Gay Rights

I am focusing on history. I am saying that not many people would know about homosexuals back then, it is true. I am not saying if someone is being accepted or not.

 

Well, if homosexuality etc. are ways your brain is wired, of course homosexuals would know they were so. But if you're talking about general masses, then... probably. I feel like it's how being a prostitute would be (read the rest, don't jump to conclusions xD): if you tell someone you are a prostitute, a lot of people would be like... uh... ew... that's disgusting/why would you even like that job/etc (I guess?). Similar to how if you told someone back then "I like to sleep with (insert same sex)", then I'd think they would also be repulsed because they thought it was unnatural. If this were the case, they would keep their mouths shut about it, and maybe not realize it was a brain-wiring thing.
And going along with the same analogy, a lot of people would be unfamiliar with what a prostitute was (in normal cases, young children). If they didn't have an official diagnosis back then, then a lot of people would just find the act/urge unnatural if someone told them about it, but didn't really /know/ about it.

Ramblings. Hopefully a bit of that made sense.

 

I think that this is an important point, and that just because somebody's initial reaction is like "um... k..." it doesn't necessarily mean that they don't like Gays or are homophobic, but that it's something that a lot of people are... I guess, unexposed to. I think that younger and younger poeple will become more and more accepting to it, because they will have been exposed to it for more of their lives (myself included).

 

Yeah I agree. Just like how previous generations are more homophobic/rascist than the current

 

Every person should be respected who they are, gay, or not. Respect should be treated.

 

I've never been able to comprehend why someone would have something against homosexuality. To me it seemed completely normal, and I'd never understood what was 'disgusting' about it. I think, for people who cannot comprehend the concept of homophobia, you must picture something else in the place of homosexuality. Something that's always disturbed me is pedophilia, and I'm sure it's weird to many others. The thing is, being a pedophile is not something you can help. It is a problem that you are born with. Though I understand this, I can't help but feel discomfort at the mention of the concept. I'm trying to understand where others are coming from on being against gay rights, but I would never dehumanize someone for the way they were born.

 

I can't believe this thread is still going over a year! Crazy!

Ok to the substance.

A recycled talking point by bigots is "if homosexuality is legal, why isnt pedophilia? isnt it just one more step?"

Thoughts of pedophilia are technically not illegal, but acting out pedophilia is. It's illigal because one person in the relationship cannot LEGALLY consent to a sexual relationship. That's it. Pedophilia is disgusting and rips the life from the unable-to-consent minor, where as homosexuality is two adults in a relationship that isn't based on manipulation, deception, and delusional crazy. The only reason people compare the two is because they think "disgusting" applies to both homosexuality and pedophilia, however its only a hate-learned opinion, and has no bearing on the legality of either.

This is what completely dismantles any "legal" argument over de-criminalizing pedophilia, and dismantles any "comparative" argument between homosexuality and forms of pedophilia (including ephebophilia, etc.)

On a personal note:

My uncle commited suicide by jumping off of the Golden Gate Bridge, right around the time I was born. It's mostly thought in my family that he was struggling with how society would react to him being gay (my family included). My grandpa was not a bigot by any means, but possibly was not as open and accepting as other people could have been back then... which could have been a factor in my Uncle's desicion.

The point is, the journey for acceptance for who you are shouldn't be a factor in ending your life or anyone's life. It's up to bigots to not re-teach illogical hate for homosexuals, and its up to the rest of us to keep our heads high, proud of who you are, and ready to face those who want to see you fail. This type of hate will disperse eventually, unlike other hate-like trends.

--- Double Post Merged, May 31, 2015, Original Post Date: May 31, 2015 ---

Marriage isn't a "religious" thing. It predates mainstream religions, and most certainly yours.
And as of right now, your marriage is for the state. Anything else is a personal belief.
http://www.livescience.com/37777-history-of-marriage.html

--- Double Post Merged, May 31, 2015 ---

"defying our role in nature god"
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, DESPITE whether or not a god/creator exists or doesn't exist.

Homosexuality exists in other species besides humans (and also exists in non mammals)... you need to do some research on this subject first.

Also, re-check your history.
http://www.livescience.com/37777-history-of-marriage.html

--- Double Post Merged, May 31, 2015 ---

I obviously agree with equal rights for everyone.... but...

