SEXUALITY debate: Why can't people live their life - Page 5

Posted: 12 years ago
Originally posted by angie.4u


Sin or not, procreation was and is considered to be important . There would be social implications. The social impact was given priority  to individual cravings.

As the numbers of LGBT increase in a particular community or nation  the population growth of that region or group would decline. This could be a cause for some concern especially as the other less tolerant or accommodating groups could soon outgrow  the former. That seems to impart an evolutionary disadvantage to a community.

As most people have agreed, very few people "turn" homosexual. Generally they are born that way. But studies on their psycology do point out that some can "turn" homosexual under extreme circumstances. It is generally agreed that environment of the individual does to some extent affect an individual's sexuality. I have posted a few links to this effect.
Posted: 12 years ago
Originally posted by return_to_hades


I really don't think you can view sexual orientation on an advantage or disadvantage basis. It is something that just is. It is akin to asking what advantages or disadvantages are there to being black. Of course socially, legally there are very distinct advantages and disadvantages you can list off ' but you don't view your personal identity in those terms.

 

Sure there are several disadvantages to being homosexual.

-          Criminal offense in many nations

-          Limited legal rights in many nations

-          Viewed as sinful by many religious groups

-          Lack of social acceptance

 

As for health risks associated with sexuality, a lot of it comes down to practicing safe sex. Gay men and people born in certain AIDS afflicted nations are prohibited from donating blood because of high risk. However, with homosexuality being accepted and homosexual sex education and health services made available the gay male community is becoming safer.

 

Anal siphters are a risk for any couples engaging in a form of anal sex, anal sex is just more common in gay men. It is not always about the orientation but the "act" that is being practiced by the couple. Some acts are the same across the board. Health risk wise the safest might be being lesbian as they have the lowest STD and bruising risks.

That's the whole point, they can, but they don't. There are a whole lot of sites which point out to the various health disadvantages of homosexuals. This is just one amongst many http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02rStatistcs.html 
These sites must say that honosexuals have as much chances of acquiring AIDS or other STD as Hetrosexuals, but they don't. They say they are at a higher risk. Why? Yes, the problem can be minimized by awareness, but this is something that is easier said than done.
Posted: 12 years ago
Originally posted by Beyond_the_Veil



People don't take the "decision to be[come] homosexual" - there is no logical argument or science behind this. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me you are thinking of sexuality in terms of the intercourse and action - when, in reality, sexuality goes well beyond that. It's a complex term we give to the entire experience and awareness of gender identity and sexual thoughts. There is more to a sexual orientation than just the physical needs and actions.

So going by the dictionary definition, a person can be a closeted gay and married (and consequently sexually active) to a woman for all his life. At the same time, it is entirely possible for the heterosexual community to experiment with alternate sexuality, but that wouldn't make them gay. It's not the action but the desire that marks one's sexuality.

The exact cause of homosexuality has not been pinpointed and proven beyond reasonable doubt by the scientific establishment, but most scientifically minded organisations do regard it as something that one has no control over - the only choice is whether to act upon the desire or not. The desire, however, is not something one can choose to have and stay with them.

Environment and upbringing probably does play a part in forming ones sexuality - how important and crucial it is, we will have to wait and see - but that still does not make it something one is consciously choosing for oneself. In fact most people who are sexually active did not one day wake up and suddenly decide to be gay or straight.

Homosexual actives are quite common in prisons and similar places where finding members of the opposite sex could be difficult - but it's the basic human drive for sex that leads people to experiment and release their sexual needs by fornicating with anyone they could get hold of, not their natural desire that does. Again, has there been any documented case where prisoners were still 'into' homosexuality even after being released from prisons?

I have never come across this piece that there are more LGBTs in Saudi Arabia. Would you back up that with any reliable source, because so far I have not come across this information. It seems to me that from an outsider's perspective, the number of gays, lesbians and bisexuals may seem alarmingly high - because of the archaic and barbaric punishments (often) used against the community there. Similarly, in Iran, sex change is a very common scenario because while Iran does not acknowledge the existence of gays (and it is a criminal offense, to some cases leading to even capital punishment), they do permit sex change as a 'remedy' to the homosexual problem (what they perceive it to be), and desperate gays, lesbians and bisexuals will take any mean to avoid facing public flogging, capital punishment or a celibate life. This is a sad scenario actually - people who are comfortable with their gender and body are now forced to give it up for their love and relationship.
Most people don't turn homosexul, but are born that way either due to a variation in the hypothalamus or a gene passed on from father to son. Psycologists, in addition to these factors also consider environment to play a crucial role. I have posted the excerpt from Wikipedia that is in accordance with my earlier post and I posted a few other links as well which say much about the same thing. It is what I have understood and correct me if I'm wrong😛. I'm no expert in homosexuality and if I have any misconception, more than willing to get it cleared😳 The part about childhood trauma seemed a possibility to me and thought besides the genetic reason, this could be a possibility as well😕
 
And no, I don't mean just the act. The act as such could be had for various reasons and as you say, men can have sexual relations with men and still have a wife and he cannot be called "gay".
 
