@salieri only thing i can say about homophobia is that it's thrown around WAAAAAAAAAAY too often.
Come from growing up with alot of banana spiders in the yard, and walking into their webs, giant spider on me, the bites hurt *BAD* for a few days. Not fun. I have a phobia of spiders.
Well there are gay people out there who experience worse than a bite from a spider. Being ridiculed at school, disconnected from their parents, some beaten up.
While your spider-bit hurts for a few days, these things hurt for a lifetime.
If you getting bitten by spiders causes an arachnophobia, then how can anyone expect homo- and bisexual people to act unbiased towards "normal" people.
(Since I hate generalizations, this case can apply to some people and it certainly does not to everyone)
While i do understand what you're saying, i used to get beaten up in school and outside of school/etc for being a brainiac. People thought i was nerdy or smart or whatever and there were quite a few times that i was beaten bloody for no real reason. Believe me, this isn't localized to just gay/bi people by any means. Now a days, i'm not a badass or anything, but i let people know that i may get my ass beaten if they want to try something, but i'm going to make sure that they come out permanently scarred from it if they want to try. It's just talk, but people don't start with me.
lol, my 12~14th b-day, after school let out and i was waiting for my ride home, i was jumped and hurt badly. One of those moments when all i could think about was.....but it's my b-day. It's supposed to be a good day, a special day, blah blah blah. Those people weren't afraid of me, there was no phobia. I was an easy target, apparently i was different enough and ehhhh, sometimes that's all it takes. a phobia is an irrational fear, like a spider.
And yeah, reason i was waiting for my ride was because my parents forgot to come pick me up from school yet again. Again, on my b-day. I thought maybe it all meant something, that maybe somehow it would still be special but of course that wasn't the reality of the situation. People get beaten, hurt, excluded, kicked out of families, fired from jobs, bullied, etc all the time for being different, and there is more to being different then being gay. But that doesn't make it a phobia. It makes the person who's different an easy target in the eyes of someone who feels that they just need to hurt something/someone.
Sorry again about the long post, but i don't hate or act different around normal people until they start to act like i should be scared of them. At one of my jobs, where i needed a box cutter/razor blade, i kept it dull and dirty and used to pull it out and show to anyone who tried to bully me. But until they tried to act like they were a threat, i treated them like they were anyone else, even if they were a prick.
Obama what? Sorry I'm from Canada, we accepted subpar, government run health insurance back in the 1960's.
Sorry, I saw your post, had to laugh at it and then respond. I think I already said I don't care much about whether or not they have a gay character in game, and I stick by that statement
@Bjjorick Do you also then think that heterosexuals who can't have children (due to barrenness, vasectomies, etc.) lose those tax breaks? What about those who choose not to have children?
Obama what? Sorry I'm from Canada, we accepted subpar, government run health insurance back in the 1960's.
Sorry, I saw your post, had to laugh at it and then respond. I think I already said I don't care much about whether or not they have a gay character in game, and I stick by that statement
But this is the most important gay character inclusion/exclusion of our lifetimes!
@Talvrae your chart. On the left you have Conservatism, and in the middle you have Liberalism.
Conservatives argue that things should simply be kept the way they are, even stuff that isn't perfect. They're against the government meddling with things ... if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Liberals want to have the government intervene and change a bunch of things, for the greater equality of everyone. Basically stick their nose in everyone's affairs, for the eventual goal of equality.
See, if you look at it that way, then Liberals sound like the tyrants don't they? Because Conservatives are simply for keeping things the way the government was established (perfect or not), not for some radical church-state. Meanwhile, Liberals just want to make everything as good as possible, a noble goal. What I'm saying is, both sides can sound rather tyrannical depending on what way you put it, stop trying to paint one side as "the bad guys." That's just ridiculous.
@scriver, it's not natural (while it's common), the fact that many do or more than one specie pratice hommosexualism doesn't put it as a natural behavior. i know elephants that paint, make simple mathematic calculations or tigers that live alongside humans in some oriental monasteries. Is that natural? Surely not, is that wrong? neither right or wrong, just unnatural.
Unfortunally many persons read unnatural as wrong, that's a bias perspective, unnatural means out of the original nature plan for the lack of a better explanation, can be better or no but right or wrong is a human concept, it has no use in natural or unnatural questions.
your 2° point i can't take serious as sexual behavior is spread in our culture, there are magazines on the newsstands, on TV, movies, series, animes. We can't ignore the reality to sustain an argument, you don't need sex to express love, sex is a form of achieve pleasure and procreate, in gay concept is a form of achieve pleasure only and while neither should be openly presented on the midia a straight behavior is received with less impact than a gay behavior.
