Debate Mansion

India-Forums

   
Debate Mansion
Debate Mansion

Same sex attraction. Should it be stopped? (Page 47)

souro Moderator
souro
souro

Joined: 27 January 2007
Posts: 14419

Posted: 04 June 2011 at 2:03pm | IP Logged
A few issues:
1. Please stop posting in all Caps, it's irritating and against the rule.
 
2. Yes calling someone dumb is wrong. Although in the present case the person asked a question, but it was a rhetorical question and will still be considered wrong.
 
3. @ Darklord_Rehan: Stick to posting your arguments or counter-arguments. If you feel it's impossible to debate with someone for whatever reason, then don't debate with that person but don't engage in personal attacks.
 
4. @Blue-ice: I don't know why you feel that name calling has become common on DM, but if you feel someone has broken a rule, report it. I can't go through every single page of every topic, and that is precisely why the report button is there... to draw the DT's attention.
Also, I don't know from where you have gathered this, "calling names directly to members is not acceptable...I don't know if that has changed...calling a section of people as weird or perverted is somebody's OPINION...its different from calling a member a name directly"; the information that you have is wrong. Members are not allowed to use either derogatory terms or slander, period (unless there exists sufficient proof). Doesn't matter if it's against any group or a single person.


Edited by souro - 04 June 2011 at 2:06pm

The following 4 member(s) liked the above post:

RehanismRasnyreturn_to_hadesglace-bleue

-Aarya- IF-Dazzler
-Aarya-
-Aarya-

Joined: 02 November 2010
Posts: 2702

Posted: 04 June 2011 at 2:15pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by zorrro

Originally posted by night13

Originally posted by zorrro

Originally posted by night13

Originally posted by blue-ice

Calling the members who do not agree with you...dumb and foolish is just not acceptable here in DM...we play by the rules mate...I hope this is not going to become a norm here...


Is this a debate of who is dumb vs dumber.  LOL
'Just when I thought you couldn't possibly be any dumber, you go and do something like this... and totally redeem yourself'

ps.. what have I done, the only debate I was avoiding and now I am marked...LOL
Sitting on the fence this long must be awfully painful and numbing so slipping off it into this deabate is quite natural mateBig smile


Where is the 'Unlike' button... why can't find it! Angry

Is this a debate on natural vs unnatural... sex to me is natural 'thing', so who is attracted to who again? Oh! Maybe I should jump back on the fence, or get off the fence and climb over it for an opposing view, or just smash it down or just ignore the damn fence! LOL
Why the Unlike button?Unhappy   You should be looking for the button that could switch attraction on or off . That was what the debate was about - If only you could find that button we  would not have to jump o either side of the damn fence LOL 



I want a 'POLL', 

People in favor of same sex attraction
People in not in favour of  same sex attraction
People in favor of just sex
People not in favor of sex
People in favor of all the above
People don't care



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

zorrroglace-bleue

Rehanism IF-Dazzler
Rehanism
Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010
Posts: 3492

Posted: 04 June 2011 at 3:16pm | IP Logged
OK. I am sorry for that statement/ question, if it was considered offensive. I din mean to abuse him. Its just that he was suggesting that I am an atheist and that's why I don't support Indian culture and advocate homosexuality.

I have said this a hundred times that homosexuality has got nothing to do with anyone's culture or religion. But some people try to bring the same point over and over to prove themselves right.

I am sorry once again.

The following 4 member(s) liked the above post:

return_to_hadesBeyond_the_Veilglace-bleueFaraan92

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

Joined: 04 March 2009
Posts: 49339

Posted: 04 June 2011 at 3:22pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

 
4. @Blue-ice: I don't know why you feel that name calling has become common on DM, but if you feel someone has broken a rule, report it. I can't go through every single page of every topic, and that is precisely why the report button is there... to draw the DT's attention.
Also, I don't know from where you have gathered this, "calling names directly to members is not acceptable...I don't know if that has changed...calling a section of people as weird or perverted is somebody's OPINION...its different from calling a member a name directly"; the information that you have is wrong. Members are not allowed to use either derogatory terms or slander, period (unless there exists sufficient proof). Doesn't matter if it's against any group or a single person.


