Not really . . . This thread discusses schisms occurring within the community itself because of an oversaturation of PC culture as well. From a non-religous perspective, there is an ideology present around the social construction of homosexuality/transgenderism and THAT is what is getting discussed here. Reasons for disliking it ranges from religious conviction to natural repulsion. Or some people just hate what the community has come to represent as it's been co-opted in the game of divisive identity politics.
Oversaturation, lol.
I'm not talking about "ideology" - whatever you mean by that.
I'm talking about sexual orientation and how it's clearly not a choice that people make.
Please, not the animal argument. That is such a weak line of reasoning that has been debunked over and over again. You can't use occurances of behaviour in the animal kingdom to moralise human sexuality but then use human morality to separate other commonplace animal behaviours as non-applicable. Either all animal behaviour that is commonplace is natural to humans or none of it is. Because whatever metrics you use to pick and choose is based on circular reasoning that appeals to (once again) subjective human morals.
Dude.... one this is pretty much certain: being gay is not a matter of just deciding to be so.
One either is or is not gay or bi or hetero.
That there is no underlying biological explanation (yet) as to be able to say "here, this gene here" or "that hormonal balance right there", or whatever, as being the reason for being gay or not, does not change the fact that gay or hetero people don't choose to be so.
It is a fact that it is not a matter of choice.
And if you would actually spend some time informing yourself, talking to some gay people and looking inwards to your own sexuality and sexual orientation, you would understand this.
But obviously your religious beliefs prevent you from undertaking that sort of test with any form of honesty.
"subjective human morals", I'd like to see what your "objective, nonhuman morals" are, but you do not have any. Your beliefs against gay people come from equally (if not more) subjective morals, however judging by the deity you worship, the word 'moral' can hardly be associated with it. To call the Christian God "moral" would be an oxymoron.
And another bad argument with comparing it to skin colour. Take it from a POC -there is no "closet" for someone to slip in undetected on a race basis. Skin pigmentation is an obvious and physically-manifested genetic marker. Unless you're a walking stereotype or tell people, no one will know you are gay. You are comparing a behaviour to a physical reality and those are not the same things. Besides, there still has not been a solid breakthrough on whether sexual orientation is really genetic or not so this is a moot point.
This is part of the outbreak of homophobia, is that gay, bi and trans people are not well represented and you seem to have big issues with it when they finally get some attention.
No doubt that some men who are overtly homophobic are probably repressed closet cases. But that doesn't go for everyone -you'd probably describe me as homophobic for my beliefs that it is unnatural and to be honest, yes, the thought of gay men being intimate repulses me. I'm a woman and I'm not the only female who feels that way. So the theory kind of flies out the window there. As for the rest of your post, it's rather arrogant to assume you know anything about another person's sexuality. You automatically assume them bisexual and run with that despite that contention in and of itself being nothing more than projection. Lastly, no one ever claimed sexual attraction was a choice.
Good for you. But your asexuality is your business. Other people like sex and don't need you telling them that they are being immoral because they like something that you don't.
Other animal species, who aren't able to achieve orgasms, don't "enjoy" sex but thrive as a species nonetheless. In fact, there are even species out there where the male gets eaten by the female right after depositing his seed.
Clearly, sex doesn't need to be enjoyable in order to ensure procreation.
Contrary to what you seem to believe, you don't get to dictate to others what their purpose in life is.
If you think sexual orientation is a choice, you are bisexual. Only bisexuals get to choose.
People here tend to look at different factors that could potentially result in non-heterosexual orientations because whether you believe in God or some other king of intelligent designing force or evolution or biology - It's clear that humans are not built for homosexuality. There's a difference between attraction and behaviour. Guess which is being discussed here.
Demonstrate it.
God's design happens to include gay people.
Forbidding them to be gay, would thus be against god's design.
If god didn't want gay people, maybe he shouldn't have designed gay people.
It's also very possible that there is another, related (directly or indirectly), trait that IS actually evolutionary relevant and of which the occasional homosexual individual is but a side effect. And that in that way, homosexuality kind of "piggy backed" on the evolutionary wave of that other trait, which is actually the thing that selection favours.
However to me though, all that isn't really relevant in a discussion of whether or not it's okay to be gay.
Just like it doesn't matter to me how evolution made us end up with white and black people. No matter what that explanation is, it's not really going to change anything in the discussion of wheter or not it is okay to be black......
If god designed humans, then it's not outside his design because the fact is that homosexual humans exist.