About your 3° point:
If you're talking about the golden age of humanity in Grece more or less 3 thousand years ago, there gay behavior was commom to just as it's now, but yet unnatural, and i truly believe they understand and evaluate this question there without the biased views that exist today (from both sides).
Christian culture never accepted gay behaviors, the institutions always based them on old fashioned morality and prejudice, that was the main pillar of their dogmas. This affirmative is just unreal, only recently some new open minded churches began to accept homossexuality.
I affirmate with property that the old japanese culture had no acceptance of homossexuality as you view. Japanese culture isn't so simple, it's mainly based on a masked conduct on the open events and a rigid somehow cruel behavior ruled by strict codes. From the examples you could use, japanese culture isn't among the best.
The old roman society was purely bacchanal, they supported pleasure no matter how and what. Pedophilia, torture, humiliation... everything that achieve pleasure there was valid. The only thing good from roman society was their solid militar structure and the development of laws that even today guides our actual legal system.
So to end, and back to the main issue of my previous post, when i speak about natural behavior, put aside right or wrong, they're human concepts and have no use for nature. Homossexuality isn't natural, we can work this fact but deny it will not change this truth.
To ensure what i'm trying to say, an example of natural behavior but not acceptable and totally wrong is a sex relation between an 30 years man and a 13 years girl that already achieve puberty, although natural from an instinct and animalistic perspective, it's totally wrong on our actual culture and even a crime in some countries (as on mine for example).
@Bjjorick Do you also then think that heterosexuals who can't have children (due to barrenness, vasectomies, etc.) lose those tax breaks? What about those who choose not to have children?
@LadyRhian my post at the bottom of the previous page. Hetero's get those tax breaks regardless if they choose to ever have children, or if they foster children...or if they adopt. These breaks are raising families, not procreating. They should be allowed to everyone.
@Debaser I know. I was asking him because he thinks they were based on the expectation of having children. Would he want to take them away from heterosexuals who decide not to have or adopt children? What about people who can't have children? If two senior citizens who don't want any more kids (or to adopt kids) marry, should they not receive those tax breaks?
Seems to me like we can agree on disagreeing whether homosexuality is natural or not.
Does this impact BG EE? If it was natural then you can/cannot include it in BG EE? Why? If it was NOT natural then you can/cannot include it in BG EE? Why?
(Btw, I think some may want to argue because its unnatural it does not belong there, so I just want to point out that there are a variety of other "unnatural" (if you have to see it this way) things in BG EE and in the Forgotten Realms)
@Shandyr it's a genetic deviation from the norm...once a person is born this way, they can't magically change to a heterosexual, we both agree there's nothing wrong with being born that way though. We both agree these people have an identity, and honestly, most Gay couples I know last as long if not longer than the straight ones. I'm with you that we're talking about fantasy word with fictional things like Dragons, whereas...Gay people EXIST. It's wrong not to give them options so they can get what they want out of a gaming experience too. This is a service industry after all. I think making sexuality part of Character creation solves the problem, you can choose what kind of experience you want that way.
I'm marched in Gay Pride Parades as a supporter. I have lovely friends who are Gay and Bisexual. It's one thing to have your own beliefs but if you can play the game independently without these things affecting you, what's the point in getting worked up over optional features?
@Shandyr, you're trying now to change the origin of this discussion. Who started to argue about gay equality wasn't me, let's just let it clear. Another point is, this thread as i said before (and why i asked to close it) isn't about BG romances but Gay romances as the title put, so any discussion about gay relationships is on topic.
Lemme position clearly to everyone:
-Does i have any problem with someone being gay? No. -Does is bother me? No, unless a guy keep hitting me constantly, but so much as an ugly girl hitting me constantly would too. -Does i have anything against gay relations in BG? When i first touch the subject i had, but after some banters with @LadyRhian in a previou thread i opened my mind, evaluate better and demolished wrong concepts, so now i have no problem with gay romances in BG. Besides, no matter my feelings Team BG already stated that will be a bissexual romance in BG so end of history. - I have many friends, some of them are gay and i never treated any of them worst, neither i had excessive attention with them, they don't have a problem to need special care, they just choose different than me in relation issues.
