Continuation of "how do you explain gay?"...

[bssage]

Cybel. I dont think anyone knew the back story. I am in testing's camp as far as doing what you can keeping a poor relationship alive with GP's. However since your explanation, I agree with you 100%. Not sure that was clear in your first post. I believe (stop me if I am wrong testing) testing was making a more general statement about it is ok for people to not always agree. Its not something that needs to be a deal breaker.

I think and again stop me if I am wrong testing. That what testing is saying is just that. We dont have to agree. We dont have to agree gay is right or wrong. We can disagree and still maintained relationships.

I believe stop me if I am wrong again. Her issue with pstc is more about what she (and I) perceives as his opinions being presented as facts.

I say answer the questions as they are posed as truthfully as you can. Its OK to say I dont know, Or my opinion is.

Personally I am a live and let live kinda dude. While I probably wont march in the parade. I have no desire to impede it. If putting yourself out there is what you want, rock on brothers and sisters.

 

[parentastic]

That is just not true, any more than one is born an adulterer or a pedophile.

I find it, to put it mildly, distasteful, to compare two human being who love each other, <I>regardless of their gender</I>, to pedophile or adulterer.
Besides, pedophilia is a mental illeness. Sexual orientation is not.
If you wouldn't make those huge demagogic comparisons, and you just kept your own opinion to yourself, I wouldn't call you out on it.
In a different thread, PL compared spanking with abuse and was virtually hang for it. This is no different. You have a right to your opinions, but not a right to slender the relationship of millions of people who simply love each other, and who are no different than any other human beings in a relationship, by comparing them to pedophilia, IMO.

I've really had enough of being forced into silence in the face of politically correct rhetoric.

Let's get something <U>really clear</U> here.
The reason society today is asking people not to say things like "same-sex sexual relationships are wrong" is not for the sake of "political correctness". It is because saying so constitutes <U>discrimination</U> against sexual orientation, which is both against the law, and against the charter of human rights.
If you are doing it for the sakes of being "politically correct", then I am sorry to say you miss the point entirely.
It's not okay to discriminate against black people (racism), against women/men (sexism), against LGBTQ (heterosexism) or against religion (bigotism) - not because today's society is asking for people to "appear" correct, but because we are asking people to <U>respect</U> each other's right to live their own lives as they see fit.
The whole politically correct" angle frankly infuriates me.

I'm not unkind to anyone and I keep my own business to myself. You won't find me marching in a parade or loudly proclaiming I sleep with a (fill in the gender) or attending support groups based on the person with whom I sleep. I only ask the same respect in kind.

You are also not oppressed every single day of your life with heterosexual people mocking you, bullying you, beating you, insulting you, killing you, throwing you to prison, forcing you to hide who you are, or torturing you. Those who do, who spent years living this hell before they finally reach the point where they say proudly to the face of the society, "I don't care for your pressure, for your manipulation, for your oppression: I will live my life as I see fit, proudly, and I will no longer hide who I am, anymore than any heterosexual", those people deserve the right to be heard when they take this courageous decision.

You don't march in a parade because you do not <I>need</I> to fight for the right to love who you love.
You don't need to proclaim who you sleep with because you do it everyday without even realizing it: you speak of your wife, of your children (whom you obviously had with having heterosexual sex), of your family. Human relationships - straight one - are so engrained that we proclaim it everyday of our straight life without even realizing it.
Live and let live. Homosexuals do not bother anyone by doing a parade, are they?

This is not my daughter. And again, you have entirely reframed what I said to fit your agenda.

I am well aware she is not <I>your</I> daughter. I was talking about a hypothetical adolescent child of yours in order to discuss how you would, or would not react should she be gay.
As you said yourself in post #60, " I was simply speaking to the principle of the matter".

Why can't both co-exist? Why do the parents, whom I am assuming are elderly, based on the young adult age of the daughter, have to actively approve?

