To The Anti Gay Religious

[LuisDantas]

I was also thinking about the mixing of gender traits in the context of ideas about evolution.

From what I have read, intersex is a "disorder" -not a mutation -but other species are considered to be "normally" hermaphroditic, and would have developed as such by evolution if current ideas are correct.
Could such things happen to humans by random mutation?

I can't think of any reason why it could not. They are, after all, random. Just like we might conceivably evolve back into, say, Oviparous beings given enough of a consistent selective pressure and enough generations to mutate into such a role.

If humans are expected to continue to evolve, how do we think it could affect human sexuality -or anything else?

Human beings are certainly not exempt from biological evolution, but that is not really a major consideration; we are simply not very cooperative with it, nor is there a compelling argument why we should try to.

Evolution is all about natural selection of the most adapted. It is not human, certainly not by the moral conceptions of the word.

Maybe you mean to ask whether we are "meant" to evolve in "that direction"? Nope. Nor in any other, really. Evolution isn't a matter of growing in "worth", just of better adapting to environments.

Are we to expect man to eventually become a very different species

If we survive long enough and do not choose to genetically engineer ourselves out of natural evolution, it is a given that we will.

-that man's 'tree' will eventually branch off into many very different species due to evolution?

Barring intentional intervention or dying out of the branches, then yes, that is bound to happen. But it will take quite a few generations for the effects to result in full speciation.

This is actually the first time I have thought about that. When I have considered man's possible futures, I have always thought of man continuing as the current species.

Whoah

I take it that you dislike the idea? There is really not much of an obvious reason to.

I don't actually believe this will happen for a number of reasons, but
it does raise questions of perspective concerning sexuality.
What do we perceive to be abnormal -and what do we perceive to be a process of evolution? Should intersex be prevented if possible -or allowed as a natural evolutionary process if it ever occurred as such?

It seems to me that we have no good biological or ethical reason to oppose the natural development of intersexuality, homosexuality or transexuality. They are simply not issues from a perspective of species survival, which is what evolution is all about.

Also, please notice that much of what we consider ethical is in fact at odds with biological evolution. Evolution does not have a purpose as such, much less a fair or wise one. It is just selective, often in a cruel way.

What might this say about the physiology of people who feel they were "born this way" in the case of homosexuals -or people who feel as if they are one sex in the body of another?

That they are not "meant" to be, not anymore than, say, any given color or amount of hair is. Sexuality is in part genetic, in part hormonal, in part a result of the social environment.

But if there is some sort of meaningful interaction of it with biological evolution, I am just not seeing it.

One might perhaps argue that homosexuality, intersexuality and transexuality are adaptations that improve the social environment by making demographic pressures less serious, but that seems quite speculative and ultimately irrelevant to me - humanity is neither likely nor advised to make a point of "encouraging" adaptability over other, more social and ecological considerations.

Not making any statement here -just thinking

 

[Etritonakin]

I take it that you dislike the idea? There is really not much of an obvious reason to.

Actually -it is fascinating. I saw a show about a man whose brain was "abnormal" in that the part that processed information from the eye was merged with the part that processed mathematics -producing a human super-calculator -or simply a super-human -in that regard.

I love to think about how our abilities and interfaces might be improved.

However, whereas you pointed out the possibility of choosing how we evolve (or whatever one might call it), I believe that how we will "evolve" was already determined by a being/beings which preceded us -not simply by natural process from within, but by modification from without (as we are beginning to do).

I also believe our present form -and whatever processes or combination of processes that caused it were "meant to be".

I do not agree with all ideas about evolution -and definitely do not see it as accidental -it seems very much to have a vector/direction/tendency toward survival, complexity and increased ability which very much indicates intent -at least in my humble view. Something truly random would not be so...... ordered.

If we decided on a certain form and function for ourselves and caused it to be, anything which caused it to be different than that "order" would then be seen as a cause of a "disorder".

It seems you believe such intent and ability began with man -whereas I do not.

 

[LuisDantas]

There does not seem to be anything particularly unique in humans in a biological sense, though.

 

[s2a]

Do you actually know anyone who is gay (personally)?

Yep.

IF so, who?

Who are you to inquire?

Are you anyone important or inpactful in some way?

If not, why not?