- I truly believe that gay choice isn't a natural choice, and while common and acceptable it isn't what nature programmed for the specie, therefore being thinking beings we can elaborate and mold our tastes out of natural instincts, we're not ruled by our instincts anymore. Therefore i only don't agree in expose people who don't have their concepts and minds already defined, as they can be influenced to this behavior not by their choices, what they're entitled to when grow up, but by the surround influence.
- I don't buy the human adjectives people try to use to define homossexual behavior as wrong, sinful, disgust, disease and others. To me arrogate to judge the other option is prepotence and intolerance. (Ps: and when they want to fake humility they trow the name of their god on the equation to make up as the opinion don't come from themself)
- I believe that in reason of the prejudice history and being a minority on the past, today many pro-homossexual posts tend to be extreme, revolutionary and sometimes attack an idea before understand it's content.
This is my opinion, presented in a somehow raw way.
Edit:
PS²: I have unfortunally a troller spirit, and sometimes i just can't lose the joke, so lemme use this opportunity to apologise for any previous post where i offended you or anyone else (i believe i trolled you in another thread and the animosity there can maybe been continued here), i truly mean this and i'm going to try to observe more my behavior to be more respectful (unless the joke is too god to be lost XD).
I'm very pleased to read most of what you said. It's nice to hear that someone at least has had their mind opened by discussions here.
The one thing I can't help mention is that I think it's fallacious to suggest that 'nature' has any kind of plan. This isn't because I'm some kind of militant atheist - if someone believes that a creator imbued the world with order, that's fine and it's their lookout - but when one is talking about nature one has to be a little more circumspect about the way 'nature' operates (unless you're a druid).
It's perfectly rational to suggest that exclusively homosexual behaviour is contrary to the interest of the proliferation of one's genes or family. I recall there being various sources of evidence that the chances of homosexuality expressing itself in males increases as males become overly dominant in a population or something, but that aside you could also suggest that it not in the species' interests. So I have no issue with someone saying homosexual behaviour is self-defeating genetically, but it's fallacious to say that it is somehow against nature's plan.
That said, I think we can all agree that we'd be better off if we weren't pumping so many babies into the environment...
@salieri There's evidence that the genetic factors behind male homosexuality get passed on because it greatly increases the fertility of a man's maternal female relatives, enough to balance out the fact that he's gay.
@Debaser I know. I was asking him because he thinks they were based on the expectation of having children. Would he want to take them away from heterosexuals who decide not to have or adopt children? What about people who can't have children? If two senior citizens who don't want any more kids (or to adopt kids) marry, should they not receive those tax breaks?
@LadyKhian I think it's better to think of anyone who is married as needing those breaks under law in order to help support new family members across the board. Who says you're just planning on having kids, you might be taking in someone's autistic cousin. Who knows? But it's wrong to give one advantage universally to the Heterosexual community just because of some thinly veiled commentary about the ability to procreate. Many non-Gay people claim these benefits regardless if they choose to have children or adopt..or even foster kids. Why would this ever be considered a factor when you talk about the reality of inequality for Gays here in this instance I have no idea. But since we have separation of Church and State in the U.S.A. we really should be looking at the laws and how they affect people. And keep people's beliefs protected, but private when it comes to interpreting these laws without bias. (I'm with you)
@salieri i didn't mean a religious view or destiny chain when i touch nature's plan. I mean by "nature's plan" the organic programming entitled to all beings as genetic registers, it's solely evolution theory.
Nature has some principles, the continuation of the specie being one of them, as inteligent beings (at least recently ^^) we can already supress this instinct role with adoption for example, but the tendency, based on organic programming, in reason of the evolution theory, is to accept easier a straight relation. At least in the first contact with the generic term relation.
For this reason i justified a media control of data related to homossexual content to children and teenagers until they have a solid mind and position to work the idea.
To bend a bit my point of view, as an exception exist childrens and teenagers that develop a strong homossexual behavior young, therefore we can't ignore this fact (as mostly schools and families do) and we must help them to understand their feelings (unlike try to fix them as if they're diseases, as most schools and families do when they don't ignore the fact).
Not being a natural behavior a children for example can be confuse when feel atraction for another guy, or when they conduct show traces of femininity. If no one help this children to understand his feelings for example, by himself he will feel that there's something wrong with him.