Point noted...Thanks Soumya..
Forever-KA IF-Rockerz
Forever-KA
Forever-KA

Joined: 01 April 2009
Posts: 5411

Posted: 04 June 2011 at 3:53pm | IP Logged
Let me address the main point i.e. why this behavior is un-natural and that I have not given scientific reasoning to support my claim. 
 
I think I did say that by nature I meant from a biological point of view. The definition I was referring to is "The processes and functions of the body".  If this is nature then anything that does not follow it is un-natural. 
 
The human body is up made of different organs and each is designed and programmed to perform a function. You cannot eat with your feet or walk on your hands (maybe some can but you got my point). 
In same manner reproductive system is the primary/distinct system involved in a love/romantic/marriage type relationship. It is a complex entity with several organs programmed to perform their functions with aim of achieving an endpoint i.e. reproduction. The associated things that happen are actually part of a process which facilitates the endpoint. The linings of the organs, the sensory responses, the release of hormones, muscle contractions etc. all are supposed to facilitate reproduction. In that one achieves intimacy, pleasure etc. and sure that is important too. However even that is only properly feasible in male-female interaction not same gender interaction.
 
I don't know how to say this as I honestly don't like to talk about such things (just not my nature) but the fact that one "can get pleasure" does not make a thing natural biologically. Some people get pleasure from cutting themselves or other weird behaviors but that does not make it biologically right.
 
And no sodomy is not a natural process. The organ is meant for excreting waste products not to provide pleasure. The practice is unclean, un-hygienic, and a source of number of diseases not to mention harmful to the organs involved. You can say oh if done properly... nope my friend...human body does not give you that chance. It is not designed that way. 
 
I think doctors who support it are speaking from a different point of view i.e. this is not an illness or that this behavior is natural because some people are oriented to like same gender.
 
In summary yes I personally do not like it and yes that does not matter. I would like it to be not given status of marriage since it is not that in my opinion and can influence young people. Still if majority decides to call it that then I am okay.
 
I have nothing more to add so this will be my lost post on the topic. I am sorry about that.  I know it is not in right spirit of debate however I just take alot of time to come up with a response. I wish i was a quick thinker like many of you here. lol
 
anyway thanks
 
kal


Edited by K-A-L - 04 June 2011 at 4:53pm

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

return_to_hadesBeyond_the_VeilPrinsesse.Suviglace-bleueSummer3

Rehanism IF-Dazzler
Rehanism
Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010
Posts: 3492

Posted: 04 June 2011 at 4:56pm | IP Logged
@KAL - OK good points. Finally somebody spoke sensibly. I'll try to answer

1. We have all agreed that homosexuals need not be impotent or sterile. They are very much capable of reproducing with opposite sex. But the problem is they do not have any affection for opposite sex. It will be a completely mechanical process. They'll have sex like machines. To a gay, sleeping with a woman would be akin to a straight guy sleeping with another guy. Now the question beneath this question is whether reproduction is the ultimate objective of marriage? I don't think so. Putting in simple words, Marriage is a bond of two people who feel that they are consensually compatible with each other and wish to spend their lives with each other. Unless we bring in religious interpretation, no modern law requires married couples to bear children or even be parents (by adopting). So I don't see any reason behind denying Homosexuals the right to marry according to their preferences.

2. It might seem odd to you, but there's no evidence suggesting that homosexual sex is exclusively infectious or injurious. Sodomy or anal sex is performed even by heterosexual couples. Kama Sutra is not a religious text. Its based on pure science and that text had provisions for anal or oral sex for both Heterosexuals and Homosexuals. I believe, and I think I am not incorrect, that any sort of sex - be it vaginal, anal or oral, is infectious if practiced in unsafe ways. Previously it was a myth that homosexuality is a sole cause of HIV. But that too was disproved by research. Everyone - be it hetero couples or homo couples - is equally vulnerable to HIV if they are careless.

