So, let's discuss our views on homosexuality...

[goru]

First off, I'm not sure if the mods/admins have a problem with discussing this topic with minors around, so I'd suggest keeping it "clean" (although, I myself don't have a problem with bringing anything into the discussion).

So, what are your views on homosexuality? Do you believe homosexuals are "unnatural" people? Do you think they are likely to go to "hell"? Do you believe that a man cannot fall in love with a man and a woman cannot fall in love with a woman? And if you do believe that such love is possible, then why do you feel it's different from man-woman love? Are your views based on rational reasoning and/or religious beliefs? If rational reasoning (i.e. not because "God told me so", however if God has provided you with rational reasons, we can discuss them), please do state what they are.

[Anher]

Disgusting!

[Zunaid]

I point you to this ooooooooooooooooooooooooold SCB discussion.

Yes, as Razab indicated earlier, I have gotten lazy in my old age - rather than rewriting just pointing to stuff on which I had already expostulated. At least, I am not a flip-flopper.

[Ajfar]

i ain't got no problem with them..i just ignore em...as long no one bothers me i'm finee...

[al Furqaan]

good thread. i hope we can keep it sensible - though by its very nature, it cannot be very clean...

Originally Posted by goru
Do you believe homosexuals are "unnatural" people?

many points here:

1) based purely on numbers (you wanted a rational explanation) it is not a natural state. estimates of the population of gays/lesbians range from 1% - 15 %. lets suppose its 10 %. that means that out of 10 humans born only one is gay. there is a higher incidence of crime rate amongst african american males. it does not mean that committing crime is natural for african americans. it is very much unnatural. the fact that gays form such a small fraction of the community indicates that is is not the norm, regardless of whether its a genetic thing or a chosen lifestyle.

2) the argument that bonobos and other animals engage in homosexual behaviour is not very clever.

the female black widow spider kills her "husband" after mating, hence the name. however when this occurs in the human world, it is very much unnatural, and usually constitues a felony crime.

3) as an evolutionist, one should clearly see the contradiction between evolutionary claims and homosexuality. in the absense of God and sole presence of evolutionary principles, the sole purpose of life is to pass on one's own genetic material. i.e DNA.

this is inherently impossible in a purely homosexual setting at least for humans.

if the drive to reproduce, thereby causing genetic variability inside a population is the basis for "survival of the fittest", it automatically rends homosexuality as a non-productive, counter-evolutionary practice. if evolution is law, homosexuality must necessarily be pointless.

the athiestic huminist homophile will simaltaneously play both sides of the field. futile, abject and self-refuting if you ask me.

Do you think they are likely to go to "hell"?

yes. given that i believe it is completely a conscious decision by people to become gay/lesbian. people can go to hell for far lesser offenses, should they not repent.

and repentance is open to all no matter what sin you've committed.

Do you believe that a man cannot fall in love with a man and a woman cannot fall in love with a woman?

utterly impossible. judging by the fact that most heterosexual men and women only ever fall in love with one person in the entire lives, it basically renders homosexual love impossible.

it might be a feeling of companionship, admiration, or rebelliousness which homosexuals are made to believe is love.

And if you do believe that such love is possible, then why do you feel it's different from man-woman love? Are your views based on rational reasoning and/or religious beliefs? If rational reasoning (i.e. not because "God told me so", however if God has provided you with rational reasons, we can discuss them), please do state what they are.

its quite evident that homosexuality is a learned/aquired/conscious behavior very unlike hetersexuality.

a few points:

1) should homosexuality really be a congenital condition (that is, something your born as, similar to being Bangali) then how come scientists haven't located the "gay gene"? if such a gene exists and has been found, how many map units is it from the nearest other gene?

the human genome has been around for a while, and many genes identified and isolated. where is the gay gene? is there any evidence to believe it is a congenital thing?

2) the fact that many homosexuals engage in seemingly normal heterosexual relationships (oscar wilde, john wayne gacy, et al) is the biggest proof of gay behavior being conscious and intentional.

most of our readers are hetero (in fact, all people are born hetero). so if you are hetero, imagine engaging in reproductive activity (hope this is G rated enough) with a member of the same gender. pretty disgusting isn't it?

in fact, i'd be willing to bet any number of money that all hetero men would find it impossible to be aroused by another man even if their life depended on it. or their mother's life. in such a case, i would want to be aroused! but i doubt highly it would happen.

so shouldn't this be the same for a gay person who is an heterosexual relationship? yet there are countless gay men who have fathered children.

