|
Post by Ryan on Jan 6, 2011 13:50:49 GMT -5
Being an alcoholic is not a choice, it is the consequence of a choice - namely the choice to drink. You are an alcoholic if it has become in your nature to be addicted to alcohol.
Also - as alcoholism is the consequence of a choice, it can very much be a lifestyle. Being gay however, is not a lifestyle, nor is it a choice. One can be gay and choose to never have sex, or to only have sex with the opposite gender. That does not make him/her any less gay. When someone is gay it means that their sexuality is such so that their sexual attraction is towards members of the same sex. It is not a lifestyle, nor is it something within their control.
Where the alcoholic can choose to drink (an action), the homosexual cannot choose what (s)he finds attractive (a preference). You are a slave to the preferences of your mind, and the hormonal fluctuations that control attraction are far beyond your control.
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Jan 7, 2011 1:35:03 GMT -5
K, so let's establish something. Being homosexual means you are attracted to the opposite sex, but you don't act on it. You don't characterize yourself with it. It's not a part of who you are, or at least you don't make it. Being gay is acting on that homosexuality, whether it be dating or dating or having sex. In one point in their life, they made the decision to act on that. People think sexual thoughts all the time about a lot of people. I may see a guy walk by and think "oh he's hot" or a woman could see a child and think he's attractive. It's keeping that thought and expanding that makes them gay. Did that make sense? I feel like I was rambling.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jan 7, 2011 1:58:13 GMT -5
K, so let's establish something. Being homosexual means you are attracted to the opposite sex, but you don't act on it. You don't characterize yourself with it. It's not a part of who you are, or at least you don't make it. Being gay is acting on that homosexuality, whether it be dating or dating or having sex. In one point in their life, they made the decision to act on that. People think sexual thoughts all the time about a lot of people. I may see a guy walk by and think "oh he's hot" or a woman could see a child and think he's attractive. It's keeping that thought and expanding that makes them gay. Did that make sense? I feel like I was rambling. I see where you are going with that.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Jan 7, 2011 3:27:52 GMT -5
I see what you're attempting - but you were taught incorrectly what gay is. Gay is the preference, homosexuality is the preference. Acting on those preferences DOES NOT HAVE A NAME. And yes there are guys who find other guys hot and don't act on it, and women who think children are attractive and don't act on it. Does that make the men not gay? or the women not pedophiles? no. Despite the action, the preference is what has the name. Whether or not that preference is accepted is up to society. Pedophilia is a preference NOT accepted by society. Homosexuality and Heterosexuality should be equally accepted by society (not currently the case). In any situation though, how gay someone is does not depend at all on their actions. Nor can it be influenced by any choice they make.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Jan 15, 2011 18:43:43 GMT -5
Yeah, gay is a synonym for homosexual. It was adopted at some point, I believe, to sound less "scary sounding" and hopefully produce good PR in a sense. Unfortunately that failed. They mean the exact same thing.
Look, here's the difference between homosexuality and alcoholism.
Alcoholism is a horrible condition that often ruins the person's life and similarly the lives of their family and friends. It causes them to do things they would never do sober and to lose all perspective on anything other than their addiction.
Homosexuality is loving someone of the same gender. The only negative side-effects of it are dealing with homophobes.
There is good reason to intervene with alcoholics. Good reason to get them to stop drinking. There is absolutely no good reason to interfere with homosexual love. None at all.
Now can we please stop comparing sexual preference to alcoholism? I get sick every time I hear that comparison. :-\
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Jan 16, 2011 1:06:25 GMT -5
There is absolutely no good reason to interfere with homosexual love. None at all. Who's interfering?
|
|
|
Post by Freddy on Jan 16, 2011 1:31:53 GMT -5
Pretty much everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Jan 16, 2011 2:00:44 GMT -5
I've never gone up to a gay person and made them not feel love for another man/woman of the same gender
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jan 16, 2011 2:09:23 GMT -5
Homosexuality is loving someone of the same gender. The only negative side-effects of it are dealing with homophobes. :-\ And the fact that one will not most likely reproduce.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Jan 16, 2011 10:20:30 GMT -5
Many heterosexual couples will also not reproduce - bad argument krzych.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jan 16, 2011 11:22:46 GMT -5
Many heterosexual couples will also not reproduce - bad argument krzych. I see what you are saying but you are wrong. Just because some heterosexuals willl fail to reproduce for what ever reason does not make conditions unfavorable to reproduce (homosexuality) and less unfavorable. Let me put it this way, if you have a homosexual man and a heterosexual man, and they both want to reproduce. Who do you think will have a harder time doing so?
|
|
|
Post by Freddy on Jan 16, 2011 11:45:51 GMT -5
Many heterosexual couples will also not reproduce - bad argument krzych. I see what you are saying but you are wrong. Just because some heterosexuals willl fail to reproduce for what ever reason does not make conditions unfavorable to reproduce (homosexuality) and less unfavorable. Let me put it this way, if you have a homosexual man and a heterosexual man, and they both want to reproduce. Who do you think will have a harder time doing so? In my opinion, we've reached a point in evolution where actually get with other people for more reasons than simply reproducing. Be it convenience, money, or love, it isn't exclusive to gay marriages. Does every single heterosexual marriage exist for the single purpose of reproduction? Nope. Maybe a good fraction of them, but no.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jan 16, 2011 11:50:45 GMT -5
Your last sentance made my head explode.
|
|
|
Post by Freddy on Jan 16, 2011 12:06:09 GMT -5
I meant it as yes, the original purpose of a relationship is reproduction, but not all marriages can/want to have children.
|
|
|
Post by SwimFellow on Jan 16, 2011 13:02:16 GMT -5
I've never gone up to a gay person and made them not feel love for another man/woman of the same gender
|
|
|
Post by SwimFellow on Jan 16, 2011 13:04:31 GMT -5
Right, but it was a choice at one point. They weren't born an alcoholic Say WHAAA? The entire point is casual drinking IS a choice, while alcoholism is NOT. They WERE however born with the gene that would make them more prone to alcoholism.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jan 16, 2011 13:23:13 GMT -5
I meant it as yes, the original purpose of a relationship is reproduction, but not all marriages can/want to have children. Was this a response to what I said? You quoted what I said but I don't see how this would be a response, I didn't even mention marriage.
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on Jan 16, 2011 15:44:13 GMT -5
Right, but it was a choice at one point. They weren't born an alcoholic Say WHAAA? The entire point is casual drinking IS a choice, while alcoholism is NOT. They WERE however born with the gene that would make them more prone to alcoholism. Wha... What? Which gene would that be?
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Jan 16, 2011 22:27:05 GMT -5
There is no alcoholic gene, though you can be born with a predisposition to alcoholism, or even born with alcoholism. That's entirely chemical and not genetic.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Jan 16, 2011 22:31:05 GMT -5
And Krzych, no man will ever reproduce by himself.
Both a homosexual man and a heterosexual man, need a woman to do so. And both have the capability of producing the sperm to fertilize her egg. So just because a man is homosexual does not mean he cannot reproduce.
The point you were getting at is that homosexual couples don't reproduce, which is a bad argument.
And if reproduction is your reason for bashing homosexuality, then you should also bash all forms of birth control, including condoms, the pill, vasectomies, tubes tied, hysterectomy, menopause, and men and women who have bad luck and cannot concieve for other reasons.
I think that I have shown that your argument, no matter what the point was, was not a very good one.
|
|