@Talvrae your chart. On the left you have Conservatism, and in the middle you have Liberalism.
Conservatives argue that things should simply be kept the way they are, even stuff that isn't perfect. They're against the government meddling with things ... if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Liberals want to have the government intervene and change a bunch of things, for the greater equality of everyone. Basically stick their nose in everyone's affairs, for the eventual goal of equality.
See, if you look at it that way, then Liberals sound like the tyrants don't they? Because Conservatives are simply for keeping things the way the government was established (perfect or not), not for some radical church-state. Meanwhile, Liberals just want to make everything as good as possible, a noble goal. What I'm saying is, both sides can sound rather tyrannical depending on what way you put it, stop trying to paint one side as "the bad guys." That's just ridiculous.
@Quartz Personally i define myself as a Libertarian, fiscally Conservative, but for liberty, and freedom of choice of lifestyle for everyone
"- I truly believe that gay choice isn't a natural choice, and while common and acceptable it isn't what nature programmed for the specie, therefore being thinking beings we can elaborate and mold our tastes out of natural instincts, we're not ruled by our instincts anymore."
@Debaser I totally agree that Gay people shouldn't be discriminated against for any reason. But if not being able to have biological kids is a supposed reason why they shouldn't get/don't get the same rights that married heterosexuals get. I am asking Bjjorick if this should also apply to heterosexuals in the same position. Yes, I know it's possible for gay people to adopt or use surrogates to have children. I am just wondering how one could justify this being that way for gay people, but not that way for heterosexuals who are unable to have children. I am seeking the mental reasoning why it's "okay" to deny homosexuals because of one stated reason, but not deny heterosexuals in the same way because of that same lack of ability to procreate? Usually, the answer is no, but they cannot articulate WHY it's okay to deny gays benefits because "they are unable to reproduce biologically", but not in the same case with a heterosexual couple.
@kamuizin well it depends on what you define as natural. nature has more than varied sexual behaviours (reversed sexual roles, trangendering, monogender, etc.). nature evolved us and animals toward sex, and sex is motivational by pleasure it provides. reproduction and pleasure are not the same. instincts guide us both toward pleasure and reproduction. gay people are not immune to either. they want pleasure/sex and their paternal/maternal instincts are functional as in straight person. i think @LadyRhian explained the example of gay penguins that adopt an egg. their behaviour, role and purpose is indistinguishable from straight couple and primary nature purpose is fulfilled- a new generation of species. i think if homosexuality would be truly unnatural, it would be gone.
i noticed you do not pass moral judgement upon natural/unnatural terms and i'm glad, but i still disagree on your interpretation of natural.
@Debaser I totally agree that Gay people shouldn't be discriminated against for any reason. But if not being able to have biological kids is a supposed reason why they shouldn't get/don't get the same rights that married heterosexuals get. I am asking Bjjorick if this should also apply to heterosexuals in the same position. Yes, I know it's possible for gay people to adopt or use surrogates to have children. I am just wondering how one could justify this being that way for gay people, but not that way for heterosexuals who are unable to have children. I am seeking the mental reasoning why it's "okay" to deny homosexuals because of one stated reason, but not deny heterosexuals in the same way because of that same lack of ability to procreate? Usually, the answer is no, but they cannot articulate WHY it's okay to deny gays benefits because "they are unable to reproduce biologically", but not in the same case with a heterosexual couple.
What do you think the purpose is for giving financial advantages to married couples?
In a divorce where there are children, it's usually all about the kids, and how they will be provided for, which leads me to assume that a lot of the advantages of married couples are with that in mind. On the other hand, it's true that in a lot of marriages, there are no children, yet there are divorce court battles over money and property (i.e. who earned what, and who deserves what).
Sometimes the decisions are very strange, i.e. a marriage lasts a month, the woman gets 10 million dollars. Other times, it seems more fair, i.e. the woman sacrificed her career to have children and raise them, so in the divorce settlement, she gets an unevenly large share. Then, of course, my favourite, paying child support for 18 years after a one night stand.
@Jaxsbudgie that's only my personal opinion on the matter, i made a better analysis of natural/unnatural concepts in other posts.
@trinit, i didn't knew of the penguins and i also agree with you that sexual behavior variate in nature from specie to specie, as each one evolved in certain terms, if i remember well the movie Jurassic Park pictures the use of DNA from a kind of frog that changed his gender (male/female) to reproduce if that group lack one of the gender kinds.