See above, then advantage yourself in lending salient reply.

Wouldnt you rather ask homosexuals questions about their lives and sexuality rather than trust the words of straight homophobes who spout outrageous ideas about gay people? Or are you willingly ignorant?

NO, never crossed my mind until you showed up.

Now, I wonder about you. Fair enough?

So, you like little kids, or not?

Unfair to ask?

Hmmmm...I do wonder why....

 

[Etritonakin]

There does not seem to be anything particularly unique in humans in a biological sense, though.

Perhaps rate of development into an extremely imaginative and creative being compared to other species along other lines could be considered unique- even assuming no external influence and that present ideas about evolution are correct. Our present state is unique in itself. Our biology may not be obviously unique, but the results definitely are.

-have to look into that.

Otherwise, such things could be due to external influence coupled with internal natural processes....

and the uniqueness could be by intent -similar to the "Dawn of Man" scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey

(Yes -I know that was not real )

 

[LuisDantas]

The one thing that seems to be unique - and just for the moment - is sentiency.

 

[thau]

dgirl1986: Latest poll showed that around 70% of Australian citizens believed that gay couples should be permitted to be married.

Yes, I know this isn’t just about you. I am not familiar with Australia’s voting, legal or law making processes, but if 70% of Americans wanted gay couples to be able to legally marry it would not be long before it became national law. So if that is what Australia wants, that is what Australia deserves. And that is how it goes for most democratic societies. If you do not like what your representative is doing or preaching, vote in another one.


dgirl1986: I get that you believe it to be true, but why should that give you the right to force it onto people who are not a part of your religion? You are speaking of your religious law, therefore it only applies to the people of your religion. I do not ask for a blessing, I ask to be given access to make the choice.

Where do you come up with this idea of “forcing it on other people?” How so? This argument is inane to me. A community votes to pass a law no adult businesses in a part of their downtown district. Why? Because the majority of the community determines it is immoral and a bad reflection on the town. Law passed. Why do these people think it is immoral? Because their religion tells them that going to strip joints or looking at porn is sinful. That was the reason they voted to outlaw it. And you have a problem with that? They also voted no liquor sold on Sundays, but your secular ways of looking at life should rule the day because a small minority gets to make the laws? What about prostitution? No doubt that is illegal because of the religious convictions of the majority. Who are you to tell other citizens on what basis they can cast their vote? You have voted in legal abortion and those religiously opposed haveto live with that, too. It works both ways.

As to me confusing truth with belief, you are confusing your opinion with truth. Either God exists or He does not, there is no opinion on this which decides. I happen to be absolutely certain I know the answer to that proposition. He most definitely exists and I am sorry you are struggling with that.


dgirl1986: 2 - Civil unions do not allow for the same legal benefits as marriage does.
3 - There is a difference between secular marriage and christian marriage.
4 - How would you risk the fire of hell unless you were sleeping with someone of the same gender?
7 - Religion IS shoved down peoples throats when laws are passed based on a religion, when preachers yell on street corners, when people are treated differently for not having a religion.

Civil unions could be the equivalent of marriage as far as govt rights and benefits if that were decided. Secular marriage does differ from Christian marriage and I do not believe that is why so many religious are opposed. I think the religious are afraid our society has become so carnal, narcissistic and godless that judgment will befall us all. I believe that.

We all risk the fires of hell for any number of reasons. Churched and unchurched alike. The fear of God is a healthy condition. It implies reverence and gratitude, but it also could refer to divine punishments. I do not dare speculate on who is deserving, no one knows anyway.

Preachers yelling on a street corner is a rare site and that is hardly “shoving anything down anyone’s throat.” We are all inundated with unwelcome advertisements, solicitations, messages, sales pitches, etc. Why you single out faith issues makes no sense in the least.


dgirl1986: Why does it hurt you so? Do you hurt for the homeless, for the abused and for the addicted in the same way? Do you believe I came to be gay by experimentation? Despite childhood indications?

Of course I hurt for all kinds of suffering people. What kind of a question is that? I believe many people have genetic inclinations to become homosexual, butI also believe it is not inevitable. I believe in centuries past if the family they were raised in was very religious and honorable and if there was precious little opportunity for a gay thinking person to act upon it, overtime they might very well become changed by grace and circumstance and accept a heterosexual relationship. Now I do not see much evidence of that these days in the “wild west” because opportunity and enticements and a hugely diminished religious feeling of guilt is everywhere. So most will choose to be gay, yes, but I do not it was always inevitable in history.