They do not have to do this, and nobody here is trying to pretend that family ties has to be severed. That's your reframing, not mine.
As Cybele pointed out, you jumped to that conclusion out of her own life example.
If these family members can accept the sexual orientation of their grand children (I said accept here, not approve), then fine! They have a right to their opinion. But they do not have a right to pressure their grandchildren into "changing", making them feel bad, harassing them, or preventing them from living their love life. On short, clear and explicit term, if they cannot keep their own opinion to themselves, the gay/lesbian young person might have no choice but to cut those ties in order to get the space to live their own life, as is their right.

If you had to chose between changing your current sexual orientation and keeping your family, what would you do? Please don't tell me I am "reframing" when I am asking this question. I am asking you the exact same question you ask, but on the other side. If there is no double standard at play, then the question should be simple and straightforward.
If your family was putting you forcefully in front of a ultimatum and you had no choice but to change your sexual orientation, what would you do?

Couldn't they agree to disagree on that, while still being grandchild and grandparent? Rational people could.

Totally agreed!
In a rational word, both people could - and should!- agree that someone sexuality is their own and no one else's business, and even if they disagree on each other's attractions, they can still have a caring relationship and be in a united family.
However, I am a bit puzzled when you use "rationality" in your argument, and then say something like:

Go ahead and laugh. People do it but it isn't God's plan for them or the best way to go, for a variety of reasons.

It is a lifestyle no matter who is living it, I suppose. I never made such distinction here. I have one lifestyle; someone else has another.

Fair enough!

People do have the right to live their lifestyle unmolested (no pun intended) by others in word or deed to the extent that they are not harming anyone else.

Agreed.
Please tell me how a homosexual is harming others in any way, shape or form?

They absolutely do NOT have the right to insist on <I>approval</I> from others on lifestyle choices.

Agreed.
Please tell me then what right you have to insist they <I>change</I> their lifestyle? It seems to me you doing something twice worse than what you say people shouldn't do. LGBTQ are asking <I>approval </I>about their right to live their own life. They do not require you to change yourself. On the flip side, you require them to <I>approve </I>that it is supposedly "wrong" and go as far as saying that they should "change".

We've gone way beyond tolerance to now demanding approval. Don't believe me? Try advocating a traditional lifestyle in a liberal setting....

See above about discrimination.

But yes, I DO want my daughter to be happy as well as to stay in her faith in God, since you ask.

And what would you do if both these were opposite and incompatible?
What would you do if she happened to be gay?

There IS no double standard here. If our exposure and experience was to people of the same gender, and we routinely saw them forming happy relationships, this would seem very natural and an attraction could easily happen.

Yet none has ever changed to becoming gay because they live around gays. There has been numerous studies for instance, in the case of gay parents, and no, gay is not something you can transmit. A straight person cannot become gay suddenly because he/she sees happy gay relationship around.

If our exposure and experience was to people of the opposite gender and we routinely saw them forming happy relationships, hugging and kissing, etc, then we could easily form that kind of relationship.

And you are basing this huge claim on... what?

Here, I was talking about the teacher who jilted his wife and kids for the teen girl in his school.

I know you were. But what's the point?
A homosexual is someone who is attracted to same sex people.
Not someone who betrayed a commitment or falls in love with minors.

That's wrong and it does destroy a family. His family. His wife, whom he vowed to love and cherish as long as they both shall live.

Yet the religious right fights tooth and nail to prevent gays and lesbian from marrying each other. Do you see the paradox here?
Gay and lesbian people fall in love, commit, and make vows just like heterosexual people. They marry and cherish their partner, just like us. There is no difference.

 

[cybele]

I was not asking. I was simply speaking to the principle of the matter, whereas you expressed it as if you were required to cut out your parents because they did not approve of your daughter's choices.

If you had good reason, then you did, and fine. But one can still support and love people who are violating our beliefs. That is what I was expressing.


No.



I cannot even follow this and find the bolded perplexing. But I take your word for it that there were problems at the time that you felt could not be overcome.

Just remember, they will be gone before you know it. Ask me how I know. Have no regrets about what you did or did not do.



