Debate Mansion

India-Forums

   
Debate Mansion
Debate Mansion

Same sex attraction. Should it be stopped? (Page 30)

return_to_hades IF-Sizzlerz
return_to_hades
return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006
Posts: 23325

Posted: 25 May 2011 at 11:21am | IP Logged
Originally posted by blue-ice


petri dish with a sperm and an egg...no technology will be able to do it with two sperms or two eggs...



I think you missed the boat on stem cell cloning. Right now we are using embryonic cells. But once we fill in the gaps, we can clone based on the egg only.

glace-bleue IF-Stunnerz
glace-bleue
glace-bleue

Joined: 04 March 2009
Posts: 49339

Posted: 25 May 2011 at 11:59am | IP Logged
Originally posted by return_to_hades

Originally posted by blue-ice


petri dish with a sperm and an egg...no technology will be able to do it with two sperms or two eggs...



I think you missed the boat on stem cell cloning. Right now we are using embryonic cells. But once we fill in the gaps, we can clone based on the egg only.


I think that calls for another debate...cloning is wrong in my opinion...I am OK with cloning of body parts for medical purposes...I don't think cloning of a whole human being will ever become a reality...
return_to_hades IF-Sizzlerz
return_to_hades
return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006
Posts: 23325

Posted: 25 May 2011 at 5:10pm | IP Logged
Looks like I have to actually appreciate some of Texas.


The following 5 member(s) liked the above post:

persistencesouroRasnytulipbaby53glace-bleue

Summer3 IF-Stunnerz
Summer3
Summer3

Joined: 24 September 2007
Posts: 44435

Posted: 26 May 2011 at 8:15pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by blue-ice

Originally posted by return_to_hades

Originally posted by blue-ice


petri dish with a sperm and an egg...no technology will be able to do it with two sperms or two eggs...



I think you missed the boat on stem cell cloning. Right now we are using embryonic cells. But once we fill in the gaps, we can clone based on the egg only.


I think that calls for another debate...cloning is wrong in my opinion...I am OK with cloning of body parts for medical purposes...I don't think cloning of a whole human being will ever become a reality...
What about virgin births ?LOL
I think currently cloning may produce monsters instead of humans.
 
I hate those who cross breed certain dogs and produce something that is totally out of whack; saw a big dog with short legs.
 
 

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

glace-bleue

Summer3 IF-Stunnerz
Summer3
Summer3

Joined: 24 September 2007
Posts: 44435

Posted: 26 May 2011 at 8:19pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by return_to_hades

Looks like I have to actually appreciate some of Texas.


Ah interesting.
Lovely.Thumbs Up

Edited by Summer3 - 26 May 2011 at 8:24pm
Forever-KA IF-Rockerz
Forever-KA
Forever-KA

Joined: 01 April 2009
Posts: 5411

Posted: 01 June 2011 at 8:18am | IP Logged

KAL-Original; RTH, DR & POH; KAL-Reply today

1) RTH

This was not directed to me, but I'm taking a stab at it.

Feel free to

No marriage of women to dogs should not be stopped. Aren't they human beings too? Just like we have our customs they too have their own customs. Who are we to stop them?

A dog is not a consenting adult human being. Comparing human/human interaction to human/dog interaction is illogical.

Maybe I did not explain it properly. The point of posting those two examples was not to compare or judge those customs but to show that Darklord Rehan (DR) himself had certain norms in mind and therefore wrote against those practices. 

1) I sense from your posts that maybe you don't like the fact that such behavior, on which these people have no control, to begin with, is seen as abnormal. However does this mean that we start calling every such behavior normal? Recently on this forum one lady posted that she want to be nude all the time or something like that. If she decides to go nude will you use "aren't they humans too" argument? She had other desires too but I won't go into that.

There is a wide range of human behaviors. Some behaviors are less common than the others. Psychologically and socially deviant behaviors that are harmless are acceptable; but those that inflict harm are criminal. The lady who wishes to be nude has the right to be nude, even if it is unusual. That is her adult conscious choice. However, we also have the right to not see nude people we don't want to. So the lady will have to be nude in her private home, or only in front of people willing to see her nude. Similarly a person wishing to marry someone of the same gender is not forcing us to marry them or even attend the marriage. If they choose to get married, they have the right to.

