The_Chameleon
Grandmaster
Disclaimer: The views and opinions in this thread are those of the presenter(s) and not necessarily shared by General Forums staff, advertisers, or contributors (or anyone else for that matter). Those not comfortable viewing contrasting opinions on this topic are encouraged to avoid this thread.
I would like to begin by saying that, while I would like to touch on the issue of the perceived morality of homosexuality, I would like to mainly focus on the sociological implications of how homosexuality is viewed and how those views are and have been changing, as well as the physiological causes of homosexuality and the science behind it.
While my opinion of homosexuality is highly unpopular, it is scientifically backed. That being said, I am not specifically anti-gay, any more than I am anti-dyslexic. I make this comparison because it is in my opinion the closest comparison from a physiological point of view. I hold the view that homosexuality results from abnormal brain physiology resulting from interruptions of testosterone to the fetus during specific stages of development. Laboratory technicians have been able to recreate this phenomenon in rats, and brain scans of gay and straight people do in fact show distinct differences in brain physiology. That being said, I can neither hold the view that homosexuality is inherently immoral or wicked, nor something to be celebrated. It is, to me, "sexual dyslexia". Neither something to be feared or hated, nor proud of and glorified. It just simply is.
One of the many reasons my views regarding homosexuality are so unpopular relates to the idea that if indeed it is rooted in a medical condition, it may then be one day treatable or preventable. Understandably people who have built their sense of identity upon a personality defining condition will be outraged at the idea of a "cure". Even if there eventually is a way to prevent babies from being born gay, is it necessarily something that should happen? Studies have also shown that mothers of homosexual men frequently carry a gene that is common among blood lines with large families. That is to say that women with this gene tend to be particularly fertile, but men who inherit this gene tend to be gay. This had led some to speculate that this is a sort of population control gene. With an already overpopulated world, would it be wise to seek out and eliminate what may be a natural mechanism for population control?
Homosexuality has become viewed as something sinful and immoral by many as a result of how some have interpreted specific Biblical scriptures (i.e. Romans 1:18-32). Those same scriptures (which speak against multiple forms of sin) however condemn judgment in the very next breath, stating that such a judgment is reserved for God. Ultimately, whether homosexual or heterosexual, Galations 6:8 still applies. As does James 2:8-10 and Matthew 22:36-40.
A sociological look at the role of homosexuality and how it is viewed in society also reveals some trends on the opposite side of the spectrum. Whilst homosexuality should not, in my view, be condemned, neither should it be celebrated. We do not hold parades for heterosexuals. We do not hold parades for people with blue eyes. Holding up this lifestyle as something special and glorious is inevitably going to have an impact on social attitudes. In my previous interactions with members of the gay community, I have been demonized and even compared to gay bashers (the type with baseball bats, not keyboards). If these interactions are any example, it seems that if one is not pro-gay, they are labeled anti-gay. Whilst I personally am not driven by social acceptance, I feel I am in the minority. (Perhaps I should have my own parade
). Subsequently, it appears that homosexuality in some circles isn't only being accepted, it is becoming 'trendy'. Children are biologically programmed to adapt and conform to what they think is social normalcy. If they grow up in a society that glorifies homosexuality as a preferred lifestyle, a greater portion of those children will adopt that lifestyle in order to be socially acceptable. Perhaps this is part of the same natural process for human population control. Perhaps gay is better. I suppose I'll never know.
- Chameleon
I would like to begin by saying that, while I would like to touch on the issue of the perceived morality of homosexuality, I would like to mainly focus on the sociological implications of how homosexuality is viewed and how those views are and have been changing, as well as the physiological causes of homosexuality and the science behind it.
While my opinion of homosexuality is highly unpopular, it is scientifically backed. That being said, I am not specifically anti-gay, any more than I am anti-dyslexic. I make this comparison because it is in my opinion the closest comparison from a physiological point of view. I hold the view that homosexuality results from abnormal brain physiology resulting from interruptions of testosterone to the fetus during specific stages of development. Laboratory technicians have been able to recreate this phenomenon in rats, and brain scans of gay and straight people do in fact show distinct differences in brain physiology. That being said, I can neither hold the view that homosexuality is inherently immoral or wicked, nor something to be celebrated. It is, to me, "sexual dyslexia". Neither something to be feared or hated, nor proud of and glorified. It just simply is.
One of the many reasons my views regarding homosexuality are so unpopular relates to the idea that if indeed it is rooted in a medical condition, it may then be one day treatable or preventable. Understandably people who have built their sense of identity upon a personality defining condition will be outraged at the idea of a "cure". Even if there eventually is a way to prevent babies from being born gay, is it necessarily something that should happen? Studies have also shown that mothers of homosexual men frequently carry a gene that is common among blood lines with large families. That is to say that women with this gene tend to be particularly fertile, but men who inherit this gene tend to be gay. This had led some to speculate that this is a sort of population control gene. With an already overpopulated world, would it be wise to seek out and eliminate what may be a natural mechanism for population control?
Homosexuality has become viewed as something sinful and immoral by many as a result of how some have interpreted specific Biblical scriptures (i.e. Romans 1:18-32). Those same scriptures (which speak against multiple forms of sin) however condemn judgment in the very next breath, stating that such a judgment is reserved for God. Ultimately, whether homosexual or heterosexual, Galations 6:8 still applies. As does James 2:8-10 and Matthew 22:36-40.
A sociological look at the role of homosexuality and how it is viewed in society also reveals some trends on the opposite side of the spectrum. Whilst homosexuality should not, in my view, be condemned, neither should it be celebrated. We do not hold parades for heterosexuals. We do not hold parades for people with blue eyes. Holding up this lifestyle as something special and glorious is inevitably going to have an impact on social attitudes. In my previous interactions with members of the gay community, I have been demonized and even compared to gay bashers (the type with baseball bats, not keyboards). If these interactions are any example, it seems that if one is not pro-gay, they are labeled anti-gay. Whilst I personally am not driven by social acceptance, I feel I am in the minority. (Perhaps I should have my own parade
). Subsequently, it appears that homosexuality in some circles isn't only being accepted, it is becoming 'trendy'. Children are biologically programmed to adapt and conform to what they think is social normalcy. If they grow up in a society that glorifies homosexuality as a preferred lifestyle, a greater portion of those children will adopt that lifestyle in order to be socially acceptable. Perhaps this is part of the same natural process for human population control. Perhaps gay is better. I suppose I'll never know.- Chameleon