Nor do I think this is a black and white matter. Those who are heterosexual may have some prurient interests in gay sex. And vice versa. So some go further and others resist. How do you account for those who are avowed bisexuals? Is that a separate genetic gene too? No, it is someone who enjoys all the variations of sexual pleasures. Is it not entirely possible if they did not have that opportunity to act out on it in times past they would have possibly resigned themselves to a heterosexual lifestyle and been content? Is it also not possible that many who are bisexual over time start liking the gay sex side of it more than the hetero so at that point they choose to act gay? Was it inevitable? I do not think so. So not all who call themselves gay were destined beyond their control is my point.

Is it not also true that many homosexual men were victims of being abused by a male when they were younger? That’s what more than one gay man has told me. Could that have been a factor in their psyche? Is it not true if a community is extremely gay friendly, like San Francisco or Sodom, that it will have an influence on convincing some who are struggling with their sexuality to gravitate towards homosexuality more than they would in a very different environment?


dgirl1986: I do not recall schools telling kids being gay is wonderful, I believe the purpose is to teach kids that some people are gay and to accept them and not treat them differently.

For all intents and purposes, that is how it is happening in American schools and at the earliest of ages. The books like “Johnny has two mommies” is used in first and second grade classes. These children do not need to hear such moral matters by govt institutions at such young ages. It may scare them, plus that is the parents’ responsibility ,moral teaching, not the govt’s.


dgirl1986: You cannot choose to be bi or choose to be gay or choose to be straight. Do you think people would choose to be gay if they were able to choose to be straight? Why would they make things so much harder for themselves? Do you understand the risk that is involved?

In many cases you may be right, but in others I disagree and already commented on that above.


dgirl1986: I know that in America it is still fraught with danger, there are still dangerous hate crimes in the UK but I cannot speak for Europe. I am in Australia and I happen to be in a city where we get s******ed at. She does not feel comfortable to hold hands in public because this city is still fairly conservative. Cat calls are not uncommon with lesbian women who are in public together.

Well I am sorry and I do not agree with that kind of scornful behavior. That is our sin and could be dealt with very harshly from above. That is a problem prejudiced people need to deal with. Which is separate from some of your resolutions which I believe go too far for the common good in some ways. I cannot condone gay marriage, but I can condone rights for gay couples and kind treatment towards all men and women.


dgirl1986: It may not look that harsh in comparison but it does not change the fact that we should be able to choose to engage in a secular marriage. I am perfectly aware what goes on in some countries. SUch as Uganda, which funnily enough has been touched by Fundamental Christianity and their harsh anti homosexual laws are applauded by followers in the US which makes me feel ill.

Seems to me the countries that deal the harshest with homosexuality are not the least bit Christian.

 

[Etritonakin]

The one thing that seems to be unique - and just for the moment - is sentiency.

I think this assumes much. I also believe that other species are more sentient than we generally appreciate.

However, it seems to indicate that you believe evolution has a predetermined course -if not in form, then in increased function. Are you saying that all species would eventually become human-like (and beyond) in ability -naturally -by accident?

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

So as to remain somewhat on topic...................

dgirl1986: You cannot choose to be bi or choose to be gay or choose to be straight. Do you think people would choose to be gay if they were able to choose to be straight? Why would they make things so much harder for themselves? Do you understand the risk that is involved?

The question 'Why would a homosexual choose to be so -given the trouble it would cause?'....

requires a very complex answer.

While it is possible (still being researched) that our brains may be hard-wired to cause us to be attracted to one sex or another regardless of our own gender -or to identify as a male or female regardless of our bodies.....

(interesting article... Brain May 'Hard-Wire' Sexuality Before Birth -- ScienceDaily )

Such hard-wiring is not the only possible reason one might become homosexual -or, at the very least, be attracted to the same sex, prefer the same sex over the opposite and engage in homosexual behavior.