3. Please don't suggest that homosexuals are unrealistic or that they don't know to live with reality. They are far more realistic and self sufficient than I and you can even hope to be. We can't even imagine how much pain they endure every second. And yet they live in this world, being different from rest of the crowd, with hardly anyone understanding, let alone supporting, them. Everyone, including their family, raises eyebrows at them, friends and neighbours laugh and deride them and shoo them away as if they carry some dirty contagious disease, they are barred from religious places, even the in the films and TV serials (made by so-called educated directors) they are presented as ridiculous comic characters fit to be made fun of. Can you possibly imagine their plight? Do you think you would lead a better life if you had been in their place? The best we can do for them is make their lives a bit better - give them a status as equals; as humans and allow them to live with their desirable partners who will completely understand them without segregating them from the society.

4. I have said myriad times, homosexuality can never be a wrong influence. This is merely a conservative social ideal and not a scientific fact. In many countries people/government allow public kissing, open discussion of sex lives, even nudity. But in countries like ours, we claim that all this will have wrong influence on us and hence these are criminal offence in our nation. We forget that in India, the world's first and most detailed sex-literature was written even before most other modern religions and faiths were founded. In Indian society, not just homosexuality, but public snogging, open discussion of sexuality and even nudity in art and architecture were very much prevalent. And in those days, India was World's largest and most prosperous nation.

5. A blind man sees through his ears and a deaf man listens through his eyes and a lame man walks with his hands. Every weakness is naturally substituted by a strength. So do not be so rash in deciding what is norm and what is unnatural. Every being created by nature with some intrinsic properties have some or the other purpose. Yeah their traits might be different from the majority and people might have difficulty in understanding them, but that need not mean that they are unnatural or abnormal.

6. Lastly, I see the only possible way to remove these narrow misconceptions in our society is Sex Education from an early age. Students from an early age needs to be educated about human sexual behaviour and orientation so that by adolescence they know about what they are going to face. Half-knowledge and myths shall always lead to a conservative and restrictive atmosphere which would have no place for liberal ideas. But unfortunately our pseudo-secular leaders who are more interested in pleasing various religious groups for vote banks rather than working for a better and worthier nation, will always be shy to implement this.

As the mother in that wonderful story said, its not our job to decide what is 'normal' and what is not. Our job is to help them lead a better life and be a good human.


Edited by Darklord_Rehan - 04 June 2011 at 5:02pm

The following 4 member(s) liked the above post:

Forever-KAreturn_to_hadesBeyond_the_VeilFaraan92

return_to_hades IF-Sizzlerz
return_to_hades
return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006
Posts: 23325

Posted: 04 June 2011 at 5:01pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by K-A-L

I went through the topic and the "scientific evidence" I have seen presented in favor of giving gays and lesbian right to marry is following

1)     "Enjoyment" seems to top this list
2)     Intimacy
3)     Pleasure
4)     Interaction possible if handle with care
5)     Rights
6)     Freedom
7)     Democracy
8)     Reference less claims
9)     Irrelevant articles not addressing biological aspects but focusing on behavior/psychological issues
10)   Emotions
11)   Doubting credibility and credentials of people who oppose it
12)   Wiki articles
13)   The point that it is natural because it is there
14)   And of course there is always love when nothing works
 
Please let me know if I have missed some valuable information above.


I feel that this list completely distorts and misrepresents the points made. First and foremost would be the works of reputed organizations like APA, WHO, Royal Society etc who have accepted the fact that homosexuality is a completely normal and natural behavior. My second argument would be that gay people like any other people have the need for love and commitment like every other person and denying them that right would be unfair and undemocratic. If one disagrees with the ethics and human spirit of these arguments then so be it.
 
