And if someone has been nurtured well enough, they're more likely to make the personal decision to not be a homo. Why were there so few homosexuals in the 1800's compared to the amount there are now? People nowadays are choosing to be gay, the majority of homosexuals are not that way because of genetics, the vast majority are just sick people wanting more sex.


Condoms is the only one I'm KINDA fine with, as I find no problem with two married people of opposite sexes just having sex for pleasure.

We have a more noticeable bisexual/gay/lesbian population because we live in a more secularized society(in most Western countries and states) that does not look down on homosexuality as harshly as it used to be. If you came out to your family/town that you were gay in the 1800's, you were probably going to get yourself lynched or die in an "accident." I don't see how choosing to be gay is because someone wants more sex; one's sexual compass is not set in stone in life, and may vary from being straight to bisexuality to homosexuality. The majority of homosexuals have different hormone levels that vary from the majority of their gender(I can't remember which hormones they had extra or a dearth of), and are often not affected by upbringing.

Thank you WoaHorde for actually making sense -- as apposed to everyone else in this topic. I have a homosexual friend, and it was by choice. He didn't feel comfortable dating a girl, so I don't see how its about the sex. >.>

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 14 2008, 5:03 am by A_of-s_t.

"to be" != "to act upon"
Already answered. Repeatedly.
Already answered. Repeatedly.
...
And since the "already answer"s to this one are rather less recent than for the other argument, I'll repeat; that would be bisexuality, not homosexuality.
I would rather have nothing to do with lust and all that, personally. And I choose not to act on my perversions, generally. ... But again, "to be != to act upon". That I choose not to fap to guys ( or anyone ) screwing each other does not mean I would not find it easy to. On the other hand, there are plenty of heterosexual peoples that obsess far more on such things than I.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 14 2008, 2:46 am by EzDay281.

Hm, I guess as conditioning has shown (kind of like the resoc'ing of marines) humans are very trainable. I guess it would be pretty easy to condition males to "like" a female. So I suppose this would be a kind of a good example of nuture...

My limited psychology lessons also show that at some point people choose how they want to be, whether conscience or unconsciencously (sorry for the spelling)
( Guess thats debatable though ^_^)
Anyhow, I really don't have anything against homosexuals, because in the end they really are just human.
I quote the famous Calvin and Hobbes for my moral standing on this issue: Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Nurture. Different societies nurture people in different ways, and if it requires threat of death, so be it.


Do you know where the majority of STDs have spread from? Large homosexual communities that have no morals and therefore will have sex with every person at a party, spreading the STD, you throw a few bisexuals in there who go ahead and take it out to other places and then it becomes a problem.



I'm seeing some slightly contradictory statements here, it seems to me upbringing can totally change how people act.


In this case it really does not matter, if you don't act upon those urges, you are not classified as a homo.


Agreed, I'm not hating on homos here, I'm really just mad about homosexuality in general.

I think you totally missed my point here. I'm suggesting that people DIDN'T come out en masse because of fear of death and retribution by a misinformed populace. Notice my secularized world part which ads support to that sentence?


What the fuck? This statement is the most ludicrous idea I have ever seen in this forum. You assume that because someone is homosexual, that they have no morals? More ludicrous. STDs are most often spread because one partner isn't aware that the other has contracted an STD, and they probably aren't aware themselves of having one. Heterosexual people are MORE likely to contract an STD than a homosexual person, based on demographics and raw statistics.

I'd like to see a leginiment, scientific source for your absurd claim.


As I said above, you missed the point of my sentence. Upbringing often does NOT affect a child's sexuality, this has been prove numerous times where homosexual/lesbian couples adopt a child and the will end up straight; many homosexuals/bisexuals/lesbians are born to heterosexual parents.

I know that you are suggesting that, and I think a more religious world would be a better world than it is now, with less homosexuality, as shown by the 1800's.


Homosexuality has about the same morals as having sex with relatives, or having a marriage with your cat.

http://www.metrokc.gov/health/glbt/gbstd.htm


And you've already proven yourself that apparently upbringing does, or more importantly, your environment.

Lul... Falkoner, you do realize that you are stating that being homosexual is genetic becuase you have said that the society FORCES its ideals onto its people, whether they would like to be homosexual or not. But, really, I think this issue is not simply "nature vs nurture," but rather, both. Both influence a person's decision. The Roman's were very homosexual, and we know this because of recorded history. The medival period was one of the worst histories ever because of the lack of written history and what was recorded was by CHRISTIANS. Would a Christian record the homosexual acts of their community? I doubt it.


Yeah, because having sexual relations with the same sex totally produces infants with genetic disorders. The reason incest is taboo is becuase its known to cause genetic maladies.

IM REALLY TIRED OF YOUR IDIOTIC POSTS. IF YOU MAKE ONE MORE ILL CONSTRUCTED POST, IT WILL BE DELETED.

Morals, not outcomes.


I believe I posted earlier that I thought it was a mix of both, and the only reason I've been arguing the point of Nurture is because most peopple here are saying it's pure nature. And whether you find it just or not forcing something on someone is nurture, parents force schooling on kids, do you think most kids want to go to school?


And look what happened to them.


Doesn't prove or disprove any point, simply filler, and I never used the medival ages as an example, I used the 1800's, which was very well documented.