(Here's a recent article about a celebrity admitting she chose to be gay..... https://sg.news.yahoo.com/cynthia-nixon-chose-gay-010000830.html)

I recall when the idea that homosexuality was not a choice (and some say it can not possibly be a choice) -but that people were born that way -first began to gain popularity and acceptance.

While I am not saying there may not be any truth to it at all, the mere suggestion caused many, many people -just in my personal experience -to simply accept it without any further thought or research at all.

It most certainly also -along with other things -led to increased experimentation due to a removal of social stigma.



The popularization and increased acceptance of the idea did cause some people to begin to consider how they treated gay people -because the focus of cause was shifted from an individual's choice to the makeup of their brains.

It would be naive to think that this wasn't the agenda of some who promoted the idea -or that it was knowingly done by some before all data was in. There is definitely a political aspect to the issue.
Still, it was extremely effective in causing many non-gays to consider the matter -and has probably led to a decrease in anti-gay and anti-transsexual activity -including persecution and violence.
It also helped some people struggling with sexuality issues to feel much less pressure and not internalize harmful external attitudes and ideas.

Those are good things.

However, I observed that the increased acceptance of homosexuality and homosexuals did cause many who had any sort of same-sex thoughts or desires to simply assume they were homosexual and were born that way.


That's a bad thing -even if it is true in some cases.

Such an assumption can cause individuals to neglect truths about the subject -but also about themselves.


The brain is hardware. That is true.... but as with computers, within the hardware resides software. In fact, the brain's software has a limited ability to affect its own hardware -and, in some cases, override it.

That is to say..... we are born with certain internal pre-programming, but we can also be programmed -and can also self-program -and some of that later programming can override the initial programming to a certain degree (firmware?).

Software CAN lead to homosexuality.

This can be by choice -self-programming.

This can also be by programming due to external factors -not by choice.

If one simply assumes that they are "born that way", they may neglect to examine experiences and issues which may have programmed them without their awareness -regardless of what they otherwise might have chosen.

It may actually keep them from knowing themselves or resolving issues which interrelate with sexuality -regardless of their sexuality itself.

Also, to simply assume such a thing -or just about anything else -when one is young -before one has had an opportunity to do much research or think about it in depth -is not good.



Furthermore, having sexual thoughts or urges concerning the same sex does not mean that a person is necessarily "homosexual".

It means a person is sexual.

Many factors -apart from hard-wiring -determine how a person thinks about -and what a person does with -that sexuality.

SOME do BECOME homosexual -or, at the very least, are attracted to, prefer the same sex and engage in homosexual behavior because, in many ways, it is less trouble -or it is more desirable or enjoyable to them than heterosexuality even when possibilities of persecution and violence are considered. Attraction to an individual or gender is to be considerted, but attraction to an overall situation is also to be considered.

I'm not saying this is always the case -I'm saying the "case" may be as varied as the individuals.

 

[Etritonakin]

I think this assumes much. I also believe that other species are more sentient than we generally appreciate.

However, it seems to indicate that you believe evolution has a predetermined course -if not in form, then in increased function. Are you saying that all species would eventually become human-like (and beyond) in ability -naturally -by accident?

Last thread derail -promise!


I wonder why it is -because all species share the same general environment -and man has shared the same exact environments with other species -that man is uniquely intelligent.

Also... that intelligence is supported by a complex system of interacting species which lead to our intake of energy. It would seem advantageous to man -who is able to consider such things -that lesser species did not evolve out of their present roles -if such a thing was possible. In fact, "evolution" would be dependent upon sustaining lesser roles.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

I know a person who is gay and I am not going to give out his name because that would go against his right to privacy. I know this person in real life. I also know two people in real life who are bisexual besides myself. In addition, I know another gay person but he's an online friend.

I was both bisexual and Catholic for a little while. I was having a conversation with an older gentleman in the congregation one day who said that we are the reason that sex-abuse exists in the Church. Needless to say, I'm now only one of those two things now. I'm sure you can guess which one.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Yup. Tony Abbott, Prime Minister...

Prime Minister Tony Abbott says he will attend sister's wedding, but not support the marriage

Something tells me even the Aussies don't care too much for him.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think this assumes much. I also believe that other species are more sentient than we generally appreciate.

As I said, it seems to be unique, and even then for the time being. I fully expect other animals to be capable of sentience given adequate time and selective pressure.

