If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
I, Dale, take thee, Graham...
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Ok, the Government's decided they're not getting anywhere with public services etc and they needed to take attention away from the fire strikes SO...
They've set out some new laws which they want to pass, basically saying that
Gay couples will now receive exactly the same rights as heterosexual married couples if they take part in a civil ceremony. These rights include benefits, property, adoption, next of kin, money etc.
I agree completely that gay people should not feel discriminated against and that they should be able to live their lives how they want. However, this news worries me - I still think that the more natural thing is to have heterosexual relationships, and wouldn't this be giving the wrong message out? It would tell young children growing up that there is effectively no difference between being gay and being straight. Also, although I'm not a hugely religious person, doesn't this diminish the authority and position of the church? (as they only recognise straight couples as being married).
I know a lot of people will disagree with me on here, but does anyone have the same worries as I do? Sure, we shouldn't discriminate against gay people, but should we be actively promoting homosexuality?
They've set out some new laws which they want to pass, basically saying that
Gay couples will now receive exactly the same rights as heterosexual married couples if they take part in a civil ceremony. These rights include benefits, property, adoption, next of kin, money etc.
I agree completely that gay people should not feel discriminated against and that they should be able to live their lives how they want. However, this news worries me - I still think that the more natural thing is to have heterosexual relationships, and wouldn't this be giving the wrong message out? It would tell young children growing up that there is effectively no difference between being gay and being straight. Also, although I'm not a hugely religious person, doesn't this diminish the authority and position of the church? (as they only recognise straight couples as being married).
I know a lot of people will disagree with me on here, but does anyone have the same worries as I do? Sure, we shouldn't discriminate against gay people, but should we be actively promoting homosexuality?
0
Comments
You cannot give out the 'wrong' message because there is nothing wrong about homosexuality. If any message at all is being given out is a positive message indeed: that same-sex relationships deserve the same respect and recognition than heterosexual couples.
As for the church, thankfully we live in a secular state and we needn't worry in the slightest what their opinions are on this issue. Any authority the church might have on society is too much authority. They should keep their lecturing to themselves and their followers, and spare the rest of us (50 million+ of non-churchgoers at the last count) in peace.
Is your wording in the above sentance some kind of reflection of your feelings on this matter - "gay people should not feel discriminated against" i.e. the use of the word feel instead of be? In other words let them be homosexual if they want but don't give them any of the same privelages, no rights as a straight couple?
You are discriminating against gay people, you are saying that growing up homosexual is not as good as growing up straight -
What is the difference precisely? That they are scenond class citizens and do not deserve the same rights as straight couples?
I personally don't see how this can have a bad affect on society.
I completely agree with the above statement.
And as for "promoting" homosexuality I don't think that it would make anyone "turn" gay at all.
In answer to your question, I dont think it will promote it at all but will show to all that all people in effect should be equal.
However they are a step in the right direction, although the Lords will probably delay these laws as much as they can.
Anything that takes authority away from the church can only be a good thing.
'more natural' ?????
Precisley the opposite, my friend!
Ok, so what is the difference between being gay and straight? (no smartarsed answers please) Personally, I don't think you can make someone gay or bi or straight!
Horray!! less power to the bloody church! The less power they have the better IMHO!
How is it 'promoting' homosexuality? its just giving us equal rights. I dont think by doing this you are suddenly going to get thousands of people 'subscribing' to be a homosexual!
I'd disagree. I believe that homosexuality is a kind of defect arising from problems with socialisation. I disagree with any ideas of a 'gay gene'.
I think through notions of classical conditioning sexuality can be changed, however this would take something rather extreme.
This sounds quite negative (defect...I couldn't think of a better word, sorry) so my apologies if any offence is caused. I've had boyfriends myself so as a bisexual I guess I'm a defect too.
The good old nurture or nature debate......
I think if we must talk about sexual genes, 'normal' and 'defective' people and so on, it'd be more accurate to say that bisexuals are the only 'normal' people. For bisexuality is a natural tendency in most species on earth, human or animal. Those of us who stick to heterosexual- or same-sex- relations must be the defective ones, as we do not follow our natural instincts.
All of the above is, of course, bollocks. We are what we are and we do what we do. There is no right or wrong.
We do that already darling. Just coz we're gay doesn't make us perfect. Though some us think it does:D
Not to mention arrangements where family members such as brothers and sisters share property, but have no rights either.
I'll only agree with this policy when it applies to all, and not just a select few.
Not all lesbians are like that:D
but gays who just cohabitate wouldnt get any rights either, unless they registered the relationship. If cohabiting couples want those rights, they should get married, and if gay couples want the rights, they register the relationship. why the hell they cant just call it marriage I dont know. If a brother and sister shared a property and both names were on the deeds to the house, then of course they would have rights too.
The word 'marriage' certainly still has a religious ring to it for me, possibly this is the case for others? Letting them be legally 'married' might piss off the religious big-wigs who'll claim it's demeaning of the 'normal' marriage...
