POLL: Homosexuality: Good or bad?

Remove all ads!

MethylViolet--
Fair enough. Just don't say you laughed though, you don't need to be condescending, it makes it harder to admit I was wrong.

 

Apparantly, I'm 33% gay according to that test.

I think that may explain my feminine side of actually thinking before acting ... heck!

Ah well i know the truth and i'm 67% hetrosexual

 

Yeah, sure enough, I got attacked. Go figure. Christopher Lee, it's probably better if you just don't respond to any of my posts since you seem to sling insults rather than respond with logic.

On the APA: You (Kooran?) say that there have been no clinical studies done of reparative therapy. Then you say that the APA disapproves. That doesn't say much for the APA, does it?

Methyl, don't make quite so many assumptions about what would or wouldn't offend me. You don't know me, and you're resorting to the personal attacks that I offended you with earlier on the boards. I thought we'd come so far since then. Your statement that what's best is not necessarily what is natural is dead-on, BTW.

Most responses to me have fallen into one of two camps: Either pointless name-calling or just resorting to the tired old "it's natural, not a choice" line.

The bottom line is that we don't know what causes homosexuality. Methyl did a good job of explaining some of the genetic theory and gave me some good food for thought. But it is still very much an open question in the scientific community. There were several comments to the effect that science has no proof that homosexuality is merely a choice. Guess what, kids? There is also no proof that homosexuality is not a mere choice. Ya know why? Because there's no proof either way.

Given that it is still an open question, why is it that I, who think -- without conclusive proof -- it is something that people choose to do, am called ignorant, homophobic, etc. while you who think it is genetic -- without conclusive proof -- are righteous defenders of the oppressed? I have not said and do not think that homosexuals are evil. I have not said and do not think they're all going to Hell. I have said and continue to maintain that anal "sex" (I reserve the term sex solely for vaginal intercourse -- which doesn't give you license to assume that I think all other...erm...activities are wrong in themselves) is completely unhealthy, unnatural, and should never, ever be done.

I also maintain that homosexual feelings are a disorder, just as your vaunted APA taught for decades before homosexual activists quite cannily got into positions of influence within the APA.

As to the outrage over my claim that people become homosexual due to the reasons I listed: I really can't disprove your particular case studies without knowing a lot more about the people you speak of. And I've heard too many people make the same claims only to discover they were covering something up to simply take you two at your word.

I get a kick out of people calling me a homophobe. joacqin, speak up for me and tell them that my actions in the chatroom show me as anything other than a homophobe. Have Extremist dig up some of the old posts between him and me. (Start with the one entitled "I love Extremist.") Hell, I was so androgynous in chat at first that Tal had to ask me my gender.

Naturally, you armchair crusaders for homosexuality will now start thinking I'm hiding something and am really a homosexual myself. Yawn. SS, DD.

http://www.manifestation.org/~ill/images/funny/pics.php?show=gayalarm.gif

[ September 12, 2002, 20:53: Message edited by: Shralp ]

 

Shralp, old boy. No one is upset as too wether it is genetic or a choice... I think people are more bothered as to your saying things like "I also maintain that homosexual feelings are a disorder".

That is not a healthy attitude to take to someones "choice" (as you put it).

 

IMHO, there is a difference between homophily (sp?) and homosexuality.
I think we have been speaking about homophily here.
Homophily is something you can't change. You just like people of your own gender, that's all, and nothing's wrong with that.

Homosexuality is something you choose for. You choose to have a relationship with an other (probably) homophil.
That's when things like religion and others come in mind.
Christians (most of them) accept the fact that someone is attracted to the same gender (homophily). But many of them are having troubles with homosexuality, and maybe I do, too. That doesn't mean that I am having troubles with homosexuals. They can do what they want, it's their choice. It's just the way of living I can't cope with, not their person.
Other religions go a step further: A few months ago, homophily was called a communicable disease, by an Imam. I reject that.

I hope I made my point clear and hope you understand me: I don't mind if people are straight, homophil or homosexual.

One more thing: I only have one entrance, which is for food. And I don't stick carrots up my ...

 

My first post in five hundred years and already I'm annoying people.

No, no -- Kooran! I didn't laugh at *you* -- I laughed because the god, like all biologists, talked about genetics in this blunt and dispassionate way that normal people take offense at, as you seemed to do. Any scientist talking about fitness or evolution or survival would not imply that one gene or outcome is *better* than another -- concepts of good/bad are irrelevant to science -- any more than a chess expert would say that a queen is *better* than a knight. So while a normal person might reasonably conclude that the god is against homosexuality, I didn't conclude that at all -- he was just setting you straight on how genetics works. This goes to show why biologists spend so much time in the lab -- they're a danger to themselves and others in the real world. I see it all the time, I *do* it all the time, and it cracks me up.

No offense meant to you, of course, the god -- only the warmest fellow-feeling.

And Shralp, I respect your courage in coming out with beliefs that a lot of people share but are too cowardly to own -- as always. My remark was intended as a gentle reminder that the anal sex you ridicule is not limited to homosexual couples.

 

LOL!!

I needed a good laugh, thanks!

