The original thread was closed by Jaime, but I wanted to come at this from a different angle. Please don't contrue this thread as someone who believes this is natural.....I do not.

But for the sake of this argument, let's say that it is. Does that mean one has to act on that impulse?

As a man, I am genetically predisposed to mave many sexual partners as I can to further spread my lovely genetic base (this is social anthropology 101 ). It is a base, natural instinct.

But is it necesarily good? Society and marriage constrict that impulse and for the betterment of society and to establish the family unit which also benefits society.

The question is: If homosexual proclivities are indeed natural, is it in societies best interest to constrict that behavior?

No. Why would it be? Not a single unwanted child, or abortion, has ever resulted from a homosexual union. Perhaps homosexuality should be encouraged for society's benefit.

[quote=Mrs. Pigpen,Feb 15 2004, 04:40 PM] [QUOTE=GrigUSA,Feb 15 2004, 08:16 AM]


No. Why would it be? Not a single unwanted child, or abortion, has ever resulted from a homosexual union. Perhaps homosexuality should be encouraged for society's benefit. [/quote]
To take your logic further, encouraging homosexual behavior would certainly reduce abortions, but at what cost?

Reduced children which means what...smaller and fewer families....reduced workforce.....reduction in charity from fewer people.....all the reduced opportunity costs of a smaller population.

Costs and benefits.

Will sexually transmitted diseases increase or decrease with the implementation of your new thesis? Hmmm.

Will cures and preventative measures for those diseases be harder to come by with fewer people on this blue orb?

Something to think about. No comments Wertz?

I certainly don't think encouraging homosexual behavior is going to increase it greatly. Remember this debate is guided by the principal that homosexuality is innate, therefore I believe we must assume heterosexuality is also innate

Secondly, while Malthus has yet to be proven correct, it is certainly a possibility that at some point the marginal benefit of an additional human may fall short of the marginal cost.

Thirdly, those problems could be addressed, in the USA, by reducing restrictions on immigration.

Why would it be? What is the negative cost to society that you are suggesting would be prevented by constricting homosexual behavior?

Encouraging homosexuality reduces abortions and leads to smaller families? What??

Homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation that has been with us since the beginning of time. Societies throughout the years have both embraced it and condemned it and either way we continue to populate the earth.

I can't wrap my mind around the concept that accepting human beings as homosexuals equates to encouraging homosexuality.

When my 16 year-old niece came to me and asked me to talk to her mother about placing her on birth control, I didn't say, "Hey, I have a better idea - become a lesbian - and you can save yourself ten bucks a month!"

Heterosexuals are heterosexual. Homosexuals are homosexual. Bi-sexuals are - oh you get the picture. It has always been this way - it will always be this way. Understanding and accepting homosexuality as natural will have no affect on our population or the number of abortions performed in this country.

Accepting homosexuality and allowing those couples the same rights as heterosexuals will actually be a benefit to society by reducing the number of children in foster homes placed their by mostly heterosexual persons who were unable to raise their own children!

If "naturally born" heterosexuals are allowed to freely act out on their sexual impulses, then there is no reason why "naturally born" homosexuals shouldn't be able to as well.



Marriage is not synoymous with monogamy, and monogamy is not synoynmous with marriage. You can be married and still have the same numer of sexual partners you did before you were married. You can be unmarried and have one lifelong sexual partner. Therefore, when talking about "benefits to society," the buzzword "marriage" is essentially useless. What does matter is two person's commitment to one another. Marriage does not help society; two people committing to one another to provide a stable environment for raising children does. Needless to say, not all marriages provide stable environments for children. I could go get married to some random Joe on the street right now, and that doesn't mean we are capable of fitfully raising a child.

What "family unit" are you referring to? From what I've observed of homosexual couples, there essentially is a male and a female figure. Just as in heterosexual couples, the woman can play the traditional role of the father - bringing home the bacon - the father is also capable of fulfilling the traditional role of the mother - cooking, tending to the kids, etc. Therefore, it makes no sense that two females or males wouldn't be able to achieve the same balance.

Wow...where to begin. So far most of the posts have been mildly off-topic (moderator ?) This is not about 'rights' or the ability of homosexuals to raise children vs. a man and a woman.

Those issues have been covered ad nausem.

This is more about personal responsibility about behavior. Just because one has the 'right' to do something, doesn't always mean it is the best thing to do...for that person or society.

To quote the movie Bad Boys 2, "Hey baby, don't attack the player if you don't like the game".

