender identity problems

There is another school of thought that would say that if they got on with there lives and that was that- fine, but, the fact that they are trying to CHANGE the rest of us to suit THEIR desires and thinking is the issue. Do you care about the attempt to normalise and equalise homosexual pairings with heterosexual married couples. They want to get "married" they want to borrow, breed or buy children and bring the children up to think that homosexuality is normal.

But if we discriminate are we allowing hatred and bigotry to rule Are we saying that homosexuals should have less rights than the rest of us

Where do you stand on this complicated issue

__________________
Faith itself, compelled by the Holy Spirit, possesses an inner dynamism that necessitates deeper understanding. ~Thomas Weinandy O.F.M.

That's all interesting questions, the part of that I'm thinking about the most is the children issue. I'm not so worried about gender identity or whatever, but the fact that they might still face discrimination for having homosexual parents. I'm thinking in this case the rights of children to a safe environment (where they don't face discriminiation) should supercede the rights of homosexual partners to children. However, in an area where nobody has a problem with it, I can't think of a solid argument against it. It's certainly not any worse to have homosexual parents than it is to have strongly religious parents, hippy parents. Abusive and asian parents would be a much bigger concern, but can't do much about the latter except find a way to get those giant spoons out of their asses that they have about letting their kids have a decent amount of freedom.

Again

If it's right, it's right, it's right to be open, in the streets, and looking after children. Promiscuity is none of your business. STD's likewise (unless you're planning to sleep with a gay man/lesbian). Since neither necessarily concerns others there is no argument for a legal intervention.

As for children - gay men would have to adopt and lesbians adopt or use treatment. In either case the counselling and legal checks are far more likely to weed out poor parents than the non-existant checks made on straight parents. I don't see any valid arguments for passing laws against a child being raised by homosexual parents. In some cultures a male child is raised exclusively by women until a certain age and then exclusively by men. Those kids seem far better cared for and integrate into their society far better than western kids.

As for suicide and alcoholism rates - maybe living in bigotted redneck country does that. Remember the video to small town boy I imagine being gay in large parts of the US is a whole lot worse for exactly the same reasons.

Is it a choice Neither the law nor ethics cares.

No grounds for legal objection. Is it moral Well that's up to you. You can decide it's immoral not to cut off your left ear lobe if you want. As long as you don't try to pass laws enforcing your morality then carry on.

FF, Since you are a Christian I wonder if you'd be interested in the view that the old testament rulings pretty closely match the treaties weak peoples signed with more powerful ones in that period (Suzerain(sp) treaties). The idea was the weaker people got protection and didn't get laid waste but at the same time showed their obedience and status by adhering to a whole set of arbitary laws. The exact laws were irrelevant, the important thing was law was obeyed. Allegedly some of these rulings even included circumcision. That view implies there doesn't have to be a defensible reason for the church's ruling against homosexuality - it's just a way to show christians' place as a subject people obeying different laws... Of course, when you read the New Testament you see Paul admiting that everything is permissable before he goes on about beneficial. Read into that what you will.

__________________
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you
High mountains are a feeling
I don't need to sell my soul, he's already in me

I see that and I do understand, I also don't really think that the OT stuff is very relevant to my life, what I do worry about is that the Church stands thus: -"homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." [Cf. Gen 191-29; Rom 124-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10.]They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Given that-
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

What would you say to that John I find it hard to disagree with the biology...Of course, I feel that people are people first. But, do we draw the line anywhere

__________________
Faith itself, compelled by the Holy Spirit, possesses an inner dynamism that necessitates deeper understanding. ~Thomas Weinandy O.F.M.

FF, it's funny that you posted this, since I just wrote a paper about Same-sex marriage for Applied Ethics that I have to turn in this morning. It's a bit long, but here is my opinion on same-sex marriage:

Same-Sex Marriages
Marriage is one of the most important institutions in any society; it is the basis of the family unit, and a vow of commitment to one's partner. But how does one define marriage Some would say that it is a loving relationship between two people who wish to spend the rest of their lives together. Others stipulate that the institution can only be applied to a union between a male and female, and still others believe that marriage is only intended for procreation. It is well established as a matter of law that the right to marry the person one loves is so central to liberty and happiness as to be a fundamental civil right. (Cramer 16) But in this day and age of same-sex relationships, how can we allow the government to determine who can marry based only on gender One may marry from prison; one may marry despite failing the children of a previous marriage; and one may marry across any ethnic or racial divide. (16) So how is it that this right is being denied to the gay population Granting legal marriage rights under the law should most certainly be extended to gays and lesbians to ensure that all citizens enjoy full human rights.
The issue of same-sex marriages is one that has received much media attention in recent years, and brings up questions of the supposed separation between church and state. If there is truly a separation, what interest does the Government have in denying gays the right to wed A proposed constitutional amendment would define marriage as “a union between one man and one woman”. (“Grappling” 1) The problems that face gay men and women wishing to make a life-long commitment to their partners are great, and the government is not making it much easier on those couples. One Vermont couple, who describe themselves as “an ordinary family, could only obtain a slip of paper to show their commitment to each other, while their neighbors can formalize their relationship in marriage. (Stein 4) Few states, including Massachusetts and California, will issue marriage licenses for same-sex marriages, and only the state of Vermont has approved civil unions, which extend rights to same-sex couples. Government opinions on same-sex marriages tend to mirror that of the majority of churches.
People meet, fall in love, and realize they want to spend the rest of their lives together. The next logical step in this scenario is that the couple gets married, either in a church or a civil ceremony. Unless, of course, the couple happens to be of the same sex, which presents a totally new set of problems for the couple in question. Finding clergy to perform homosexual unions may become even more difficult with the recent rulings banning such unions by the United Methodist Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion, which local clergy usually support. (Byrne 6) As for the Roman Catholics, there's no point in even raising the subject of gay marriage. The church considers homosexuality itself a sin and a lifestyle choice. (Gailey 3) The ironic part of the Roman Catholic Church's stance on same-sex marriage is that this comes from a church whose leaders protect its abusive, child-molesting priests.
Another point that comes up when looking at the banning of same-sex marriages is a violation of civil rights and benefits to gays whose life-long commitment to one another is not being recognized by either the Church or the Government. Marriage is an important means to express personal and spiritual values, and is central to one's liberty and happiness. (Cramer 16) By denying gays the right to legitimize their relationships, basic rights, as well as benefits, are being denied. Some of the rights and benefits denied to gay in long-term committed relationships are: protection after a spouses incapacitation or death (e.g., priority in guardianship or appointment as guardian, tax-deferred transfer of spouse's pension benefits and IRA and 401(k) plan proceeds, Social Security benefits) economic supports for family finances (e.g., tuition credit and scholarships for spouses of those in public service, joint tax returns, community property) workplace and private sector safety nets (e.g., coverage under family health insurance plans, family medical leave to care for a spouse, right to visit in the hospital with an ill spouse), protections to care for one another (e.g., alimony, custody, division of assets) and informational privileges (e.g., right to act on behalf of and receive information about one's spouse, privilege not to be forced to testify against one's spouse). (16) Although most married couples take these rights and benefits for granted, the effects can be devastating to those being denied them in the event of the death of a partner.
While marriage is certainly not something to be entered into lightly, it should be an option for all consenting adults, regardless of their sexual orientation. It was not that long ago that most states had antimiscegenation laws. These arguments against interracial marriage then are similar to the arguments against homosexual marriage now- that it is “unnatural”, that it was forbidden by the scriptures and that it would harm children and offend public decency. (Gailey 3) As one can see, these laws were outdated at best and extremely prejudiced at worst, and interracial marriages are now a common and accepted occurrence. Getting used to the idea of gay marriages is a concept that is going to take time. (4) Hopefully the day will come when the joys and benefits of marriage can be enjoyed by everyone in a committed, loving relationship, and society will learn to tolerate, if not embrace, the idea of same-sex marriage.