I'm afraid I don't have any proof in the form of links to support my statement about Saudi Arabia. I read it in a book. It's called the Daughters of Arabia.
I'm searching for internet proof though, and the moment I find anything that supports or negates my statement, I shall definately post it😊
Posted: 12 years ago
Originally posted by Rehanism


I don't think goal of a marriage is to have kids. Marriage is a union of two humans who wish to spend their life together. As simple as that. Many heterosexual couples too cannot conceive but that doesn't mean theirs is a failed marriage!! And, unlike most other animals, human beings do not mate only for reproduction.
Right. I also don't thik that the goal of a marriage is to have kids and nor should it be... if I had to define a marriage. Per the existing definition and design though,... yes, the goal is to have kids and management of heirdom.
 
Sure, those heterosexuals who cannot conceive can get married. In a grand scheme, it does not change the definition. If you must, consider it a loophole.
Posted: 12 years ago
Originally posted by Petrouska


That's the whole point, they can, but they don't. There are a whole lot of sites which point out to the various health disadvantages of homosexuals. This is just one amongst many http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02rStatistcs.html 
These sites must say that honosexuals have as much chances of acquiring AIDS or other STD as Hetrosexuals, but they don't. They say they are at a higher risk. Why? Yes, the problem can be minimized by awareness, but this is something that is easier said than done.


I'm sorry, I cannot accept your link as a valid citation for the risks of homosexuality. It is clearly one of the more anti-gay sites promoting traditional values. There are health risks associated with homosexuality, it is true that gay men cannot donate blood. But you are better of citing credible medical sites, surgeon general studies where the objective focus is health.

We can break down how and why homosexuals, especially gay men became a high risk group for STD and HIV.

What causes STDS
- unprotected sex
- multiple sex
- drug usage
- risky sex under drug use and alcohol

When homosexuality is a "crime" or suppressed in society as a taboo, gay people do not have resources for safe sex.
- since high schools, counselors and non profits are not talking to gay people about the risks and precautions to take
- since marriage, dating and relationships are not socially acceptable options and they may risk being outed, they resort to cruising or sex only relationships
- since many cannot come out, or face a lot of abuse when they come out, many resort to drug and alcohol usage due to depression

When homosexuality is legal and slowly gains social acceptance many of these risks associated with being gay are being minimized and the next generation of gay youth are well aware of sexual risks and try to live healthy sexual lifestyles.

Homosexuals may have a high concentration of STD, but thats just a correlation. Risky sexual behavior is the cause of STD, that is the only scientifically verified causation. Straight men and women who indulge in risky behavior pose the same risks. The high concentration of AIDS in Africa, India, Romania shows that STD risk is mostly due to lack of awareness and resources for safe sex. Of course it is not an overnight fix, it will take generations before the high concentration of STD amidst gay men is minimized to normal and safe levels. However, we ought to stop fixating on the correlations and focus on the causations.
Posted: 12 years ago
Originally posted by Petrouska


 
And no, I don't mean just the act. The act as such could be had for various reasons and as you say, men can have sexual relations with men and still have a wife and he cannot be called "gay".


Yes in that case he is a bisexual or a gay in denial.

Prison rape, sexual activity in same sex hostels and similar activities are common, but they are actually not actual homosexuality. In these cases the person is not gay, nor do they experience desire for the same sex. They are people experiencing sexual desire. Since that sexual desire has been suppressed , they release their sexual desire in same sex relationships. Some people may end up being gay or bisexual due to statistical curves, but a lot are actually straight. They don't find these sexual interactions actually desirable and fulfilling, but just a way of blowing steam. Once the extreme social setting like prison or segregation of sexes has been removed, they phase back to their normal sexual orientation. They never got conditioned to be gay.

In North America there is a whole phenomenon called LUGs or LUMs, lesbian until graduation or marriage. Women who are actually interested in men, but make a choice to be lesbian a part of their life. Many of these are women who want to be sexually active, but not risk pregnancies or be distracted by relationships. Some are actually religious girls who wear promise rings of virginity until marriage, so they engage in lesbian sex because it does not violate the traditional definition of virginity. Then there is the whole slew of experimenting and bicurious men and women, whose sexual curiosity has been sparked by wider acceptance of homosexuality. There is a lot of debate if these people should be classified as LGBT or actually straight or bicurious tendencies are a whole new zone of their own.

I think in the end human sexuality is not black and white as we traditionally believe. We just can't put humans in boxes with labels and arrange them. Even gay, straight or bi does not fit always. Theres so many shades of gray, so many things that don't fit the norms or definitions or explanations. In the end people are just people who want to have sex and someday fall in love with someone.
Posted: 12 years ago
Originally posted by TheUltimate


And who said it would affect the traditional marriages? Not me.

You said "I am ok them calling their union a marriage as long as it is not affecting the "traditional" marriage definition.". Hence you implied it has the potential to affect the traditional marriage definition. It is logically deduced. You did not explicitly state anything. However, your statement about being okay with their union so long that they aren't affecting the traditional marriage definition implicitly states it. So clarify what is it that you implied with your opening post in this thread.
 
