Pope on target again

[Mich the Tester]

Intolerance over making gay "marriage" equal in social terms to real marriage, or in making gay people Bishops?

Yep. Fine, I'll admit to that.

You can choose to see people as not being equal, or their civil status as unequal, but I can choose to see them and their civil status as equal. So equality 'in social terms' is legally and constitutionally meaningless, seeing as society is made up of individuals who decide on their own norms. So really I don't see what you're objecting to. Gay people can try to persuade you or me that their status is equal, and the churches can try to persuade us otherwise; you and I both make our own decision. Both should surely remain free to try and convince us.

[foritisme]

Intolerance over making gay "marriage" equal in social terms to real marriage, or in making gay people Bishops?

Yep. Fine, I'll admit to that.

Intolerance over people being gay per se and allowing them an equal right to stay in a council house when their partner dies? Nope. Not guilty.

By the way, can you justify your claim that atheists are less intolerant with statistical evidence? How many atheists are in the BNP or NF? How many members of the Labour party are homophobic? We need the numbers.

cant see what your argument is - the people with the most to say of Gay issues in the news are the 'church' in all it's various disguises.

[KentPhilip]

Do you have any firm evidence for that? Doesn't your argument rest on the theory that evolution has finished? What will the situation be in another 500,000 years from now?

It is clear that evolution was occurring in the past, is occurring now, and will be occurring in the future.

If you are suggesting that homosexuality will be wiped out by evolution in the next 1000 years or so then are you also suggesting that evolution caused homosexuality to come into existance in the past 1000 years? Cos that's what follows from your arguement.

[Doggy Styles]

If homosexuality was incompatible with evolution it would have been "selected" out of existence long before 2008.

So would ugly women.

Presumably homosexuality is not hereditary but a naturally occuring abnormality, similar to Down's Syndrome.

In which case, I don't think it will ever be selected out of existence, and we'll always have a steady supply of actors, sailors and politicians.

[Cheshire Cat]

Do you have any firm evidence for that? Doesn't your argument rest on the theory that evolution has finished? What will the situation be in another 500,000 years from now?

I don't believe that evolution is finished. Nor do I believe it has only just started.

Sexuality, like other complex behaviours is not an atomic, binary trait, where each individual is either exclusively in group A or group B.
There is a wide range of sexual behaviour outside of exclusive heterosexuality. I propose that if sexuality does have a genetic component, a factor that predisposes the individual toward a liking for the same sex, that it is "transmitted" along with other behaviours, in a non-direct pattern. This is self evident from the fact that there are exclusive homosexuals alive today who are the offspring of parents who were, at least on one occasion, practising heterosexuals.

[original PM]

So would ugly women.

Not until alcohol is made illegal!

Interesting thread up to now!

Couple of points

Gay people as parents - there is no evidence that this form of relationship will cause children to grow up with any different view of life then if they have hetero parents. The method of upbringing and effort put in not just by the parents but by all the role models a child sees denotes what a child will grow up to be like (not interested in nature/nuture debate for now)

Civil Unions - all this is about is making legal a partnership so when one partner dies or leaves there is a clear route to next of kin or 'divorce' settlements. (and I am sure other issues which arise from this sort of thing) It stops biggotted family members trying to leave the other partner with nothing because they were homophobic muppets.

Thing is 20 years ago if someone was gay it was like wow your so brave for admitting that.

Nowadays if someone says they are gay its like ok - I am straight - now we have cofirmed each others sexual orientation can we get on with whatever we were doing? (and why did you feel the need to tell us all!) I don't introduce myself and include my sexual orientation why do others feel the need too.

burble burble

[ContractorFactor]

Yawn

Can i ask why the only options discussed involve religion or evolution?
Both are followed blindly and broke into sub sections in order to prove their validity, the fact of the matter is that we dont know and wont until we pass on or will we????

[deano]

My point is that homosexuality cannot be compatible with a process that requires reproduction.

Our society is predicated around the continuation of the species. Our norms are those designed to help us obtain a mate. Men and women still view each other in terms of potential mates, but with a different set of conditions that applied a few millenia ago.

We don't hunt these days and physical strength is not as important as it was. Even IT geeks like us can find a partner and have children. Although some of you may need to pay for it - naming no names! The way we provide these days is to work. Which drove politics, to allow us to be safe to work, economics (the by-product of work) etc. Women still look for partners based on their ability to provide for them and children. Men still look for partners who - let's be frank - have the right anatomy.

I cannot think of an activity that is not based around furthering the species in some way.

Thus, a society which is based around finding a partner to further the continuance of the species, can be tolerant of those who don't wish to reproduce, but it cannot base itself around those, nor make their standards the overarching standards of that society.

But I'll ask this question. If homosexuality is absolutely normal, why does it cause controversy and polarisation today? My view is because it is not normal. It may be prevalent, it may be tolerated and it may even be championed I suppose, but it can not be a societal norm.

I don't claim homosexuality is genetic. I do state however, that it is incompatible with genetic reproduction. I don't have any evidence that it will die out, but I believe it will as society continues to focus around heterosexual reproduction.

Closet homosexuals will die having lived miserable, desperate lives trying to hide themselves. Which is a great shame and should not happen.

If the homosexual community tried not to shape the heterosexual society around them, and celebrated their differences rather than similarities, maybe society would be more comfortable. Leading more people to reveal their sexuality. But I think it is misguided to insist that they are morally equivlent, because that leads to homophobia and makes life more miserable for those who are frightened to reveal themselves.

[Mich the Tester]

My point is that homosexuality cannot be compatible with a process that requires reproduction.

But bisexuality can, and there might be more bisexual people than 100% homosexual.

[norrahe]

But I'll ask this question. If homosexuality is absolutely normal, why does it cause controversy and polarisation today? My view is because it is not normal. It may be prevalent, it may be tolerated and it may even be championed I suppose, but it can not be a societal norm.
.

It's bad enough the catholic church has mediaeval attitudes towards homosexuality, but the above quote certainly purveys the highest form of ignorance.

If someone is gay, so what, their sexual preferences do not prevent them from carry out their jobs and getting on with every day life.

It only carries controversy and polarisation because of the perpetuation of victorian attitudes that were popularised by the likes of Freud and popular psychology, as well as the constant posturing by the catholic church.