DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

Look, we hear this all the time in our lives. Something has to be off if a guy wants to make love to another guy. I have good friends and stuff and we are like brothers, and there's nothing wrong with that, but anything more than that means that there has to be something wrong.

Most homosexuals I know of say that they knew that they weren't straight since they were little, when they were innocent. I think that there is some form of genetic mutation that goes on that causes them to act like this. I don't believe we should punish them for this, because this is the way they are born, but it's not right being born thinking that way, otherwise, why can't men get pregnant? Men and women were born to pro-create.

Even if it's a poor genetic adaptation or an evolutionary dead end does it follow that it requires us to treat it as a social stigma or compel pursuits to change in effect the nature of a person's identity?

It looks to me about as useful as saying we should "treat" people's ethnic or racial identity as illnesses of a sort because that no longer serves evolutionary advantages either.

Since the beginning of recorded Human history – and that includes religious recordings – Homosexuality and lesbianism has been treated with various different attitudes from total acceptance to total rejection and just about everything that you can think of in between.

However, in this modern era that we now live in, there has been something that can only be considered as a political movement to force everyone in this world to not only accept but to openly condone and advocate homosexual and lesbian behavior.

Since I am one who vehemently believes in personal freedom, preference, and responsibility, I strongly believe that ones own personal beliefs cannot and should not be legislated. Meaning that if I do not choose to accept what I consider as deviant sexual behavior, then I should not be forced to.

And before you question wether or not I include the act of rape and other acts considered to be illegal, I just as strongly believe in the law.

Just my not-so-humble opinion.

Personal freedom and responsibility as ideology means in part that you are, in effect, tolerating a wide dispersion of behaviors and attitudes that are at odds with your own. You certainly don't have to tolerate someone compelling you to perform homosexual acts and that is well within your rights to oppose and enforce as legally binding. But you don't also have any right or means to compel other consenting adults not to through legal action. One must also assume that it would be possible to punish sexual acts as though they were purely homosexual in the first place under a Constitutional basis. Such laws as sodomy prohibitions have been largely stripped out of law for this reason. Heterosexual couples can fully well do almost anything a homosexual couple could and even derive a mutual pleasure from such acts.

The consistent appeal to compare homosexuality to a form of rape is an amusing piece of intellectual residue from religious intemperance. It assumes that the people engaging in it are causing each other harm or acting without mutual consent or even mutual affection. Which is totally inaccurate. The only thing it harms is the sensibilities of other people. That is not something I'm inclined to protect by legal force.

It seems to me that a great deal of homosexuals were raised by a single mother (can't back up with any statistics) so obviously this could influence a child's mental/emotional attitudes. The problem with the term mental illness is that they are infinitely hard to diagnose and define. Drawing a line between what is "normal" and "healthy" and what is somehow mentally screwed up seems very precarious to me in the world as it is today. It's ridiculous that experts who still know so little about our mental constitution would venture to suggest that homosexuality "must" be an illness.

Even where homosexuals have been raised by women alone, if one believes in reincarnation one could argue that this person chose such a destiny with the intent of having support from feminine energy. One could suggest that they had every intention of trying what sexuality with other men is like. There is no way we can judge the inner intentions of a person/soul.

To me human beings are always seeking ways to explore life from different standpoints and so it seems quite natural that sexuality would be a channel for this.

One minor quibble with that: the incidence of single mothers in our society has increased substantially over these past two generations. The likelihood is fairly high that anyone will be raised by a single mother, regardless of sexual orientation. In other words, the theory supposes that the rate of homosexuality would increase, perhaps significantly in response to a higher incidence of single motherhood. This expected correlation has not materialized, at least not yet. Homosexuality is more visible, perhaps more tolerated, but not more widespread than studies in the past have indicated.

As nobody actually knows what causes homosexuality (Certain political groups insist that it's a choice or that it's determined before birth, but scientific evidence doesn't support either hypothesis) any argument should be made from a point of view that admits ignorance in this area. All I can say, is that I would not want society to feel that it has the right to tell people what are and are not valid romantic relationships between consenting adults. Conversely, if and when I have children, I would prefer that they be straight, and if a procedure were available to ensure that, I would be inclined to take advantage of that. I think that once we understand homosexuality, it will be much less prevalent thereafter as most parents to be, eventually want to be grandparents.

