SEXUALITY debate: Why can't people live their life (Page 5)

Post Reply New Post

Next Topic

Prev Topic

Beyond_the_Veil

IF-Sizzlerz

Joined: 12 February 2008

Posts: 11545

Posted: 02 December 2011 at 12:14pm | IP Logged

Originally posted by Petrouska

Well, I do not think it's a crime to be homosexual or bisexual. It is way a person wants to lead his/her life and as long as they do it out of choice, it's perfectly alright. And as you say, people have the right to live their lives the way they want, as long as their way of life is not a nuinsance to the public!

But sometimes, environment does play an important role in making an individual turn homosexual. Take Saudi Arabia for instance. It is probably one of the countries with a high number of gays and lesbians. It could probably be because of the stringent and dogmatic views of the country and its law. It's generally beleived that if the normal is forbidden, people take the abnormal path. In such countries, it is a crime for a man and woman who are not related to be seen together in public places. When people of the same sex gather for an event or are seen together, it does not raise suspision. And some people could see it a way of rebelling againt their country or religion. In some cases, if men and women experience traumatic experience at the hands of the opposite sex during childhood, then there is a possibility of these people seeking comfort and love from other people of their own sex. This may make them feel secure.

So, if an individual has taken the decision to be homosexual maturely, then there isn't a problem. Otherwise, they may require councelling.

People don't take the "decision to be[come] homosexual" - there is no logical argument or science behind this. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me you are thinking of sexuality in terms of the intercourse and action - when, in reality, sexuality goes well beyond that. It's a complex term we give to the entire experience and awareness of gender identity and sexual thoughts. There is more to a sexual orientation than just the physical needs and actions.

So going by the dictionary definition, a person can be a closeted gay and married (and consequently sexually active) to a woman for all his life. At the same time, it is entirely possible for the heterosexual community to experiment with alternate sexuality, but that wouldn't make them gay. It's not the action but the desire that marks one's sexuality.

The exact cause of homosexuality has not been pinpointed and proven beyond reasonable doubt by the scientific establishment, but most scientifically minded organisations do regard it as something that one has no control over - the only choice is whether to act upon the desire or not. The desire, however, is not something one can choose to have and stay with them.

Environment and upbringing probably does play a part in forming ones sexuality - how important and crucial it is, we will have to wait and see - but that still does not make it something one is consciously choosing for oneself. In fact most people who are sexually active did not one day wake up and suddenly decide to be gay or straight.

Homosexual actives are quite common in prisons and similar places where finding members of the opposite sex could be difficult - but it's the basic human drive for sex that leads people to experiment and release their sexual needs by fornicating with anyone they could get hold of, not their natural desire that does. Again, has there been any documented case where prisoners were still 'into' homosexuality even after being released from prisons?

I have never come across this piece that there are more LGBTs in Saudi Arabia. Would you back up that with any reliable source, because so far I have not come across this information. It seems to me that from an outsider's perspective, the number of gays, lesbians and bisexuals may seem alarmingly high - because of the archaic and barbaric punishments (often) used against the community there. Similarly, in Iran, sex change is a very common scenario because while Iran does not acknowledge the existence of gays (and it is a criminal offense, to some cases leading to even capital punishment), they do permit sex change as a 'remedy' to the homosexual problem (what they perceive it to be), and desperate gays, lesbians and bisexuals will take any mean to avoid facing public flogging, capital punishment or a celibate life. This is a sad scenario actually - people who are comfortable with their gender and body are now forced to give it up for their love and relationship.

Edited by Beyond_the_Veil - 02 December 2011 at 12:22pm

The following 3 member(s) liked the above post:

XVIRUS, aanyakunat, -Chandramukhi-,

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "SEXUALITY debate: Why can't people live their life (Page 5)" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

Beyond_the_Veil

IF-Sizzlerz

Joined: 12 February 2008

Posts: 11545

Posted: 02 December 2011 at 12:49pm | IP Logged

Originally posted by _twilight_

If homosexuality is as positive and natural as someone earlier said why is it not generally accepted or encouraged by religion or society?