No, one relationship is not EXACTLY like the other. It has a whole set of problems that the other does not have.

And any sort of sexual involvement outside monogamous traditional marriage is undesirable - to dinosaurs like me who dislike disease and serial partnerships and the hurt they cause, whether you are perpetrating it on someone else (much worse) or simply doing it consensually. Go ahead and laugh. People do it but it isn't God's plan for them or the best way to go, for a variety of reasons.

Testing, I dont even follow what your point is in regards to my family, I dont know what on earth you are trying to achieve by the constant mentioning that they will be dead soon (I believe this is now the third time you have brought up death in this thread)
yes, people die, in my religion we see the circle of life as something beautiful. However, yes, I am well aware that my parents will die soon, my parents who have been charged with kidnapping and assault on the people I love.
Im sorry your parents are not around anymore, from your inability to accept my choice I can assume you were close? However, not everyone has that relationship with their parents.

I dont know how you dont follow the story, minus the typos (still getting used to this touchscreen gadget) it was pretty basic.

Its great that you follow the rules of your religion. I follow the rules of mine, which dors not condem homosexuality.





Bssage, I agree with you for the most, I too am a believer in libe and let live, whichis why I find the opinion of others having to supress their sexual and romantic feelings to suit others who are not involved in the relationship unreasonable. Which was Testings original point.

 

[Testing]

bssage: I believe (stop me if I am wrong testing) testing was making a more general statement about it is ok for people to not always agree. Its not something that needs to be a deal breaker.

I think and again stop me if I am wrong testing. That what testing is saying is just that. We dont have to agree. We dont have to agree gay is right or wrong. We can disagree and still maintained relationships.

Yes, to all of this. Ironically enough, there is a lot of intolerance against traditional conservative folks.

Personally I am a live and let live kinda dude. While I probably wont march in the parade. I have no desire to impede it. If putting yourself out there is what you want, rock on brothers and sisters.

Right. Do what you want. Just don't put it in my face, or the face of my (previously) young children, and I won't put my personal business in your face.

 

[bssage]

I think if we want to branch out the debate to include nature vs nurture. And religious acceptance. We should probably start separate debates. I understand they were kind of a natural consequence of the OP.

Because of the title all who may want to participate may not see the evolution of the thread.

IMHO the responses to the OP are all honest, valid <U>opinions</U>.

If you want to start new discussions feel free. If you uncomfortable doing that but would like to see it. PM me I dont mind sticking my neck out. I think they are all good fascinating topics.

 

[mom2many]

I think if we want to branch out the debate to include nature vs nurture. And religious acceptance. We should probably start separate debates. I understand they were kind of a natural consequence of the OP.

Because of the title all who may want to participate may not see the evolution of the thread.

IMHO the responses to the OP are all honest, valid <U>opinions</U>.

If you want to start new discussions feel free. If you uncomfortable doing that but would like to see it. PM me I dont mind sticking my neck out. I think they are all good fascinating topics.

Didn't we have a nature vs nurture post at one time?

 

[bssage]

I think we have had a lot of these before.

I think new people new idea's. maybe

 

[mom2many]

I think we have had a lot of these before.

I think new people new idea's. maybe

I agree, I was just trying to remember if we ever had a thread like that in the past.

 

[Incogneato]

I find it, to put it mildly, distasteful, to compare two human being who love each other, regardless of their gender, to pedophile or adulterer.
Besides, pedophilia is a mental illeness. Sexual orientation is not.
If you wouldn't make those huge demagogic comparisons, and you just kept your own opinion to yourself, I wouldn't call you out on it.
In a different thread, PL compared spanking with abuse and was virtually hang for it. This is no different. You have a right to your opinions, but not a right to slender the relationship of millions of people who simply love each other, and who are no different than any other human beings in a relationship, by comparing them to pedophilia, IMO.

Testing was not comparing a gay or lesbian couple to a person being a pedophile or adulterer, they were saying that your thought of a person being able to be born gay or not gay, could also be applied to a pedophile or adulterer.

