Well it's certainly possible, but it's so improbable and minimal that surely it's worth discarding the whole 'choice' thing?
Nope. No matter how small a chance it is, it can still happen so I won't be "discarding" the choice idea.
Here's the thing I don't get. If homosexual sex is forbidden, how come all those priests have been sexually abusing small boys?
Homosexuality has probably been around for almost as long as life on earth has. It isn't restricted to human beings: remember the gay penguins? Anyway, there have been several historical figures who were believed to be gay, including King Edward II of England, Mehmed the Conqueror, William of Orange, and even Alexander the Great.
Hey, when did this thread revive itself? What, nobody had told me? Well, since it is, I might as well resume talking about this subject. Here is my original point; I am not complaining that there are in fact homosexuals living in this world, and near me. I have no problem with that, the only problem I may have with that is if they, well, want me or are harassing me about sexuality. To be quite frank, I would love to have a discussion about sexuality with a homosexual person, I think it could clarify some things about the psychology of it and the personal beliefs and oppinions. However, once someone does harass me sexually, male or female, it becomes annoying, as you may know or may want this yourself, I do not want to live and converse with frustrating nuisances. A bully, if you will.
Lucky you! I'd love to be harassed by any sex. (Obviously harassment is a serious issue and should not be tolerated.)
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/30/world/africa/africa-gay-rights/index.html?npt=NP1 (Oh isn't that nice and im going there this December)
Everything we do is a choice. Homosexuality in the sense of attraction isn't a choice just as your favorite flavor of ice cream isn't a choice. But nobody is so barbaric as to be defined by their sexual impulses. I just hate the whole crowd of people who feel like they have to justify homosexuality in order to legitimize it, as if homosexuals are all uncontrollable nymphomaniacs. Sex is just one small facet of life, and homosexuals aren't going to shrivel and die without it. As well, instead of further legitimizing marriage as an institution of the state, we should seek to abolish any sort of relationship between government and romance. You love someone? That's great. Just don't expect the rest of us to foot the bill for all of your fancy benefits and family subsidies. Marriage should remain a religious/social institution, and nothing more.
Homosexuality is the effect of the male and female genes both not being dominate over the other.I don't think anybody should judge gays becouse of what they do in their private lives but only hate a gay guy is a real douchebag. Also I don't see why gay people can't marry each other in the name of their state.If their church dosen't allow it then fine but the state not recognising it is just nonsense.
In Arabic the word for husband is zowj and the word for wife is zowja. Homosexual relationships exist in Arabic society, and Arabs who move to Western societies aren't blind to same-sex marriages. However, even in a homosexual relationship, and indeed even in a homosexual marriage, the words zowj and zowja cannot be used. Why? Because the words have an inherent meaning that denotes a specific relationship - a heterosexual one. This is the case in the US, where homosexual relationships and whatever form of legal partnerships are available to homosexuals exist, but are not considered marriage (for the most part). Marriage is defined as heterosexual, so unless marriage is redefined (and beyond the practical ramifications on the matter, there isn't a whole hell of a lot of reason to do so) then homosexual marriage will remain a contradiction of terms. As it stands, all Americans, including homosexuals, can get married, provided they can give consent and meet the necessary conditions. Thus there is no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation with regard to marriage.
They wouldn't have to justify it if they didn't receive hatred like they do. So I would focus on the homophobes rather than the victims.
The current definition of marriage is between a man and a women and in the united states to change legalize gay marriage nationwide would make so much back lash. Also i don't believe the federal government should be allowed to tell people that gays can get married (Not that have) but im more in the states right portion of if the state allows it then fine but don't force the issue. Next i also like what New York city did by not forcing every religious institution to marry the couple. But hey if Homosexuals want to get married i have nothing against it.
