I was just wondering if there was scientific evidence that being gay is a sickness or illness.
the reason i ask this is that whenever someone says being gay is wrong, they relate it to religion or the bible. They can never present scientific evidence of it being wrong. And when i say that not everyone beleives in the bible or in their religion, they just laugh.
This also brings up another question. Why doesn’t the government recognize a homosexual union?
Only if you also consider hair color and the shape of your nose to be a sickness or illness.
Well, the proper counter to those types of arguments is to mention all the “Love thy neighbor” verses. There’s like, what, two verses in the Bible that refer to homosexuality specifically (“A man laying with another man as he would a woman” or something like that?).
That’s because there never IS evidence to support opinions.
Laugh right back at them (note: I said “at”, not “with”).
Because there’s still enough Ignorant dickheads running around out there. Give it time, give it time… they’ll be defeated eventually. The good guys always win.
Remember: Rome wasn’t built in a day… but when it was finished, it DID support homosexuality.
Thanx spoofe.
Science doesn’t tend to deal with concepts like ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ (at least not in a moral sense), rather concepts such as ‘True’ or ‘False’.
So “Is homosexuality wrong” isn’t something that can be answered by a scientist in the same way that “Is it true that homosexuals all have red hair” can.
For further reading, feel free to click on any of the links in my signature line.
Esprix
Spoofe you appear to be implying here that homosexuality is genetic, like hair colour. While this is conceivably true the evidence is, to say the least, inconclusive. Perhaps a better example would be "only if you consider height a sickness’. While homosexuality is a choice for only a minority it, like height, is in most cases probably the result of a combination of environmental and genetic factors.
I suppose that if there were evidence of a genetic basis for homosexuality then you could argue that it is an ilness. Why you’d want to I don’t quite know.
Like Mangetout said, science doesn’t deal in right and wrong.
Follow Esprix’s links, however, you’ll see people attempting to present sociological/epidemiological arguments that it’s ‘wrong’ in the sense that it causes disease or something.
These folks must absolutely crack up at other obvious truths. Try “The sky is blue”, see if that gets a chuckle.
But seriously, never give up fighting the good fight just because a couple of bible-thumpers laugh at you.
Well, I suppose that if you’re going to use concepts like ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ that’s the best place to look. Doesn’t make it the truth though does it.
could you possibly give me a link for those arguments? I don’t feel like sacrificing my eyes to sift through all those posts.
And just a question. How do gay guys know that other guys are gay, like in school in stuff. Im still in high school, but im very masculine and i don’t think anyone has a doubt in their mind that im straight, eventough i’m gay. Anyone got advice for this?
Well, there’s the “I see your nifty rainbow accessories so I know you’re queer” manoeuvre. And it’s generally safe to assume that the guy you danced with for an hour at that nightspot in the Village isn’t referring to his female lover when he talks about his best girlfriend.
Further, a - how shall I say - guy who is openly femme is fairly likely to be gay, although the reverse is certainly not true. (Nor is this rule itself foolproof, much to my chagrin; sometimes it seems that the harder I fall for some delicious femme boy the more likely it is that he’s straight as a line. But very supportive, of course.)
But in general, there’s no way to tell. To paraphrase a lesbian comedian, we’re like Stealth Homos, low-flying and undetectable. Unless someone actually comes out to you, there’s no way to be sure.
As you are in high school, I’d excercise especial caution. If I remember correctly, those HS boys can be vicious.
Perhaps. Allow me to revise my example to include such things as “dislike for sitcoms” and “a taste for salmon”. The point was pretty much what Mangetout said… science doesn’t show “right” or “wrong”.
Well, not necessarily. Mental disorders are considered illnesses (are they?). It can be argued - if one was so inclined (I certainly am not) - that homosexuality is merely a mental disorder. I don’t agree with that line of reasoning, since, using that same logic, it can be argued that any sort of sexual appetite, or Love itself, is merely a mental disorder. And I’m not that cynical yet.
Studies done with identical twins separated at birth have shown that homosexuality is approximately 50 percent genetic and 50 percent environmental. Here’s a link.
**
Ask them why it is wrong? And it has to be something more concrete then because the bible says so or that is isn’t “right.” Being gay doesn’t hurt others or violate their rights, so what’s morally wrong about it? Nothing.