There is also a huge difference in what Testing said and what PianoLover said. PianoLover flat out called spanking the "last hold out of abuse".. there is no comparison with that statement, it was plainly calling it one and the same thing.

If you had to chose between changing your current sexual orientation and keeping your family, what would you do? Please don't tell me I am "reframing" when I am asking this question. I am asking you the exact same question you ask, but on the other side. If there is no double standard at play, then the question should be simple and straightforward.
If your family was putting you forcefully in front of a ultimatum and you had no choice but to change your sexual orientation, what would you do?

I thought you didn't believe you could change or "cure" your sexual preference... that it was set in stone from birth?

Why would you ask a hypothetical question like that when you know that would never be possible?

The point here is that each and every time someone who is gay/lesbian has been "treated" to "change" their sexual orientation (that famous "maleabilty" you speak of) it has only resulted in massive failure, more distress.

You can't "cure" sexual orientation.

To further continue this debate related to homosexuality and whether sexual orientation is something human beings are born with, I refer you to this article in the globe and mail: The gay wild kingdom.

Please tell me then what right you have to insist they change their lifestyle? It seems to me you doing something twice worse than what you say people shouldn't do. LGBTQ are asking approval about their right to live their own life. They do not require you to change yourself. On the flip side, you require them to approve that it is supposedly "wrong" and go as far as saying that they should "change".

I have re-read all of Testing's responses and cannot find a spot where they are insisting anyone change their lifestyle...

The only two people I've even seen mention the word "change" in their responses on the last 3 pages are you and cybele.

Yet none has ever changed to becoming gay because they live around gays. There has been numerous studies for instance, in the case of gay parents, and no, gay is not something you can transmit. A straight person cannot become gay suddenly because he/she sees happy gay relationship around.

So you know this has never happened becuase you've lived in every gay community and surveyed them all?

I'm not saying that you can "transmit" a sexual preference, but I do indeed believe that this leads into a whole nature vs. nurture debate which I'll gladly take to a different thread.

I know you were. But what's the point?
A homosexual is someone who is attracted to same sex people.
Not someone who betrayed a commitment or falls in love with minors.

Testing, in snother thread you stated you had teenagers? What happens if one is gay or bisexual? What wil you say to them? And dont say it wont happen, my daughter had a boyfriend before she came out, I never in a million years would have picked it. Would you tell them that they needed to supress human emotion just to make you happy?

Emotions are not how we rule our lives if we have any common sense whatsoever. It isn't about "what makes me happy". Who cares about emotions? I might have the emotional pull toward another person other than my spouse, but that doesn't mean I have to follow it and destroy my family in the process. There was a teacher in the news last week who was "following his heart" when he left his wife and teen daughters for another teen girl IN HIS HIGH SCHOOL. He claimed that because he was following his heart, he must be doing the right thing. Nothing like sticking it to your daughter who attends the same high school, eh, not to mention your wife in the media?

How does falling in love with someone who loves you back could destroy a family, Testing? Why do we even judge who someone love? For god sake's, why would it even be of any one else's business?

His point seemed to be that the teacher put his own feelings, emotions and needs in front of his childs feelings, emotions and needs, by leaving his wife and daughter, thereby causing stress from the divorce and further humiliation and ridicule from students at school who would tease the daughter.

 

[IADad]

I'm going to largely agree with both testing and Cybele.

Cybele, I think it's horrible to have a child treated any differently because of their orientation.

Testing- I agree that people can live their lives as they should. Even though I'm a reasonably conservative Catholic, I don't see any reason to prevent gay people from marrying. When you say "don't put it in my face." I don't know what that means. Are you bothered by the sight of a same sex couple enjoying their social time together (holding hands or a kiss no different from a heterosexual's polite public kiss?) or are you talking about people who feel they are somehow entitled to special rights.

I support gay marriage and even though I don't personally believe that's what god intends for us, I would never tell anyone they are wrong for believing otherwise.

I neither think gay people or couple should be discriminated aginst nor deserve any special attention. I understand why some feel parades and such are needed, but I think such displays ending up being counter-productive.