However, it seems to indicate that you believe evolution has a predetermined course -if not in form, then in increased function.

It does? That is surprising, for I don't think of evolution as such at all.

It neither has a set goal, not does it necessarily favor increases instead of decreases.

Are you saying that all species would eventually become human-like (and beyond) in ability -naturally -by accident?

It could happen, I suppose. But one must keep in mind that natural selection is, in fact, selection. Not by a conscious or supernatural will, but by the environmental and social circunstances.

Even in the most usual of natural circunstances it is a stretch to call it "accidental".

Then again, it is just as likely that we will lose our own sentience if we live long enough (a sufficient number of generations, that is) under circunstances that do not favor it.

(...)

While I am not saying there may not be any truth to it at all, the mere suggestion caused many, many people -just in my personal experience -to simply accept it without any further thought or research at all.

People are expected to freely accept what they feel repressed out of admiting.

Not having personal knowledge of Cynthia Nixon, I will not try to guess how sincere, sane or honest she may be. Or for that matter, how bissexual.

The most likely explanation is that she is bissexual and simply failed to notice / repressed her homosexuality up to a certain point, and mistook it for "choosing" to be homosexual.

It most certainly also -along with other things -led to increased experimentation due to a removal of social stigma.

Which we all should hope to to be the case. I know I do.

The popularization and increased acceptance of the idea did cause some people to begin to consider how they treated gay people -because the focus of cause was shifted from an individual's choice to the makeup of their brains.

It would be naive to think that this wasn't the agenda of some who promoted the idea -or that it was knowingly done by some before all data was in. There is definitely a political aspect to the issue.

Opposing discrimination is very much a political goal, so I agree.

Still, it was extremely effective in causing many non-gays to consider the matter -and has probably led to a decrease in anti-gay and anti-transsexual activity -including persecution and violence.
It also helped some people struggling with sexuality issues to feel much less pressure and not internalize harmful external attitudes and ideas.

Those are good things.

However, I observed that the increased acceptance of homosexuality and homosexuals did cause many who had any sort of same-sex thoughts or desires to simply assume they were homosexual and were born that way.

Were, or had some tendencies?

That's a bad thing -even if it is true in some cases.

Such an assumption can cause individuals to neglect truths about the subject -but also about themselves.

Not sure what you mean. Are you talking about people mistakenly perceiving themselves as homosexuals? I suppose that can happen, but it will be both less frequent than opposite and less of a problem once the stigma is weakened. They may very simply learn better later on.

The brain is hardware. That is true.... but as with computers, within the hardware resides software. In fact, the brain's software has a limited ability to affect its own hardware -and, in some cases, override it.

That is to say..... we are born with certain internal pre-programming, but we can also be programmed -and can also self-program -and some of that later programming can override the initial programming to a certain degree (firmware?).

Software CAN lead to homosexuality.

This can be by choice -self-programming.

This can also be by programming due to external factors -not by choice.

If one simply assumes that they are "born that way", they may neglect to examine experiences and issues which may have programmed them without their awareness -regardless of what they otherwise might have chosen.

It may actually keep them from knowing themselves or resolving issues which interrelate with sexuality -regardless of their sexuality itself.

Also, to simply assume such a thing -or just about anything else -when one is young -before one has had an opportunity to do much research or think about it in depth -is not good.

Not sure what you mean. Maybe you are implying that, much like a left-handed person may train himself into right-handedness, it may be possible to learn a sexuality that is unnatural for oneself?

There may be something to it, but there are definitely dangers, and so little of a point in even contemplating the idea...

Furthermore, having sexual thoughts or urges concerning the same sex does not mean that a person is necessarily "homosexual".

It means a person is sexual.

There is a spectrum, definitely. Bisexuality exists, and there are many people who oscillate somewhat.

Many factors -apart from hard-wiring -determine how a person thinks about -and what a person does with -that sexuality.

SOME do BECOME homosexual -or, at the very least, are attracted to, prefer the same sex and engage in homosexual behavior because, in many ways, it is less trouble -or it is more desirable or enjoyable to them than heterosexuality even when possibilities of persecution and violence are considered. Attraction to an individual or gender is to be considerted, but attraction to an overall situation is also to be considered.