So how do we decide what is harm? If we have the right to not see nude people then some will say they have the right to not see/like same gender interaction and all such related stuff. Lady who wanted to go nude also did not force anyone either.

Having said that, my point was that we cannot use "aren't they humans too" argument at our convinience and in the end there are normal-abnormal that we use to guide our daily life.

2) It is interesting that on one hand you were against discrimination and calling people abnormal but then you yourself discriminated against certain practices or choices that people make.

I'm not sure what practices Rehan was referring to. However, if a practice is unfairly discriminatory against humans (sati, untouchability, segregation) then I would oppose those practices.

The ones mentioned by me. Please refer to his post for full list.

3) Let me say that life does have reference points (normality) and those have been formed over centuries and we call them values, customs, traditions or laws. Some are universal while other differ based on location, religion or culture. It should not go down to level of individuals.

Expecting an entire population to follow the norms of one religion or culture is characteristic of theocracy, autocracy, oligarchies and such. Free democratic society lets each individual do as they wish as long as those actions do not harm others.

I never said what you interpreted.

4) We are not calling people abnormal but a certain behavior abnormal. They can be normal otherwise.

I won't disagree here as homosexuality is estimated to be only 10%. So it would fall outside the remaining 90% distribution curve of straight people.

5) @ nature: I do consider this behavior as unnatural. They can't help it and I get that but that does not make it natural. Human biology does not support female-female interaction and male-male interaction.

If it exists in nature it is natural. Human biology completely supports these interactions for recreation or intimacy purposes, but not for procreation purposes. But then there are several other biologies like infertility, old age etc that do not support procreation.

If I am participating in a car race where all cars are moving in one direction and I decide to drive the other way then I am still in the race but am I racing? If I start a race and then my car develops a problem or I realize that car had a problem is different from starting a car race on a bullock cart without the bullock.

Human body has a reproductive system and it has some functions which achieve certain endpoints. None of those endpoints are possible in same gender interactions. I can jump from a mountain for recreation purpose and biology supports that i.e. until I fall flat. That is irrelevant here.


6) Why do we have to say that either everything is normal or that there is no such thing as normal? We have some norms and yes it is not perfect but it is sure better than treating everything normal. This way you will end up with no laws and constitution lol. We can also not have situation where there is no thing as normal or everyone has their own normal. It will lead to mayhem.

The argument for gay marriage is not calling to abolish any law or constitution. It is calling for the constitution to be fair and equitable.

On one hand the law says all adults has the right to marry (except minors, within the family or multiple). Then why make exceptions because the adults happen to be of the same gender. Why should a law discriminate against people?

It is because there is a definition of marriage. It is between a man and a woman which leads to kinship. The argument for gay marriage calls for changing definition/law of marriage. Having said that the point I was making in # 6 was different.

7) We cannot use democracy argument as it is a double edge sword. What if the majority votes against legalization of gay marriages?

Democracy is not always pure majority based. Sometimes leaders have to act against the majority for collective good. There was a time interracial marriage was illegal per the majority, there was a time segregation and racial discrimination was legal per majority. These discriminations were wrong and few people opposed the majority.

Just like some people prohibit interracial marriages in their family or at their churches, they can prohibit gay marriages within their personal domain, not for all of society.

This is my fundamental problem with people supporting democratic setup. It is good if it suits you and if it does not then there is always a "wise leader" ready to guide you lol.

My argument is for keeping the status quo when it comes to marriage and I think there is no discrimination involved. Gays and lesbians can marry virtually, in imagination, on pluto or call it union etc lol. I don't care. I think giving their relatonship status of traditional marriage does not make sense.

8) We cannot have a system where everything goes in name of freedom. There is no such thing as absolute freedom.

As I always say as long as there is no harm inflicted on others, people have their right to their conscientious choices.

In summary, I will say that I realize such things cannot be stopped. I agree with your point that we cannot force or teach someone our values. Also when I said I don't like it I do not mean I looked down at them. I just don't approve of their behavior. They can be better person than me otherwise.

I appreciate that attitude because it is respectful to all humans equally.

I appreciate your appreciation.

What we need to do is to discourage such behavior and not approving gay marriage is a step in that direction.

I'm curious why you believe it needs to be discouraged?

