: That analogy is wrong Faranita.: On the one hand you can change religion, your saying you cant change sexuality.
Tell that to red-blooded father-of-two Oscar Wilde.
I know a good few people who've been celibate rather than admit to themselves that they were gay (Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie are two such examples; although both have since admitted that they would be gay if they weren't celibate).
On what evidence do you base your claims, Lark?
Lab tests revealed that 86% of subjects show a greater or lesser sexual response to same-sex stimuli; all the evidence suggests that bisexuality is the closest thing to a 'natural state' in the human case. It comes down to where your preferences lie; and is no more a matter of choice than your favourite colour.
Is it more 'natural' to be Prod or Catholic? - if you just went by what the majority in N.I. said, you'd say Catholic, simply because of the balance of the human environment. If you're a Catholic, Catholicism is the right way to be. Does this give Catholics the right to burn Protestant churches?
You can 'change' your sexuality; insofar as you can become celibate, or just exercise monosexuality (i.e. either hetero- or homosexuality).
: If homosexuals are a distinct brand of beings to heterosexuals are not sadists etc. a distinct brand also
No; see below. Sadists can be either heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual; it's more of an attitude to power in sex than a sexual orientation as such.
: I'm prepared to tolerate homosexuals because I believe in self-government but I wont accept them as any more normal or of a distinct status to the likes of sadists or masochists etc.
Why?
Give me a good, sound reason, Lark.
Most of the 'fetishes' are more the expression of power-relationships than expressions of love between equals; they rely on a 'doer' and a 'victim'; a 'master/mistress' and a 'slave'.
Rape is a power-trip; it consists of someone demonstrating their superior strength in order to violate the sovereign rights of someone else.
Power-based sexual activity is non gender-specific; it is as common in heterosexual encounters as it is in homosexual ones.
Homosexuality isn't a power-based activity; it consists of free interaction between two equals; and is in strict sexual terms no more 'exploitative' than heterosexual sex.
Now, both heterosexual and homosexual sex can be 'exploitative' - the one-night-stand is mutual itch-scratching in most cases; but there is no measureable medical or psychological difference between heterosexual and homosexual love.
The only differences are societally and/or religiously based.
Farinata.
(Consider also the following; do you have the right to control the behaviour of two sovereign individuals (who are not harming anyone) on the basis of your own views?)
