# Homosexuality, For or Against? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 2, 2001, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-for-or-against/64059 "2001-05-02T08:05:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![\_Uigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/e9a140/32.png) [@\_Uigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_Uigi)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2001, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-for-or-against/64059/181 "2001-05-05T04:50:29Z")
Gay?! Well, personally, I take offense that the other sex is after the sex that I prefer; it somehow seems that this is unfair competition (did I make that too confusing?). On the other hand, my sex will eventually breed themselves out of existence which should leave more of the fairer sex around for those heterosexuals that have always preferred the other sex, anyway. (Is that any clearer?) ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2001, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-for-or-against/64059/182 "2001-05-05T05:29:05Z")
Sometime pointed retorts (though, of course, within the GD guidelines) work better than pointy sticks, 'Sprix. šŸ˜‰ As a [Moderator Hat ON] note, Kmudd, please do not quote the full text of a post you are replying to; please quote only what is neccessary to make what you are responding to clear. If you need some advice on how to do this, click the ā€œvB codeā€ link at the very bottom of the page. [/MH OFF] ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2001, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-for-or-against/64059/183 "2001-05-05T05:56:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by 'Uigi \* > \*\*Gay?! Well, personally, I take offense that the other sex is after the sex that I prefer; it somehow seems that this is unfair competition (did I make that too confusing?). > > On the other hand, my sex will eventually breed themselves out of existence which should leave more of the fairer sex around for those heterosexuals that have always preferred the other sex, anyway. (Is that any clearer?) > > \*\* As clear as a dirty fishbowl. If you are a man, you have little chance with a lesbian. They have no hidden desires(for the most part) to have a man involved, thus they are not part of your potential dating pool, and are not competing. If you are a woman(and I apologize to any women who feel I am insulting their gender by suggesting this), gay men are not your competiton, nor are they in your potential dating pool if you are heterosexual. ---
**Author:** ![Sir\_Rhosis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d9b06d/32.png) [@Sir\_Rhosis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sir_Rhosis)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2001, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-for-or-against/64059/184 "2001-05-05T06:00:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by RAWisSYDNEY \* > > \*\* > > If everyone in the world was Straight, life would go on. > > If everyone turned gay, we couldnt reproduce naturally. > > \*\* > > 1. This is a fallacious argument. > \*\* Sir Rhosis stumbles in from a hard day at work: Fellatio argument?! No argument from me. (smiley face goes here) I agree with the poster (sorry, forgot the name), who compared it to being for or against buffalo. We are who and what we are. And thatā€™s cool. Sir Rhosis ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2001, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-for-or-against/64059/185 "2001-05-05T12:30:37Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Hastur \* \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RAWisSYDNEY \* > ā€œThere is no need for parents to fear homosexual teachers. Ninety-seven percent of child seduction is heterosexual.ā€ - Dr. Benjamin Spock > > \*\* How can anyone NOT be for something that will reduce child molestation by 97%? ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2001, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-for-or-against/64059/186 "2001-05-05T13:01:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Superdude \* > \*\* > ā€œWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.ā€ > > Let me elaborate. **"ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the persuit of Happiness."** > > This not only blatently excluded women, but didnā€™t even include blacks and native Americans (!)and even various religious groups at the time. It was more a case of ā€œall men by our definition of men.ā€ > > Nowhere in there does it hint, allege, imply, or suggest that this provison only applies if the person in question is heterosexual. > > To be fair, the Bible DOES have the odd assorted quote about a man lying down with another man and so forth. But I wonder how different that is from the original text, as words are sometimes lost in translation. As well as stories growing from the mouth that tells to the ear that hears. > > **Bottom Line:** Discrimination is wrong, in any sense of the word. The Founding Fathers recognized that Americans, as a people, are the sort to look around for someone to actively dislike. That is part of why the DOI reads as it does. No man, woman, hermaphrodite, etc., should have any rights that any other man does not. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2001, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-for-or-against/64059/187 "2001-05-05T13:03:59Z")
Nuts! I should have previewed. My point is that, when those words were written, not only did they blatently exclude women, but they did not apply to blacks, native Americans, and even several religious groups at the time. The phase ā€œall menā€ meant ā€œall the people we say are men.ā€ ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2001, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-for-or-against/64059/188 "2001-05-05T15:10:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Annie-Xmas \* > \*\*My point is that, when those words were written, not only did they blatently exclude women, but they did not apply to blacks, native Americans, and even several religious groups at the time. The phase ā€œall menā€ meant ā€œall the people we say are men.ā€ \*\* There is no evidence that Jefferson intended to exclude blacks, native Americans, or religious minorities. Jefferson, in fact, sought to include language that would have been more equalist, but the other members of the Congress opposed it. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2001, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-for-or-against/64059/189 "2001-05-05T18:18:54Z")