I think this is a fair question. To protect the sanctity and definition of marriage. To prevent propagation of a behavior which I consider to be un-natural. If you think about it marriage is between a man and a woman and that is being going on since centuries, in all religions, in all places, among all races and ethnicites and  all that collectiveness never thought of man to man marriage? What prevented this supposedly normal and natural thing to get accepted?


Marriage is a contract which leads to future generation not a full stop.

Are you willing to make laws that make it mandatory for fertility tests so that only people able to procreate can marry? No one should have the right to marry for love or companionship purposes, just future generations.

Nope I did not mean it that way.  I did not know its full meaning. Kinship can be through adoption also. Yeah marriage doesn't have to be for children.

However again we are playing with words here. In a regular marriage adoption is an exception and usually a result of an unfortunate situation (medical problem like infertility). Gays can adopt a child and create kinship but that child came from a heterosexual relationship. How ironic is that. How ironic is the fact that what results from an abnormality in a traditional marriage is the norm for a gay marriage i.e. adoption.

If some think that people like me are narrow minded then that's okay. However in my defense I will say that I am not that. I don't see things in total. As I said if I don't like one thing then it does not mean I reject the whole person. In life sometime people dont like us or have problems with us. We get sensitive about it however later we realize that they cannot be wrong so maybe problem is in us. I think we should see things that way. lol

So yeah please don't think I looked down at them or want to change them lol. It has always been my view that, most of the time, those who can change don't need change and those who need change don't change.

Hope you will take it in good spirit.

Its a different opinion and I strongly oppose it, but I don't consider it narrow minded. Its what you believe. I don't understand how or why, but as long as it does not lead to hatred then you have every right to feel the way you do and express your opinions.

Gays and lesbians have never done anything wrong to me so there is no reason to dislike or hate them. Also I believe supporters of gay marriages have good intention i.e. they want the life to be fair towards all. However from where I see it life is not fair. We are all imperfect in some way and we need to embrace this harsh reality. The workings of the world will not change for us so it is us who have to adjust accordingly.

2) DR:

No it should not be stopped. Aren't they human beings too? Just like we have our tastes and preferences they too have their own desires. Who are we to stop them?

No Burqa wearing should not be stopped. Aren't they human beings too? Just like we have our preferences they too have their own preferences. Who are we to stop them?

Wearing Burkha is not a preference, its a meaningless custom. Women wear it only because they are expected to do so by the patriarchs of the society. In some societies, women are punished for not wearing Burkha. So I am against such fanaticism and discrimination. Give me one reason why should women wear Burkha? Is being woman a matter of shame that she needs to hide her face?

I can give my views but it won't hold much value since it will be coming from a male. I don't want to get into all this. Sorry about that.

No marriage of women to dogs should not be stopped. Aren't they human beings too? Just like we have our customs they too have their own customs. Who are we to stop them?

I never spoke of customs, I spoke of nature. Customs are created by narrow minded men, nature is created by God. Any custom which makes no sense or derides a race or is discriminatory should be abolished.

Please refer to my reply to RTH above

Few comments

1) I sense from your posts that maybe you don't like the fact that such behavior, on which these people have no control, to begin with, is seen as abnormal. However does this mean that we start calling every such behavior normal? Recently on this forum one lady posted that she want to be nude all the time or something like that. If she decides to go nude will you use "aren't they humans too" argument? She had other desires too but I won't go into that.

Posing nude is a choice. Homosexuality or heterosexuality is not a choice. Its an inborn trait. One can't make any difference by shunning those people or punishing them, ofcourse other than displaying his/her own illiteracy and low thinking.

I don't know whether you were referring to me or not but let us not get personal here. If it was directed at me then let me say I never called for any punishment or shunning of those people.

"tu shaneen hai, parvaz hai kaam tera. Tere samnay abhi aasman aur bhi hain".  There is no thing as literate. It is an ongoing process lol.

2) It is interesting that on one hand you were against discrimination and calling people abnormal but then you yourself discriminated against certain practices or choices that people make.

Read my above comment about customs and nature. I never discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex or trait. Because these things are not in one's hand. But yeah, if somebody practices any nonsense custom which has no logical explanation or is derisive and regressive, I'll oppose it. We can change customs by rebuking them. Many evil customs had been changed by revolutionaries but you can't change a homosexual into a heterosexual. Can you?