I am merely trying to forward a hypothetical...well, actually more than a hypothetical. Moral relativism and ardent ideological standpoints seem to make the activists among us defensive and re-direct the argument (moderator ?).

Is it best for society in general to self-regulate behavior that doesn't enhance society?

If homosexual proclivities are indeed natural, is it in societies best interest to constrict that behavior?

The question actually becomes- does the Society or Goverment need to restrict this behavior for the betterment of society? In a society where freedom is the ultimate goal, without harming others freedoms in the process (my freedom of being able to shoot anyone I like is trumped by thier right to live) - then the real issue is, is it a big enough moral or harmful behavior that we need to curb it somehow?

And I think, if this is purely genetic, then homosexuality between consenting adults obviously does no net harm to society, and in fact, has no negative to society whatsoever, plus attempting to enforce the changing of behavior, whatever that may be, becomes an effort wasted because that effort should be applied to real problems in that society.

My wife have always talked about our children, and of course, the "what if" question comes up- we both agree, "IF" they decide to be homosexual, by genetics or choice, it will not change our outlook, behavior towards them, or our feelings about them one wit. If they are happy with whatever spouse they choose, and live a joyous life because of it, we will accept that spouse as our family without reservations.

It should be family choices, not society, not goverment.

How does the behavior NOT enhance society? What are the deleterious effects of homosexuality? Arguably, encouraging homosexuality (for natural homosexuals, which is the subject of debate) could be beneficial to society. I can't think of any negative effects which would outweigh the positive, and you've offered no explanation of those negative effects you keep referencing.

STDs? Lower in lesbians. High rates among both homosexuals and heterosexuals who are promiscuous and don't use precautions. Doesn't have much to do with sexual preference.

Once you've decided what you want to debate here, give me a call.

Well, since homosexuals are a part of the society in question, and their relationships with other homosexuals do not infringe upon the rights of other citizens, then no.

It would be in society's best interest to accept their sexuality and stop discriminating simply because they are different.


GrigUSA: Do you know what you want to debate here? Perhaps if you list some of the reasons you think society should constrict homosexual behavior, we would all have a better uderstanding of what you are talking about. I thought that some valid points were brought up to encourage the acceptance of homosexuals by society, which seem pretty on topic to me. If you don't think so, how about giving us some benefits to not accepting the behavior?

I don't care if heterosexuality is 100% genetic, or 100% cultural, or somewhere in between. I see no reason why society should attempt to restrict heterosexuality in any way. Just because some heterosexual behavior is harmful, that is no reason to discourage heterosexuality in general.

(In case you're wondering why I'm talking about heterosexuality, it's because heterosexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality are all exactly morally equivalent. When you discuss the ethics of one, you discuss the ethics of the others.)

For the sake of this argument, let's say that heterosexuality is natural. Does that mean one has to act on that impulse?

As a heterosexual man, you are genetically predisposed seek out partners of the opposite sex in order to further spread your lovely genetic base (this is social anthropology 101). It is a base, natural instinct.

But is it necessarily good? Society and marriage do nothing to constrict the impulse to procreate rampantly, which - combined with an ever-increasing average human lifespan and a reduction in the infant mortality rate - is leading to gross overpopulation, mass unemployment, failing economies, shortages of natural resources, unwanted children, disease, poverty, squalor, malnutrition, civil conflict, and environmental devastation including overfishing of the oceans, scarcity of drinking water, soil erosion, destruction of natural habitats, desertification, and climate change - which is no benefit to society by anyone's stretch of the imagination.

The current global population growth rate is 1.4% per annum. At a rate of only 1%, there will be but a single square foot of planet left for each individual in 1300 years - should the earth be able to sustain us that long with unbridled heterosexuality taking its toll.

The question really is: If heterosexual proclivities are indeed natural, is it in societies best interest to constrict that behavior?

Talk about moral relativism!

If homosexuals are not working actively to undermine heterosexual relationships, what difference does it make? We each have to search within ourselves and come to terms with what is right and natural for us. We cannot blame other people for the way we are. If we choose to find expression in sexual relationships or abstain from these relationships, it is still an individual decision.

Due to the fact that heterosexuals as the majority have been the most active in affecting and often mucking up society, do we then deny homosexuals the chance to have an impact on what is their society as well? The truth is that gay individuals have always been with us, and they have always had an impact on society, for good or ill.

