It comes down to a choice people make

What is this "research" that you speak of?

Do you honestly believe that homosexuals chose to be homosexual? Homosexuality is not a lifestyle per se, but it does imply a different lifestyle for it to be expressed. I think you're very naive and ignorant.

When did you choose to be heterosexual?
And how exactly did that happen?

Choice? Some Choice!

Knowing what I've learned during the past 60+ years, I certainly would not have chosen to be gay.

Fortunately, God made the choice for me, and the choice that I've made is to accept this gift, nurture this gift, and enjoy this gift.

My next choice is to marry the man I've been with for 25 years. Doesn't it seem incongruous that I am barred from doing so due to such an inexperienced, unqualified opinion and attitude as yours?

Being entitled to love another human being is a perk?

Ignorance is bliss, richardn. The overwhelming volume of research does not support the notion that homosexuality is a choice. Your understanding seems to be extremely limited and one wonders why you would even bother to comment on a topic you know nothing about. Only twenty opinions are on each topic and why would you waste the valuable space. I suggest you go to a college campus near you and meet and talk with one or more gay people. Get to know them, thier joys and sorrows and come back in a year and let us know what you have learned. The difference will be astounding.

1st: When did you choose to be heterosexual and what "perks" did you get for it? Could it be that you just "knew.?" Could it also be that the perks you got were guaranteed to you by, I don't know, The Constitution? Have you read it? It doesn't mention anything about "special" perks, it talks about EQUAL protection. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says, in part: "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Since, in fact, homosexuals are "persons," one who can read can only conclude that they too are Constitutionally entitled to equal protection under the law.

Why would I *choose* a lifestyle that I would be discriminated against? Give me a break!

It's Biological. Recent evidence just published a week ago indicates that the science community found a Gene that appears to influence a person's sexuality.

That dog no longer hunts. Sorry. It's a LIFE, not a LIFESTYLE.

For all those who feel the need to comment on my video, read this first

First, I feel the need to say that we are all human and therefore not perfect, in fact, both our human ideologies and bodies decay and prove themselves to be ever so temperamental.
Second, I do know a few homosexuals and have spent some time with them, although I maintain a rather busy lifestyle and unfortunately have not had the opportunity to spend more time. Consequently, I wish things were different. However, I did spend most of this last Sunday with an ex-homosexual/transvestite man of thirty years. He contains a lot of perspective and wisdom regarding this issue. I won't say any more except that his story is online at syrogers.com
Third, I wish to stay on topic and not diverge into an argument pertaining to the philosophical debate of freewill versus determinism; or, as those in the empirical world of biology and both psychological/sociological development would deem, Nature versus Nurture. Nevertheless, I feel my wants in this regard will prove fruitless and the debate will digress.

My thoughts, in all respect, especially to the older gentleman who commented early on are as follows. I in no way wish to be condescending as if I am wiser than such participants in this debate, so I apologize for my lack of regard in the video, and if I appear that way in what I am about to say.

Furthermore, for the sake of reason and intelligent conversation, let us not state statistics without citing our sources, and links too, if internet achieved. Remember wikipedia can be edited by anyone regardless of merit, so I consider it an unreliable source. Moreover, I do not need statistics for the point I am to make.

The argument is two-fold: choice, or not choice.
if homosexuality is a choice, I think all of us can agree that advocation for nonpartisan treatment would be unjust. Indeed, equal rights would be the goal in such a case.
However, if, as most people think currently, homosexuality is not a choice, then it would come down to a view of whether one deems it healthy or unhealthy. I think we can all agree it is abnormal versus normal in regards to its marginalized population. Also, I think we all can agree that if it is an unhealthy action then it needs rehabilitation or some other form of treatment.

All that to say, I think the real issue comes down to if it is not a choice and is considered a healthy action. If that were true wouldn't it be reasonable to think that the homosexual population deserve "equal rights" to all the other healthy citizens? Surely the goal is to make our culture nonpartisan! So should the homosexual have "rights" above and beyond that of heterosexual?