And you will decide what is evil? What yardstick will you use? Let me guess, yours? We can debate about practices in another topic.

3) Let me say that life does have reference points (normality) and those have been formed over centuries and we call them values, customs, traditions or laws. Some are universal while other differ based on location, religion or culture. It should not go down to level of individuals.

No life doesn't have any normality. As I gave the example of sphere, our earth too is a sphere (well nearly) and so nothing is normal. Its us who use such words to convince ourselves that we are normal and those who are different from us are abnormal.

Just like you did above

4) We are not calling people abnormal but a certain behavior abnormal. They can be normal otherwise.

Refer to above replies

5) @ nature: I do consider this behavior as unnatural. They can't help it and I get that but that does not make it natural. Human biology does not support female-female interaction and male-male interaction.

Once again, you are judging other's behaviour with your own nature as a yardstick. Human biology very much supports Homosexuality or even bisexuality and that's precisely the reason why these people are homosexual and bisexual, just like we are heterosexual. Biology is not merely human anatomy, it also constitutes human brain. And their brain responds to homosexual behaviour just like our brain responds to heterosexuality. Do you know most of the people working for LGBT rights are themselves doctors?

There are many behaviors which are not acceptable to a society and for which we have set punishments. An argument of brain responding differently can be made there as well. I again repeat that human biology does not support such interactions. Well there are doctors who do not support it.

6) Why do we have to say that either everything is normal or that there is no such thing as normal? We have some norms and yes it is not perfect but it is sure better than treating everything normal. This way you will end up with no laws and constitution lol. We can also not have situation where there is no thing as normal or everyone has their own normal. It will lead to mayhem.

Laws and constitution should be based on the principles of equality and justice and not narrow minded and illogical beliefs. Look at Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq etc. These countries have framed their laws on religious beliefs and see the extent of lawlessness in their country. Laws should be based on humanity and not religion or traditions. If some irrelevant or repulsive tradition is practiced in the society, its the job of the law to prevent it instead of encouraging it. I don't think homosexuality is a crime in any way and even the Supreme Court itself has agreed to that. SC declared that discrimination against or rebuking Homosexuals for their sexuality itself is anti-constitutional and tantamount to caste and gender discrimination.

I made an overall point as to how we see things in life and you deviated from that to Iraq, Afghanistan, humanity, tradition, discrimination and Supreme Court. I agree with some points and don't agree with others. I don't want to take discussion into another direction.

7) We cannot use democracy argument as it is a double edge sword. What if the majority votes against legalization of gay marriages?

Democracy is based on the principle of equality and justice and that should be placed above everything else. If people's minds are clogged with unjust and illogical ideas, they must be educated with proper guidance. That's the job of an able leader. The decision of framing law is not made by public. Its made by Parliament and upheld by Supreme Court. And guess what. Both of these bodies have applauded legalization of homosexuality as a step forward.

Well if they want to legalize it then they are free to do it. If a majority in country and their elected leadership and Supreme Court decides to do that then I am okay with it.

8) We cannot have a system where everything goes in name of freedom. There is no such thing as absolute freedom.

You are right. What is wrong should be prohibited, but the decision of wrong and right should be made on the basis of logic and scientific proof and not traditional beliefs or customs. That is why I think many religious practices needs to be abolished by the law as they are unjust, discriminatory and senseless and they drive us towards illiteracy.

Answer to this will depend on practice we are talking about.

In summary, I will say that I realize such things cannot be stopped. I agree with your point that we cannot force or teach someone our values. Also when I said I don't like it I do not mean I looked down at them. I just don't approve of their behavior. They can be better person than me otherwise. What we need to do is to discourage such behavior and not approving gay marriage is a step in that direction. Marriage is a contract which leads to future generation not a full stop.

Marriage is a bond of love and affection. Please do not insult this institution by calling it a contract. A marriage where love and affection is absent, can lead only to mutual dismay and often turns into an abusive relationship. Many parents marry off their homosexual kids to the opposite sex, believing that it would 'make' them heterosexual. Is that possible? Can such marriages work? Will anyone be happy in such a relationship? So isn't it better to let the homosexuals be happy in their own way? If heterosexuals can marry according to their nature, why can't homosexuals? Why should they be deprived of their share of happiness, which by the constitution is their right as well?