Public displays of sexually-focused silliness is something I dislike and would not want my child to see, whether of a homosexual or heterosexual nature. But suppression of what is the nature of one out of ten individuals does not sound like something positive for a society to do.

Well, where to start...

You have yet to state any of the negatives associated with homosexual unions that don't exist in heterosexual unions. Anything? Oh, they don't produce children that's right. And in an overpopulated society this is a bad thing?

The issue is does society have the right to restrict the behavior of a group simply because the it disturbs the sensibilities of the majority. Hmmm... Satanists disturb the sensibilities of the majority should we restrict their behavior?

What are the detrimental effects of homosexual unions?

Sexually transmitted disease? Occurs quite a bit in heterosexual unions.
Promiscuity? Hmmm... same here... many heterosexuals are promiscuous (quite a few even cheat on their marriage partners)
Unstable homes? I came from one... they were heterosexual. What exactly is the divorce rate?
They wouldn't make good parents? I know quite a few heterosexuals who wouldn't make good parents or spouses for that matter. What are the statistics on child abuse in heterosexual marriages. What about spousal abuse?

So what's left? It's not natural? That seems to be a personal opinion -- swirly straws are unnatural, but you don't see anyone seeking a constitutional ban on them?

Consider countries that aggressively try to constrict homosexuality (i.e., Cuba, North Korea, Saudi Arabia). How has constricting it made them better places? I doubt that most people reading this post would want to live in those countries.

And, even if I believed that homosexuality was unnatural, so what? Birth control is unnatural, and I certainly would not want to deny that to anyone.

Whether we encourage homosexuality or not, people are still not going to accept it. It's sad but factual. I'm not saying that i am one of those people, because i am all for being who you are and not some carbon copy of who society thinks you should be. Just as people are still racist, there will always be people again homosexuality, and bi-sexuality as well. Encouraging it won't make much of a difference, because how do you plan to talk to the people against it, to encourage it?!?! I think society as a whole needs to grow up and realize, there will always be bi and homosexual people, and half the time you don't know who they are. They could sit next to you in class, be the opposite role of you in the play... hang out with you everyday. You as one, one person, can encourage... but there will always be haters.

Good point. But the flip side to that coin is "look at the countries that allow homosexual marriage, Canada, France and Denmark". Stagnant economies, socialized and inadequate medical care, double-digit unemployment, socialist economies (an oxymoron). I certainly wouldn't want to live in a country that crushes you financially, emotionally and strips individual freedom away for the sake of collective rights.

I love it when posters equate the United States with theocracies such as the Middle East countries just because the govt decides that for childrens sake, for society sake, for economics sake, for tradition sake, and for morals sake (oops...strike that...morals is a dirty work here in AD)they decide to follow a model that has worked for thousands of years. Yeah...same thing. Let's see...are we the same as those countries?

Do we routinely lop of the heads of homosexuals and pike them outside the fronts gates as a warning.
Don't you see the mass detention of homosexuals....there infringement in meeting together....lack of freedom of association, there rampant denial of access to sporting events and social functions. Frankly, I am tired of seeing the Fab 5 police cuffing and booking avowed homosexuals for kissing and holding hands in the streets! I hear John Ashcroft is going to ban leather soon as it abets this homosexual behavior and feeds fetishes...oh my!

Or equating their agenda with blacks and civil rights. Lets see.......

Headlines..."France, Denmark and Canadian Intelligence agencies just revealed a massive network of American 'gayholders' who have forcibly captured and transported over a million homosexuals from gay-havens in Canada, France and Denmark, and ball-and-chain themed into high-paying servitude jobs in the fashion, choreography and hairstyling industries.....film at eleven."

FLASH President Bush's special anti-homosexual taskforce, the "Un-Mentionables", discovered an 'Underground railroad' that ferrets away escaping homosexuals to the Promised Land of San Francisco, Sante Fe and Chicago. This was apparently due to the rampant intolerance of the religious right's frequent use of the terms " ewww" and "icky". Mable Pewsitter, a mom and "straight-is-great" member, said she apologized that she started this mass exodus of homosexuals but she was only commenting on her 2 yr. olds dripping ice-cream cone when she used those terms.

Yeah....same thing. Sometime you have to point to the absurdity of an irrational cause with an absurd example of your own.

10, 9 8, .........this is the countdown of this post being yanked by the mods or this thread being shut down for lack of tolerance.

This is without a doubt the most misinformed understanding of Canada I have ever seen. Care you provide any links to back this up? Here are a few to pretty much demonstrate that you are completely and totally wrong.