I'm not saying this is always the case -I'm saying the "case" may be as varied as the individuals.

But the social stigma is all but one-sided.

 

[Etritonakin]

Not having personal knowledge of Cynthia Nixon, I will not try to guess how sincere, sane or honest she may be. Or for that matter, how bissexual.

The most likely explanation is that she is bissexual and simply failed to notice / repressed her homosexuality up to a certain point, and mistook it for "choosing" to be homosexual.






But the social stigma is all but one-sided.

Why would that be most likely?



Was all but one-sided.

There is also a newly-created social stigma (backed by the possibility of action) against the idea that homosexuality can be by choice.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why would that be most likely?

Because the evidence is overwhelming; people just don't choose arbitrarily to "become" gay or straight just like that.

It is even unclear if they can have any choice at all, at least without major trauma and/or repression.

Was all but one-sided.

And is still. It just isn't quite as hopeless as it used to be.

There is also a newly-created social stigma (backed by the possibility of action) against the idea that homosexuality can be by choice.

Let's just say that I don't think that is a pressing matter to consider, not at all.

 

[dgirl1986]

For a child, being raised by a stable and capable same-sex couple could be an advantage over other situations (as with a hetero couple) -but a child whose different-sex parents divorced because a parent preferred a gay/lesbian lifestyle could be at a disadvantage because of the divorce -not necessary the "sexuality" of the parent itself (as with other reasons for broken homes).

The APA have a paper on the website that talks about how kids raised in same sex parenting households do just as well as those raised in heterosexual parenting households. When it comes to divorce or seperation - it is all about how the adults handle it. It can be handled well, but in my experience they let their selfishness and own hurt get in the way.

Then I wondered if it was possible that, if genitalia could be mixed, brains could also be mixed.

If you look into the studies that and research that has been done on transgender people, it is not only psychological but biological. If you do some research you will find it really interesting I am sure.

Likewise, it is not impossible for one who believes they are "born that way" to be happy in a heterosexual relationship (some will disagree -and some will say that this is not the case in their case -I understand that).

Could you be happy in a homosexual relationship? I tried being straight and was in a handful of heterosexual relationships but I was never happy in any of them.

 

[suncowiam]

Even if homosexuality was a choice? What is wrong with that? Who is that hurting exactly?

 

[dgirl1986]

dgirl1986: Latest poll showed that around 70% of Australian citizens believed that gay couples should be permitted to be married.
Yes, I know this isn’t just about you. I am not familiar with Australia’s voting, legal or law making processes, but if 70% of Americans wanted gay couples to be able to legally marry it would not be long before it became national law. So if that is what Australia wants, that is what Australia deserves. And that is how it goes for most democratic societies. If you do not like what your representative is doing or preaching, vote in another one.

It doesnt work like that here. Basically since our PM is against it, he will never allow it. We cannot vote again for another 3 years. He never shouldve been voted in to begin with.

dgirl1986: I get that you believe it to be true, but why should that give you the right to force it onto people who are not a part of your religion? You are speaking of your religious law, therefore it only applies to the people of your religion. I do not ask for a blessing, I ask to be given access to make the choice.

Where do you come up with this idea of “forcing it on other people?” How so? This argument is inane to me. A community votes to pass a law no adult businesses in a part of their downtown district. Why? Because the majority of the community determines it is immoral and a bad reflection on the town. Law passed. Why do these people think it is immoral? Because their religion tells them that going to strip joints or looking at porn is sinful. That was the reason they voted to outlaw it. And you have a problem with that? They also voted no liquor sold on Sundays, but your secular ways of looking at life should rule the day because a small minority gets to make the laws? What about prostitution? No doubt that is illegal because of the religious convictions of the majority. Who are you to tell other citizens on what basis they can cast their vote? You have voted in legal abortion and those religiously opposed haveto live with that, too. It works both ways.

As to me confusing truth with belief, you are confusing your opinion with truth. Either God exists or He does not, there is no opinion on this which decides. I happen to be absolutely certain I know the answer to that proposition. He most definitely exists and I am sorry you are struggling with that.

It is forced through law, through preaching in public, through conditioning in society, through person to person interaction, through social media, religious politians etc.

My problem is not only because most of aussie opinion in secular on the subject but because of how it effects other people in christian dominated countries.