 

[parentastic]

I thought you didn't believe you could change or "cure" your sexual preference... that it was set in stone from birth?
Why would you ask a hypothetical question like that when you know that would never be possible?

Testing seems to think it is not set in stone and it is possible.
Yet I am under the distinct impression he/she is applying this as a double standard, only for gay/lesbian people.
So, since he/she believes it is possible to "change", I am calling him/her on it and asking if he/she would be willing to change from straight to gay?
It stands to reason that if it works in one direction, it would work equally in the other direction?

His point seemed to be that the teacher put his own feelings, emotions and needs in front of his childs feelings, emotions and needs, by leaving his wife and daughter, thereby causing stress from the divorce and further humiliation and ridicule from students at school who would tease the daughter

Wait. So when a young man or woman discovers their homosexuality, they should not put their own emotions and happiness ahead of their parent's feelings??? So in other words, according to you, you say it's okay for parents to put their own feelings, emotions and needs in front of their child's feelings, emotions and needs, and ask them not to live their own love life?

I am sorry but Testing's point is comparing the decision of a person to cheat in their marriage and break down their family to the decision of a person to have a normal love life.
You can have a normal homosexual love life and not be a cheater, and if the family breaks down, frankly, who's fault is it? The person who needs to be able to live their normal life, or the people who can't stand it?

 

[IADad]

I think part of the discussion on change, is whether it's really change or simply discovery. Either way it doens't make a difference to me.

And I don't think testing's point was that being homosexual was like being a pedophile. They way I read their comment was that, we have thoughts and feelings that we suppress to live in society. To him or her homosexuality is one of those things you can suppress. I don't happen to agree on that point, but I also don't think their intent was to demonize homosexuality by equating it to pedophelia.

 

[Testing]

parentastic: I am calling him/her on it and asking if he/she would be willing to change from straight to gay?

I believe I have answered this. "Would" I be "willing"? Well, not at this juncture. It wouldn't suit me at the moment, and I am committed to my spouse. That previous commitment -and my faith - would preclude my acting upon any sort of temptation to this behavior, should I have one. And lonely people can definitely be tempted to do things they have never imagined...

"Could" I? Sure, under the right set of circumstances. Almost anyone could have gone that direction, given the right set of circumstances.

It stands to reason that if it works in one direction, it would work equally in the other direction?

Absolutely. Happens all the time. Anne Heche, again, for a known example.

Wait. So when a young man or woman discovers their homosexuality, they should not put their own emotions and happiness ahead of their parent's feelings???

You've made all sorts of erroneous assumptions here, at least in regard to what I have said. I'm not speaking to anyone else's comments here.

You don't "discover" homosexuality. You decide to try it, when given opportunity, just as you decide to try (or not) any other sorts of behaviors, from drinking, to smoking weed, to texting while driving, to breathing in helium when someone is filling balloons. You either decide that hey...I like this; this rocks! Or, no...that doesn't suit me. That doesn't feel like something I want to do again.

The "parent's feelings" aren't very relevant here, especially when talking about young adults. It's a rare mature teen who decides not to do something just because Mom and Dad said that it wasn't a good idea and why. Most people aren't smart enough to learn from the mistakes of others, alas. The immature (which is most of them) will decide to do something once, twice or however many times before a habit is formed, based on emotions and feelings. The more mature will decide whether this behavior -whatever it is - will take him where he wants to go. If so, he will go on. If not, he will stop, possibly with some difficulty if the behavior is well-entrenched. But there's always hope. All things are possible to he who believes.

And that just speaks to a few of the erroneous assumptions in this reframed statement you made.

So in other words, according to you, you say it's okay for parents to put their own feelings, emotions and needs in front of their child's feelings, emotions and needs, and ask them not to live their own love life?

Asked and answered. Reverse the direction of previous comments.

I am sorry but Testing's point is comparing the decision of a person to cheat in their marriage and break down their family to the decision of a person to have a normal love life.

