Homoseuxality: Is it wrong?

Originally posted by jammer
They say you simply slip a Roofy into the monkeys cocktail .. then you can have your way (photos and all) .. then you eat the monkey.
It's tradition .. you've got to learn to be more understanding of other .. er, lifestyle choices.

I'll remember that next time I'm sharing a bar counter with a female chimpanzee.

Originally posted by spruce112358
The ancient Greeks were big on homosexuality, democracy, and slavery

The biggest fear of those who see democratic rights as the perfect paradigm to force conformity on all. I just never saw its logical extreme quite this way, that slavery to democracy will lead to the open practice of homosexuality

Originally posted by slickhare
see title

It worked for Jesus, so it must be OK.

Originally posted by Conrau K
And has already been discussed in this thread, many heterosexuals share an innate aversion to homosexuality (which Nemesio has explained is possibly nuerological). I don't think religion should cop all the blame.

Whoa whoa.

Sonofhouse is misrepresenting historical homoeroticism with modern homosexuality; the two are
not analogous. Yes, while in the past homoeroticism was considered normal and even
healthy -- sex with women wasn't for pleasure, just babies -- that isn't to say that we can compare
that with the idea of gay marriage. Even in the past, it would have been unthinkable for two men
to be considered as spouses to each other. Homoeroticism was socialized casual sex, I'm sure
fueled by the idea that pregnancy wasn't an issue. (This isn't to pass any judgment on the issue of
gay marriage, either for or against.)

Judiasm (and its offshoots of Christianity and Islam) was responding to these 'loose' sexual mores;
the Levitical Law was part of an effort to create an 'Us versus Them' environment. Jews
ate differently, the worshiped differently, their views on sex were different. It was all social.

The aversion that I feel when observing homosexual sex is not 'innate' but social. I am sure that
those Romans for whom homoeroticism was a part of life did not experience this same aversion.
That was the point, I think of Palynka's question -- does repeated exposure make one less
averse? -- and my unprofessional guess is 'yes,' mitigated by whatever social environment contributes
to the association.

Has religion contributed to it? Yes. But even the 19th-century German humanists (many of whom
were Deists at best) found the 'sub-culture' of Viennese homoeroticism grotesque.

Is homosexuality normative? No, of course not. That immediately places it at a social disadvantage
(just think of how poorly left-handed people were judged historically). The fact that it involves
sexuality makes it an even more volatile subject. It comes down to reason; yes, there is an
aversion, but is the aversion reasonable? I don't think there is a good argument to say 'yes' to
this.

Nemesio