What about research to modify their sexual orientation? Funding an organization that can determine the cause of this and fix it for all ages.

Well because it appears that different people are / become gay for different reasons, some people might be able to be "turned straight" while others wouldn't be. It would be a lot simpler is everyone were either born gay or straight, or if homosexuality were entirely learned, but it appears to be various combinations that differ from person to person, so whether one is okay with homosexuality or not, a lot of the people who are already gay are going to stay that way, and there's nothing that can be done to change that.

It used to be classified as one. No, homosexuality is not an illness it is a choice that people choose to make. There is no evidence that it is genetic or something they were born with. Why they make the choice may vary and may be something that affected their life so early on that they never considered themselves "straight" but just like any other sexual behavior, it can be controlled, changed, or modified as is proved by people who have turned straight after once being gay.

Empirical evidence does not support the idea that homosexuality is a form of mental illness. Of course, however, sexual minority individuals are not free from mental illness and psychological distress. Given the stresses created by prejudice, it would be surprising if some of them did not manifest psychopathological abnormalities. Yet, homosexuality in its principle form is no longer deemed a mental disorder by the DSM.

Between adoption and infertility I'm pretty really sure that homosexuality in a child would not be any serious obstacle to the condition of becoming a grandparent.

For the purposes of desiring to pass on one's genes, adoption is irrelevant. And until someone invents an artificial uterus, two men aren't going to be having a kid together any time soon.

No but sperm banks and surrogacy exist.

And the argument for genetic passage through new births also applies to infertility of a natural order.

There's a lot more about human beings and our society now that matters a lot more to pass on than pure raw genetic information.

One can make that argument, but one cannot deny that for many people (including myself) then genetic aspect of reproduction is important. You may be absolutely fine with having grandchildren or children only through adoption, but as research seems to debunk the "nurture is all that matters" theory of human development more and more, it shouldn't be surprising that many people wouldn't feel that way.

Research also continues to debunk "the nature is all" that matters perspectives. Arriving somewhere in the muddled middle between the two is perfectly fine. I for one do not see that there's any perspective which could acknowledge and demonstrate that "nurture" is irrelevant. It seems rather more complex than a simple genetic transmission of determinism.

Similarly, supposing that passing on of genetics is the primary aspect of human existence, this leaves a rather large function of human society, primarily older women, who can no longer reproduce as an effective waste of resources.

Straw man. I'm insisting that I have a right to say that genetics is important, and you're insinuating that I mean to say that it's all that matters. I can care about my child being 'mine' in the genetic sense AND care about how they're raised.

Right but your assertion is that attaching that importance is at all permitted to overtake future generation's right to their own identities by manipulating their genetic code to correct what you perceive as a problem with one particular set of meshed genes.

You could still have other children who might pass on your genetic legacy. There are lots of people who cannot already. I see this as a flaw in the importance of controlling for sexual orientation.

And from a Dawrinian genetic standpoint being infertile is a flaw, jsut as being homosexual is a flaw, as it inhibits your ability to pass on your genes. I'm not denying that some people are infertile. And under the classification I've given having a gay child is better than having an infertile child.

Nobody has a right to select their own genetics. Nobody can. You don't exist before your genetic code is finalized, and if we learn to modify genetics later in life, then your point doesn't matter. How is a parent selecting for certain genes any less fair to a child than them getting a random mix? Especially when parents probably wont select to give their kids traits that are clearly problematic.

Getting somewhere, predictably.

We have means, artificial ones, at getting around the malfunctions that produce homosexuality or infertility generally to allow people who are in either condition to reproduce anyway and thus satisfy this requirement of passing on the family heirlooms as it were. So I'm not buying the argument that a selection of sexual orientation would be necessary to produce genetic grandchildren. All that's necessary there is generally to press your children to have kids of their own some day. That pressure was sufficient enough for people to invest in research on infertility generally and come up with a solution for anyone who couldn't reproduce naturally, including homosexuals.