By another side i'ts my personal view that pleasure is a tool used by which instinct promote sex, where the objective is reproduction.
As inteligent Beings we're not slaves of instinct and i can say that we are aware of the consequence of nature's tool and we use it with inteligence to feel the pleasure without follow the nature's origial programming. We do it in many ways, sex with condom is too unnatural as homossexual sex, and not only is a need on the actual society, with the many sexual diseases that exist today (HIV, HPV, Gonorrhoea among others), but besides some fanatic religous people, no one have moral issues against it.
@fighter_mage_thief on the actual society we have a lot of childrens for adoption, encourage adoption from a governamental point of view atm is more important than encourage natural family reprodction. So in my view fee waivers should be applied more for people who adopt a children than the people that make childrens of their own.
@fighter_mage_thief It's for taking care of any children brought into that marriage. But I don't think it's right to deny homosexuals these breaks because gay people can adopt kids or have kids through a surrogate, just like barren straight people can. Therefore, that shouldn't be a reason to deny them tax breaks, any more than being unable to have kids biologically means that straight couples should be denied those same tax breaks. If being unable to conceive biological children means you don't get the tax breaks of a married couple, then it should be applied across the board to be truly fair and just. ie. to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.
Comments
Though merging the various romance discussions has crossed my mind.
While your spider-bit hurts for a few days, these things hurt for a lifetime.
If you getting bitten by spiders causes an arachnophobia, then how can anyone expect homo- and bisexual
people to act unbiased towards "normal" people.
(Since I hate generalizations, this case can apply to some people and it certainly does not to everyone)
While i do understand what you're saying, i used to get beaten up in school and outside of school/etc for being a brainiac. People thought i was nerdy or smart or whatever and there were quite a few times that i was beaten bloody for no real reason. Believe me, this isn't localized to just gay/bi people by any means. Now a days, i'm not a badass or anything, but i let people know that i may get my ass beaten if they want to try something, but i'm going to make sure that they come out permanently scarred from it if they want to try. It's just talk, but people don't start with me.
lol, my 12~14th b-day, after school let out and i was waiting for my ride home, i was jumped and hurt badly. One of those moments when all i could think about was.....but it's my b-day. It's supposed to be a good day, a special day, blah blah blah. Those people weren't afraid of me, there was no phobia. I was an easy target, apparently i was different enough and ehhhh, sometimes that's all it takes. a phobia is an irrational fear, like a spider.
And yeah, reason i was waiting for my ride was because my parents forgot to come pick me up from school yet again. Again, on my b-day. I thought maybe it all meant something, that maybe somehow it would still be special but of course that wasn't the reality of the situation. People get beaten, hurt, excluded, kicked out of families, fired from jobs, bullied, etc all the time for being different, and there is more to being different then being gay. But that doesn't make it a phobia. It makes the person who's different an easy target in the eyes of someone who feels that they just need to hurt something/someone.
Sorry again about the long post, but i don't hate or act different around normal people until they start to act like i should be scared of them. At one of my jobs, where i needed a box cutter/razor blade, i kept it dull and dirty and used to pull it out and show to anyone who tried to bully me. But until they tried to act like they were a threat, i treated them like they were anyone else, even if they were a prick.
Sorry, I saw your post, had to laugh at it and then respond. I think I already said I don't care much about whether or not they have a gay character in game, and I stick by that statement
Conservatives argue that things should simply be kept the way they are, even stuff that isn't perfect. They're against the government meddling with things ... if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Liberals want to have the government intervene and change a bunch of things, for the greater equality of everyone. Basically stick their nose in everyone's affairs, for the eventual goal of equality.
See, if you look at it that way, then Liberals sound like the tyrants don't they? Because Conservatives are simply for keeping things the way the government was established (perfect or not), not for some radical church-state. Meanwhile, Liberals just want to make everything as good as possible, a noble goal. What I'm saying is, both sides can sound rather tyrannical depending on what way you put it, stop trying to paint one side as "the bad guys." That's just ridiculous.
Unfortunally many persons read unnatural as wrong, that's a bias perspective, unnatural means out of the original nature plan for the lack of a better explanation, can be better or no but right or wrong is a human concept, it has no use in natural or unnatural questions.
your 2° point i can't take serious as sexual behavior is spread in our culture, there are magazines on the newsstands, on TV, movies, series, animes. We can't ignore the reality to sustain an argument, you don't need sex to express love, sex is a form of achieve pleasure and procreate, in gay concept is a form of achieve pleasure only and while neither should be openly presented on the midia a straight behavior is received with less impact than a gay behavior.