Hmm, Now, I suppose there are two digits in "7.4", but I really don't think that's what you mean.



It may not be humming along the same way the U.S. economy is, but 2.8 is still a healthy growth rate considering the massive currency revaluation that has taken place in the last 14 months or so.

As for your comments on a socialist economy, care to explain? To date I have never seen ANYONE in their right mind declare Canada's economy socialist. It operates on the same principles as the U.S. economy as a matter of fact, with slightly different controls and regulations. Oh yeah, there was this report too that said:



By the way the EIU is the "Economist Intelligence Unit."

So it seems to me that you are either sorely misinformed or making stuff up. In either case it severely threatens the credibility of your argument.

Statistics Canada
CBC News

I would say no. What is the harm of allowing them to just be? What are you afraid of?

As others have pointed out, if you substitute the word "homosexual" with the word "heterosexual" it seems a pretty silly argument.

If society gets into the habit of constricting harmless "behavior" the majority is afraid of we have lost the meaning of freedom.

Ummm

No

Those countries aren't like that at all. None of them have socialist economies and their health care is just fine. When you say 'socialised' health care you actually mean that taxes are used to finance health care for everyone. This has obvious economic inefficiences, but on the other hand, the poor in Denmark or France receive much better health care than the poor in the USA, whereas the rich can always fly to America to get the very best in health care. Interestingly the average life expectancy of Danes (thats people from Denmark) is about 2 years higher than Americans, so their health care can't be all that much worse than Americans.


Unemployment is higher than the US, true (but not yet double digits)

Ach, why do I always end up arguing these things?

It has already been mentioned, but this is one of the most startlingly ignorant posts I have read in quite some time. It is clear that you know litle to nothing about Canada, France and Denmark, and have not bothered to find out anything, preferring instead to simply take the half-truths you have heard, combined with your own imagination and form them into a general picture with no basis in reality.

Some of your comments above are not just ignorant, but patently absurd. I highly recommend you learn a little bit about a subject before posting on, for your sake and for others.




1) Nobody is saying the US is the same as Iran or saudi Arabia, clarly the US is FAR more free, more liberal, more open, more democratic, and so on. The repression by the religious faction in the Middle East is clearly FAR worse than anything in the US.

But in principle, the fact remains that a group of (mostly religious) people are trying to influence the laws of a secular state to follow their specific morals as dictated to them by a line or two in an obscure chapter of their holy book. Though the laws and actions of the Mullash and Clerics in the Middle East are a thousand times worse than could ever happen in the US, it is interesting just how incredibly similar their rationalisations for their actions are:
-Society is in a moral decline, and needs to be protected against itself
-Disenfranchised minorities need to be 'protected' and thei bad behaviour mitigated or stopped
-The only moral code is our moral code, and anyone who thinks differently is simply wrong... and so on.

At least in Iran they have an excuse, the state is a theocracy. But in the US the country is secular first and foremost, with religion having no bearing on the laws of the country.

2) This "the way it has been for thousands of years" argument is tired, old and obviously clearly inaccurate. In Europe, the Church has only held complete control over marriage since 1563 at the Council of Trent. They then lost control of it again in the late 1700s, or started to as various states went back to allowing secular marriages. So religious control over marriage lasted just over 200 years, not thousands.

"the way it was for thousands of years" was marriage, between people of only one race, with divorce not allowed, during which time the woman became the property of the man and all her wordly goods shifted to his ownership. Prior to that, for thousands of years, it was a man and several women who served him as wives.

You cannot argue tradition of history if you are willing to ignore every single tradition except the one that happens to support your weak case. A refrain recently invented by anti-gay marriage activists is that "it was always a man and a woman". Firstly thats not true, it has been a man and multiple women for the greater part of human history, but even if that WERE true, it is an entirely artificial creation. It has also always been between a human and a human. There is hardly an institution around that has gone through such profound and dramatic changes as marriage, thats why you can get divorced, get married between faiths and religions, and so on. And you know what? When those 'traditions' were altered, I will be real money there were people whioargued exactly the same things you are arguing now, about the dissolution of family and social values and all the rest of that rubbish.

Go back, do some reading, and learn about the arguments that were used by conservatives against giving women the vote. "Oh, think of families, think of the children, think of society..." Always the same refrain, always terrified of change and using moralistic arguments to hide their own biases, and in the end, always and inevitably wrong.