Consequently, the issue becomes that of constitution. Let me explain. Homosexuals are not accepted by everyone by virtue of religion. Therefore, the harder opportunities they face in finding jobs, housing, etc. is directly impacted upon our constitutional right: Freedom of Religion. Although skepticism marks the view of many Christians today, the average Christian will not adhere to the morality of homosexuality. Both Judaism and Islam hold to this viewpoint as well. That comprises the three largest religions in America today (ref.: "What you Need to Know about Islam and Muslims," George W. Brasewell Jr., Broadman and Holman Publishers, Nashville, 2000, pg. 1). It is the constitutional right for these people to take a moral stance on this issue.

That leaves us in a conflict. Our right of Freedom of Religion constitutes people to take a moral stance on this issue allowing for homosexuals to be mistreated, whereas if we give perfectly "normal" Americans "perks" to make up for this issue it would be nonpartisan.

Which leads me back to the question: is homosexuality a healthy way of life?
That is a more complete outlook on my view, sorry for the stage fright in my video remark.

WTF ? "healthy way of life" ???

What a moron...

My HUSBAND & I have been together for 24 years - and are very healthy .... we just don't have the RIGHTS afforded to or straight counterparts that are MARRIED.

And Freedom of Religion includes Freedom FROM Religion ... While there may be 3 mainstream religions, there are actually ov er 1,300 religions worldwide... So which one is the right religion?

Cody 21,

I am sorry I did not mean the conclusion as harshly as it sounded. In fact, believe it or not, I was trying to make it open ended. I was not trying to conclude whether it is healthy but the rules of logic lead us to have to answer this question.

I really don't want to get into a discussion regarding religion. I merely stated that the majority of religious people in the country have the constitutional right to believe what they want about homosexualism. Unfortunately, this leads to discrimination which is constitutionally okay.

Let's not talk about Biblical interpretation, it is hole you won't easily find your way out of.

I wish not to disrespect you, really I don't. I only ask that you try to afford me that same respect in return. You are entitled to your opinion as much as I am to mine.

This is an extreme but it shows the point: If everyone was a homosexual, then no babies would be born. Only until recently has technology been able to surpass this truth. But let life speak for itself apart from religious views. Reproduction does not favor homosexuality. In fact, every homosexual better thank their life giving heterosexual parents for the opportunity to even debate.

uh, the same argument could be made that if there were more than the estimated 10% population of GAY people, the world have have LESS people and thus be less POPULATED. It goes boths ways mind you, How many BILLIONS of people are now responsible for destroying this planet? Honestly, less is better. I want to throw up every time I read about people having 6, 8, 10 children. And PS - in case you haven't heard, there are many many STRAIGHT people that are unable to have children ... or for that matter don't WANT children ... So how does THAT factor into your equation?

I kissed a guy last night.

Did I die?

No.

*Dances*

Well, actually, to elaborate, I'm currently in love with another person. He happens to be of the same gender as me. We will not be able to reproduce, but there are plenty of other people in the world who are perfectly willing to do that. In fact, there are quite a few heterosexuals who never have kids throughout their entire lives. I don't think I'm gonna destroy the human race.

"I kissed a guy last night. Did I die? " --------------------------------

No, but you scared the hell out of Richard... :-)

cody21,

First, my vote is in to keep this a debate: not a venue to express pointless input, keeping it in the realm of logic, not childish bullying. In all respects. I'll just call what it is. I don't need to participate in discussion with people who resort to such methods.

PolicyWonk,

The research I referred to: I was merely stating the fact that there is a lot of research on this issue, and most of it is hard to interpret because it comes from the slanted standpoints of people, on both sides.

Stardate:
"When did you choose to be heterosexual?
And how exactly did that happen?"

It comes down to a nature vs. nurture standpoint,
biology dictates heterosexuality--by that i mean that the entire purpose of biology is to ensure the continuance of the organism through reproduction. It would be self-defeating for biology to all of the sudden decide to change and develop a system that would destroy itself. Although there may be mishaps that happen within biology that have negative effects on the organism and in fact do kill it, those anonamlies are always recognized as negative. An example of this would be something similar to downs syndrome. Now there are several very intelligent homosexuals one of whom i am personally friends with so by no means am I equating homosexuality to some form of social "downs syndrome"

I simply mean that there may be circumstances in somebody's life or possibly an irregularity in body chemicals or hormones or something else that causes them to have same-sex attractions. However, just because someone may be attracted to the same sex, doesn't mean that they have to act on those attractions; likewise someone with attractions to the opposite sex has no obligation to indulge those feelings.
everyone chooses whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. You make the choice when you decide to act on your attractions.

