POLL: Homosexuality: Good or bad?

Remove all ads!

Eze I dont really believe in any god that exist or that doesnt!!
But the paladin makes me have too!
Anyway if their is a superior force that made us maybey it's up in the universe somewhere just playing around with us making some people cartain way and others another

Paddy!
(Yes, I am THE paladin master!)

 

Take the time to get to know someone who's decided to become homosexual. Every time you will discover that that person has been sexually abused, had a screwed up relationship with one or both parents, or is trying homosexuality just to rebel against what is normal.

I'm quite a bit older than most of you posting in this thread. I've known and been friends with more homosexuals than you have probably even met. I am neither ignorant not hateful. But it is obvious that homosexuality is a disorder, just as it was classifed for decades by the APA (which changed its ruling when homosexual activists managed to climb into its hierarchy; the APA is now contemplating making "religious rigidity" a clinical disorder, so that should give you some idea of the direction that organization is heading).

Of course it is not normal for a man to desire another man physically. "Normal" is a relative term, and even the most ardent homosexual activists claim that only 13% or so of the general population is homosexual. That means that the other 87% are the normal ones. Look up the term "norm."

And the biological evidence for homosexuality is far from conclusive. It may well end up like alcoholism -- there are genes that mean you're more likely to be an alcoholic, but treatment and self-control can prevent it.

Any way you slice is, homosexuality is an activity. Your genes do not demand you stick your plug in the wrong socket. You voluntarily do that yourself. It's not like eye color, something you have no choice but to accept. It's something you do.

And there are many documented cases of people recovering from homosexuality. Look up the organization PFOX, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays. There's another group called Exodus that helps people recover from the homosexual lifestyle as well.

Please. If you wish to respond to me, don't stoop to calling names or claiming I'm ignorant. I disagree with a lot of people on the subject, but at least have the class to debate politely and without personal attacks.

 

Shralp, I'm sorry if my comments offended or hurt you. Everyone is entitled to their own opinoin, and my comments were not aimed specifically at you.

However, I still get a sick feeling when I see you treating homosexuality as a disease, of which one can 'recover.' You also mentioned someone who is 'trying homosexuality.' Homosexuality is not a temporary condition. It is not an error. It is how people are.

It is a terrible, ignorant generalization for you to say that homosexuality is developed when someone is abused, etc. What the truth is, is that many homosexuals are abused *because* of other people's unwillingness to accept them as NORMAL.

Once again, lefthandedness is far from the norm. The English language is strucutured so right-handed people can pull their hand across the paper, making it easier to write for the majority of the population to write. And there has *never* been a case of a 'recovering left-hander.'

P.S.: I am not calling you ignorant, although I feel some of your statements have been.

[ September 10, 2002, 22:07: Message edited by: SlimShogun ]

 

-I'm more or less a homosexual. I've done hours upon hours of research on the subject because for a time I too thought it was pathological and frequently wanted to kill myself due to the shame of my "disorder".

However. If you read studies done on homosexuals (may it be psychological, genetic, or even psychotherapic) you'll soon see your statement is in fact very false.

On two counts. First, your presupposition that homosexuality is chosen is false. To say orientations are chosen is to say the natural one is bisexual and that heterosexuality (as mutually exclusive as homosexuality) is also chosen. In saying that you'd be going against the bulk of all medical research on sexuality so far known.

And those that do "choose" homosexuality are part of a radical anti-heteronormative sociological organization whose name eludes me (but I will look up and link you to later, hopefully). They choose to carry on homosexual relationships although this is not their orientation. Needless to say, most homosexuals are homosexuals because that is their orientation.

There is a gray area when bisexuals (like myself) have a large preference of one sex over the other. This is as unprofound as favorite color or flavor.

As for you theory of previous sexual abuse or bad relationships with parents, I will look up the title of a good psychotherapy study that documented these theories. None of them were found to be true among lesbians or male homosexuals.

The theory of the parent is Fruedian in origin and is for the most part in modern psychiatry discredited.

If you go to www.psych.org you can read the American Psychological Association's official statements on homosexuality. It (and ego-dystonic homosexuality) have long been off the books. (1972 for homosexuality and about a decade later for ego-dystonic homosexuality.)

-You need not be either to be wrong. I have been friends with more homosexuals, bisexuals, and heterosexuals than I'm sure you could boast. This doesn't make either of us an authority on homosexuality, bisexuality, or heterosexuality.