Marriage isn't a "religious" event. Its for the STATE. Anything else is just your personally held belief.
Marriage isn't decided by "religious" people, marriage pre dates your religion and other mainstream religions.
I would do some reseach on what marriage is, and was, before continuing to say its a "religious thing" and should be decided by "religious people".

 

being gay is natural, marriage should be defined as the union of two people

religion has no place in determining state affairs

religious marriage != state marriage

 

Arif=the best best

 

Mini bump, because I want some opinions.

My friend told me off for saying that my respect for my teacher has plummetted when I found out he was a strong anti-gay advocate (he's religious, and says it's a sin and all that). She told me that I was doing the same thing as him; that I was judging someone without knowing them. I replied with "I'm not judging him based on his faith, I'm judging him based on the fact that he uses his faith as an excuse to discriminate against people and deny them their base rights." He was a Senator in Parliament (Australian), and while there he wasn't just an anti-same sex marriage advocate, he was anti-gay people in general - a very strong Christian (Anglican).

Who was right/wrong in this scenario? Me, my friend, or my teacher? I feel it was partly me for judging him, but I cannot find it in myself to respect someone who discriminates against someone based on their sexual orientation/skin colour etc.

 

There is nothing wrong with being gay. If people want to be gay, Let them. It's there choice to be gay or not. You can't boss people around and say. "oh your not allowed to marry this person because you the same gender." That is just horrible..

 

* it's not a choice, unless you chose to be straight, in which case can you also chose to be unhappy and be forced to fall in love with someone the same gendar as you and thus be unhappy as many LGBT people are?

 

You were in the right. Unlike gay people, your teacher made a choice about the trait you are judging him on.

 

Your friend doesn't know how actual logic worx. The idea of "judging" in this scenerio is being tossed around with different meanings and under different contexts.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 5, 2015, Original Post Date: Jun 5, 2015 ---

Its not a choice. There isn't a single non-straight person who would say otherwise.

 

Well, isn't marriage a religious thing but civil union a state thing? I may be wrong but I thought they were different.

 

If that were the case, we wouldn't have mental illnesses such as down syndrome.
Mutations are a large cause of many diseases etc. If you're arguing that, you must take mutations into account.

 

You just failed at genetics, epigenetics, nature, nurture, and evolution... I guess overall, basic biology.

"I have nothing against gays, and I am not homophobic."
You don't think you do, but your ignorance of biology, (enough to make uneducated arguments), shines a different light on what "homophobic" can be.
Your post is so ignorant, its unbelievable.

Here's a list of just Mammals that are proven to exhibit homosexuality in nature:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
..however if this leads your argument to be "humans are not animals (or mammals for that matter lol)".. well then the argument comes to a screeching halt, because illogic cannot be debated in any rational sense.

With that said, here's the largest study on this subject to date: http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...journals?aid=9625997&fileId=S0033291714002451

The argument that gay people cannot pass genes to a child, therefore its not evolutionary or apart of the proccesses of evolution, shows that the person making the argument has NO IDEA how the processes of evolution actually work... which leads me to the topic of mutations... I've realized that young kids, while maybe understanding some basics of evolution and genetics, do not understand even what a mutation is, or does, or how/why it can/does occur, and what can result from it.

For some reason, people think that evolution is this "mind of its own" process that forsees the future and acts accordingly, which is just plain stupid and ignorant of environmental pressures. (example: people will say "giraffes had nothing to eat, they couldnt reach trees, therefore they evolved long necks to get food << fail argument)

The overall point is: evolution helps species survive, and can also help them die.

Even if you do not accept the scientific theory of evolution, and believe in creation, or anything for that matter, you would still have to accept the striking similarities to other animals, us being mammal, and the very observance of homosexuality in other species.
The facts are as clear as that.

And then of course, you could contuct a survey of humans who consider themselves gay, trans, etc, and ASK them if they made a conscious choice to be not straight... which would give you the very answer I've laid out here. It's never been a choice for anyone.

But for now, I'll assume the post I quoted is a troll anyways.

 

Not at all, but if you made the claim that it cannot be a genetic predisposition. However, you failed to consider mutations, deconstructing your argument in the first place.

 

https://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/cu-vs-marriage.pdf
..and anything else is personal opinion.

 

ahhh. Thanks for clearing that up!