Gaah. Couple of points worth bringing out here: 1. Kmudd, you seem to be completely at sea on the idea that ā€œgayā€ means sexual _orientation_, not _practice_ in todayā€™s common usage. To be sure, most people with gay orientations do tend to practice gay sex, but not all of them. And those who ā€œdiscriminate against gaysā€ tend to discriminate against anyone who publicly avows him/herself as gay, not against the practice of gay sex. 2. If I see one more post on the subject of child molestation, Iā€™m going to demand of any poster addressing the issue, on either side, that he produce statistics from an unbiased source, as to who commits such molestations, under what circumstances, on penalty of being warned by a moderator for being a jerk, i.e., refusing to comply with a reasonable request from another poster about evidence. Anyone who cares to post anecdotal evidence or _clearly labeled_ opinion which he is unable to substantiate with statistics is exempt from that item. I am so tired of seeing the pedophilia issue hijack every one of these threads, no matter what the initial topic, that I could cyberpuke all over the thread. 3. In re kmuddā€™s question about gays speaking out regarding crimes committed by other gays, I would like to note that the _Southern Voice_, published in and for the gay community of Atlanta, New Orleans, and the areas inbetween, has taken a strong editorial stand on to what extent the attitudes of the gay community are at fault in the murder of a 13-year-old gay boy, Jesse Dirkhising, as part of a bondage role-playing scene by a young adult gay man and his older-adult lover in Arkansas. Too, there was the case of a hustler/model in the Bay Area who killed a gay man, which was investigated in great depth by Benoit Denizet-Lewis and published both in a San Francisco weekly paper and in XY Magazine about two years ago. **matt\_mcl** may have the particulars on that; Iā€™ve long since trashed my copy of the publication. > [@](#): > > Your religious beliefs are protected by the second amendment. ā€œAnd if you try to tell me what to believe or not believe, Iā€™ll blow your head off with this here shotgun!ā€? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![andygirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a9adbd/32.png) [@andygirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andygirl)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2001, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-for-or-against/64059/190 "2001-05-05T22:35:27Z")
From the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System: [http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/](http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/) Perpetrator relationship to Victim: Unknown, 2.8% Other, 4.4% Substitute Care Provider(s), 1.5% Family Relative, 3.9% Male Parent and Other, 1.1% Female Parent and Other, 7.9% Both Parents, 17.7% Male Parent Only, 15.9% Female Parent Only, 44.7% (found specifically at [http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/canstats.cfm](http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/canstats.cfm)) Here is a table that breaks down relationship to specific type of abuse: [http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm99/table3d.htm](http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm99/table3d.htm) ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2001, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-for-or-against/64059/191 "2001-05-06T00:33:05Z")
Here ya go: > [@](#): > > Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147). from [this](http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html) [this](http://www.preventchildabuse.org/research_ctr/fact_sheets/sexual_abuse.html) gives support to the fact that girls are more likely to be molested, molesters are more likely to be male, and that the molester is most likely to be some one they know. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2001, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-for-or-against/64059/192 "2001-05-06T02:24:20Z")
This is sort of a silly question. Iā€™m not really for or against homosexuality. My staunce is ā€œlive and let liveā€ and as long as weā€™re talking about consenting adults, it doesnā€™t matter to me what they do behind closed doors. Now, perhaps if I found out some guy I was interested was gay Iā€™d surely be _disappointed,_ much like Iā€™d be were he married, but other than thatā€¦ However, Iā€™d like to state Iā€™m against the female menstrual cycle. Iā€™m young, single, and children arenā€™t something Iā€™m considering in the near future, so why do I have to go through this every single month? Womenā€™s bodies are way too optimistic to suit our lifestyles; even dogs, supposedly lower lifeforms, only go into season a couple of times a year. Ever hear that song ā€œdetachable penisā€ by King Missile? I think thatā€™s the way we should go, evolutionwise - detachable uterus. Leave in the ovaries for the hormones, but take that sucker out and put it in storage until you need it. Think of all the social problems that would eliminate. ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2001, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-for-or-against/64059/193 "2001-05-07T13:42:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Superdude \* > \*\*First of all, the government, nor anyone else for that matter, should be allowed to tell you who you can and cannot love, as long as both parties are of legal age (and here I am thinking of Mary Ann Latourno, or however you spell it). Damn typos. I meant the government, nor anyone else, should **NOT** be allowed to dictate who you can love. ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2001, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-for-or-against/64059/194 "2001-05-07T13:47:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hastur \* > \*\*If you are a man, you have little chance with a lesbian. They have no hidden desires(for the most part) to have a man involved, thus they are not part of your potential dating pool, and are not competing. If you are a woman(and I apologize to any women who feel I am insulting their gender by suggesting this), gay men are not your competiton, nor are they in your potential dating pool if you are heterosexual. \*\* This analysis ignores the bisexual factor. Gay men do compete with straight women for the attention of bisexual men, and lesbians do compete with straight men for the attention of bisexual women. And bisexuals are in everyoneā€™s competitive dating pool. šŸ™‚ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homosexuality-for-or-against/64059.md?page=9)