• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Divisive The true nature of homosexuality

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 :p). 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
 

Hilander

Free Spirit
Staff member
V.I.P.
I pretty much think that homosexuality is caused by a birth defect. Maybe there is a few out there that chose to be homosexual but I think the vast majority it is a birth defect. I also don't think anyone should be down on homosexuals any more than they are with someone with downs syndrome.

While you would feel sorry for someone with other birth defects I don't see why you should with someone that is born a homosexual. They just need people to accept them for what they are. They are not asking anyone to live their lifestyle. They are intelligent people capable of taking care of themselves. Just don't get in their way of doing so.
 

The_Chameleon

Grandmaster
I pretty much think that homosexuality is caused by a birth defect. Maybe there is a few out there that chose to be homosexual but I think the vast majority it is a birth defect. I also don't think anyone should be down on homosexuals any more than they are with someone with downs syndrome.

While you would feel sorry for someone with other birth defects I don't see why you should with someone that is born a homosexual. They just need people to accept them for what they are. They are not asking anyone to live their lifestyle. They are intelligent people capable of taking care of themselves. Just don't get in their way of doing so.
Who's to say it is a "defect"? Perhaps, as suggested in the OP, it is part of a greater natural biological process. There are fewer people in the world with blue eyes than with green, but does that mean people with blue eyes are suffering from a defect? Should they be compared to folks with downs syndrome? What color are your eyes? :lol:


... If it seems like I am picking on you, well I am a bit, but it's not personal, just opportunistic. :) I like to share the hotseat when there's a lack of opposition so I can fill in for the opposition. What this conversation needs IMHO is a very defensive gay person like the fellow I was confronted by when I posted this topic a long time ago. :)




- Chameleon
 

Hilander

Free Spirit
Staff member
V.I.P.
Now when I say its caused by a birth defect I'm not saying you should feel sorry for them like you would for someone born without arms or something like that. They are healthy people and happy as long as someone doesn't give them a hard way to go over their lifestyle.

As far as these gay pride parades I think they are ridiculous. If you want people to stop defining you because of your sexuality don't define yourself because of it.

My motto is live and let live as long as someones choices aren't hurting others.

Even people with no birth defects are going to have different color eyes.
 

The_Chameleon

Grandmaster
The thing here is that this particular configuration of brain physiology affects a very personal aspect of a persons psyche. I mean, having the sexual instincts of the opposite gender is big. It completely changes who you are and how your life will unfold compared to what is generally considered "normal". Like other minorities, gays have taken a lot of crap over the decades from folks who saw them as immoral or mentally ill. There was a time when they would lock up gay people in mental institutions, and bear in mind that this was the age of shock therapy, lobotomies, and other such barbaric methods. Gays have been Bible thumped to death by the church, beaten on the streets, and painted as monsters. All this has been in an attempt to make them feel ashamed of being gay, and it has worked. Gay folks are many more times as likely to commit suicide than straights.


With this in mind, it's understandable that the gays would want to go to the opposite extreme, but is that the answer? Should we now applaud what we once condemned? Should we now give special privileges to make up for past wrongs? Perhaps, but I don't think so. People are extremist by nature. They will go from extreme intolerance to tolerating extremes. I don't think the answer lies in parades and putting once oppressed demographics up on a pedestal. I think the answer lies in education, not glorification, and in love, not tolerance. I don't like or hate someone because they are gay or straight, but because of the sort of person they are outside of the bedroom. As long as nobody gets hurt, I couldn't care less what happens inside, and in the case of gays I don't want to know. I don't think these parades and ceremonies send the right message. The right message should come from the ordinary people that gay people meet and interact with on a day to day basis. The right message shouldn't be "it's great that you're gay." or "you should be proud", the right message should be "It doesn't matter to me that you're gay, it makes no difference to me". Let us emphasize not how we are different, but how we are alike.



- Chameleon
 

Sim

Registered Member
Many people are born with traits that are rare or unique, that put him in a minority. It is only a "defect" when it causes severe disadvantages for the person in question and/or its environment. There are people born of dyslexia, which is a small disadvantage -- but not one that cannot be easily compensated, and not one that justified attacking that person and singling him out. Some people are born with a 6th finger on each hand, or with two fingers fused into one, and that is neither an advantage nor disadvantage.

Red hair and green eyes is technically a "defect" too, because it's the result of one gene responsible for pigmentation is not working properly. But except that red-haired green-eyed people are more likely to get a sunburn, it's no disadvantage.

Homosexuality is no disadvantage, except that homosexual people have to endure a lot of haressment, looking down on them and attacks from rude, disrespectful and small-minded people. The disadvantage due to homosexuality is not due to the condition itself, it's because of other people and how they react on it.

Besides, I don't think homosexuality is an either/or thing. Most people have a certain share of homosexual feelings too, just that their heterosexual feelings are stronger.

On top of that, there is culture and costums, about what is considered "gay" and what is not. For example, holding hands between males is not considered "gay" in many cultures, even in cultures that are very anti-gay. You'll often see guys holding hands in some Muslim countries, for example. And in Europe in medieval times, "brotherly love" between males, a very intimate sharing of feelings and even sharing a bed for warmth, was a common thing too. Though in the West today, many people would consider such behavior an indication of homosexuality. In some cultures, raping other males is considered a means of expressing dominance, and only the receiving side is considered "gay", not the penetrating side.

Regardless of the causes for homosexuality, and regardless of what we ourselves think of it in moral terms, it is a human duty to treat homosexuals with respect, like anybody else.
 
Last edited:

The_Chameleon

Grandmaster
Does ANYBODY really buy the whole raping for "dominance" story? ... Yeah... Rrrrright. It's the OTHER guy who's gay... Suuuuure. I think it's stuff like this that contributes to homophobia in other cultures. That and pedophilia among Catholic priests. The stereotypes don't just arise out of the blue. But it's a matter of keeping things in context. There are straights who are every bit as sick.



- Cham
 
Top