Marcus, you might not be up to picking them apart, but I am.
what is "love"? do you believe in 'love at first sight'?
I believe we can control who we love. meaning, people choose to be gay.
No,it is not a disease - gay people claim they can't control it, cause they don't
want to. they don't think it's a bad thing.
Bollocks.
most of the time, people fall in love AFTER they know each other some time- first they 'test' their partner- his looks, his beliefs, his character, his religion, prob. his sex too - and if they like them all, they allow them self to fall in love. so what about gay people- this process doesn't exist for them?
Bollocks. That's how relationships start. If you're referring to random sex and one night stands, heterosexuals do that too.
I don't think one should date someone because of physical attraction ALONE.
Heterosexual couplings are formed in exactly the same way all the time.
Let's put it this way( boy, am I gonna get stoned for this), how many white and 'colorful' couples are there? virtually none, right?
That's simply bollocks.
in a similar way, stigma against Gay people should stop homosexuality almost completely
Bollocks. When homosexuality was considered a disease, it existed. When it was punishable by death, it still existed. Social stigmas are nothing.
"And stigmas aren't good things."
no, but they prevent people from doing bad things sometimes.
Bollocks again.
however, they dig under the foundations of society, namely family.
Bollocks. This is only true in a sociological ideal, which has never existed.
and if they adopt a child, are they helping or creating additional problems? you know kids learn how to pick a wife/husband from their parents.
There's barely enough evidence to support that. No psychologist would give this a thought beyond "Bollocks".
I refuse to believe a family can cause someone to "suffer". for the very least, their parents won't be disappointed of them, they won't fear society's reaction, and they'll have kids. I'm not too sure it's better than having gay partner. for the society, it is better.
Bollocks. When you understand how society works, come back. In a homosexual couple, both partners can fulfil expressive and instrumental roles at the same time, which is technically better for society.
we may as well allow pedophiles to have our kids, and people walk naked in the street- why stop them? it's their 'personal' issue, right? society has the right to make rules, dammit.
we don't have to 'understand' everyone's weird desires.
Unfair comparisons. Also, bollocks.
if a gay person reads this, I wanna say I do not hate gay people, nor look down on them. like the saying: there are no bad people, there are bad actions.
You seem to have a hard time showing it.
must I explain why homosexuality isn't normal? ask disappointed parents of gay people. they'll have plenty reasons. and again, kids- your own kids. family. normality.
Only because they have expectations of their children becoming like, nay,
better than they are. If a parent is a bigot, they'll always feel that way. Any "normal" parent gets over it, and it simply becomes fact.
"I haven't heard about any studies showing that children of homosexual parents have an increased chance of becoming homosexuals themselves."
with gay couples adopting, and closet gays, it may be harder to test.
Because it's hardly worth wasting time studying. Studies that I have read said that most homosexual couples are either wanting to or encouraged to adopt a child of the opposite sex. Their example to the child basically says "this gender is great". If you want to apply the "like parent" theory (despite it being bollocks), it comes out the same.
about pills.. aren't they supposed to heal mental problems? I find even that hard to believe, yet sometimes pills alone cure people's depression, etc.
maybe it affects attraction too? sometimes chemical materials affect people more than we think.
Pills can only mask physical sypmtoms or alter hormonal levels. If homosexuality is chosen, it won't do anything. If it wasn't it still won't! All they can do it attempt to activate ingrained reproductive urges, which is dangerous and as such not practised.
normality is the majority's opinion
Yes. And the majority are fine with homosexuality. For someone so concerned with normality, you don't pay much attention to it.
it does matter to be 'normal'. ask someone who doesn't feel normal- a crippled man, etc.
I'm a crippled homosexual, and I get no stares or looks. I have a "normal" life. Another example down the drain
besides, I could ask the opposite question- why shouldn't gay people (try to) be straight?
You try to be gay, and apply your reaction. I'm sure you'd be happy to be simply told not to be straight.
And now for Marcus:
Because it spells out the death of a race? There is no clear cut definition of "normality" but anything that stunts the procreation of a race is abnormal.
That's bollocks. That only applies to extremophilic situations and/or developing species. Humans are neither. Also, abnormalities are thought to have had significant benefits in humanity's evolutionary environment. They were all survival instincts, or traits that defined someone as a leader.
if we were to revert back to a primal nature I can guarantee there wouldn't be any homosexuals.
Tell that to the gay monkeys.
I would like to see someone do a serious scientific analogy on evolution and homosexuality.
It's impossible. Evolutionary studies are retrospective, and since we don't have all the facts, we can't do anything about it beyond what we have.
There.