I think it's hilarious that we could discuss the validity of the government "constricting" something as personal as sexual preference. As if it could!!! This isn't 1984, people. The government not only is unable to "constrict" sexual preferences, even if they could - they still couldn't change people's genetics. When it comes out in the coming years that homosexuality/heterosexuality is indeed genetic, we'll all realize how funny it is - as if you could make an african american less black through government regulation.

Definitions "constrict":
1. To make smaller or narrower by binding or squeezing.
2. To restrict the scope or freedom of; cramp.

My humor was more from the first definition
As for the second defintion - the two phrases "restrict the scope" and "freedom" in the same sentence? THIS STOPS BEING AMERICA. You know that saying "It's a free country"? I love that saying.


It's never in society's best intrest to "restrict the scope" of "freedom" for any class of people who aren't restricting the scope of freedom for anyone else.

At least for American society, which is what we're talking about.
It's a trick question.

Perhaps not. Without doubt it is best to self-regulate those behaviors that actively work against society, but when no harm is done, regulation is a waste of energy. In this case, however, there is plenty of room to argue that allowing gay people to "act on their impulses" does enhance society, and thus should not be regulated against, but instead actively encouraged.

The behaviors in question are the same as any straight person seeking happiness in a relationship with another human. You mentioned the propensity among men toward promiscuity. That is definitely a detrimental behavior that should be self-regulated for the benefit of society. Gay people most certainly suffer from the same propensity, but many straight men have successfully overcome those tendencies and managed to stay committed to a single person. To assume that gay people are any less capable of doing so is silly.

Bottom line: People need people. Happy couples enhance society. Not only should we allow gays to find a monogamous partner with whom they can be happy, we should encourage it with the same voracity with which we encourage straight people to do so.

This is off topic. Sorry.

If you as one person don't try to make a difference, then that's one less difference made. Nothing incremental is ever achieved in one fail swoop. But likewise, step two can't be tackled until step one is finished. Please, acknowledge that there will be haters, but don't let that be your reason for joining them. If you're not the positive force, who will be? And what of that person who you could have had an impact on?

Everyone, reach one.

On Topic: No, and I'll tell you why. The further we evolve as a society, the less violent and more 'enlightened' we become. Our morals and ethics evolve over time. Anyone who has seen the passion can tell that our morals on violence are far different now than they were in Jesus' time. The same goes for oppression, and thanks to the women's suffrage movement, and the civil rights movement we now generally speaking see oppression for some natural condition (gender, race, intelligence, sexual orientation) as a bad thing. Active restrictions of homosexuals in any way is oppression and creates respective social backlash. We supposedly live in a free society so for society in general to oppress a group of people into a second class citizen status, it defies the evolution of our culture. Supposedly we are beyond hierarchical domination, but as long as oppression continues based on a natural condition, society has failed to progress, and we are idling cultural evolution, risking quandry and stagnation.

This is of course under the condition that homosexuality is a natural condition. I support the conclusion that homosexuality is natural because it is natural occuring. Homosexuality though uncommon, does exist in the world of nature, mankind did not invent it. Furthermore it has existed in mankind forever, however while greek culture didn't really frown on it too much, christianity fervently supported the creation of strict gender roles and pre-confined family units. Because of this and the prevalence of christianity over the coming eras of mankind, homosexualtiy was culturally ingrained as negative. Even with this mass cultural opposition still homosexuality continued to occur. Learned behavior changes over time, especially with evolution. If a particular behavior does not suit the needs of a particular species it gets evolved out (birds fly south, they learned this as temperatures changed and condtions required for survival changed). Homosexuality has not dissapeared, and so can't really be written off as an unnatural learned behavior. It is more logical to conclude that it is in some way ingrained not necessarily in environment, not necessarily in genetics, more so in the basic nature of life. Gender roles are culture based, sexual orientation defies all culture, exists in all societies and exists on it's own in nature. Who then can argue it is a "sexual perversion" akin to pedophilia? Are homosexual mammals like human pedophiles?

To throw conservative anti-gays a bone, homosexuality itself is not beneficial to ALL societies, eg. there is no room for gay pandas, and the existence of gay pandas threatens the species, but with this kind of exception, homosexuality is not a detriment to most societies, ESPECIALLY human society, since we are leaping forward in conceptual understanding, the sciences as most importantly, population. Homosexuality in human society does not threaten that society. So contrasting the harms homosexuals bring to a society in general to the harm of societal oppression, it is obvious that regardless of your personal opinion of homosexuality, it is negative to create an oppressive environment for them because you too live in that same environment.