Now about Homosexual Rights:

Homosexuals want the benefits of tax reduction given in marriage relationships; however, this tax reduction is most likely to compensate for the fact that Marriage involves expensive child care. Maybe these "perks" that married people enjoy should be given only upon proof of parenthood. I am in favor of that one.

Homosexuals want inheritance rights: They want their lovers to be able to inherit their belongings, which is an unstated "perk" of marriage. I completely agree, a person should be able to choose who gets what after they die. However, this can be done outside of marriage, through a "will" agency. Sure it will cost some, but I would be in favor of a government funded "will" agency, even though it would mean more taxes over allowing homosexuals to marry. It's more practical anyways. In America today, why would one want to be bound by law to one person for the rest of their lives (even if they do want to be bond, is their own word not good enough?), right? I am of a different opinion, but many are not.

I completely disagree that homosexuals should be given any compensation by virtue of the fact they are homosexual. And it would reasonable to assume that the homosexuals would want the dignity of no such compensation proving that they are capable individuals able and ready to work, like the average human, since they want to be viewed as normal as homosexual. Confidentiality of sexuality in this case may be a positive option for resolution.

r,sfc

michaelk: "However, just because someone may be attracted to the same sex, doesn't mean that they have to act on those attractions; likewise someone with attractions to the opposite sex has no obligation to indulge those feelings. everyone chooses whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. You make the choice when you decide to act on your attractions. "

Sorry ... wrong again. Many GAY people (myself included) attempted to oblige society's pressures to be STRAIGHT; marrying opposite sex. In most cases, these marriages turn out as a sham; or worse yet, sexless relationships "on behalf of the children". These people only go deeper into their closet. Even more of them have secret gay-sex to fulfill their urges. (ala the self-loathing GOP caught up in their Gay trists.)

And there you go again Richardn - the "perk" thing. Only give tax credits to those couples who actually "parent" ??? Give me a break! What about all the hetero couples who cannot have children - or who CHOOOSE not to have kids (thank god!). And once again (sigh), we're not looking for SPECIAL rights. We just want EQUAL rights & protections afforded everyone in the country!

Cody 21,

You are deviating from the real point of michaelk's argument. He was not saying homosexuals should try and have sex with the opposite genders or even marry, he was merely stating the fact that to have sex at all is a choice.

Moreover, You also deviated from my point which is this: maybe marriage should not be the qualification for tax reduction, instead it should be proof of child.

If I am wrong about the "special rights" please do point me in the direction on what rights homosexuals want? really, if you have a link to some of the laws at vote as of current, I would like to read them,

However, what worries me is when you say the word "protection." What kind of "protection," I ask?

r,sfc

Oh sorry, let me clarify, not that protection for people is a bad extent, but rather what does this protection look like? Maybe also some good examples would help me understand, how it will look.

Protections? How about from being FIred just because I am Gay? How about from being denied housing because of a perception of being Gay? How about from being Beat up for walking down a street hand in hand with my husband? These are all "protections" that heteros just take for granted.... This is nothing more than yet another Civil rights issue.... Every "special group" goes through these and it often takes 20-30 years... Our movement is working on its 25th or so year. How many years did the Black civil rights movement take? How about the Women's momement? What will be the NEXT civil rights movement? Hispanics? Trust me - inclusiveness and fair and equal treatment is in the best interest of this country .... even if the old white straight men would rather us go back to the 50's...

This is not another civil rights movement. Gender and skin pigment are not the same thing as sexual preference. Every person has absolutely no choice in what gender and skin color they are when born. As for sex, people choose whether to do it, or not.