3) the only basis for accepting that gays are born that way is the "testimony" of gays themselves. which from the athiest humanist's mouth is hypocracy of the utmost kind. religion is false because it created by humans, yet the issue of whether homo behavior is inborn or learned is absolute fact because it is spoken by humans. they very humans who are homosexual and have every reason to testify in the manner they do. futile, abject, and self-refuting.

*************************

my property tax has just sky-rocketed to record amounts on account of my recent ownership of the homophilic argument.

[Orpheus]

1) your analogy makes no sense. Also because there is a consistency in the percentage of homosexuals (10%) throughout, it only means homosexuality is just part of normal distribution. Moreover, your assumption that crimes can not be genetic may also be wrong because there is a high correlation between crimes and men with xyy.

3) Evolution does not have a goal, it is due to changes via random mutations. Those that are able to survive will pass on their genes. It does not mean that those who can't or won't pass on their genes will not be born.

ur few points:
1) Homosexuality is probably multifactorial, just like diabetes or hypertension, and not mendelian. Hence there need not be any particular "gay gene".
2) Sigmund Freud answered that...in short, we are sexually attracted to everyone and I mean everyone but certain inhibition is developed as we grow up.
3) even if it (gayness) is created by human just like religion is created, then you do not have the rights to be intolerant of gays just like you don't have the rights to be intolerant of other's religion.

My opinion on this thread:
I dislike ANY show of public affection from any sexual orientation. It is, however, none of my business what two agreeing adults do behind doors.

[al Furqaan]

1) your analogy makes no sense. Also because there is a consistency in the percentage of homosexuals (10%) throughout, it only means homosexuality is just part of normal distribution. Moreover, your assumption that crimes can not be genetic may also be wrong because there is a high correlation between crimes and men with xyy.

yes ok. but being homosexual is well beyond 1 standard deviation from the "mean" on said normal distribution. it is quite a rare occurence. anything in the minority is "unusual".

how common are xyy men? are they even close to being even 10 % of the total male population?

the abnormaility of being xyy in this case causes the abnormality to being pathological criminals.

3) Evolution does not have a goal, it is due to changes via random mutations. Those that are able to survive will pass on their genes. It does not mean that those who can't or won't pass on their genes will not be born

.

the goal of life, based on purely evolutionary theory, is to spread the individual's seed as far as possible. homos do not display this, thus they cannot exist as genetic creations. the unfit people you are talking about CANNOT pass on their genes. homesexuals choose not to pass on their genes but are physcially capable.

1) Homosexuality is probably multifactorial, just like diabetes or hypertension, and not mendelian. Hence there need not be any particular "gay gene".

plausible. except that homosexuality is definitely a learned behavior and not an innate characteristic.

2) Sigmund Freud answered that...in short, we are sexually attracted to everyone and I mean everyone but certain inhibition is developed as we grow up.

this is ridiculous. plus the fact that most, if not all, psychologists agree that freud's work, while interesting, is mostly subjective psycho-babble. thats why freud is basically not the authority anymore, despite being the best known psychoanalyst.

3) even if it (gayness) is created by human just like religion is created, then you do not have the rights to be intolerant of gays just like you don't have the rights to be intolerant of other's religion.

true which is why i haven't mentioned anything about being intolerant towards gays.

[AsifTheManRahman]

I don't have any problems with homosexuality or homosexuals; neither do I see why us heteros would have to treat them any different from another hetero.

I have my own preferences/principles about various issues, but I'm not very eager about imposing them on others, or criticizing the way other people act or behave. This applies to religion, sexual preference, traditions and culture, but not to hypocrisy, racism, adultery or perversion (in the sexual sense). I have a few homosexual friends and we get along well.

In a nut shell, if you don't mess with my beliefs, I don't mess with yours.

I am actually glad that this thread was opened - it will be interesting to read people's views on this. I am also interested to read about people's views on racism and interracial relationships, but unfortunately the message board is a place where things can get dirty pretty fast, so unless people are willing to be civil, there's not much of a point opening threads on those issues.

PS: To answer the other questions in the opening post, I do believe that attraction toward a member of the same sex is possible, and the main difference between that and heterosexual relationships lies in the methods of mating in the two kinds. Whether they will go to hell is not for me to decide. For all I know, a heterosexual could be guilty of adultery.

[AsifTheManRahman]

Now in a lighter vein, I believe that, on average, all men are 2% gay and all women 20% lesbian.