I don't understand why people are so averse or scared to legalizing Homosexual marriage. How will it harm them? Do they think that by encouraging homosexual unions, they will 'turn' into homosexuals? If so, then they are fools. Homosexuals or Heterosexuals can't be 'made' they are born so. Neither is homosexuality a contagious disease nor an addiction that can be induced. So even if Homosexual marriage is legalized, Heterosexuals will continue to be heterosexual and will love and marry opposite sex and give birth to babies as they had always done and generations will continue. That is why I think moral education and awareness is imperative to make people understand certain facts and remove umpteen misconceptions.

Love, intimacy, companionship and even procreation can be achieved outside of marriage. How are they different from marriage then? Let me think; a written contract. Why do we see the word contract as devoid of emotion? It reflects commitment, sincerity and responsibility towards someone you love (or are forced to marry lol). To me it is one step forward from love and romance. If people do not end up respecting it then it is their problem but that is what marriage commitment is about.

Marriage by definition is between opposite gender and I believe we should keep it that way.  I only said two things 1) I don't like such behavior and 2) I think we should not allow gay marriages. On first, I am unlikely to change. On second I am okay if the majority decides to do that.

If some think that people like me are narrow minded then that's okay. However in my defense I will say that I am not that. I don't see things in total. As I said if I don't like one thing then it does not mean I reject the whole person. In life sometime people dont like us or have problems with us. We get sensitive about it however later we realize that they cannot be wrong so maybe problem is in us. I think we should see things that way. lol

So yeah please don't think I looked down at them or want to change them lol. It has always been my view that, most of the time, those who can change don't need change and those who need change don't change.

My advice to you is for once, think logically, go through scientific details and published works regarding homosexuality and then form your opinion. You know, when I was in school, I too used to mock effeminate classmates of mine, called them homosexuals and I often used the word Gay in a derogatory manner. I too considered it unnatural and abnormal and was proud that I am normal. But now I realize that I was nothing more than an ignorant idiot and I understood nothing but I am happy as well that I learned from my mistakes.

ve main sare ghumm ke vekhia, amrika , roos, malaysia

na kittey vi koi fark si, har kise di koi shart si

They all give advice. They all have conditions. They all want you to listen. None listens to you.

3) POH:

KAL,

Wasn't directed at me, but you raised some good points so thought of replying.

No problem

No Burqa wearing should not be stopped. Aren't they human beings too? Just like we have our preferences they too have their own preferences. Who are we to stop them


As long as they aren't wearing it in public places (streets, schools, universities, etc), I have no problems with it, and nor should anyone. It's their choice. Though, personally I find the practice misogynistic and hedonistic, but I'm not going to ban it - or want it banned - for that purpose only. I'm iffy over the whole 'face-veil' thing, though, but that is another debate best left for another day.

Yeah maybe leave it for another day. Here I mentioned that for a different purpose. See my reply above for that.

No marriage of women to dogs should not be stopped. Aren't they human beings too? Just like we have our customs they too have their own customs. Who are we to stop them?

No, because, dogs or animals can't give reasonable consent (no matter what their owners or "spouses" may feel - there has been no conclusive scientific study to show that we understand animals as much as we understand other human beings). I mean, c'mon, we can't even verbally communicate with them, so how can you compare marriages with animals to that of marriages between people of the same genders.

I have no idea about custom of women marrying dogs and I will leave it to Muslim women to give their views on practice of burqa and other requirements in Islam i.e. if they care lol.

Few comments

1) I sense from your posts that maybe you don't like the fact that such behavior, on which these people have no control, to begin with, is seen as abnormal. However does this mean that we start calling every such behavior normal? Recently on this forum one lady posted that she want to be nude all the time or something like that. If she decides to go nude will you use "aren't they humans too" argument? She had other desires too but I won't go into that.

Well, I think you will find that homosexuality is only considered 'normal' recently. Previously it wasn't. Definition of 'normal' and 'abnormal' changes depending upon the time, location, culture, etc (like you mentioned it) and our worldview (which again is shaped by scientific discoveries). As I understand, homosexuality is regarded as a normal and natural phenomenon by most psychologists and psychiatrists now. As for wanting to stay 'nude' - it might have been considered an 'abnormal' desire previously, but not anymore. This is why they have nude beaches and other parks where people can practice nudity without any interference from others. However, they cannot practice nudity in open, public places - just like gays or lesbians can't have sex in public places either (same goes for straight couples).