One reason is because marriage has always been a union between man and woman. I suppose there might be exceptions to this rule but I can’t recall any society that had marriages between same sex couples. Of course I think the government should recognize same sex unions the same way they recognize heterosexual unions. But I have to admit that in my mind when I think of marriage it’ll always be a heterosexual couple I picture.
Marc
I thought that under the law of Hawaii same sex marriage was possible?
In the wake of warnings of the European court of Justice whereby the judges warned that they might be inclined to view that not allowing same sex marriage might be an infringement of the human right to a family life, the Dutch government has now removed those barriers.
I tried to find some links to government sites in English but I couldn’t.
MGibson writes
Eskridge (can’t remember 1st name) in his book “The Case for Same-Sex Marriage” notes several societies with same-sex unions. I’m at work so I don’t have the book in front of me, so I’ll take a look at it when I get home. John Boswell’s controversial book “Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe” purports to list reconstructed texts of same-sex marriage ceremonies performed by the Catholic Church centuries ago.
The Netherlands has granted full marriage rights to same-sex couples. Other European countries have granted same-sex couples many of the rights and privileges of marriage but don’t call it “marriage.” The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the denial of marital benefits to same-sex couples violates that country’s constitution. I think same-sex relationships have the status of common-law marriages but I’d have to research it. In the United States, a number of cities and counties have domestic partnership registries but the benefits available to domestic partners vary wildly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Vermont is the only state which has “civil unions,” which supposedly grant to same-sex couples all of the state-sanctioned rights, responsibilities and privileges of marriage without actually calling it marriage. There are a number of court cases in progress now which will test the recognition of various aspects of civil union outside the state.
Sorry, meant to answer this in one post.
F-Dutchman writes
The Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples was a violation of the state constitution’s equal rights amendment, which banned discrimination on the basis of sex. The court sent the issue back to the trial court to determine whether the state could put forth a compelling state interest in denying the licenses. The trial court ruled that the state’s stated interests (strengthening marriage, protecting children, bolstering the state’s reputation among other states and protecting tourism, among others) were not only not compelling but would actually be enhanced by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The state appealed to the supreme court. In the interim, the voters passed a state constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. The supreme court ruled (just ten days before the Vermont ruling) that the new amendment trumped the previous rulings and mooted the issue of marriage license issuance. The court did not, however, foreclose the possibility of a Vermont-like solution, as it ruled that denial of marital rights might still violate the constitution.
Whether being gay is a sickness is completely independent (from a factual standpoint) from whether it is morally wrong.
The first probably depends on definitions of sickness, the latter on moral and religious beliefs.
Despite what some people claim, GAYDAR is not 100% accurate. I don’t think I’ve ever gotten a false positive, but I have often failed to realize that someone was gay until they said they were. So, if you really want someone to know you’re gay, just say so. There isn’t a secret handshake or anything*.
If one gay person does identify another without being told it’s usually because 1) the other person was wearing Freedom Rings or some other gay gear 2) the other person looked or behaved in a stereotypically gay manner or 3) the other person was checking out or flirting with a member of the same sex. Of course, if you’re at a gay bar or marching in a Pride Parade then it’s a pretty safe bet that anyone you meet is gay, even if you don’t notice any of the above signs. 
*At least, there’d better not be…no one ever showed it to me!
Well, I’m straight, and I’ve been to gay bars and marched in gay pride parades. But it is safe to assume anyone in either of those places is supportive of you being gay - and probably fairly safe to assume they expect you to assume they are gay.
(P.S. Don’t proposition anyone’s “recently converted to gay is ok status” Dad uncomfortably marching in the PFLAG contingent)
Wait, doesn’t Vermont recognize same sex marriages?
What never ceases to amaze me is how this isn’t discrimination through denying services to people based on sexual orientation. I hardly expect the entire country’s opinion to suddenly promote open homosexuality (unfortunately that still seems a ways off) but how have we failed to recognize same-sex marriages and such? Isn’t this a federal issue?
Duh. Thanks otto. Good info.
Not exactly. The “civil unions” approved in Vt. have something of a separate but equal going.