[al Furqaan]

we need to have two seperate threads on this: one serious one and the other the jestful one.

continuing ATMR's perversion of this serious thread into one of jocularity, i quote Dave Chappelle:

"gay men are gross, i'm sorry i just find it to be gross. however i like lesbians. i really like lesbians"

[ialbd]

Homosexuality is a form of physical disability and thats how I view it. So do I hate disableds? of course not....

[Orpheus]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
but being homosexual is well beyond 1 standard deviation from the "mean" on said normal distribution. it is quite a rare occurence. anything in the minority is "unusual".

rare - yes... unnatural - NO. If you look at the intelligence Gaussian distribution, people with very high intelligence DO exists regardless of how rare it is. So why are you coming up with with this "usual" "unnatural" argument about homosexuals is beyond my comprehension.

the unfit people you are talking about CANNOT pass on their genes.

If evolution can produce EVEN unfit people, surely they can produce gays. That was the point... No goal... your initial argument was why would evolution create a bunch of people who will not pass on their genes.

plausible. except that homosexuality is definitely a learned behavior and not an innate characteristic.

No offense Al-Furqan but you have a college degree. I expect better factual arguments.

this is ridiculous.

maybe.

[Orpheus]

Originally Posted by AsifTheManRahman
Now in a lighter vein, I believe that, on average, all men are 2% gay and all women 20% lesbian.

I think this is the most deepest thing you have said in your 10+ posts.

[goru]

A question for heterosexual males who think being "gay" (or, for the matter, being "straight") is a conscious decision and a choice...

(keeping it clean)

When presented with the proper visual stimulus, do you make a conscious decision to have an erection? No? Well, neither do gay men, presented with their kind of stimulus. Of course, we have to take their word for it... but they have to take our word for it too!

Please understand that while a lot of us find homosexual acts "disgusting" ... a lot of homosexuals find heterosexual acts "disgusting" and just cannot fathom how such acts could be "enjoyable" ... a lot of homosexual men are simply repulsed by the sight of female genitals.


Also, I want to keep this clear: As thread-starter, I do not wish this thread to be about whether you are tolerant or intolerant of homosexuals. It's about discussing rational reasons for homosexuality being "wrong" ... to draw an analogy, if this was a topic about race, the question is not whether you tolerate people of other races (i.e. would you live near them or be friends with them) but whether you can present rational reasons for thinking there's something wrong with people of other races (well, I know this is not a perfect analogy, but I hope you get my point).


-----

On a lighter note... is it just me or do a lot of people find it amusing how a lot of (if not all) heterosexual males are interested in lesbian pr0n but are completely repulsed by male gay pr0n? And, I know some people are not likely to believe this, but quite a lot of heterosexual females I've encountered actually dig male gay pr0n...

[Orpheus]

where can I meet those females? aar goru bhai, just boila felo.. closet thika baair hoiya jao.. al-furqan tomare gali dite paare, kintu ami dimu na... ami shudhu laththi marum ekta :p

[goru]

Originally Posted by ialbd
Homosexuality is a form of physical disability and thats how I view it. So do I hate disableds? of course not....

To quote the title of the first part of a 2-part South park episode:

"Do the handicapped go to hell?"







And in case you are curious, the second part was titled "Probably" ...

[Orpheus]

I have a few homosexual friends and we get along well.

By ASIF THE MAN

[AsifTheManRahman]

Originally Posted by Orpheus
ami shudhu laththi marum ekta :p

True to the Bangladeshi spirit. Rastar moddhe kauke maar khete dekhle nije giye 2 ta laathi mere ashte iccha kore. I attribute this tendency to the high unemployment rate in the country.

[goru]

Originally Posted by Orpheus
where can I meet those females?

Well, they are usually the "faghags" (google it) ... not sure if you'd be interested in them.

Originally Posted by Orpheus
aar goru bhai, just boila felo.. closet thika baair hoiya jao.. al-furqan tomare gali dite paare, kintu ami dimu na... ami shudhu laththi marum ekta :p

Seriously.... if I was gay it would probably solve a lot of my current problems (well not to make light of the problems faced by homosexuals living in intolerant communities, of course). But unfortunately I'm not even close to being metrosexual.

[al Furqaan]

Please understand that while a lot of us find homosexual acts "disgusting" ... a lot of homosexuals find heterosexual acts "disgusting" and just cannot fathom how such acts could be "enjoyable" ... a lot of homosexual men are simply repulsed by the sight of female genitals.

maybe. but here is the problem i have with this explanation.