-Since when are you an authority on the credibility of the APA?

-It is generally conceded that throughout history the consistent percentage of homosexuals is anywhere from 5-10%, whereas other genetic mutations such as left-handedness show a similiar consistency of 8%. I say genetic mutation because links have been found (by the NIH) between homosexuality and the length of a gene from the mother. (Shorter in gay men and longer in gay women, if I remember correctly.)

-You don't know many alcoholics, do you? Hehe, kidding. That aside, this conservative argument has long lost its steam.

Most traits are based on a "genetic predisposition" and this relates to the evolutionary biology concept of "reaction norm". Reaction norm is the general balance between the genes you are given and how they are used within your enviroment-- whether or not they stay latent.

I see no reason to prevent some people from becoming homosexual. As this has been a long-occuring mutation within the population and has caused no discernable harm (a benign trait with no ties to other traits) I see no reason to prevent it or wipe it out. But that would lead to an philosophical ethical discussion of eugenics, which we can switch to another topic for should you feel so inclined.

-Homosexual sex is an activity, yes. I'd recommend it personally, but hey, kazhdy drochit kak on kochet (everyone is used to what they like). The homosexual orientation, however, is not. You see, you oversimplify human sexuality, so your logic is flawed.

-That is a lie. I am deeply sorry I have to say that, but I'm afraid I must. The results of reparative therapy are classified in several different categories:
1. Suicide.
2. Depression.
3. Embaressing failure. Ex-ex-gays.
4. The creation of "asexuals".
5. The conversion of bisexuals by shock therapy or strict religious willpower to only express their heterosexual attractions.

I also must point out that there are no clinical studies of so-called "reparative therapy" and that all results are anecdotal and without scientific basis. The APA has officially stated their rightful disapproval of such things.

-Just because you have class does not mean you may demand my respect. Seeing as I have dedicated years to the study and understanding of my own sexuality, and of human sexuality in general I find it offensive you could be so incorrect and so pointedly self-righteous.

That being said, thanks for giving me an opportunity to respond to common misconceptions held by the general public. Your misestimations of the issue are someone else's realizations of the truth. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, not the orientation, preference, or action thereof. I hope someday you have the humility to see that. Thank you again.

Edit: Quote tags. "qiote" Hehe.

[ September 10, 2002, 22:18: Message edited by: Kooran ]

 

I beg to differ. My sister is a lesbian, and she has never been sexually, mentally, or physically abused. She also had a great relationship with our parents (had, because both are deceased - and she was out of the closet before either one passed, so you can't use that either).

As far as rebelling against what is normal, define normal. Then apply that definition to another country or culture (and at any time throughout history) and compare it to yours. You'll find that what may be normal for one group, may be abhorrent to another, and vice versa. Some cultures think it's normal to drop a baby down a well simply because it was born female, others think it's normal to perform genital mutilation. Still others think it's normal to add a "u" in color, humor, favor, etc. Try this: gamers are not "normal"...they're still in the minority compared to non-gamers. Maybe someone should send you (or all of us) to one of those "deprogramming camps" to cure you of your abnormal obsession with playing computer games.

My sister has been openly gay for 12 years (she's 28 now) and has been with her partner for 10 of those years. They're even "married" - not legally, of course, but a ceremony was performed by an ordained minister, and they consider themselves married.

Whether homosexuality is genetic, caused by abuse, or just simply a lifestyle choice, what difference does it make? It's not like the majority of gays are actively attempting to turn straights into gays. They just want some rights, and to not be persecuted for what they are. I think there were others who wanted - and got - the same thing...blacks, women, children, and so on.

Incidentally, I didn't participate in the poll, since there's more to the issue than just "good or bad".

As for those who said they'd punch out a gay for hitting on them: Assuming you're male and you only like beautiful women, if an ugly woman asked you to dance, would you punch her? Maybe we should let that gorgeous girl you've been asking out (who keeps declining) punch you out. I've been asked to dance, or whatever, by many guys (I'm male, BTW), and my usual answer is, "Thanks, but no thanks. I'm straight, but not narrow-minded." Just remember that *you* will be the one going to jail for punching the guy/gal, not him/her.