An analogy would be: Whether I chose to drive to the mall or cycle to the mall, or the third option: not go to the mall at all. Let's say cycling to work is really difficult for a person because they are not physically in shape (or healthy), if they considered it okay to drive to the mall than they would go, however let's say this person sees that driving causes pollution and traffic, so they do not want to drive, so they decide not to go even though they wanted to go (maybe really badly wanted to go)

It comes done to a matter of morality. This person has to choose whether it is okay to drive or not to. If he does decide to drive, he knows he may contribute to traffic and cause more pollution. He does get the right to choose, and that is the exact point. HE CHOOSES. He is not forced to do anything even though he may have preference to drive, because of his physical condition (whether caused by nature or nurture).

So yes, if I am a business owner with my right to my own morality, it should be reasonable that i get to choose my employees on my own moral standards (race and gender are different issues).

Now, Homosexuals are very capable of work. In fact, some Homosexuals are very smart or gifted at certain jobs. So, if a business owner is smart, he would realize it may be a good choice to higher this person because they are capable. Nevertheless, he/she has the right to choose.

r,sfc

Your going to the mall analogy is one of the worst I have ever heard. Asking a homosexual to "choose" heterosexual sex is like asking a dog to be a cat. It is not in the dog's nature to be a cat nor is it n the cat's nature to be a dog. Arguing that it is ok to discriminate in employment on the basis of religion only says you believe bigotry is acceptable. You are choosing to discriminate on the basis of who a person is and not on the person’s capabilities. You are choosing to discriminate on what you imagine may be happening in someone's bedroom. Does that mean it is ok to fire a person who may be having an affair or someone who is divorced? If you are going to discriminate on Christian principles, you should do it fairly and uphold all Christian principles and not just select ones. Biblical arguments have been used in the past to oppress the groups you claim are separate cases. This is exactly the same, different time, different group. When you say you spent time with an ex-homosexual/transvestite, I have to wonder if we have a dog who became a cat. Sexuality does not change. It is inborn. You may choose to believe it or not. Every ex-gay I have ever met is living a lie to avoid the wrath of relatives.

larissajo
"Your going to the mall analogy is one of the worst I have ever heard. Asking a homosexual to "choose" heterosexual sex is like asking a dog to be a cat. It is not in the dog's nature to be a cat nor is it n the cat's nature to be a dog."

your dog and cat analogy does not apply at all. a dog is a dog and a cat is a cat regardless of their sexual preference. Likewise a homosexual is a human being just as a heterosexual is a human being

that aside, richardn never once said anything about asking a homosexual to choose heterosexual sex, he was suggesting (as he had already clarified earlier) that they have the ability to not act on their urges and choose no sex.

The biggest problem that i see with the pro-homosexual lifestyle argument is that people are so concerned with trying to find some "gay" gene or whatever to prove that its biological rather that psychological, that they reduce gays to the level of an animal. By that i mean the issue of biology is argued so strongly that humanity is completely ignored. we all have the ability to think and reason along with free-will. Thus we do not merely react to a stimulus, nor are we slaves to our biological or psychological tendencies and urges.

so the "biology chose for me" argument is invalid and sidestepping the point. our biological and/or psychological predispositions are non-issues because we all are capable of still making a choice**

**the choice is whether or not to engage in a sexual relationship at all, NOT to try to be in a heterosexual relationship instead of a homosexual relationship (just to clarify, please don't respond with an argument using the latter because that wasn't my point)

to add to michealk's remark:

Sexuality is indeed inborn, biology always reproduces, so homosexuality is not healthy according to science, because it hinders life.

Furthermore, I have not mentioned anything about my religious views because frankly I don't even need the Bible to prove the unwise and unhealthy nature of homosexuality. So let's keep the Bible out of it, unless people have reasonable questions out of a genuine heart for understanding Biblical interpretation.

Moreover, my analogy may be difficult to understand for those who care not to listen and understand.

