For the record, I find homosexuality among men repugnant and somewhat less so among women.
That being said, I would also like to state that I agree that homosexuality, in 95% of the cases is not a voluntary life decision for those affected with it, but genetic. In normal genetics, people of one sex are attracted to the opposite sex and find same sex attractions repellent. (This does not include bisexuality.) One cannot easily find a member of the same gender sexually attractive unless one is A: genetically disposed to do so, or B: contained within an unnatural environment of limited options against their will. (Prison.)
Now, since the condition of Homosexuality is genetic, one can assume that they have no control over their sexual polarity. So long as they follow the basic laws accepted by general society, there is no reason to deny them the same basic freedoms as everyone else. After all, what they choose to do with each other, consensually, is none of anyone’s business so long as they do not try to force their will or beliefs on others.
If they choose to marry – I would not deny them that. I have my doubts concerning their adoption of children because children are usually heavily influenced by their parents and I have not yet determined as to whether or not children can be influenced enough to change their own natural sexuality as they grow. It does not seem to have worked with homosexuals born into normal families and the repression of their own different sexuality seems to have led to major psychological problems later in life.
According to some psychiatric theories, it is believed that children starting to experience their own sexual urges can easily become homosexual or bisexual – especially in the teens when the sexual drive among men to ‘poke anything’ is so intense. Later, after puberty, they tend to settle down. Women (girls) tend to be more controlled in these times.
It has also been observed that the male homosexual tends to be the more radical of the two and the more violent, exaggerated and ‘experimental’ with the woman homosexual tending to be much less so.
Still. There is no reason to deny them the basic human rights that everyone else enjoys.
Besides, psychological studies have long reported that there is always a rise in homosexuality when pressures of civilizations become very high among people crammed into small living areas. (Along with other psychosis’s.) Plus, it has long been a theory of mine that religious rules and texts were always written by men who were heavily influenced by the beliefs of their times. (In most texts, women are reduced to property with few rights. Slavery seems to be accepted and it has been observed that punishments were often brutal and final.)
With this in mind, since we have moderated much of the various religious rules, why should be refuse to do so concerning homosexuality? In some texts, those who commit adultery are stoned. We don’t do that any more and we don’t even consider adultery a crime requiring jail time nor any form of social restriction. So, why should we do such to homosexuals? Basing the restriction of homosexuals on religious reasons is no longer a valid point. If we do that, then we have to start enforcing the various 10 Commandments – including those like not desiring what your neighbor has, honoring your parents – apparently no matter what, and so on.
In light of the massive ‘phone psychics’, doesn’t it also say in many religious text not to trust ‘false profits’ and that the determination of a true profit is one who is never wrong? Yet we allow these ‘false profits’ to scam us out of millions each year and to delude the hopeless and the desperate. They are allowed all of the freedoms of everyone else and if they are, so should homosexuals.
What? Me worry?’