Originally posted by K-A-L

First, I will get to the main point and this is for those who have asked me why it is un-natural and that I have not given scientific reasoning to support my claim. BTW why should I provide all that? The other side has to prove that as what I am supporting is the norm and default (at least by law, social norms etc.).


Actually the other side has proven that homosexuality is natural and normal citing scientific sources. If you wish that your argument have scientific founding then you would need to do so. However, if you don't care to have a scientifically sound argument then you need not do so. I also hope that you realize that even your norm and default varies. There are a few growing number of countries and regions that deem your perception of the norm as archaic and discriminatory and choose to expand equal rights to homosexuals.
 
Originally posted by K-A-L

Main Point: I think I did say that by nature I meant from a biological point of view. The definition I was referring to is "The processes and functions of the body".  If this is nature then anything that does not follow it is un-natural. 
 
We need to understand the anatomy and physiology of a human body. In lay man terms anatomy is about the structure and composition while physiology deals with the mechanism. The human body is up made of different organs and each is designed and programmed to perform a function. You cannot eat with your feet or walk on your hands (maybe some can but you got my point). 
 
In same manner reproductive system is the primary/distinct system involved in a love/romantic/marriage type relationship. It is a complex entity with several organs programmed to perform their functions with aim of achieving an endpoint i.e. reproduction. Everything involved is oriented towards male-female interaction. The associated things that happen are actually part of a process which facilitates the endpoint. The linings of the organs, the sensory responses, the release of hormones, muscle contractions etc. all are supposed to facilitate reproduction. In that one achieves intimacy, love, etc. and sure that is important too. However even that is feasible in male-female interaction not same gender interaction.
 
I don't know how to say this as I honestly don't like to talk about such things (just not my nature) but the fact that one "can get pleasure" does not make a thing natural biologically. Some people get pleasure from cutting themselves or other weird behaviors but that does not make it right.
 
And no sodomy is not a natural process. The organ is meant for excreting waste products not to provide pleasure. The practice is unclean, un-hygienic, and a source of number of diseases not to mention harmful to the organs involved. People are getting E coli infection from eating cucumber and you are saying this filthy practice provides "enjoyment". If this is what people think is enjoyment then I don't know what world I am living in.
 
I can quote websites which show that such practices are associated with increased risk of diseases. If you can get me a reference which says intercourse was meant to be like sodomy then feel free to do it. And please no social and behavioral stuff.


When we make the argument about human anatomy, we have to realize that humans along with dolphins, apes and some other animals in nature have sex not just for procreation but for recreation as well. Most animals have a reproductive cycle and will copulate only when in heat. Often times the reproductive process is painful, not enjoyable and in many species leads to the death of a mate. Nature made humans and other animals with other sensory systems so that sexual indulgence is completely separate from reproductive instincts.

Even if homosexuals disappeared these practices which you speak about are practiced by several heterosexual couples as well. Many heterosexual couples too engage in sodomy, cunnilingus, fellatio and others purely for pleasure. So these other sensory experiences are not just biologically established, but established socially, culturally, emotionally not only by homosexuals but by human nature in itself.

Any and all sexual practices pose risks of disease and problems. You have the instance of smaller women who find regular intercourse itself painful and it can cause blunt trauma to their intimate area. Penetrative intercourse actually has much higher risks than non penetrative intercourse. By your logic then only non penetrative intercourse should be prescribed. With responsibility, proper hygiene and safe sex practices people can make any sexual interaction safe, healthy, pleasurable and emotional for them and their loved ones. We have way too many instances of abuse and unsafe sex within heterosexuals itself.

As a responsible citizen, I find it much more important to promote safe, healthy and committed sex amidst all people - rather than focus on only one sexual orientations sexual habits and completely lose sight of the basic human problem of safe sex.

There is also the emotional aspect of sex, where sex is beyond carnal instincts of procreation or pleasure, but a very intimate experience that people share out of love. For many people that love is critical above all else and they engage in sex only on the basis of experiencing the emotional connection.