[ September 10, 2002, 22:44: Message edited by: MaxxQ1 ]

 

Slimshogun on Shralp:

"P.S.: I am not calling you ignorant, although I feel some of your statements have been."

I feel that is awfully restrained of you...

 

That's putting it lightly...

 

Shralp, try to empathize for a moment....for any reason, be it sexual molestation as a child, parental issues, or rebellion.... could you ever voluntarily choose to participate in homosexual acts?

Sexual acts are animalistic and instinctive. Tendencies towards preference are inherent from a very young age. Humans are curious from as early as two years old about sexuality... without fully understanding what it is. I have known twins who are homosexual, as well as adults who say that as early as the age of 5, knew that they didn't like the opposite sex "that way." I do not understand how those certain circumstances are possible without genetics, considering that there is the lack of pre-requisites to becoming homosexual as stated earlier.

If it isn't already understood, it should also be important to realize that most opinions come from religious beliefs. Homo and heterosexuals battle with the fact that the bible states that homosexuality is a sin. To some who believe it is genetic... find it hard to believe that something you're not in control of can be a sin. As others believe people are in control of their sexuality, understand that perfectly.

 

Okay, I know several gay men. with only 1 exception, none were abused, they get along with their parents fine, and came to the realization that they were homosexual well after the "rebellious" part of their lives. All of then dated women, and still find women beautiful, but they prefer the sexual attentions of men.
No, homosexuality is not the norm. It is also not unnatural. All animal species have homosexual populations, so I'm not surprised we humans do as well.

 

Actually, my mother, who is naturally left-handed, was forced to learn to write with her right hand in school.... just needed to say that.

Ara
(Hmm... need more space in my head...)

 

But ask your mother if she can write as naturally or as well with her right hand. Most left-handers are beaten into being ambidexterous, I know my chemistry teacher and stepdad had this happen. If you ask them, they'll say it impaired their ability to write with either hand well. Very similiar to the results of "reparative therapy" in homosexuals. Cheers, though.

 

...and the japanese still encourage children to use their right hand even if they're naturally right-handed. i think it's a tradition based on the advantage of using the right hand for brush calligraphy (which has persisted despite younger generations rarely using calligraphy).

btw, alot of you are confusing genetic predisposition with the expressed phenotype (and norms of reaction), especially Kooran...

no. if a hypothetical 'homosexuality gene' (e.g. one increasing testosterone levels) can be influenced by the environment after birth ('latent'), it would be possible to influence sexuality at later stages of life (e.g. you could suppress testosterone levels after puberty to stop a person being gay). which is ridiculous, as many of you have pointed out, homosexuality is probably a polygenic characteristic.

that one made me laugh. firstly, homosexuality is detrimental to the individual who is gay. as they are unwilling to reproduce, their complement of genes are not inherited by the next generation. homosexuals are evolutionary dead-ends, with a fitness value of zero. So to a population, being gay does cause harm- the investment of various resources has gone into a gay individual that will not contribute as much to population growth as an actively-reproducing straight individual. secondly, being gay probably arises form the combination of any number of mutant genes, which are fundamentally 'tied' (linked) to others- themselves. the genes that give rise to homosexuality are genes essential to development, otherwise positive natural selection would have weeded them out.

evolutionary geneticist

 

Xen, pardon my being graphic, but when Bubba bends over and yells "put it in, big boy!" I have a choice. I can voluntarily commit a homosexual act, or I can be sensible and keep my member out of places it doesn't belong. It's voluntary.

You can argue that their is an urge that arises without consent, but the action itself is entirely under my control. Unless it's, like, a prison shower scene or something. Then you just gotta go with the moment.

 

the god--

-Not necessarily. The idea of a reaction norm is the mix of the enviromental factors and the genetic ones influencing development. That doesn't mean they can be suddenly changed.

-There is no evidence that it is. The evidence we have is it is the length of a single gene and the mutuation is probably from a hormonal imbalance in the mother during early pregnancy.

-Gay people can have children but not naturally. And if you want to measure everyone by their genetic worth, as I said, start a new topic discussing Mengala's eugenics because that's the road we're heading down.

-That's not true. Those that can not produce whether it is by cirumstance (age), defect (infertility), or choice (and a smart one at that) are not useless to their population. If a population is only the sum of its genetic worth then we might as well start the genocide now.