What is normal? I agree that there is no set definition of normal. When we talk about normal we mean what is common. From statistics point of view 95% of the population follow a certain pattern and anything outside of that is significantly different from the normal. But then again it is arbitrary as some people use 90%.

To me more important thing is whether it is natural. Here again I will tell everyone that homosexual behavior is un-natural. One can say that maybe I am focusing on one aspect of an overall relationship however this is the most important part.

The nude example I gave was to make a point that we cannot use a blank statement like "aren't they humans too". We can debate the merits of those examples and yes some are plain wrong and I was aware of that.

2) It is interesting that on one hand you were against discrimination and calling people abnormal but then you yourself discriminated against certain practices or choices that people make.


Such as?

Burqa, custom of women marrying dogs etc. Please refer to DR's earlier post for more details.

3) Let me say that life does have reference points (normality) and those have been formed over centuries and we call them values, customs, traditions or laws. Some are universal while other differ based on location, religion or culture. It should not go down to level of individuals.


I think, I'd have 'normal' and 'abnormal' based on logics and reasoning than traditional or cultural norms.

Natural and un-natural are based on logics and reasoning. Normal and abnormal can be subjective.

4) We are not calling people abnormal but a certain behavior abnormal. They can be normal otherwise.


Okay. But by that logic, we aren't calling you or people who oppose homosexuality as "narrow-minded" either, but only a part of you as narrow-minded.

I am okay with it but just make it clear.

5) @ nature: I do consider this behavior as unnatural. They can't help it and I get that but that does not make it natural. Human biology does not support female-female interaction and male-male interaction.


It depends on how you define natural. If by 'natural' you mean something that is found naturally in nature (as opposed to practices or choices that are consciously made by individuals), then I don't see how homosexuality can be regarded as unnatural. It is found extensively in nature, and like you said, "They can't help it", meaning that it is not something they have a choice over. As I understand, even if you raise a, say, hundred babies in an island (cutting them off from the rest of the world) - a percentage (which is approximately said to be something around 10%) of them will turn out to be LGBTs.

Interesting point. Yes nature has so many definitions as well. I was not referring to the above definition of natural i.e. if it exists it is natural. By that everything that happens is natural. This means we punish criminals for a natural behavior. Nature also means everything that is non-living and that does not apply here. Nature can be one's character. The nature I was referring to is based on science and biology i.e. a trait of a human.

I strictly talked from biological point of view. We can have a behavior or a desire and to me it can be natural or un-natural. I call it un-natural because there is no biological mechanism to support that. The system involved does not support such interaction. The end point cannot be achieved or there is no potential there. Now if you don't want it or consider it un important then that is okay. If you want a relationship devoid of that then it is okay. Feel free to live like that. I never objected to that neither can I stop that. My point was not to change an institution like marriage which is based on a natural phenomenon i.e. male and female interaction.

6) Why do we have to say that either everything is normal or that there is no such thing as normal? We have some norms and yes it is not perfect but it is sure better than treating everything normal. This way you will end up with no laws and constitution lol. We can also not have situation where there is no thing as normal or everyone has their own normal. It will lead to mayhem.

Are you under the impression that homosexuality is being considered 'normal' simply in the name of "freedom" or because "people wish to accept everything as they goes"? I think that is a flawed logic and not true at all. Like said, homosexuality has been considered normal only recently by organizations like APA and others after extensive research going behind it (though you may question the veracity of their claims). It is not something that has been regarded as normal simply because the majority felt that way.

I think they are talking about orientation. It would be interesting to see this logic being applied to other socially unacceptable orientations. Many of the answers will hold true for those as well. However many of those are punishable or not socially accepted. The jury is out on this particular orientation and the fact that they do not have control over it is not enough to accept it.

7) We cannot use democracy argument as it is a double edge sword. What if the majority votes against legalization of gay marriages?

I think you will find that the largest and major arguments against homosexuality come from the religious side. A large many number of people argue against homosexuality not based on objective/scientific or rational reasons, but based on religious and cultural ones. This is why it is said that in a democratic nation, you can't logically argue against homosexuality by bringing up religion or cultural values, as a democratic nation does not run that way.