About your 3° point:
If you're talking about the golden age of humanity in Grece more or less 3 thousand years ago, there gay behavior was commom to just as it's now, but yet unnatural, and i truly believe they understand and evaluate this question there without the biased views that exist today (from both sides).
Christian culture never accepted gay behaviors, the institutions always based them on old fashioned morality and prejudice, that was the main pillar of their dogmas. This affirmative is just unreal, only recently some new open minded churches began to accept homossexuality.
I affirmate with property that the old japanese culture had no acceptance of homossexuality as you view. Japanese culture isn't so simple, it's mainly based on a masked conduct on the open events and a rigid somehow cruel behavior ruled by strict codes. From the examples you could use, japanese culture isn't among the best.
The old roman society was purely bacchanal, they supported pleasure no matter how and what. Pedophilia, torture, humiliation... everything that achieve pleasure there was valid. The only thing good from roman society was their solid militar structure and the development of laws that even today guides our actual legal system.
So to end, and back to the main issue of my previous post, when i speak about natural behavior, put aside right or wrong, they're human concepts and have no use for nature. Homossexuality isn't natural, we can work this fact but deny it will not change this truth.
To ensure what i'm trying to say, an example of natural behavior but not acceptable and totally wrong is a sex relation between an 30 years man and a 13 years girl that already achieve puberty, although natural from an instinct and animalistic perspective, it's totally wrong on our actual culture and even a crime in some countries (as on mine for example).
I'm marched in Gay Pride Parades as a supporter. I have lovely friends who are Gay and Bisexual. It's one thing to have your own beliefs but if you can play the game independently without these things affecting you, what's the point in getting worked up over optional features?
Lemme position clearly to everyone:
-Does i have any problem with someone being gay? No.
-Does is bother me? No, unless a guy keep hitting me constantly, but so much as an ugly girl hitting me constantly would too.
-Does i have anything against gay relations in BG? When i first touch the subject i had, but after some banters with @LadyRhian in a previou thread i opened my mind, evaluate better and demolished wrong concepts, so now i have no problem with gay romances in BG. Besides, no matter my feelings Team BG already stated that will be a bissexual romance in BG so end of history.
- I have many friends, some of them are gay and i never treated any of them worst, neither i had excessive attention with them, they don't have a problem to need special care, they just choose different than me in relation issues.
- I truly believe that gay choice isn't a natural choice, and while common and acceptable it isn't what nature programmed for the specie, therefore being thinking beings we can elaborate and mold our tastes out of natural instincts, we're not ruled by our instincts anymore.
Therefore i only don't agree in expose people who don't have their concepts and minds already defined, as they can be influenced to this behavior not by their choices, what they're entitled to when grow up, but by the surround influence.
- I don't buy the human adjectives people try to use to define homossexual behavior as wrong, sinful, disgust, disease and others. To me arrogate to judge the other option is prepotence and intolerance.
(Ps: and when they want to fake humility they trow the name of their god on the equation to make up as the opinion don't come from themself)
- I believe that in reason of the prejudice history and being a minority on the past, today many pro-homossexual posts tend to be extreme, revolutionary and sometimes attack an idea before understand it's content.
This is my opinion, presented in a somehow raw way.
Edit:
PS²: I have unfortunally a troller spirit, and sometimes i just can't lose the joke, so lemme use this opportunity to apologise for any previous post where i offended you or anyone else (i believe i trolled you in another thread and the animosity there can maybe been continued here), i truly mean this and i'm going to try to observe more my behavior to be more respectful (unless the joke is too god to be lost XD).
I'm very pleased to read most of what you said. It's nice to hear that someone at least has had their mind opened by discussions here.
The one thing I can't help mention is that I think it's fallacious to suggest that 'nature' has any kind of plan. This isn't because I'm some kind of militant atheist - if someone believes that a creator imbued the world with order, that's fine and it's their lookout - but when one is talking about nature one has to be a little more circumspect about the way 'nature' operates (unless you're a druid).