-There is absolutely no evidence for your assertion. None. De nada. Nyet. It should be understood that we know very little about how human personality develops. Obviously, wanting to have sex just serves an evolutionary need and in that light homosexuality transcends the physical purpose of sex.

And in that way, so does birth control, oral sex, anal sex in a heterosexual setting, and religious celibacy.

However, humans have choice. And considering there are upwards of six billion people on a drastically abused planet right now, I think it is in our best evolutionary interest to have a population check in place-- but a very, very small one at that.

Overall, "the god" your post had very little pertinence to it at all. You did a lot of talking and used impressive terms I learned in 9th grade Biology class, but you didn't make much of a point.

Shralp--
No reply to my post?

-Don't do that.

-A homosexual act doesn't make you a homosexual just as a heterosexual act doesn't make you a heterosexual. Orientation and action can have very little to do with each other. You seem to continually miss this essential differentiation.

-Your penis would enjoy being up a rectum as much as a vagina. The essential feeling of sex is the same. The rectum certainly wasn't designed for sex (the muscus membrane is too thin) but then again, neither was the mouth and I don't see you ragging on oral sex.

-So is jumping off a cliff. Just because I jump off a cliff doesn't mean I am a cliffosexual.

-Of course. But what makes that action wrong? I still see no reason.

-Your humor does nothing for me.

 

Shralp, you know that most homophobes are gay themselves?!?

Can you pick up the soap? Please?

[ September 11, 2002, 22:35: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

Shralp, your snide humour can't help you this time, big boy. I'd really like to see you respond to what MaxxQ1, Kooran, and I have said.

 

-Studies have verified that long-held suspicion. Homophobic men are more sexually aroused (faster, more, and for longer) than unhomophobic men by homosexual porn.

I can even tell you personally I feel it's true. In the times I thought homosexuality was pathological (and had long realized I weren't straight mkay) I went through a phase of rather profound self-hatred, depression, and forced "straightness".

There were moments I wanted to physically harm or even kill other gay people I met. Since I had never had the desire to kill another human being before in my life that's when I started to really investigate what my options were-- reparative therapy or acceptance.

I can't explain how fierce that hatred is, either. You need to be there feeling it to understand I think. And until you have been, don't pretend to sympathize.

 

Shralp, then why do some men beat their heads against shower walls after having sex with a woman they really really wish they hadn't had sex with?

[ September 12, 2002, 04:03: Message edited by: Xenecor ]

 

How I laughed at the god's post and your response, Kooran. More proof biologists should not be let out in public.

Just as you felt compelled to respond when you saw dubious information on something you happen to know a lot about (homosexuality), Kooran, the god just had to set you straight on your shaky grasp of genetics. And now I'll get my oar in.

You know, don't you, that all that about evolutionary dead ends isn't a *value judgement*? The idea that a homosexuality allele (form of a gene) could be just another neutral genetic variant, like brown hair instead of black, is ridiculous -- unless the "gay allele" did something *else* too that furthered survival or reproduction, it would die out of a population. It could be polygenic (determined by the interaction of several genes) -- but who cares?

What I am doing *right now* is far more unnatural than licking some other woman's vulva. I'm smoking a cigarette and typing on a computer keyboard. No genes can justify this. Do they have to? What, really, about our lives is *natural*?-- if the African savannas are the venue by which appropiate human behavior is judged -- we are all highly deviant.

Which is fine by me. Nice comments about homophobes -- how true. I daresay some of what goes on in my bedroom would curl Shralp's hair, too -- and I'm straight.

 

The God - Your idea that there couldn't be a "gay gene" (a single one) is interesting. There was an idea that there was such a gene, but that it could be incomplete dominance - that having one copy of it would increase the fitness of the indiviual, and two would result in the associated phenotype. You know your Mendel!

Do I believe it? No, but frankly, who cares. This is not a subject that requires serious thought, any more than establishing the genetics of lefthandedness does.

As for Shralp's request that he shouldn't be insulted for having such, frankly, noxious views. I don't think that anyone coming onto these boards and insulting a given race in such a way would expect to be given such a concession. It is embarrassing that people hold views such as his, I believe that such ignorance should not be tolerated with some of the *extreme* understanding that has been shown on this topic.

(PS MethylViolet - smoking cigarrette? memetic evolution perhaps )

[ September 12, 2002, 12:39: Message edited by: Christopher_Lee ]