FYI - Common opinion isnt always right.

dgirl1986: I do not recall schools telling kids being gay is wonderful, I believe the purpose is to teach kids that some people are gay and to accept them and not treat them differently.

For all intents and purposes, that is how it is happening in American schools and at the earliest of ages. The books like “Johnny has two mommies” is used in first and second grade classes. These children do not need to hear such moral matters by govt institutions at such young ages. It may scare them, plus that is the parents’ responsibility ,moral teaching, not the govt’s.

This does not seem that different to the activities we had in primary school which was about accepting and treating well our indigenous folk.

dgirl1986: It may not look that harsh in comparison but it does not change the fact that we should be able to choose to engage in a secular marriage. I am perfectly aware what goes on in some countries. SUch as Uganda, which funnily enough has been touched by Fundamental Christianity and their harsh anti homosexual laws are applauded by followers in the US which makes me feel ill.

Seems to me the countries that deal the harshest with homosexuality are not the least bit Christian.

Uganda was converted by fundamentalists christians and I believe groups of these strand applaud the actions being taken there now. I do not see how it is not christian, since the bible tells of stoning homosexuals.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

It doesnt work like that here. Basically since our PM is against it, he will never allow it. We cannot vote again for another 3 years. He never shouldve been voted in to begin with.



It is forced through law, through preaching in public, through conditioning in society, through person to person interaction, through social media, religious politians etc.

My problem is not only because most of aussie opinion in secular on the subject but because of how it effects other people in christian dominated countries.

FYI - Common opinion isnt always right.




This does not seem that different to the activities we had in primary school which was about accepting and treating well our indigenous folk.



Uganda was converted by fundamentalists christians and I believe groups of these strand applaud the actions being taken there now. I do not see how it is not christian, since the bible tells of stoning homosexuals.

I've never understood how a Christian could actually advocate stoning someone. There was literally a passage where Jesus says it's not okay to do that. (The woman at the well.) I mean... For the love of God...Do these people even actually read the book?

 

[dgirl1986]

I've never understood how a Christian could actually advocate stoning someone. There was literally a passage where Jesus says it's not okay to do that. (The woman at the well.) I mean... For the love of God...Do these people even actually read the book?

I dont understand how they rule out some bits of the OT but still apply other bits.

 

[Etritonakin]

The APA have a paper on the website that talks about how kids raised in same sex parenting households do just as well as those raised in heterosexual parenting households. When it comes to divorce or seperation - it is all about how the adults handle it. It can be handled well, but in my experience they let their selfishness and own hurt get in the way.




If you look into the studies that and research that has been done on transgender people, it is not only psychological but biological. If you do some research you will find it really interesting I am sure.



Could you be happy in a homosexual relationship? I tried being straight and was in a handful of heterosexual relationships but I was never happy in any of them.

There are many papers saying many things -studies done from various perspectives -concerning different aspects of success/well-being/adjustment, etc.

I am not surprised that homosexuality alone does not cause major differences.

I will continue to do research -though I have a lot of subjects which require more immediate attention -meanwhile I will treat people as if their sexuality is none of my business.

As for your question about whether or not I could be happy in a homosexual relationship.....

No. I could not be happy in a homosexual relationship -for many reasons.

If I said yes or no -or I could be happy in either -some would assume that there was something in my physiology that made that the case -that it had nothing to do with choice.

Given my answer of No, why would you say I could not?

Also -you said you tried being straight and having heterosexual relationships -but were never happy.

Why?

I'm not saying I know, but I would suggest that you examine every possible aspect of your thoughts, reactions, feelings, etc. -just for your own sake -with as little outside influence on your thoughts as possible.

The issue is complex -we are complex. We should never stop learning -but at our pace. With such personal issues, comfort and security levels are a factor. We should be certain -and not accept simple explanations when understanding the complex could make us much more happy -regardless of what we find.

If I were to sum up all that I had in my mind concerning the subject, I would say that the need to feel safe, understood, free, accepted, appreciated, loved, honored, etc., etc., etc., -or even to have some sort of positive human contact -that is to say.... basic spiritual needs....are a far greater factor than whether or not someone would prefer looking at or interacting with male or female genitalia -or other aspects of male and female bodies.