Secondly, it has been shown that there is a correlation between the sizes of the right and left side of the brain making a person gay or straight. So they do not have any more choice in it than if someone was born mentally challenged. It's a poor comparison, I realize. For argument's sake though, you couldn't just tell a challenged person to "BE SMART!" and they will. It's beyond their control, as it is beyond a gay person's control. Thirdly, love is such a rare thing that if you can capture that with someone, then they should take it and enjoy life to its fullest.
To Keeke - To start, I do not mean to offend anyone, but that comes with the territory of philosophy. I am being as logical and non-biased as possible. I agree with you that people should be judged on their sexual preference. In the absense of sexual harrasment, gays can do anything heteros can. On your second point, that may be true, but there is also a correlation of a society where homosexuality is acceptable and the number of gays. This could very well be because of fear of the societies that do not accept gays, but I'm saying that society DOES effect the number of gays. Maybe most gays are born that way, but I think it's possible that some are conditioned that way in life, or choose to be as an act of rebellion. I agree that love is ultimate, but homosexual love does not follow from evolution. It is obvious that homosexuality does not help carry on the species. That doesn't make it wrong, but it is not natural. Although, there are some species of animals that have homosexual tendencies, or that exist wholly dependant on homosexuality. But it seems unnatural for humans. I do not condescend upon gays, nor do I suggest any course of action. It is almost a catch-22. We need to be accepting, but we also need to evaluate the ramifications of that acceptance.
Here are a couple of links I found real quick. I randomly picked the first three I could find:
index of homosexuality-debate pages
Homosexuality is not a choice
some questions about homosexuality
I agree, that does ADD to the appearance of immaturity, but I believe that teens ARE immature in so many ways. If we are going to support education, then it is good to also support kids waiting to have sex for numerous reasons.
Keeke - Sex should be for love and I don't think [teens] are mature enough to know true love.
I understand that you have not experienced love in your teenage years or do not feel that what you have experienced was love, or you would not have made that statement. I agree that a lot of teens mistake infatuation and idealization for love. I also agree that many teens only know the other person from their outer "shell" and even if they have reached deeper levels, those levels are not completely developed. But, who is to say that two teens can't experience love? Maybe the feelings I have experienced were not true love either, but that doesn't mean that no teen can experience them. And also, I guess it is true that even though teens may be able to experience love, they may not be able to handle it. A lot of times love is frustrating and stressful to a teen who is in such a vulnerable state. The state I'm refering to is how teens feel they know everything when they really don't, and the way everything seems to be a big deal, and how the real world hasn't been revealed to them yet, and the way a teen's mind is not at it's full potential. A teen has so many things in life to worry about. School is one of the most important things. Then there is the introduction of responsibilty and everything else. Love can be more bad than good as a teen.
No one is saying that other people should say if teens should have sex or not. I am hoping that people can look at the topic and make the choice for themselves, but I am hoping to shed a different light than the popular light you are shedding. You are saying it is the two people's choice, but you are also trying to persuade people to make the choice of having sex. It IS unfair to lump all teens together and call them immature, but sometimes a teen may feel mature when they are not. You are trying to lump teens together and say they ARE mature. In the state of mind that they ARE in love, and that they ARE mature, and that it is an expression of thier love or for the sake of experience, then they may contract a deadly disease, or get pregnant, or maybe they will regret it later on down the road. I am saying that teens should think long and hard and listen to the wisdom that I am trying to give. And also, I do not want to give the impression that just teens need to think about this either. Just because a person has turned 18 doesn't make them mature or ready either.
On the grand scheme of things, this is more of a personal conflict than a pressing issue in society. I think that society pressures people into having sex. It makes me mad how society presents us will ways of being happy, but those ways will actually make us less content. For a person that wishes to wait to have sex in spite of everything the media tells us, then masturbation is definately a better substitute. And I agree that it doesn't hurt anyone, so why not do it? Because it does effect someone, the person that does it. It can cause psychological effects. And also, there is this whole thing about sacrifice and denial of pleasure that causes contentment. But, masturbation can be a way of denying oneself other pleasures. The part about it being natural for a male to masturbate is compelling. I just think that if a person can be content w/o the pleasures of society and w/o masturbation, then they are a better person for it. It is hard to be conclusive on this topic, so once again, I do not propose any course of action. I am only theorizing.
6/10 - There's no doubt in my mind that it makes a person less pure. Abstinence from sex and masturbation would make a person good. But, could it help kids from having sex too early? Former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders seemed to think so. But, she lost her job for that opinion. What do you think about it?