And religion has been correct about how many things, exactly? From a scientific perspective, religion is the byproduct of a different culture and time, of a different society with different social needs and belief systems to govern themselves.

Besides, it's not like each and every religion out there is against homosexuality. Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism, Neo-Paganism, Animism, Wicca, etc does not state anything explicitly against homosexuality.

It's somewhat fallacious to say societies are not generally tolerant of homosexuality. There are many societies that are. Societies' outlook towards life and natural phenomenon is often governed by traditional views and sometimes superstitious ideas. They are not always based on science and reality.

The following 3 member(s) liked the above post:

XVIRUS, aanyakunat, -Chandramukhi-,

TheUltimate

Senior Member

Joined: 19 July 2010

Posts: 788

Posted: 02 December 2011 at 3:12pm | IP Logged

Originally posted by pinkfreud

Originally posted by TheUltimate

I am not against gays. Gay marriages is very debatable. I am ok them calling their union a marriage as long as it is not affecting the "traditional" marriage definition.

And how will two homosexuals, bisexuals, trannys, or hermies getting married affect the 'traditional' marriage definition? In fact, I believe this will only expand the marriage definition and make it more dynamic and fluid. Is this something to do with the fear of unions between men and women becoming quote unquote, 'extinct'?

Actually, scratch that- what is the traditional marriage definition anyway?

My views here may be inflammatory to some, but here goes. Marriage in itself is a man-made construct. They are not made in heaven, unlike what fairytale spinners who live in a candy floss world where unicorns play kabaddi and peacocks serve you tea would have you believe.

I am strictly talking about marriage here, not about relationships. In fact, I am a firm believer in the soul predetermining who its romantic partner/s may be in a certain lifetime. I am a die-hard lover of love and am not against the idea of getting married myself. What I am against, is the notion that marriage is the be-all and end-all of one's love life; like a stamp of approval of a relationship.

Marriage is actually a legally binding agreement between two individuals mainly for (1) protecting their gene pools, and (2) handling properties and assets. Ancient Talmudic/Hebrew law even went to the extent of stating that a man must marry his brother's widow in order to provide the resources required for her to live her life and secure the well-being of her offspring.

However, that is not to say that a marriage is supposed to be completely devoid of love; of course not, I'd be brutally cynical to believe otherwise. What I am saying here, is that marriage, being a legally binding agreement between two adults, should be permitted for people of all orientations.

If two gay/bi/transgender people in love would like to manage or share their respective assets with one another, I do not see why it should be disallowed. In fact, preventing queers from getting married is a violation of the fundamental human right to be recognized everywhere you go as a person before the law. Not to mention a violation of free will, but hey, free will is being stomped on everywhere you look.

And as for the OP's point about letting queers be- I don't get the hoo-haa queerphobia either. What two consenting people (or more, heh) do in their bedroom is nobody's business. They have a right to privacy.

I think what shocks most folks is the thought of gay/bi men and women or the in-betweens getting it on more than anything else LOL

People are too accustomed to the thought of plugging the wires in the traditional sockets.

And who said it would affect the traditional marriages? Not me.

The basic premise of a marriage between a man and a woman is the reproduction - having kids. Gay couples cannot have that. Since the purpose of the marriage is having kids and management of heirdom, it is going to require heck lot of spinning on the gay community's part to redefine the marriage. Again - why must it be called a marriage is the question.

Thanks - because you seem to have a basic concept of marriage and logical reason behind it.

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

Omnipotent_Taco,

Rehanism

IF-Dazzler

Joined: 07 August 2010

Posts: 3107

Posted: 02 December 2011 at 8:02pm | IP Logged

I don't think goal of a marriage is to have kids. Marriage is a union of two humans who wish to spend their life together. As simple as that. Many heterosexual couples too cannot conceive but that doesn't mean theirs is a failed marriage!! And, unlike most other animals, human beings do not mate only for reproduction.

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

XVIRUS, Omnipotent_Taco, aanyakunat, -Chandramukhi-,

Omnipotent_Taco

Goldie

Joined: 25 October 2010

Posts: 2016

Posted: 02 December 2011 at 8:27pm | IP Logged

Originally posted by TheUltimate

And who said it would affect the traditional marriages? Not me.