__________________
Si hoc non legere potes tu asinus es

“	Originally Posted By: KungFu Krissy FF, it's funny that you posted this, since I just wrote a paper about Same-sex marriage for Applied Ethics that I have to turn in this morning. It's a bit long, but here is my opinion on same-sex marriage: Same-Sex Marriages Marriage is one of the most important institutions in any society; it is the basis of the family unit, and a vow of commitment to one's partner. But how does one define marriage Some would say that it is a loving relationship between two people who wish to spend the rest of their lives together. Others stipulate that the institution can only be applied to a union between a male and female, and still others believe that marriage is only intended for procreation. It is well established as a matter of law that the right to marry the person one loves is so central to liberty and happiness as to be a fundamental civil right. (Cramer 16) But in this day and age of same-sex relationships, how can we allow the government to determine who can marry based only on gender One may marry from prison; one may marry despite failing the children of a previous marriage; and one may marry across any ethnic or racial divide. (16) So how is it that this right is being denied to the gay population Granting legal marriage rights under the law should most certainly be extended to gays and lesbians to ensure that all citizens enjoy full human rights. The issue of same-sex marriages is one that has received much media attention in recent years, and brings up questions of the supposed separation between church and state. If there is truly a separation, what interest does the Government have in denying gays the right to wed A proposed constitutional amendment would define marriage as “a union between one man and one woman”. (“Grappling” 1) The problems that face gay men and women wishing to make a life-long commitment to their partners are great, and the government is not making it much easier on those couples. One Vermont couple, who describe themselves as “an ordinary family, could only obtain a slip of paper to show their commitment to each other, while their neighbors can formalize their relationship in marriage. (Stein 4) Few states, including Massachusetts and California, will issue marriage licenses for same-sex marriages, and only the state of Vermont has approved civil unions, which extend rights to same-sex couples. Government opinions on same-sex marriages tend to mirror that of the majority of churches. People meet, fall in love, and realize they want to spend the rest of their lives together. The next logical step in this scenario is that the couple gets married, either in a church or a civil ceremony. Unless, of course, the couple happens to be of the same sex, which presents a totally new set of problems for the couple in question. Finding clergy to perform homosexual unions may become even more difficult with the recent rulings banning such unions by the United Methodist Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion, which local clergy usually support. (Byrne 6) As for the Roman Catholics, there's no point in even raising the subject of gay marriage. The church considers homosexuality itself a sin and a lifestyle choice. (Gailey 3) The ironic part of the Roman Catholic Church's stance on same-sex marriage is that this comes from a church whose leaders protect its abusive, child-molesting priests. Another point that comes up when looking at the banning of same-sex marriages is a violation of civil rights and benefits to gays whose life-long commitment to one another is not being recognized by either the Church or the Government. Marriage is an important means to express personal and spiritual values, and is central to one's liberty and happiness. (Cramer 16) By denying gays the right to legitimize their relationships, basic rights, as well as benefits, are being denied. Some of the rights and benefits denied to gay in long-term committed relationships are: protection after a spouses incapacitation or death (e.g., priority in guardianship or appointment as guardian, tax-deferred transfer of spouse's pension benefits and IRA and 401(k) plan proceeds, Social Security benefits) economic supports for family finances (e.g., tuition credit and scholarships for spouses of those in public service, joint tax returns, community property) workplace and private sector safety nets (e.g., coverage under family health insurance plans, family medical leave to care for a spouse, right to visit in the hospital with an ill spouse), protections to care for one another (e.g., alimony, custody, division of assets) and informational privileges (e.g., right to act on behalf of and receive information about one's spouse, privilege not to be forced to testify against one's spouse). (16) Although most married couples take these rights and benefits for granted, the effects can be devastating to those being denied them in the event of the death of a partner. While marriage is certainly not something to be entered into lightly, it should be an option for all consenting adults, regardless of their sexual orientation. It was not that long ago that most states had antimiscegenation laws. These arguments against interracial marriage then are similar to the arguments against homosexual marriage now- that it is “unnatural”, that it was forbidden by the scriptures and that it would harm children and offend public decency. (Gailey 3) As one can see, these laws were outdated at best and extremely prejudiced at worst, and interracial marriages are now a common and accepted occurrence. Getting used to the idea of gay marriages is a concept that is going to take time. (4) Hopefully the day will come when the joys and benefits of marriage can be enjoyed by everyone in a committed, loving relationship, and society will learn to tolerate, if not embrace, the idea of same-sex marriage.	”

KFK was this an exercise in being open-minded or is how you actually feel on the matter

__________________
"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal"

"Do not wait for the last judgment. It takes place every day."

- Albert Camus

as Such I don't have any issues with it... it's the choices those people make... Reasons I don't know... but if this is going to hurt Nature's way in anyway(reproducing)... then I m not much in favor...
-TkdWarrior-

__________________
Weight Loss Help Center

“	Originally Posted By: tkdwarrior as Such I don't have any issues with it... it's the choices those people make... Reasons I don't know... but if this is going to hurt Nature's way in anyway(reproducing)... then I m not much in favor... -TkdWarrior-	”

Ummm... as it is we humans are already overproducing our kind...so if anything it might help in the number of people

__________________
"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal"

"Do not wait for the last judgment. It takes place every day."

- Albert Camus

“	Originally Posted By: dman Ummm... as it is we humans are already overproducing our kind...so if anything it might help in the number of people	”

Yeah, that's a really strong argument in favour of homosexuality.