I don't get this. Even if Canada, France, and Denmark really had stagnant, socialized economies with subpar healthcare, crushed its citizens financially, emotionally, and stripped individual freedom how does a more accepting disposition towards homosexuality have a direct impact on a country's economy and personal freedoms? More to the point, how is homosexuality responsible for negative economic and political trends?

Although I think sodomy is a deviant act, among other things people do to get their sexual jollies off, there's no correlation between my financial/moral state and what consenting adults do behind closed doors. (Reasonable disclaimer here for STD/AIDS transmissions, bald rugrats I don't care to feed if mother has child and elects welfare assistance, blah blah blah.) Moving to the U.S. from a country that does financially exploit and deny basic freedom to citizens the last thing we had on our minds was homosexuals. We had bigger things to worry about... like food and free speech. Your attempt to tie society's overall success/failure with how it approaches homosexuality reveals the sheltered existence you enjoy. Feel incredibly, incredibly grateful your opposition to homosexuality is the biggest hang up of your day.

The question (If homosexual proclivities are indeed natural, is it in societies best interest to constrict that behavior?) is self-defeating. Society can do its best to discourage certain behavior, even outlaw it, but naturally occurring behavior can't be legislated/tabooed out of existence.

Years ago back before rapid population increases, I could see a possible need for restricting homosexual relationships as the population of people was still coterminous with natural disasters, harvest failures, etc. Basically your dismal Malthusian theory. However, today I don't think anyone would be so ignorant as to say that the human population is in great danger of declining rapidly as a result of harvest failures, disease, wars (well, you have the strongest point here, but so long as it refrains from nuclear war I don't see the population of the world declining under 100 million again) and the like which decimated populations centuries ago.
So one must go further and say that the increase in population has given the ability for nature to truly show through, and that homosexuality has been something with us for all time. Besides, what difference does it make in the end anyways? (no pun intended)

Not to try and get off-topic, but I have found a can of worms and have chosen to open said can of worms.
Hero writes:

Who is to say that pedophilia is sexual perversion and not something unlike homosexuality (although on technicality I would say that man-boy and woman-girl intercourse would be homosexual)? Another form of population control instituted by nature?
Just something to ponder, a little critical thinking.

Avoiding your can of worms, I'd like to address your point in the first part of your message. First, I totally agree that the current-day population is in no danger of dying off because of homosexuality. The part I would like to focus on is the assertion that there ever was a rationale for restricting homosexual relationships.

Basically, it comes down to the nature of the restriction. Preventing men/women from having intercourse with someone of the same sex does only that. There is no corollary that says they will then go have sex with someone of the opposite sex and produce offspring. If I, as a gay man, were told I could not have sex with a man, then I'd be celibate. My lack of desire for women is not contingent on the availability of men.

Furthermore, a lack of said restriction would not necessarily reduce the number of people having heterosexual sex. After all, banning gay sex doesn't really affect those who's first desire is not gay sex. Even bisexuals with mixed desires would be free to procreate with the opposite sex despite their occasional liaisons with those of the same sex.

In short, I have a difficult time seeing how any logical argument for banning homosexual relationships can be made on the basis of a need for procreation.

Unless you are discussing a society in unusually dire risk of dying out, there would be little, if any, result, and any major result would have to be achieved by mandatory heterosexual intercourse, not by doing away with gay sex.

Galileo, I have to say that I agree with you that there probably was/is no true rationale. Population necessity is about the only thing I could possibly think up, and even I will admit that I don't really buy it, as I don't see why over the years homosexuality has been such a cause to get people up in arms to begin with.

I'm not a historian, but I assume that most homosexuals in persecuted places and in the past who were looked down upon were most likely celibate. However, the reason I said "possible need" is in the idea that some probably attempted to enter a heterosexual relationship. Did they work out? Probably not. Much like many relationships, I doubt every day was sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. However, I would say this happened rarely if it ever did at all.


I concur. It's just my nature to try and drum up ideas to cerebrate.

Allow me to carry your argument over the brink...


Let's eliminate free time! After all it doesn't benefit society for individuals to be having fun. While we're at it, let's extend the work week to 7 days, and the workday to 16 hours a day.

Dear Friends,


What appears to be largely missed in this thread is that homosexuality is no longer effectively restricted in the U. S. As far as I know anyone can do what they want "behind bedroom doors" (as it is usually phrased). The push now is not for tolerance but for *approval*; and that approval is sought through the institution of marriage.

Regards to all.
Jack Owens