So does this 'registering' have the same legal rules as a marriage? eg. concerning matters of adultery?
I'm a bit behind with all this stuff
Agreed. It's a bit sensationalist to phrase it like this, but I'm tempted to say, 'This isn't equality: it's a new kind of discrimination.' But you didn't catch me saying that, right?
I don't see that there's anything religious about marriage. In my view it is an alliance formed by two or more human beings of child-creating capacity for the purpose of producing and raising children, and allowing the adults to be happy while doing so.
(It's late, and I'm off to sleep. If anyone wants me to expound on the above a bit more, PM me. I'll get back to you when I can.)
LMAO @ this absurd post.....what a loada balls thats all I can say
Does not the 'natural' evolutionary process involve a male and a female? What's so histerically absurd about suggesting that something went wrong in the socialisation of those who grow up to be homosexual? It's at least as valid (and in many people's eyes a lot more valid) than the theory of a gay gene, as there is so far no research that has shown conclusive evidence of a genetic cause for homosexuality (unless anyone knows otherwise?).
Care to elaborate on why it's so funny? Care to offer your own opinions before you arrogantly dismiss mine without a second glance?
I think by saying someone has a defect because they are gay is the most funniest thing ive heard on the subject. A defect to me is something that wont work properly, correct? so how you can say a gay person has a defect still has me in fits of laughter.
Now lets go to your other theory, I could actually buy that one. I beleive it can be in the genes. Now lets take the younger generation lots know at a young age that they are gay. I have actual 1st hand experience of 2 families that within the family at least 3 of them are gay. So thats why Id buy this theory.
But as far as defect
There you're saying that what is 'natural' is a subjective concept. Can this be true? Is what is deemed to be 'natural' in the eye of the beholder? If that's the case, couldn't some argue that paedophillia is 'natural'? Can this be right?
If you re-read my post you'll see that I never said 'natural' in a broad sense, but in direct reference to evolution. In this sense homosexuality is not natural.
In regard to my use of the word 'defect'...I apologised at first use but it is nevertheless valid:
The purpose of sexual intercourse is the continuance of our genes (from a evolutionary perspective). This is not possible through sexual intercourse between two males, and homosexuality is therefore an evolutionary deficiency.
Haven't they mapped the whole genetic structure now? No sign of a gay gene (unless someone produces evidence to the contrary of this, but last I checked they'd found nothing).
At least 3 in the family gay? That'd support my view too, as all 3 will have experienced very similar social upbringings.
I didn't know that I liked those of the same sex when I was younger, but I did have ideas and feelings, and experimented upon those feelings from about the age of 10 upwards. I've recently had serious relationships with both males and females. How would the genetic theory explain this? A bi-sexual gene too?
[Blargh, I've missed stuff out that was in the first one, *shakes fist at thesite*]
Well if you're going to apply the term "natural" rigorously then there's an argument to suggest that anything a human does is natural as humans are part of nature.
That homophobes insist on equating homosexuality with paedophilia disgusts me. One exists between consenting adults, the other is the infliction of an adult's will on a child who cannot consent. There is a world of difference.
I disagree. Inevitably massive population expansion will lead to a restriction of resources, some might even predict a Malthusian population crash, which would be far more damaging to the species than steady growth. A proportion of homosexuals in a population will help limit rampant population growth and thus aid the species. Can you give any examples of areas in which homosexuality has become so prevalent as to have any effect on population growth, let alone leading to population decline?
A common misconception about the human genome project. Yes, they've mapped the entire genome of a particular human. This does not mean they know the function of every gene or every allele; so far only a tiny proportion of genes are understood, and in these cases there is not even a full understanding. It's like taking a topographical map of the Earth and attempting to use it to understand the politics of the conflict in Kashmir.
I don't have the necessary data (nor the inclination) to perform a hypothesis test, but I'm fairly confident that such a coincidence of three gay people in one family would not register as significant. To base an entire argument on the fact involves an extrapolation so massive as to be totally worthless.
I must excuse myself - my understanding of genetics was only ever extremely limited and is now mostly forgotten. However, I do believe there are situations involving dominant and recessive alleles in which characteristics of both allele are present (in certain hair and eye colours, for example). Thus it is feasible, within a framework of genetic homosexuality (which I'm not sure I agree with anyway) to have a combination - bisexuality.
Err, I hope you don't think I was equating homosexuality with paedophillia.
Paedophillia was just my example of how, if naturality is a subjective concept, something which I despise could be classed as 'natural'. I don't equate the two at all, sorry if it came across that way.
In terms of evolution, I was referring to the individual and how their genes cannot be passed on through homosexual practice, and not the evolutionary benefits of the whole population, but I see your point.
That aside I agree with everything you said, I had a feeling you'd take the biological route
Regards,
SK
LOL least you can sit there knowing someone has had a good laugh