I seriously have to ask this because if any issue is addressed in this movie it is homosexuality. How is it that the audience can except a mutiant but cannot accept a homosexual? each arguement is valid. "There is nothing wrong with you, there's nothing wrong with any of us for that matter." - Storm and yet it is called a "fetish or a disease." "have you ever tried not being a mutiant?" - Bobby's Mom there are so many examples in these movies it would take too long to list them all
-
You bring a very good comparison33% Voted for by hugh, Weydon, aria94.
Yes, being homosexual is different, like mutants. And people reject the homosexuals or mutants for who they are. I don't know whether or not being homosexual is a disease or not, but knowin to eliminate any to be homosexual won't do any good. As people see mutants in X-Men.
Also, since it seems more people are into "weird" violent concepts, than "weird" sexual concepts.
-
x men is our views taken to hitler levels33% Voted for by chaostheory89, Weydon, aria94.
we as a society hate what we see as different be it a person with unbreakable metal claws or angel wings on his back or a man in love with another man. i do not speak for the world in my views because of neo nazis and homophobes gays are normal men who just have an eye for men and not women. we have freedom of choice don't we. yet if we have a lesbian it is completely different. men dream of meeting to lesbians but not a gay. i admit lesbians are very nice to erm look at and i wouldn't complain if my girlfriend was bi but i am more then happy with my girlfriend and her life style i know both a gay and a lesbian both are great friends althought with the lesbian it is a sheer waste she is so good looking. any way time for me to shut up i h\ve bored you enough already
-
Most (not all)Voted for by Energizer Bunny.
"have you ever tried not being a mutiant?"
-------------------------------------------------------
I wish I could say I understand but I cannot. For whatever reason, whether religious or some other reason, I think most (not all) see homosexuality as an unhealthy lifestyle.
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment: -
Are you saying to don't understand the quote? I'm not sure if you saw the movie, but it's kind of a funny scene because the mother asks a very silly question: everyone knows you can't help being a mutant or not, and few would choose to be one (in a world where everyone hates them anyways). Everyone chuckles at that scene, even though it's a direct analogy to being gay and many of the chucklers hate gays and would ask them "have you ever tried not being gay?" "I think most (not all) see homosexuality as an unhealthy lifestyle." I don't think most. Possibly around half in America. But I think all (not most) people that feel this way have absolutely no justifiable reason behind this idea. Worse still, I think they know they don't.
-
***"Possibly around half in America."*** you may be right but I think it's much higher than that. ______________________________________________________ ***"But I think all (not most) people that feel this way have absolutely no justifiable reason behind this idea."*** Well yes and no. Hhhuummm...I think many do gay bashing which is wrong, but I also think alot see homosexuality as wrong whether for personal, health, or religious reasons. Finally, whether religious or not, I think many see the homosexual influence as something they do not want their families to be around. But, I disagree that "all" have absolutely no justifiable reason behind this idea. I do not believe that. Althought, I do agree that gay bashing in general is not justified and is totally wrong, but the other reasons are just as justified as the homosexual lifestyle is to the homosexual.
-
"but I also think alot see homosexuality as wrong whether for personal, health, or religious reasons" Health is not an issue, and saying personal and/or religious reasons is not in itself a JUSTIFICATION. It's a short way to name your type of reasonings, kind of like saying "Oh, my reasons for not liking gays is in that filing cabinet". Well, that's all well and good. Maybe that filing cabinet is filled with outstanding PROOF that you're right. But you have to share what's in it.
-
Leave it to God
I know that it's wrong, but several other countries have legalized it. The politicians who believe in Christ and have asked for forgiveness are forgiven over there. I think it would be okay if we legalized it. Let God punish the homosexuals for the lifestyle they have chosen or have been tempted by.Besides everyone is going to die when Jesus returns to Earth.
-
-
Rights IssueVoted for by mangr3n.
I've heard to arguments about homosexuality which seem interesting to me.
First, I once heard someone state that the human sex organ is not the genitalia it's the mind. 10% of the sex act is physical and 90% is mental.