I would refute the equation here. Homosexuality is no more "normal" than cheating on a spouse. Does it happen? Sure. In that sense it is "normal". Obesity is "normal" these days, for that matter. 9 Hence, the presence of shows (to my surprise) like "My 600 pound life". Geez, who would have ever thought there would be a steady stream of subjects for a show like that? Not in my youth.)

But that doesn't mean it is right or best.

 

[cybele]

These unrelated comparisons are just perplexing.

Cheating is being dishonest and hurting someone for your personal gain

Morbid obesity is a medical epidemic cutting ives short.

Homosexuality is not cutting your life short nor being dishonest or hurting anyone.

Someones sexuality is also not comparable to texting while driving, smoking weed and drinking.

Testing, I respect your right to believe whatever you want, however these strange comparisons have gone past offensive to just obscure.

 

[parentastic]

You don't "discover" homosexuality.

So you would say then that you don't "discover" heterosexuality either?

How did you learn that you were attracted to the other gender, Testing? Did you simply "decide to try it"?
I don't know for you, but for me, I have been attracted to women long, long, long before I even had the chance to "try it". And I have never been attracted to men, at all, way before I had any chance again to "try it".
Was it different for you?

It's a rare mature teen who decides not to do something just because Mom and Dad said that it wasn't a good idea and why.

But you still have not answered the core of the argument: why would it be "not a good idea"?

I would refute the equation here. Homosexuality is no more "normal" than cheating on a spouse.

How so?
Please explain your argument and tell us why homosexuality would not be normal?

But that doesn't mean it is right

Why not?

or best

Could it be best for someone else even if it is not for you?

 

[Testing]

parentastic: So you would say then that you don't "discover" heterosexuality either?

It's the default position. Take a look at the equipment.

How did you learn that you were attracted to the other gender, Testing? Did you simply "decide to try it"?

Absolutely. When opportunity presented itself, I went for it.

I don't know for you, but for me, I have been attracted to women long, long, long before I even had the chance to "try it". And I have never been attracted to men, at all, way before I had any chance again to "try it".
Was it different for you?

It wasn't any more than a hazy thought prior to getting my chance, as it is for most children. Whatever appetite you feed grows stronger; whatever you don't feed (even for lack of opportunity) grows weaker. That's how life works.

But you still have not answered the core of the argument: why would it be "not a good idea"?

Because it's wrong. Because it doesn't physically work (again, back to the equipment). To make an analogy, you may decide that you are going to use your screwdriver as an ax, but it won't work very well.

How so?
Please explain your argument and tell us why homosexuality would not be normal?


Why not?


Could it be best for someone else even if it is not for you?

Again, even the equipment alone tells you what you need to know. That "I can be with whomever I love" argument is specious, at best. No, you can't. You can't be with someone else's spouse (unless that person wants to do wrong as well). You can't be with your Dad. Or your Mom. Or a cousin or other first degree relative. Ick factor. There is a reason for that.

 

[Incogneato]

Wait. So when a young man or woman discovers their homosexuality, they should not put their own emotions and happiness ahead of their parent's feelings??? So in other words, according to you, you say it's okay for parents to put their own feelings, emotions and needs in front of their child's feelings, emotions and needs, and ask them not to live their own love life?

I am sorry but Testing's point is comparing the decision of a person to cheat in their marriage and break down their family to the decision of a person to have a normal love life.
You can have a normal homosexual love life and not be a cheater, and if the family breaks down, frankly, who's fault is it? The person who needs to be able to live their normal life, or the people who can't stand it?

You plainly missed a pro-noun somewhere along the way...I never said it was okay.. I was interpreting what I thought Testing's point was...

If you slow down and re-read what he was responding to, you'll realize his point with the whole teacher story was that following your emotions can lead to bad consequences. In the teacher story... a MALE teacher.. left his WIFE and DAUGHTERS...to be with another YOUNG FEMALE. That young female went to school with his daughters.

This example has nothing to do with homosexuality, but was made as a way to show that this teacher followed his emotions and feelings and put his own needs in front of his daughters/family.