KFK - pretty convincing and covers the ground as far as I can see. I don't think there's a single valid argument for denying legal recognition of same sex marraige. Of course, the church of homophobic rednecks shouldn't be obliged to perform the ceremony and I do see "anti-discrimination" lawsuits against churches that refuse to marry same sex couples. How would you protect the right of the church to be bigoted while protecting the need for the state to be impartial

“	What would you say to that John	”

The short answer is it doesn't work and as society becomes more tolerant the church will be pulled apart between congregations in intolerant cultures and ones in tolerant ones.

Calling something 'objectively disordered' and then condescending about compassion is hypocracy. 'Objectively disordered' cannot be supported. 'Against God's law as the church understands it' could - but that's hardly an objective position.

“	Homosexual persons are called to chastity	”

You're supposed to believe in a God that can resurrect the dead and continues to perform miracles. Conversion is supposed to kill the old self and create a new man. Hetrosexual men are suposed to look at no woman other than their wife with lustful thoughts - this is suposed to be possible for them because of the Holy Spirit. Yet all this God can offer homosexuals is chastity Seems a bit stingy to me. Can't he "cure" them (if it's objectively a disorder) Even if he 'chooses not to' then isn't religion about the core, not behaviour, if their 'lusts' are 'wrong' then shouldn't they be striving to eradicate those lusts, not just refuse to satisfy them

“	But, do we draw the line anywhere	”

Yes, as an organisation you draw the line regarding your members wherever you agree to. I prefer to avoid religious organisations. I'm not going to support a body that allows its members to tell people condoms cause aids and has the official line that it is a sin for a married couple to use condoms even if one of them is HIV positive.

So I say - do what you like, draw the line where you like, just don't try to make any behaviour that harms no third party illegal. I also wonder why churches are so hung up on behaviour.

__________________
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you
High mountains are a feeling
I don't need to sell my soul, he's already in me

“	Originally Posted By: Robin Ashe Yeah, that's a really strong argument in favour of homosexuality.	”

Also, I could go into the overwhelming evidence supplied by nature were two of the same gender greet each other by "mounting" one another. Biologist have normally overlooked such behavior or have given it other names. But hey if your a homophobic, your homophobic and no matter what I say you will still be that way. As for me, I'll go with my theory, if they are not bothering me then why bother them.

__________________
"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal"

"Do not wait for the last judgment. It takes place every day."

- Albert Camus

Particularly interests me as so many priests are undoubtedly homosexual. I find that my community are extremely open but like you say, progression of human rights has caused conflict in the community, you can really see it on Catholic Answers forum!

I just wondered if you see everything progressive as good- or are some standards being erased

On the Church, I feel it have shifted perceptably towards issues like this and though the dogma may still seem hard line, the general perception has moved in line with modern thinking. I think today's society has meant that many of us have experience of someone we know 'coming out'. When something affects you directly, you are less likely to be so condemning!

__________________
Faith itself, compelled by the Holy Spirit, possesses an inner dynamism that necessitates deeper understanding. ~Thomas Weinandy O.F.M.

“	Originally Posted By: FightingFat Particularly interests me as so many priests are undoubtedly homosexual. I find that my community are extremely open but like you say, progression of human rights has caused conflict in the community, you can really see it on Catholic Answers forum! I just wondered if you see everything progressive as good- or are some standards being erased On the Church, I feel it have shifted perceptably towards issues like this and though the dogma may still seem hard line, the general perception has moved in line with modern thinking. I think today's society has meant that many of us have experience of someone we know 'coming out'. When something affects you directly, you are less likely to be so condemning!	”

Personally, I think church's fear of homosexuality stems from the pre-christian roman days where homosexuality was common. So, to say that we are progressing is really to ignore human history. If anything we are just moving back to where most early cultures were before the influence of Judaism (both Christianity and Islam were founded by Jews).

__________________
"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal"

"Do not wait for the last judgment. It takes place every day."

- Albert Camus

I have a feeling religious fear of homosexuality stemmed from when survival of the people was very important, therefore everyone had to get married and have sex, otherwise they'd become extinct. Anything that was counterproductive to procreation (homosexuality, "pulling out", etc.) would be deemed a sin because it's really not good for the society as a whole. Now we're in an entirely different situation but it's been ingrained too strongly into the religions.

“	Originally Posted By: dman KFK was this an exercise in being open-minded or is how you actually feel on the matter	”

That's how I feel. I have no problem with same-sex marriages. (wasn't it obvious in my paper Uh-oh!) I have no problem with same-sex couples adopting. I *do* have a problem with the blatant hypocrisy of "Church" officials who condemn homosexuality, but have no problem bilking their parishioners, cheating on their wives, and molesting children.

__________________
Si hoc non legere potes tu asinus es