MANY gay men have had been married to women, had relations with them and had children. two examlples of the top of my head are oscar wilde and john wayne gacy (gacy claimed bisexual tho).

so it is factual that many, if not all, gay men can indeed become aroused enough to mate with females. in fact most men probably can. which means that they are NOT disgusted by female genitalia. and hetero men are not repulsed by male genatalia. i have no problems with mine. the are repulsed by the thought of doing it with another guy. something which does not happen for many, if not all, gays.

but there are zero hetersexuals who could do the same thing with men. at least not without first vomitting all over their "mate" first. and even then not.

[AsifTheManRahman]

Well if you've been married to a woman, then technically you can't be homosexual - you'd have to be bisexual; unless of course you've had a hormonal change that has led to you choosing the queer orientation over the more usual one. Is that even possible?

[goru]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
MANY gay men have had been married to women, had relations with them and had children. two examlples of the top of my head are oscar wilde and john wayne gacy (gacy claimed bisexual tho).

so it is factual that many, if not all, gay men can indeed become aroused enough to mate with females.

Some "gay" men, yes. However, some would say (if they are indeed aroused by women) that they are not "purely gay" or that they are "bisexual"...

Personally, I think most people can be aroused by anything... some are more aroused by something rather than other things. I think labels such as "straight", "gay", "bisexual" are mostly misleading.

It's not always about purely visual stimulus anyway. I remember a recent thing where they promised a straight guy some "oral" pleasure and blindfolded him and had some gay guy give him you-know-what, while the guy was told that it was a girl who was doing it. He did not respond any differently. I'm pretty sure this could work in inverse for "gay" men married to women.

Heck, forget the sex of your partner... some men actually think of some other women (and maybe men) while they are "doing it" with their wives.

If we are talking about non-visual stimulus, my thought is that most people can be "turned on" by almost any kind of physical stimulus, regardless of the gender of the person they are with, and especially if they don't know the person's gender or how attractive they are. However, for visual stimulus, some people simply find the same gender more attractive than the opposite gender... just like straight males are attracted to different types of women (as in some prefer blonds, some prefer brunettes... some prefer skinny, some prefer meaty, etc.)

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
in fact most men probably can. which means that they are NOT disgusted by female genitalia. and hetero men are not repulsed by male genatalia. i have no problems with mine.

Actually, to be fair, I think most people (straight or gay) would agree that the male genitalia is far more "aesthetic" (for the lack of a better word) than female genitalia ("axe wound" and all that). I guess I didn't really say something relevant to the topic, so forget it.

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
but there are zero hetersexuals who could do the same thing with men. at least not without first vomitting all over their "mate" first. and even then not.

And I suppose you believe that the things that happen in prisons (see "Shawshank Redemption") are all done by purely homosexual males?

[RazabQ]

আমার দুই পয়্সা ...

I believe that we are all born with varying degrees of gay tendencies. I have a male friend who loves shopping. I can pick up if a girl makes subtle hairstyle changes. I know a loving wife and mother of two who gets super excited about power tools. We all know way too many guys with effeminate mannerisms who are as straight as they come. So to borrow from Big Diesel - biological do matter.

However simply being born with some inherent "gay" traits does not a homosexual person make. A significant contributor has to be nurture. I'm too lazy to look up the various websites but Greek society such as Sparta encouraged homosexual behavior amongst its soldiers, and even modern Greeks probably have some of the most tolerant attitudes regarding. Also something about absence of a male or female parental figure for the female and male child causes greater likelihood of same-sex liking comes to mind.

Along with that nurture part, the 3rd piece would have to be personal choice. The few bisexual people I know (I live in SF area) all admit that they got into it just because they thought "why not". The same was the case of quite a few of the lesbians who I encountered in the Smith/MHC college area.

So from a rational argument pov I think individuals have _some_ control on their sexual orientation but the alternative lifestyle is definitely not a 100% matter of choice.

Anyway, all of the above is immaterial in US society. Now from an Islamic perspective, homosexual acts are clearly immoral and that is why I wouldn't engage in it. However it is not for me to judge those who indulge in it. Our maker knows and sees all and HE will adjudicate on those matters. As long as a certain lifestyle is not imposed on me - I don't care.

[goru]

Originally Posted by AsifTheManRahman
Well if you've been married to a woman, then technically you can't be homosexual - you'd have to be bisexual; unless of course you've had a hormonal change that has led to you choosing the queer orientation over the more usual one. Is that even possible?

Does marriage actually have any real correlation with sexuality? Heck, in our society (the subcontinent, as well as other places), it often doesn't have anything to do with romance or attraction either.

[Orpheus]

man so many gays are coming out in this thread...