Thanks - because you seem to have a basic concept of marriage and logical reason behind it.

Oh alright then, I deduced that's what you meant since you said 'as long as it doesn't affect traditional marriages' or something along those lines.

Though I really disagree with the notion that marriage is a precursor for having kids. The 'purpose' of having children bit is a very general view of things. That indirectly indicates that the union between two people is solely for procreational purposes. It may have been so in the bygone eras, but it doesn't hold fort today.

What about yuppies or couples who do not wish to have children? I have a serious problem with the traditional mentality that married couples are expected to have children.

As for queer couples being unable to bear children- they can always adopt, but even that is a huge hurdle in today's times. There are so many children in the world today who are either orphaned or given up for adoption for various reasons. I for one believe adoption is a noble deed.

Edited by pinkfreud - 02 December 2011 at 8:28pm

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

aanyakunat, -Chandramukhi-,

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 18267

Posted: 02 December 2011 at 11:23pm | IP Logged

Since the discussion went into family, this video is doing the popular rounds in the USA.

Prometeus

IF-Sizzlerz

Joined: 03 December 2005

Posts: 24267

Posted: 02 December 2011 at 11:38pm | IP Logged

Nothing against anyones free will...but I know here I didnt find any solid argument against homosexuality...& am not expecting the Straight thoughts too, but its nothing about "good" vs. "bad"; "right" vs. "wrong"; or "saved" vs. "sinner"...& Its nothing about religion or my thought based on reproduction for survival of the species, and societies...If they stick to themselves and don't "demand equal rights" then I'm okay with them...But just like any other "group", there is always a small amount of individuals who ruin it for the majority... no probs...'Do what you want, with whomever you want...'

If you act normal, the rest of society will treat you normal.If you act like a fking faggot (excuse me) then the rest of society will treat you like one...

Edited by Prometeus - 03 December 2011 at 2:54am

zorrro

Goldie

Joined: 29 July 2008

Posts: 1767

Posted: 03 December 2011 at 2:42am | IP Logged

Originally posted by Rehanism

I don't think goal of a marriage is to have kids. Marriage is a union of two humans who wish to spend their life together. As simple as that. Many heterosexual couples too cannot conceive but that doesn't mean theirs is a failed marriage!! And, unlike most other animals, human beings do not mate only for reproduction.

Marriage is not necessary for people to spend their lives together. We had enough discussion on this in an earlier thread on live in partners. From what I understood there marriage is mainly for social or legal acceptance, or even for inheritance of property as someone had suggested

Children are not the only reason but they are still an important reason.

How do we know why animals mate? Reproduction might be a byproduct of their mating without intention.

Page 5 of 34
« previous
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
...
33
34
next»

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Topics	Topic Starter	Replies	Views	Last Post
The Cyber Culture Discussion/Debate 2	return_to_hades	15	1109	01 July 2010 at 10:26pm By the_Naked_face
Debate Contest (COMPLETED) 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 32 33	return_to_hades	256	9842	28 June 2010 at 11:48am By return_to_hades
Debate Contest Winners 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 18 19	return_to_hades	149	7303	23 June 2010 at 12:59am By krystal_watz
Artificial life abroad Vs life in India? 2 3 4	raj5000	28	4111	10 July 2007 at 7:53pm By Gauri_3
Home life or Hostel life 2	Swapna-Mobile	14	4348	06 February 2007 at 12:33am By realitybites

SEXUALITY debate: Why can't people live their life (Page 5)

Page 5 of 34

Posted: 02 December 2011 at 12:14pm | IP Logged

Posted: 02 December 2011 at 12:49pm | IP Logged

Posted: 02 December 2011 at 3:12pm | IP Logged

Posted: 02 December 2011 at 8:02pm | IP Logged

Posted: 02 December 2011 at 8:27pm | IP Logged

Posted: 02 December 2011 at 11:23pm | IP Logged

Posted: 02 December 2011 at 11:38pm | IP Logged

Posted: 03 December 2011 at 2:42am | IP Logged

Related Topics

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Search

Join India-forums Today!

Here's why members would love to be a part of India-Forums.com:

Join Us Close