That’s nice. But just because an animal has sex with another one of the same sex doesn’t necessarily mean it’s attracted to it, or “homosexual” - confirmation bias. I can be a straight men and have anal sex with another man, but that doesn’t mean I’m “practicing homosexuality.” </p>
<p>
Then - and this may sound harsh - stop it with the crazy indecent parades and start sitting down and having sober discussions. Outlaw gay bathhouses and all other gay-only establishments if you want to convince people that homosexuality isn’t all about sex. </p>
<p>
I never did that because my parents raised me to be straight, which is the natural “default” if you will - plug A into outlet B and so on.</p>
<p>Okay I have to stop you right here, please do not EVER, EVER, EVER suggest that to someone, EVER. My particular pet peeve is ex-gay/reparative therapy. This is one of the things I’m personally trying to fight against. This is EXTREMELY harmful therapy, it has NO basis WHATSOEVER in reality. It does not help, at ALL. ANYBODY who has gone through this therapy will either relapse, wasn’t LGBT in the first place, or is repressing themselves. It is wildly dangerous. At the BEST it will cause extreme psychological/emotional issues, at worst it could result in suicide. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it really can’t. At all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That doesn’t make sense. If a kid has straight parents, the kid will be straight, and if they have gay parents they’ll be gay? Think about that for a second… if that’s the case, how did homosexuality happen in the first place? If LGBTs don’t reproduce then somewhere along the line, straight parents must have had a gay kid.</p>
<p>I want to put this as politely as I can because you yourself are being polite in your argument, as much as I disagree with you. You seem to have a really sheltered, undeveloped understanding of human sexuality, you really need to learn more and then form your opinions. But please, please don’t ever suggest reparative therapy as the answer again, ALL the legitimate Psychological organizations agree that it does not work. The only people you’ll hear saying it does work are like NARTH and Exodus International and they’re in the pocket of the anti-gay people. Their research is flawed, seriously flawed. the American Psychological & Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics (don’t look at the American COLLEGE of Pediatrics, they’re another NARTH group), countless Teachers Associations, all legitimate Psychologists reject it. Please do not propagate it as an answer.</p>
<p>We don’t CHOOSE. it’s who we are. And who are you to tell me I can’t marry the woman I love, because I’m a woman also?</p>
<p>Men having sex with men DOESN’T mean they are feminine. That has NOTHING to do with femininity and masculinity. </p>
<p>I don’t need therapy, none of us do. We do need some type of professional help to deal with the discrimination we face. To want to even LIVE after all we’ve been through.</p>
<p>@anti…
Therapy does more harm than good. Gay people need a network of support. Not a group forcing them to change…
I know a lot of straight people who are NOT masculine. It’s not really gender switching. Gay people don’t want to be the opposite sex. That’s transexuality.
Gays can’t change themselves, and the movement isn’t for sex, it’s for love. If it was just sex, then why would they even need marriage?
Gay parents usually raise straight children… Just like straight parents… Do all straight parents raise straight children exclusively? No.</p>
<p>We would have no need for the “crazy indecent parades” (I had a feeling when you talked about “pride” you were gonna bring this up) if we’d have our rights. We’re acting crazy to get in your face BECAUSE you won’t give us the rights afforded to us. And Gay Bathhouses? Who talks about those anymore? I’ve never heard people say “I’ma go to a gay bathhouse” I’ve only heard it referenced in relation to anti-gays trying to deny us our rights. It’s OBVIOUSLY about more than sex, it’s the homophobic people who can’t get their minds off the sex that have MADE it about the sex. It’s seriously not about the sex, it’s about love. It’s not us who’ve made it about sex. It’s the people who attack us.</p>
Again, rights? What rights? Where are these rights written? </p>
<p>
Fine, I’ll grant that - BUT these establishments don’t support an unnatural lifestyle (homosexuality). It still couldn’t hurt to outlaw them though because they tore my family apart.</p>
<p>Who defines what is natural? We aren’t hurting anyone. </p>
<p>Maybe if you shared this experience that you had that was such a tragedy, we could approach this differently. You probably won’t say it. </p>
<p>You have no basis for anything. I bet you’ve never faced discrimination before. And if you have, you should be ashamed. </p>
<p>And no, they didn’t “tear your family apart.” whichever family member went to those places tore your family apart. They could have resisted, and they did not.</p>
<p>“Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” the rulings of the Judges who’ve said Marriage is a Fundamental Right. ALL the Fundamental, Inalienable rights, afforded to all humans. Those rights. The right to live in peace, the right to love whomever I choose as long as they can/do consent, the right to marry the person I choose as long as they can/do consent. The rights afforded to me, via law, through marriage. Those rights.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So your only reason for wanting the others closed is because you don’t like the non-choice lifestyle they lead? I’m sorry but, how do you justify a belief in Freedom as it’s understood in America with that? Honestly. </p>