Mall = sex
transportation to the mall is either:
bicycle: heterosexuality
car: homosexuality


I feel like we are going in circles here. Homosexuality is a choice because SEX is a choice, that one is obvious. Affections toward same sex or opposite is an issue of psychology and has more to do with relationtional fulfillments of the individual than any so called "gene" (which I do not need to deny, because even if it were a gene it would be an err in biological science)

Therefore, because homosexual sex is at root a choice (regardless of one's ability of self-control). It is a morality issue and it is therefore acceptable for people to decide to higher an adherent to. Even though it may not be the best choice of the business owner because of the capabilities of many homosexual people. A business owner has the right to morality, especially considering its long term effects on society.

finally, if you want to investigate this ex-homosexual/transvestite to see if he is legit look him up at his name is Sy Rogers you can find his material at syrogers.com

r,sfc

richardn - once again, you reduce Homosexuality to it being all about SEX .... As in STRAIGHT relationships, there is much much MUCH more to the relationship/bond between 2 individuals than just SEX. This seems to be where you 'protest too much' .... What ANY people do in their bedroom is not something that should be of concern to you -- or our government for that matter.

However, Sex is, indeed, a matter of the issue at hand which is sexuality (or sexual preference). Feelings of affection are not the same as sexual relations. I am affectionate towards a lot of men and women alike, especially my direct family, but obviously I do not have sexual relations with them. Once again, sex then comes down to a person's position pertaining to morality. A person isn't arrested for being affectionate toward a child, but they are arrested for having sexual relations with (not comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, but drawing at the difference between affection and sexuality).

Biology says, "reproduction" and "Life" and so what are we to say about sexual habits which prohibit life, that they are scientifically condonable? or the reverse?

r,sfc

Back to Richardn:
Richard, in your reply a little bit after mine, you said "Homosexuals are not accepted by everyone by virtue of religion. Therefore, the harder opportunities they face in finding jobs, housing, etc. is directly impacted upon our constitutional right: Freedom of Religion. Although skepticism marks the view of many Christians today, the average Christian will not adhere to the morality of homosexuality. Both Judaism and Islam hold to this viewpoint as well. That comprises the three largest religions in America today."

You are certainly correct that The Constitution gives religions the right to disagree with, even condemn that which they find offensive. The Constitutional also guarantees these religions the right to be free of oppression from the government, and this is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in the First Amendment, which reads, in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

You go on to express that this leaves us "in conflict" because "our" (presumably "your" and the people who think like you) right to Freedom of Religion, as you put it, "constitutes people to take a moral stance on this issue allowing for homosexuals to be mistreated."

The problem is that the First Amendment, while it guarantees freedom of religion to those who wish to practice it, it also prevents those people from imposing those religions and their religious tenets on others, and on the country. This is a Republic, not a theocracy.

Lastly, let us remember a pesky little part of The Constitution known as the 14th Amendment, commonly referred to as the Equal Protection Clause, which should be explained when you read it. It's only been around since it was ratified in 1868, so it's fairly new to some of you, and it says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The last I checked, and I may have missed my heart beating or my pulse racing, but even homosexuals are, in fact, persons. Therefore, they are protected as CITIZENS as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, and are subject to EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.

These are not RELIGIOUS laws, but the laws of the land.

Remember, if we were going to start imposing RELIGIOUS laws upon the United States, whose exactly would we impose? Shinto? Hindu? Hebrew? Islamic? Christian? (which denomination?) Traditional Mormon with lots of wives? Rastafarian? Zoroastrian? Wiccan? Pagan? Buddhist?

bully2,

It appears to me that the 14th says "the state" will be equal bearing whereas many of the serious troubles homosexuals may encounter come from finding places to stay and jobs to work. Does the state really have a say in private business owners dealings, when it comes to people they want to hire, or let rent their property? And if so is that imposing on the business owner's liberty?

Furthermore, I will just out right say this, homosexuality is a disorder, albeit psychological or physical, science agrees because of its rules pertaining to reproduction. Moreover, It is a not natural and unhealthy in this--the only reason homosexual men can live as long as they do nowadays is because of condoms. This is the reality of it, because the human body was not designed for such use. Sorry to get explicit, but a married man and woman, given they remain faithful to each other by not "sleeping" around, can live long and healthy lives with unprotected sex. Homosexual men, let's say both married and faithful, cannot live long healthy lives with unprotected sex, it will hurt both men.

Now, I don't want to insult anyone homosexual's intelligence because this disorder is relationally not intellectually.

What special perk are they asking for exactly?