Of course there are religious, social and personal beliefs that don't believe in separating the pleasure aspect of sex from procreation. I am fine with that, it is a very personal experience and people have every right to perceive it how they wish and share their perceptions with their community. However, these perceptions cannot be changed into law can it? Do we go checking the bedrooms of heterosexual married couples to see if their sex is legitimate. Why single out homosexuals. In similar vein most people accept the emotional aspect of sex and find it perfectly acceptable for infertile men and women to engage in sexual relations, have people with physical deformities and inabilities find means to experience intimacy. Then why the hesitation to accept homosexuals need to engage in fulfilling relationships. I don't understand.

I apologize if I am being to explicit here. I tried to tone it down, but I could find no other logical way to express my rationale. Please PM me if you wish me to edit. The above content however is COPA and COPPA compliant under international law.

Originally posted by K-A-L

I don't get the point that there are number of orphaned kids out there who can be adopted lol? So? Is this how life works? If you cannot make the lemonade try eating lemon lol. I mean give me some scientific biological arguments to prove that this relationship is possible.

The same argument that allows parents who cannot conceive adopt children. The same argument that allows single men and women the right to experience parenthood and family.

Biologically many people cannot bear children. However, family is not blood ties only. Stronger than blood is the emotional bond of love and support people offer each other. If this is unconvincing I can definitely cite sociological findings and studies that single parents, gay parents can form equally successful families as heterosexual couples.

Not every person biologically capable of procreating is capable of being a responsible family member. There are some horribly wrong so called normal families out there.

Originally posted by K-A-L

I think those who support it are speaking from a different point of view i.e. this is not an illness or that this behavior is natural because of some people are oriented to like same gender. None would say that it makes sense biologically. I know it just does not. You can say oh if done properly'.nope my friend. Human body does not give you that chance. It is not designed it that way. It is highly organized structure and even a little abuse can cause potential problems and therefore the diseases and illnesses

Then my friend go argue with the scientific communities that have deemed homosexuality as natural and normal. Approach your legislative organizations to deem all forms of sex other than regular sex illegal and better yet find ways to enforce it amidst all couples.

Originally posted by K-A-L

IIn summary 1) there is no need to give their relationship status of marriage as it has the potential of influencing young people when they are growing and if they see that all this as norm then it is sure to affect them. We still have controversies on origin of such behavior and it is always safe to not change laws etc. in this situation. 2) Still if majority thinks it is marriage then yeah change it there. The laws are for them and if they are okay with it then sure go ahead.

Kal

I believe I have given strong, reasonable arguments on why homosexuality is acceptable and normal. I beleive I have refuted notions that allowing homosexuality or homosexual rights negatively influences society. However, I respect that for some people homosexuality is not palatable or acceptable. I respect the notion that some people would wish to have communities that are free of homosexuals. I wish I could change the way people think and believe, but unfortunately that is beyond my capacity nor do I have any right to do that.

All I can do is present my perception and my knowledge and hope that every human has the ability to think with rationality and compassion to create an accepting truly equal society for all humans. If I fail, I fail in the hope that people know what they are doing and choose the best possible choice after giving serious significant thought to it.

My role is to keep continuing the legislative and social battle for what I believe to be human rights. Everyone will do theirs. 

Edit: Since the quote function is awry. I changed my text to blue. I also want to Thank You for taking the time and effort for presenting your opposing views in a reasonable, respectful, and rational manner.



Edited by return_to_hades - 04 June 2011 at 5:08pm

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

Forever-KASummer3

Forever-KA IF-Rockerz
Forever-KA
Forever-KA

Joined: 01 April 2009
Posts: 5411

Posted: 04 June 2011 at 5:09pm | IP Logged
DR and RTH
 
Let us agree to disagree. Sometimes we just see things from different context. I will leave it to time to decide.
 
@ Edits: I edited my post to shorten since it looked so long and of course to avoid offending anyone. Hope people wont mind.
 
kal
 

The following 4 member(s) liked the above post:

Rehanismreturn_to_hadesSummer3glace-bleue

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