I've heard of people being turned on by animals, same sex, feces, violence, submission, domination, pony play, balloons, urine, children, butts, breasts, feet, death, corpses, rape, incest, anal sex, oral sex, doggy style, latex, leather, pain, etc., etc.
So, it's not necessarily so that his mind could only have been attracted to men. It just so happens that it IS men that he's attracted to, or guys in general, muscles, hair, penis, butt, whatever... Mannerisms, smells, etc. I'm not of the type. My thing is female butts.
The other point I've heard stated was that if it was genetic, one would expect to see it represented across the population somewhat evenly. However, it trends affluent and college educated, now it may be that in those circles acceptance goes up and thus statistically that group is represented in higher numbers.
-
Think for yourselfVoted for by sofita.
Boys and girls, please do not be sucked in by this pro-homosexual propoganda. This movie suggests that being "gay" is genetic, like mutation in the comic books. However, this has been repeatedly proven to be false. If being gay was genetic, all identical twins would share the same sexual orientation. Yet a person with an identical twin who is gay has only a 20% chance of being gay. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2000, Vol 78, No. 3, 524-536.
How do you explain that? Hmmm, free will maybe?
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
that is also a false statement (the one saying that it is proven to be false). scientists, at this moment do not know if homosexuality is or is not genetics. another thing, identical twins are not exactly identical. there are always differences that can be seen. slightly different chin, thought processes, and the like. not to mention that (as you say) pro-homosexuals actually use this data as an argument to say that it is genetic since they have a 10% more of a chance of being gay then the single child births.
-
Dear Kazrith, Genetics do play a role in homosexuality, but a very small role. These statistics prove that noone is genetically determined to be gay. Obesity and alcoholism are much more heritable than homosexuality, yet noone says that people with these conditions are "born that way."
-
Obesity and alcoholism, as you pointed out, can sometimes have some traces in heredity and therfore people DO say they are "born that way". Whethere genetics are not, they are treated sympathetically as if they have some sort of disease--which they sort of do. But that's because it is self-destructive, usually physically and mentally. Being gay is not. Being born with something is not in itself a sign that you should condone or get rid of something. Being born with something detrimental is a sign for help. Being born with harmless things is a sign that you should lay off and mind your business.
-
Homosexuality is not harmless
This is where your argument fails. I don't even have time to list the myriad ways in which homosexuality is harmful to society and to homosexuals themselves, who have been shown, by the way, to suffer a reduced life expectancy. In fact, homosexuality statistically shortens life span by more than smoking, which noone tries to argue is anything less than deadly. Weydon, if you're homosexual, go get help before it becomes irreversible. Your life may depend on it. Sometimes the people who tell us the things we least want to hear are the very ones who are showing us the most brotherly (or in my case sisterly) love and human concern. -
-
please...oh wise and all knowing sofita, please show us these studies that show that homosexuals have a shorter life span than most other people. please, why don't you actually show us where you got this information that says that homosexuality is more harmful than smoking. also, explain to us how homosexuality is harmful to society and explain to us STEP BY STEP how homosexuality can cause the downfall of a civilizationa AND actually show us an example of a proven to be real city (ie-not sodom) that fell due to homosexuality and EXPLAIN how homosexuality caused the downfall. i'm sure that since you know so much about the subject that you will be able to answer ALL of these questions and will be able to easily show us VALID studies that support your claim. :P
-
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAH! How could homosexuality reduce lifespans? If I decided to start being straight, I'd live longer? It's merely the choice that KILLS me slowly? LOL, Well, rest assured, I am pretty straight. But thanks for your concern!