The only reason you say they are idiotic is because you are biased to your side of the argument, and if you delete my posts due to that, you truly don't deserve to be a moderator.

The only reason you hate homosexuals, and don't dare deny that you hate them, is because you were biased upon a life of idiotic, religious princibles that have brought tons of hate into the world that would otherwise not be there.

I believe you are Morman, if you are not, I will gladly put up some more injust things from the Bible.

Anonymous, don't try to scripture bash with me, I can easily beat anything you post.


The wicked take the truth to be hard.


And if you look into a couple of verses earlier, it says "It is better than one man should perish than a nation dwindle and perish in unbelief."


Sinners will receive their just desserts, all scripture pretty much testifies of this.


Because Israel had turned away from the Lord.


The Lord helps those who believe on him, and hurts those who don't, I don't see how this is supposed to be messed up or anything..

Same as first one, people are not angered by the truth unless they feel it hurts them.

This is the reason why I said that skeptics annotated bible is ridiculous, because if you take, even a fraction of a second to research a little bit further, you find that the majority of what they are skeptical about is just taken out of context to make it look bad, or they're just being stupid and have no reason to be acting like it's wrong somehow. Not to mention you trying to bash my religion has nothing to do with this topic, come back when you can actually bash my religion properly, or when you want to actually discuss the topic at hand.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 15 2008, 3:02 am by Falkoner.

Oh, what about that one guy's posts, trying to say something about there being circular logic in defining a measurement of space by a measurement of speed, the latter being a constant?
I mean, those posts were making no sense at all. You should delete that guy's stuff, too, while you're at it. ;o
...
Unless you've any way to establish a logical link between that and their homosexuality, irrelevant.
orly
Firstly, I've been reading through some of the earlier posts, and note that that's not what you said. You claimed "[it]'s not in nature". ;o
Secondly, and more importantly... no. Most of the polarized votes in the poll are a thing of "I believe X is the determiner, although Y can, in rare instances, change the matter."
And we atheists/agnostics define our morals by cause and effect. What the Great and Benevolent Dictator Hitl-God says is of no concern to us.

...
Right.
They're saying that things are changing. This implies that something is resulting in this change.
Perhaps they're recieving more reports of STDs than before?
Which could be a matter of them being, well, reported, of more people admitting to being homosexual, or of more cases actually occuring.
The first two cases are nothing of support to your argument, only examples of improved information collection.
In the third, three possibilites. One, that homosexuals are growing less careful, in which case it can be presumed that the problem is something other than their sexual orientation. Two, that there are simply more homosexuals. Are your quoted references talking about how many homosexuals are found with these STD's, or what ratio there is between disease-bearing and clean homosexuals there are? Third would be the exact opposite of your claim; that as homosexuality attains greater acceptance, bisexuals can more easily carry diseases from the heterosexual community into the opposite.
Learn your statistics and probability, Falkoner.

Really? So I'm not asexual, I'm not heterosexual... what am I? You've got four choices here. Gogogo.

You're naturally heterosexual. Therefore that is what you are classified as, the human race is heterosexual, so they are classified as so until they do otherwise.




Rates, not numbers.


Which then acts as a breeding ground for more STDs, as those statistics show.

... that definition is so horribly arbitrary.
Look at how the words are defined in common, look at how they're defined by dictionary, look at how they're derived; in any of those cases, your usage makes no sense.
... mind finishing your argument?
You've still got the rest of my paragraph to tackle.

You are nonsexual. Sheesh.

Time for my real opinions, since this topic is mildly interesting. I voted Nature and Nurture, as Nurture has a serious role in anything, and ANYONE can make ANYONE believe ANYTHING under the right conditions (look at Santa/tooth fairy). There are those extreme cases, where people just simply don't feel right. After all, what to we call people with serious disorders that make them born as one gender, but look the complete opposite? Since such people exist, we can assume the inverse exists, where people simply think they are/should be a different gender.

In any case, it's not my right to decide. Who are they hurting? Nobody. The USA was founded on fundamental freedoms, as long as they don't interfere with basic human rights, which can be ambiguous at times. I don't see any good reason to stop homosexuality. because it shouldn't affect you in the slightest. There might be a case with your children, as I would not like my child to become a homosexual, but I wouldn't care much either way. The only people who are against homosexuality are narrow minded people, or perhaps something is wrong with THEM, not the other way around.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 15 2008, 4:15 am by rockz.

If by that, you refer to something other than asexual... irrelevant.
If otherwise;
"Asexual
...
Lacking interest in or desire for sex."
which does not apply.

Basically all your answers, Falconer, point to the claim that all athiests are evil and immoral just because their lack of faith. It's still punishing good people because of their lack of faith.
I'm not bashing your faith, I'm just saying not everything is good that is in it, just like Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judiasm, Atheism, etc.

Well, I would rather they kept it a secret than throwing gay pride parades and having a day of silence for gays day at schools.


That's because not everything is good, there would be no reason to come to Earth if we didn't have the free agency to choose God or not.

False dilemma.
One can mark a check on a paper labelled "homosexual" and be neither silent nor "[be] thowing gay pride parades [etc] ..."
And whether or not you'd "rather [know]" what the rates of STDs are in a homosexual community is completely irrelevant to what conclusions can be drawn from the actual, underlying numbers regarding such matters.