Yeah majority is good if it suits your purpose otherwise we always have a "wise leader" to steer us towards right path.

8) We cannot have a system where everything goes in name of freedom. There is no such thing as absolute freedom.


True, but in this case, homosexuality is not being considered normal or legalized simply "in the name of freedom". It is considered normal because, frankly, there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

Let us agree to disagree.

In summary, I will say that I realize such things cannot be stopped. I agree with your point that we cannot force or teach someone our values. Also when I said I don't like it I do not mean I looked down at them. I just don't approve of their behavior. They can be better person than me otherwise.


Thanks.

What we need to do is to discourage such behavior and not approving gay marriage is a step in that direction.

Well, this is your opinion, and you are of course entitled to it, and are free to believe and follow as you wish. But you can't make others also follow your path, so the "we" in "what we need" doesn't sound right. I'm curious, though, why you feel it needs to be discouraged? Can you give some valid reasons beside the religious/cultural ones? The whole "it is not natural" has been debunked (not to mention it is an absolutely hypocritical logic, if not utterly ridiculous too). Also, previously you stated that you do acknowledge that the desire cannot be stopped, but here you feel it needs to be discouraged. So, do you want gays/lesbians to live celibate lives?

Well, English is not my mother tongue nor was I ever good in it lol. So maybe give people like me a little room. Let me rephrase it "What I need to do is to discourage such behavior and not approving gay marriage is a step in that direction." Is it better now? Btw why are some trying to get gay marriage recognized? Is that an individual effort on their part?

My post is still un-edited. In my post whenever I used religion or culture as argument it was for the purpose of explaining that we do see things in terms of normal and abnormal and these factors guide us there. It was to counter the argument that there is no such thing as normal. I never once said that I am Muslim so I don't like this behavior. I never said that culture I belong to does not accept this behavior.

Just because APA said that such orientation is normal because these people don't have a choice does not mean it is natural. They also mentioned another component and it was biological interaction between people. Let us not mix things here.

I only made two points 1) I don't like this particular behavior 2) marriage definition should be kept. The potential of influence is there. If you have read the APA article then it also says that orientation is developed during adolescence and reflects interaction with society. Is there not a chance of influencing young people? Will children adopted by gay parents have not an increase chance of turning into gays?

Marriage is a contract which leads to future generation not a full stop

The way I see it, marriage is a union between two people who wish to share their lives together. Procreation comes later, and that is not always the aim of married couples. So many couples wish to not take children and many even marries at an age when it is not possible to take children anymore. Some have reproduction problems too.

I admitted my mistake above.

If some think that people like me are narrow minded then that's okay. However in my defense I will say that I am not that. I don't see things in total. As I said if I don't like one thing then it does not mean I reject the whole person.


I don't regard such people as homophobic like many others do (their comments may be offensive or even homophobic, but I'd try not to judge the whole person as one too).

Lets agree to agree.

Thanks everyone for your input and my apologies for a late response. KAL

p.s..a long post but this 3 in 1 lol



Edited by K-A-L - 01 June 2011 at 8:45am

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

zorrro-Believe-

-Believe- IF-Stunnerz
-Believe-
-Believe-

Joined: 03 December 2005
Posts: 27243

Posted: 01 June 2011 at 8:54am | IP Logged
Wow..KAL...Realy appreciate your dedication!!Big smile

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Forever-KA

Beyond_the_Veil IF-Sizzlerz

Joined: 12 February 2008
Posts: 11413

Posted: 01 June 2011 at 2:05pm | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

Forever-KAFaraan92

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Author Replies Views Last Post
World Cup should be stopped?

2 3

Author: raj5000   Replies: 18   Views: 1153

raj5000 18 1153 16 April 2007 at 10:35am by ...M...
India- atourist attraction?

Author: -misha   Replies: 2   Views: 792

-misha 2 792 22 September 2005 at 7:49am by sowmyaa

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category / Channels
Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.

Popular Channels :
Star Plus | Zee TV | Sony TV | Colors TV | SAB TV | Life OK

Quick Links :
Top 100 TV Celebrities | Top 100 Bollywood Celebs | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Forum Index