-
shorter life span
There are numerous studies showing that homosexuals have a shorter life expectancy. Here is the cite for one done by pro-gay researchers: International Journal of Epidemiology (Vol. 26, 657-61). This study concluded that men who identify themselves as homosexuals can expect to live anywhere from 8 to 20 years less than their heterosexually identified counterparts. Weydon, merely calling yourself gay doesn't kill you. What does kill you is unhealthy gay sex. Note, also that these results controlled for HIV/AIDS, so gay men die sooner even if they don't catch the deadly bug. Go to www.bupa.co.uk for the latest information on smoking and mortality. Smoking takes 10 years off of your life. -
-
to sofita
here is an interesting site you should check out. its a very short essay written by the same people who wrote the book you mentioned in your post. you should check it out http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499 basically, what this article is saying is that the findings published in their other book (the one you just sited) are outdated, not to be used to condemn gays, and are not to be used as a statistic. they even say that those findings were from almost 20 years ago and do not apply to todays world. please read it. it's only about 4 paragraphs in big font. also, not mentioned in the essay but still a fact is that STRAIGHT PEOPLE GET AIDS TO, WHETHER IT IS FROM SEX OR FROM DRUGS. lesbians are also proven to be the least likely people to get AIDS. also since you never countered my point on proving how homosexuality harms civilizations, i'm going to assume that you can't prove it can and that you made it up :) homosexuality is just as harmless and harmful as heterosexuality. there is nothing about it that is more dangerous. -
-
made it up?
You have no right to question my integrity. I am much too intellectually honest to make things up. -
-
i apologize for saying that you made that up...even though since you can't prove it that does kind of imply that you came up with it on your own. anyway, you won't believe how many people on here have said any random bullsh*t to try and make homosexuality seem wrong ranging from all homosexuals being prostitutes and that gay people are all under demonic possession...
-
-
anal sex
is very dangerous, friend Cosmosis. Yes, straight people get AIDS, too. However, that doesn't change the fact that a man multiplies his chances of getting AIDS by many thousands of times by having sex with men. I'll take a look at the essay you mention, but the fact that these pro-gay researchers are now trying to downplay the implications of their own research does not mean that the inconvenient truth of homosexual mortality does not remain the same. -
-
first i would like to say again that homosexual women (ie-lesbians) are at the least risk of getting AIDS or any other sexually transmitted diseases simply because women don't have any insertable sexual organs that can be used for sex (at least non that i know of). so in that case, lesbians are actually safer than heterosexuals. also, i think me and you both know that "thousands of times" is a wee bit exaggerated. can you show me any valid research that shows that anal sex is thousands of times more deadly than hetero sex(by the way, many straight people have anal sex as well) all sex can be dangerous whether it is gay or straight. it doesn't matter what kind of sex it is but rather how safe and prepared you are to have sex.
-
-
-
appearently so does being left handed
-
-
fall of nations
You asked me to give you the name of a real civilization that fell due to homosexuality. I admit I cannot do that. However, you must consider that we now have very effective contraception. As a result, very few women have more than two children. Even in traditionally Catholic Mexico, the birthrate per woman has gone down to 2.3 and falling. Replacement fertility is 2.1 children per woman. That is, every woman must have 2 children, plus another .1 to account for children who don't reach sexual maturity. In Canada, birthrates have fallen to half of replacement rate, that is 10 births per 1000. Right now, immigration is rejuvenating the population despite the well-documented birth dearth in Western nations. However, the birthrate all over the world is declining. We cannot expect developing nations to bear half of our children for us indefinitely. Half-replacement fertility for a nation like Canada could be devastating. It wouldn't take more than a couple of generations for the Canadians to decimate themselves at that rate. But even short of national self-annihilation, sub-replacement fertility is not conducive to prosperity. The next generation of productive workers won't just happen. Someone has to bear and rear them. Male homosexuality has a particularly negative effect on fertility. There already aren't enough men to go around, as I have said elsewhere in this blog. Among African Americans, women outnumber men by about 23% and among white Americans women outnumber men by about 8%. Now consider the effects of homosexuality. According to the American Medical Association, 10% of the male population is homosexual, while 3% of the female population is lesbian. All this adds up to a very serious shortage of marriageable men. Partly because of this shortage, many single men postpone marriage until well into their thirties or even forties. They know they will have no trouble finding a desireable mate even at a later age. As a result of the combined effects of the sex ratio imbalance, homosexuality, and confirmed bachelorhood, many women have trouble finding a mate to set up a traditional family and have children within their childbearing years. Remember, because of birth control, we cannot expect many women to have more than 2 children. Now, if ten percent of women don't have any children, because they can't find a family-oriented mate, and another 20% have only one child because they got started too late, you are looking at massive and devastating population decline. Really, all of this should be common sense. As long as we uphold and strengthen the fertile union of one man and one woman in marriage, we can afford to accept sterile same-sex relationships for those who believe it is their only option for reasonably happy life. However, we cannot elevate these unions to the same status as the traditional family. They can never be that. -