Assuming we can in future modify genetics I'm not sure that then justifies a necessity to select for sexual orientation (in all cases) either. That then begs the question of "is this really a problem" in the way that "is this a mental illness" does (albeit incompletely). Aside from social discrimination and some legal repressions, which can be ameliorated or adapted to by both individuals and the society they live in, I'd have to say there isn't a whole lot of evidence that homosexuals cannot function in society in a way that someone with a psychologically classified mental defect (illnesses that might have some justifiable benefit for genetic modification) could not. There is some evidence that it creates social and economic benefits for places which have adopted more tolerant views anyway (as productive homosexuals flee their local environments to live and work in such places and take advantage of the social benefits of doing so, such as legal marriage). "Problematic" is still a rather iffy label as a result. "Clearly problematic" is even more troubling.

I don't think any sexuality has to do with mental disorders.

Well I guess it comes down to whether we learn to 'correct' 'errors' in human genetics first, or there's an artificial uterus first. My money is on the genetic engineering, which will reduce homosexuality dramatically.

Men and women are meant to pro-create. If you are romantically involved with someone who you can't pro-create with, there is something off.

Homosexuality is, at the very worst, a mental abnormality. Not an illness, it cannot be treated or cured it simply is. Let Homosexuals be themselves, as we let heterosexuals be themselves.

But you cannot deny that some Homosexuals are “cured” as you say, and to be completely honest I have no idea how, maybe puberty finally kicks in, or something.

Random Thought: Probably not accurate by any means, but maybe homosexuality is an evolutionary change to curb overpopulation. Just a thought

Jrock, would you call out a homosexual on the middle of a public street and talk down to him/her because of who he/she is?

Brandon, why do you ask such pointless questions. Do you really expect an extremeist comment out of Jrock based on such a simple comment? Teachme made the same pointless question based on a simple comment. Just back it down on the lawyer mentality a bit, OK.

What? That's crazy talk.

What are you talking about Jared?

No I do not think it is a mental illness or that anything "causes" homosexuality. It’s natural but not genetic in a sense that it is an evolutionary dead end. Jim and Tim can’t pass on the genes to make Suzy Q want to be Little Boy Blue. I feel it is a matter of choice, desire, and personal identity. One could feel certain urges but chose never act on them. One might find after experimentation that they enjoy sex with a same sex partner more, or for some they just feel that homosexual is who they are as a person. Different experiences and various stimuli shape people into the beings they identify as.

Homosexuality currently is not only accepted in some circles but gaining popularity . In most matters aesthetic gays are considered the cat’s Meow. Hair stylist, fashion designer, interior decorators, how many of these jobs would you hire a straight man to do and expect a truly “Fabulous” job done? With the rapidly changing pop culture anything is possible. Total public acceptance of homosexuals might be on the horizon. You never know “gay bashing” could come to mean attending various soirees of reputable notoriety hosted by the most popular homosexuals. Parties so nice you would have to be mental to miss it.

"gaining in popularity"? Wouldn't this imply that more people are homosexual, attempting to be, or desiring to be?

Or are you simply stating that tolerance for homosexuals is increasing?

My apologies STS I wasn’t to specific. I was referring to an increase in acceptance of homosexuals in particular venues within society.

Stereotypes aside, there are homosexuals more or less in every venue (for instance, the military or in professional sports leagues). It does little to suggest that they should become concentrated and tolerated only in particular ones over others, because that is not the reality of the world. In effect, if the military can tolerate homosexuals (and self-polling suggests that they largely will without issue), I don't see how this acceptance can be described as limited to the sorts of places and people you are suggesting.

You seem to be equating a person's sexual preferences with a sort of generalised culture and lifestyle in other words. These are not at all the same thing as the one does not follow from the other. Someone who is gay does not automatically become magically interested in cutting hair and designing fashions, nor do these venues select for homosexuality as a cornerstone to success in them.

Evolution acts on individuals, not the species as a whole, so that doesn't seem very likely..

Does a cat’s sphincter quiver before a fight?
What is the difference between a duck…………………………………..

Fuck this question……………now everyones a goddam psychiatrist.
ok – but then my answer would be………………ummm………….what Lori said.