It's perfectly rational to suggest that exclusively homosexual behaviour is contrary to the interest of the proliferation of one's genes or family. I recall there being various sources of evidence that the chances of homosexuality expressing itself in males increases as males become overly dominant in a population or something, but that aside you could also suggest that it not in the species' interests. So I have no issue with someone saying homosexual behaviour is self-defeating genetically, but it's fallacious to say that it is somehow against nature's plan.
That said, I think we can all agree that we'd be better off if we weren't pumping so many babies into the environment...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02785.x/abstract
@LadyKhian I think it's better to think of anyone who is married as needing those breaks under law in order to help support new family members across the board. Who says you're just planning on having kids, you might be taking in someone's autistic cousin. Who knows? But it's wrong to give one advantage universally to the Heterosexual community just because of some thinly veiled commentary about the ability to procreate. Many non-Gay people claim these benefits regardless if they choose to have children or adopt..or even foster kids. Why would this ever be considered a factor when you talk about the reality of inequality for Gays here in this instance I have no idea. But since we have separation of Church and State in the U.S.A. we really should be looking at the laws and how they affect people. And keep people's beliefs protected, but private when it comes to interpreting these laws without bias. (I'm with you)
Nature has some principles, the continuation of the specie being one of them, as inteligent beings (at least recently ^^) we can already supress this instinct role with adoption for example, but the tendency, based on organic programming, in reason of the evolution theory, is to accept easier a straight relation. At least in the first contact with the generic term relation.
For this reason i justified a media control of data related to homossexual content to children and teenagers until they have a solid mind and position to work the idea.
To bend a bit my point of view, as an exception exist childrens and teenagers that develop a strong homossexual behavior young, therefore we can't ignore this fact (as mostly schools and families do) and we must help them to understand their feelings (unlike try to fix them as if they're diseases, as most schools and families do when they don't ignore the fact).
Not being a natural behavior a children for example can be confuse when feel atraction for another guy, or when they conduct show traces of femininity. If no one help this children to understand his feelings for example, by himself he will feel that there's something wrong with him.
What do you mean by this:
"- I truly believe that gay choice isn't a natural choice, and while common and acceptable it isn't what nature programmed for the specie, therefore being thinking beings we can elaborate and mold our tastes out of natural instincts, we're not ruled by our instincts anymore."
?
nature evolved us and animals toward sex, and sex is motivational by pleasure it provides. reproduction and pleasure are not the same. instincts guide us both toward pleasure and reproduction. gay people are not immune to either. they want pleasure/sex and their paternal/maternal instincts are functional as in straight person.
i think @LadyRhian explained the example of gay penguins that adopt an egg. their behaviour, role and purpose is indistinguishable from straight couple and primary nature purpose is fulfilled- a new generation of species. i think if homosexuality would be truly unnatural, it would be gone.
i noticed you do not pass moral judgement upon natural/unnatural terms and i'm glad, but i still disagree on your interpretation of natural.
In a divorce where there are children, it's usually all about the kids, and how they will be provided for, which leads me to assume that a lot of the advantages of married couples are with that in mind. On the other hand, it's true that in a lot of marriages, there are no children, yet there are divorce court battles over money and property (i.e. who earned what, and who deserves what).
Sometimes the decisions are very strange, i.e. a marriage lasts a month, the woman gets 10 million dollars. Other times, it seems more fair, i.e. the woman sacrificed her career to have children and raise them, so in the divorce settlement, she gets an unevenly large share. Then, of course, my favourite, paying child support for 18 years after a one night stand.
@trinit, i didn't knew of the penguins and i also agree with you that sexual behavior variate in nature from specie to specie, as each one evolved in certain terms, if i remember well the movie Jurassic Park pictures the use of DNA from a kind of frog that changed his gender (male/female) to reproduce if that group lack one of the gender kinds.
By another side i'ts my personal view that pleasure is a tool used by which instinct promote sex, where the objective is reproduction.
As inteligent Beings we're not slaves of instinct and i can say that we are aware of the consequence of nature's tool and we use it with inteligence to feel the pleasure without follow the nature's origial programming. We do it in many ways, sex with condom is too unnatural as homossexual sex, and not only is a need on the actual society, with the many sexual diseases that exist today (HIV, HPV, Gonorrhoea among others), but besides some fanatic religous people, no one have moral issues against it.
@fighter_mage_thief on the actual society we have a lot of childrens for adoption, encourage adoption from a governamental point of view atm is more important than encourage natural family reprodction. So in my view fee waivers should be applied more for people who adopt a children than the people that make childrens of their own.