-
first, i am glad to here you admit that you cannot prove that any past civilizations fell due to homosexuality. many other people would have tried to make something up but you were mature enough to admit that you couldn't. i actually believe that a decline in the population would ultimately be a good thing. this world does not need 6 billion people in it. that number is crazy. as far as i'm concerned i think that at least for a while, it would actually be beneficial to society for the number of homosexuals to go up. women having only two children is a good thing! did you know that in China it is illegal to have more than 2 children? why?-because they are way too overpopulated. here is a better example. take japan, probably my favorite nation but still way too crowded. japan is about the size of montana (even though it is shaped more like california) and there are over 125 million people living there. 125 million people is 1/4 of the population of the US. do you realize how hard it would be to fit 1/4 of the US's population into Montana alone? India is in horrible condition as well, over a billion people live in in india and it is tiny compared to the US which only has about 1/2 a billion. it is estimated that by the next generation the world will have 9 billion people in it. as far as i'm concerned, the world NEEDS, non-procreating homosexuals to at least attempt to keep the population controlled. and even though i wish that homosexuality could help bring down the population effectively, truth is that it can't. there is no way that 5-10 percent of the populations is going to make a "devastating population decline" as you have put it. there are simply not enough homosexuals to do that and even the acceptance of homosexuality won't make more people gay. also, you are leaving out the variables in your estimation of the ratio of males to females. 1) there are asexual people in both genders 2) plenty of women out there DON'T want to get married and DON'T want to have kids. 3) many women don't care about the race of the person they marry. just because there are more AA women than AA men, that doesn't mean that there are less men for AA women to marry. they can marry some other ethnicity and it will still technically be a traditional home. race shouldn't matter. and since i read somewhere else that you were already married, why are you so concerned about this anyway? you're set.
-
-
"overpopulation"
I agree with you that humanity itself is not threatened with extinction. However, western civilization does appear to be so. Sub-replacement fertility is now the norm in most Western European nations. Germany is particularly concerned about this. Their birthrate is like 8/1000 and they are quite alarmed about it, because they understand that there won't be enough workers to support the aging population. Western European nations are importing workers from Islamic nations. This is changing their culture in ways that many liberal Europeans do not like. Witness the attack on a gay couple by Muslim youths in the Netherlands. France is now 10% Muslim. Now maybe you think that the islamicization of Europe is a good thing, and thats fine, but there's no call to laugh at people who are truly concerned about the continuing vitality of Western Civilization, which, after all, is the most free, tolerant, and humane civilization that ever existed. By the way, Cosmosis, if you think that normalization of homosexuality won't make more people gay, how do you explain ancient Greece. Homosexuality was virtually universal among the ancient Greeks, and I don't see any reason why we should not expect the same thing to happen here. After all, we know that homosexuality is not genetic. -
-
i don't think i can argue with you about you're points on western europe but what i can say is that homosexuality has nothing to do with that. if all the people in western europe who are gay somehow stopped being gay and had kids that wouldn't change the birth rate much since homosexuality is only present in about 5-10% of the population. that is not nearly enought to have any major inpact on population, whether it be positive or negative. also on homosexuality, it is not proven either way to be genetic or non genetic. it could possibly be inborn (ie-having to do with hormon levels while developing in the womb ) or a combo of enviremental and genetic effects. you know, there are many genes that don't show up unless certain enviremental conditions are met and that could apply to homosexuality whether or not it is genetic or not. and in greece, not everyone was gay. the greeks were more accepting of homosexuality and even portrayed it in their artwork so it seems as if more people were gay. they were just more expressive about themselves than us modern people so it just seems as if they had a higher rate of homosexuality. also, many of these homosexual cases of the ancient greeks werent' homosexual but rather pederistic. pederesty is a form of pedophilia involving an adult man and an adolescant male. that is very different from "regular" homosexual relationships. you wouldn't consider a grown adult male having relations with a 14 year old girl to be the same as regular heterosexuality would you? so why would you think it would be the same for pederasty and homosexuality?