 

[parentastic]

It's the default position. Take a look at the equipment.

Because it doesn't physically work (again, back to the equipment).

Again, even the equipment alone tells you what you need to know.

There is a great irony and a profound and quite interesting paradox in your position, Testing.

It seems pretty clear from the above quotes that you consider the "equipment" to be the basis of your claim: this would be a nature claim, right? You are born with your "equipment", you can't change it, it is set in stone right?

And a part of the underlying argument is that it's wrong to be attracted to the other gender, because according to you, this "equipment" of yours, that you are born with, that should drive who you are attracted to, isn't it? So when you are not attracted to what your "equipment" says you should, then that's "not normal" isn't it your claim?

So now, here is the interesting paradox. It should stand to reason that if it is "wrong" to be attracted to people with the same "equipment", and if your attraction should come from said equipment, then shouldn't you conclude that sexual attraction is also something you are born with? (since according to you it comes from your "equipment"?)

You can't have your cake and eat it too.
If sexual orientation is "malleable" and can be changed by your environment, then what's the big deal with all this huge focus on the biological "equipment" you are born with? Why would you even care what people have between their legs, if their preference of attraction were malleable (hence, not driven by their genitals) anyway?

Because it's wrong. To make an analogy, you may decide that you are going to use your screwdriver as an ax, but it won't work very well.

What do you know about it, have you tried it?

Millions of gay/lesbian people have sex every day... and surprise!
It seems to work quite well for them, despite what you think.
But the REAL point of course is not there. Whether or not they decide to use their screwdriver as an ax, <I>why the hell would you care?</I>
It's THEIR screwdriver, not yours...

Again, even the equipment alone tells you what you need to know. That "I can be with whomever I love" argument is specious, at best. No, you can't

You can't?
Well, I am sorry to break it to you, but people do...

You can't be with someone else's spouse (unless that person wants to do wrong as well). You can't be with your Dad. Or your Mom. Or a cousin or other first degree relative. Ick factor. There is a reason for that.

Ah, I see. So after comparing homosexual relationships to pedophilia and to cheating, it is now compared to incest. I feel sorry for the gay people you are insulting each time you write in this thread.

There is a reason for incest being a taboo: it causes genetic defects. There is a reason for cheating being wrong: it breaks a vow and the trust of two people.
Yet two homosexual having a perfectly ordinary life, loving each other, happy, in a committed relationship, do no harm to anyone and certainly not to you. You don't like it? It's your right. Nobody is asking you to look at it while it happens okay? What ever happens in their bed is theirs and theirs only. It's really not difficult to understand.

 

[bssage]

You know. I dont agree with everything being said on either side. But it seems Testing is creating analogies to try and illustrate her point. And the focus becomes about her analogies.

The analogy about the "equipment" is about it not functioning as intended I.E reproduction.

Sure it all works on almost anything available. Inflatable doll, pillow, hell a 2x4 with a hole in it will work. This is the internet just do a search to see what will work. (face palm) Why am I even explaining this?

Really you guys cant understand the screwdriver/ axe analogy??

 

[parentastic]

The analogy about the "equipment" is about it not functioning as intended I.E reproduction.

Pardon me bssage, but it's really not a simplistic question.

How do you know how the "equipment" is "supposed" to be "used" ?
What does it mean, "as intended" ?
Intended by who?

If the argument is that it's about reproduction, may I point out that heterosexual regularly have sex with each other using condoms (not for reproduction), masturbate (not for reproduction), using the pill (not for reproduction), do it when they can't have children (not for reproduction), and for thousands of other reasons not related to reproduction?

Since when then reproduction can be used as justification of whether homosexuality is "wrong" ?!?

I am perfectly capable of understanding the axe and screwdriver analogy. The problem is not with the analogy: the problem is that the "logic" it illustrates makes no sense what so ever. It's a position driven by religious belief. Not by reason.

And <I>even if it was</I>, it is still their own life. Who are we to impose our values on their life?