Originally posted by TheUltimate


The basic premise of a marriage between a man and a woman is the reproduction - having kids.

It used to be. Reproduction is still a very crucial aspect of marriage, but not necessarily the only one. Often, relationship and love is given more importance than procreation (doesn't mean people don't put value on procreation - it is still and probably would continue remaining one of the crucial reasons why people get married).

Originally posted by TheUltimate


Gay couples cannot have that. Since the purpose of the marriage is having kids and management of heirdom,

Procreation is not "the" purpose of marriage; it is a purpose of it.

Originally posted by TheUltimate


it is going to require heck lot of spinning on the gay community's part to redefine the marriage.

Er, it's not just the gay community's part to redefine marriage - straight people too take this route. Traditional definition of marriage ('one man, one woman) does go against any new one, but we have done away with a lot of traditional views that are discriminatory and unjust.

Originally posted by TheUltimate


Again - why must it be called a marriage is the question.

Because they (the LGBT community) deserves equal rights. And a civil union is not the same as a marriage despite of what contrary sources may claim. As Aristotle said, "The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal."
Posted: 12 years ago
Ugh, the 'Spamming is not allowed' garbage again. ðŸ¥± Why can't IF fix this problem? It has been bugging members for over three years I think.

Originally posted by Petrouska


Most people don't turn homosexul, but are born that way either due to a variation in the hypothalamus or a gene passed on from father to son. Psycologists, in addition to these factors also consider environment to play a crucial role. I have posted the excerpt from Wikipedia that is in accordance with my earlier post and I posted a few other links as well which say much about the same thing.

Yes, I did mention about environmental factors playing a role in forming and developing ones sexuality. And when I say sexuality, I mean sexuality, not just limited to homosexuality.

Originally posted by Petrouska


It is what I have understood and correct me if I'm wrong😛. I'm no expert in homosexuality and if I have any misconception, more than willing to get it cleared😳 The part about childhood trauma seemed a possibility to me and thought besides the genetic reason, this could be a possibility as well😕

To the best of my knowledge, you haven't got it all that wrong. I just wanted to point out that environmental factors playing a role still would not make it a choice that one can 'turn' into when wished. And that sexuality goes well beyond the physical act of sex.
 
Originally posted by Petrouska


And no, I don't mean just the act. The act as such could be had for various reasons and as you say, men can have sexual relations with men and still have a wife and he cannot be called "gay".

Yes, depending on one's orientation (that is, the awareness of gender identity and sexual thoughts), he should be labelled (if we are grouping people based on their sexuality) accordingly.
 
Originally posted by Petrouska


I'm afraid I don't have any proof in the form of links to support my statement about Saudi Arabia. I read it in a book. It's called the Daughters of Arabia.
I'm searching for internet proof though, and the moment I find anything that supports or negates my statement, I shall definately post it😊

Okay.
Edited by Beyond_the_Veil - 12 years ago
Posted: 12 years ago
Ok, Beyond_the_Veil, to save space, I am not quoting you.

My initial response means what it says - as long as I, my kids or any other married or unmarried heterosexual does not have to adhere to new standards, I am ok with gays calling their union anything. It does make me wonder though.. why do they want to make themselves adhere to the existing (traditional) definition of marriage - except one man and one woman part. Makes you think traditional marriage definition must be ultimate standard for them.

I am not sure why are you saying that the (yes the) purpose of any marriage is not having kids. Granted, practically speaking, the purpose might have become a purpose. So just because we have already introduced variation or appendix to marriage, why not have one more? Is that waht are you saying?
Where does it end then? Why restrict marriage between two humans?

You have got to understand that for any new idea to be fruitful which is in stark contradiction to the existing idea, a group has to put up a good case. I do not see it enough from the gay community. What I see is that they want the government to get involved in this.. Annoys me as they are bringing church to the state.
Posted: 12 years ago
Wow, great discussion guys!  Kudos for everyone on making this topic a hot debate.
 
😃

Related Topics

doc-text Topics pencil Author stackexchange Replies eye Views clock Last Post Reply
MT Brown People v/s White People

pencil carisma2   stackexchange 77   eye 5178

carisma2 77 5178 5 months ago Jaitreya23
Debate Mansion Chit Chat Corner #1

pencil carisma2   stackexchange 4   eye 1683

carisma2 4 1683 2 months ago K.Universe.
Debate Mansion: Revised/ Updated Rules- Must Check

pencil mnx12   stackexchange 1   eye 26487

mnx12 1 26487 6 months ago mnx12
22 Innocent people Shot dead in Maine, USA

pencil Nishnesh   stackexchange 1   eye 1729

Nishnesh 1 1729 5 months ago Funtuss
Why Men are better than Women

pencil PardesiBabu   stackexchange 88   eye 8038

PardesiBabu 88 8038 4 months ago firewings_diya

Topic Info

40 Participants 259 Replies 35074Views

Topic started by WhipCreamPantie

Last replied by nishabee

loader
loader
up-open TOP