-
-
now what is the point in attacking canada? Canada has a very stable birth rate and i do grant you the fact that we need immagrants to keep our nation stable but how the heck to you think that we can raise more than 2-3 children? do you realize how expensive that is now? right, i forgot, canada doesnt have the hillbilly population that the USA and their constitution of whatever. Ancient Greece is a very interesting study. now if you study it you will have found out that anal penitration very rarely happened and was almost never portrayed in art. why? because in Ancient Greece, to be penitrated in this matter was considered an offense to the reciever. the sex that is depicted is intercurcial which means sex between the thighs. no penitration, no mixing of fluids. this chasing of a young adult and an adult was considered normal because it was a ritual. Not to mention that people didnt live all that long back then. hey, what is with all of the big words?
-
demographics
Dear Cosmosis, Noone is saying anything about gays turning sraight and having kids, unless of course they want to have a go at reorientation therapy, which may or may not work for any individual. The question is whether society is better off if we have more homosexuality, or less. You are right that some people may have certain genetic or biological predispositions to homosexuality. For example, being a clutz is probably heritable. Being a clutz, in turn, puts little boys at risk of peer ridicule and rejection, which is an environmental factor that contributes to homosexuality. Additionally, there seems to be a fraternal birth order effect. It appears that latter born sons are 30-33% more likely to be gay than brothers born before them. However, this phenomenon accounts for 15% of gay men's sexuality at the very most. There is no other theory that suggests that any one is "born gay." Therefore, we ought to be taking steps to minimize homosexual outcomes. As the case of ancient Greece shows, homoerotic attraction can be influenced by the surrounding culture. A very interesting study by Andrew Francis shows that people who have a relative with AIDS are statistically much less likely to find men attractive. Therefore, it increases lesbianism and decreases male homosexuality. The most interesting thing is that it decreases DESIRE for men, not just sex with men. The authors of the study pointed out that the percieved costs of a behavior can change its attractiveness. Therefore, reducing the perceived CULTURAL costs (by, for example, legalizing gay marriage) of homosexuality will probably increase it substantially. Likewise, reading books like King & King to 7 year olds would undermine even the most minimal cultural preference for heterosexuality and thus increase homosexuality. An increase in homosexuality would, as I have discussed elsewhere, make it harder for women to find men to set up traditional families. Additionally, it would probably cause married couples to have marginally fewer children, as having children would be seen less and less as a duty and an ideal and more and more as a mere lifestyle choice. As Kazrith pointed out, having children is extremely expensive, and people are not going to do it if society does not recognize it as the ideal way to live instead of a mere personal whim. I support everyone's right to live their life however they wish, but demoting traditional parenthood to a mere lifestyle option will undermine our strength in the short term and eventually do us in altogether. -
stable birth rate?
To any extent the Canadians' birth rate is "stable" it is still dangerously low. "Stable" does not mean adequate. I don't see your point about anal penetration being rare in ancient Greece, assuming that's even true. I have read otherwise. But like I said, I don't see the point. A homosexualized culture will increase homoeroticism and cause men to look to other men for sexual gratification instead of women. I don't know how anyone could possibly argue that could be good for society with a straight face. -
read up one it. i think wikipedia does it justice, and so does a site called androphilic.com (or something close to that) oh, and as for ancient greece. after the young adult became an adult, he was to leave the male partner and find a female to start a family. again, no harm to societies numbers. canada is stable because the average children per family is 2, which means, if you do it by math, starting with 4 people = couple one -2 couple two -2 those four together, you get another 4 children. never increases, never decreases, that is the population balance you want, no over population, no declining population
-
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
TeChNoWC
July 19, 2006
Edit | Reply
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free