<p>You still aren’t really answering many of my questions.</p>
<p>And if that person had gone to straight strip clubs or straight bars, would it have been better? I expect it still would have torn your family apart.</p>
<p>In short, it has little to do with homosexuality and all to do with the person involved.</p>
<p>Tell me about the naturalness of the clothes you’re wearing. The genetically modified food you’re eating. The houses with unnatural materials that you’re living in. The metallic computer you’re using. I suppose cars, buses, etc are “natural” too. </p>
<p>Well, my religion teacher says homosexuality is a disease that needs treatment, but he’s pretty wack-o (Bible says women belong at home?), so I don’t agree.</p>
<p>I’m fine with gay guys. I know a few of them, and I’m actually kinda jealous. Jealous because they talk to girls all the time! Even if she’s a babe and he’s ugly, they can still post hearts and smiley faces on each other’s Facebook wall. That stuff doesn’t happen with less attractive straight guys.</p>
<p>I’ve never net someone I know to be a lesbian, so I can’t pass judgement. They do, however, sound pretty all right.</p>
Look, I understand what you’re saying. But your understanding of my argument isn’t quite right. “Cars, buses etc” ARE natural in the sense that they are constructed from materials that are ultimately derived from nature. Thoughts and feelings, however, are not natural - that is, unless you’re a materialist which I’m not. You don’t think someone who sleeps with animals or has dolphin fins surgically attached or whatever is leading an “unnatural” lifestyle? What, by your definition, is unnatural, then?</p>
<p>Well technically everything is ultimately derived from nature with that logic. So everything that exists is natural, including homosexuality. :)</p>
<p>I don’t get it. Is love not natural? Are any feelings natural?</p>
<p>@antipacifist – By your logic, thoughts and feelings are derrived from chemical activity in the body. They are chemical and therefore natural reactions. </p>
<p>And how did “someone who sleeps with animals” or Gerald Browfloski get involved in this? That was just a cartoon, people don’t go and get dolphin fins attached to them so yes, that would technically be unnatural since it’s not something that could realistically happen in real life.</p>
<p>I have a feeling I know where this is going, I got $5 that says I know where his argument is headed. So I’m going to cut you off here and now. You’re going to bring this back up when we get into “marriage for procreation” arguments and one of us argues that marriage can’t be for the sake of childbirth because then infertile couples couldn’t get married right? And your argument will be “because they’re a man and a woman even though they can’t have kids, they CAN have them because of being man and woman and therefore my argument is valid” – So I’m going to stop you here, declare what argument I know you’ll use and tell you right now that argument holds no weight. Well, first off because it makes no sense whatsoever (honestly, what was the Prop 8 defense thinking when they used that argument, I’m against them but I could have come up with a better argument than that) and because marriage is still not for the sake of procreation. We’ve found over and over and over again that it isn’t for procreation so that argument just doesn’t hold water. I cite part of Judge Walker’s decision as evidence.</p>
<p>I’m not going to read through this thread because I’m sure it’s filled with quite a few stupid/offensive posts, but just to add my 2 cents – it wouldn’t bother me at all. In fact, the roommate I lived with for 2 years in high school is a lesbian. I don’t think it’s a big deal, and it certainly never made me uncomfortable or prevented us from being friends.</p>
<p>@ antipacifist: The natural/unnatural dichotomy is actually a societal construct and not a biological one, despite what the terminology implies. Let’s take bestiality as an example: Though it’s considered “unnatural” today, the Hittites didn’t think badly about all types of bestiality; they condemned the practice of sleeping with pigs, cows, sheep, and dogs, but didn’t consider it an offense if you slept with horses or mules (or even corpses, so long as we’re talking about “unnatural” practices). The Greeks and Romans both practiced pederasty, which is looked down upon today as being “unnatural” (in terms of desire) and an abuse of power. Incest, though often deemed to be “unnatural” almost universally, has been and still is being practiced in the world, and I think by now it’s been pretty definitively proven that the incest taboo is completely societal. If these were truly unnatural in the biological sense, then these taboos should exist across all time and space, not simply in specific cultures at specific times in specific places.</p>
<p>So on the one hand, you’re asserting that what is “natural” or “unnatural” is founded in biology. But on the other hand, you’re asserting that it’s a societal construct. Which is it?</p>