 

Homosexuality IS a sin. God commands us not to participate in it. Homosexuality is NOT acceptable. On the other hand, I pray that all homosexuals will see the truth. I'm not out to stone them, but I refuse to see anything as acceptable when God does not. Those "Christian" officials who condone this lifestyle need to study the Word more carefully and develop a relationship with Christ. Those "scientists" who say homosexuality isn't the choice of the person - it's all in the genes - need more education. There is no research that proves a person is a homosexual because of his genes any more than there is research that proves a person is a murderer because of his genes.

Stand for right.

Flamers need not respond because I will not be reading this thread.

 

(in the words of johnny storm)

yep, biologists should be locked-up, restrained with gagging-orders and possibly prevented from breeding (we, too, might as well have 0 fitness).

just as methylviolet said- i was just trying to be informative is all, kooran. no hard feelings (unless of course people check-out your picture )

that stuff about a 'gay gene' was just a hypothetical i remember from the furore that arose when e.o. wilson suggested it (though he's often quoted out-of-context). though i get the impression your response was tongue-in-cheek.

 

Well, time to drop my two cents. I personally have nothing against homosexuals, as long as they don't start to bother me. I have friends, colleagues and such who are homosexuals, and I don't avoid them or treat them "abnormal" or anything. And I agree there's a number of "natural homosexuals". However, you can't deny the fact that there are instances where this homosexuality is not "natural", but rather resulting from child abuses, tragic past experience with the opposite sex and such. It's wrong to say all homosexuals are result of some unnatural cause, but it's also wrong the deny the fact that some homosexuals are in fact result from past tragic experiences and could be "cured" in some way and leading happy "normal life".

I think recently this issue has gone to way of the feminists, that they are a bit overdoing it claiming all homosexuals are natural and can never be changed.

And yup lefthandedness can be changed, and actually a lot of parents here try to change their left-handed children from early ages with great successes. It's nothing to do with "mistreatment" or "burning at stakes", but rather for a easier time in their future lives, as noted by someone above that toady's languages and a lot of devices are designed to be utilized by right-hand people better. And I know some firend who were lefthand when they were very young and changed to righthand and no they are not unhappy or depressed or anything using their righthands, they do not feel any difficulty and they write and work as well as we "natural righthanders".

And Lastly, and probably most importantly, "natural homosexuality" is indeed a genetic disorder. There's no denying that. Yup maybe it can't be cured and certainly it don't pose any danger to people around them (no more than "normal people" at least). Let's take it this way, does a tiny non-dangerous tumor a disease? Yes it doesn't hurt the person nor does it hurt the society, it doesn't pose any danger at all, but still it's a disease.

And let's analyze homosexuality in a biological way. First, homosexuals have a lesser chance to mate with opposite sex, that means, their genes have a lesser chance to reproduce. And that's a fact, and that means the genes are defective, or mutated, or not normal, whatever way you wish to put it. That's nothing to do with society or anything, just strict biological sense, genes which prevent itself to reproduce are not good. so in that sense homosexuality could be compared to non-fertility, which is considered a genetic disease.

So unless we start to clone people and no longer base our reproduction method as mating of opposite sexes, homosexuality should be treated as a genetic disorder if you ask me.

Of course we shouldn't force them to "cure" this disease if they don't wish to. And we should never mistreat them.

PS: One intrinsic problem about homosexuality that I know of is that I know some lesbians who want to have children, however currently the only options are to adopt one or use sperm banks, but the problem is that way the child is not "their own". The child lacks some "instinctive genetic links" to one or both of his/her parents. So unless we allow them clone a child from their cells, they could not be really happy in this case.

EDIT: for the vote, I voted I don't care. since I'm not a homopsexual, homosexual related problem don't really concern me, unless they try to start a relationship with me... but then I think my gf'd shred them apart...

[ September 12, 2002, 19:05: Message edited by: alighter ]

 

Kull--

-It's unfortunate you can't think for yourself, then.

-Perhaps it is you who needs a better study of the bible. The word for homosexual didn't even exist in ancient times, the closest word they had for it was a male prostitute. And as for Christ, he never spoke a word on homosexuals.

-You're wrong on both counts. There isn't "proof" beyond a reasonable doubt, but there is reasonable evidence both for a gay gene and for an assemblage of traits in brain activity (geneticly formed, it is assumed) that are linked with an indifferent personality capable of murder.

-Whilst you are quite self-righteous, you weren't the one who put "right" in that word.

-I am not different from you, so don't flatter yourself by giving me an insulting title.

the god--
-Fair enough. And I never said biologists should be locked up and in retrospect I'm sorry I so wrongly came across as strawmaning biologists as badly as I did. Forgive me that, that is not usually how I argue and I'm embaressed I got so emotional.

(And thanks for calling me cute.)

alighter--

-Why? Are you so sexually insecure that you can't handle the thought of a man thinking you're attractive?

-That's kind of you.

-The way you put it, I can deny it, actually.

-If homosexuality is a psychological defense mechanism to them then they are not homosexual, it is as simple as that. Did you heterosexuality blossom as a defense mechanism becuase you had bad previous relations with men?

-What do the feminists have to do with this? Yes, they support civil rights and obviously, they sympathize with sexuality. This doesn't mean there is a militant lesbian conspiracy among the feminists.

-Where's your evidence for that? I've never seen it done with "great success". And again, it could then be argued they were simply ambidexterous and had a preferential hand.

-What hand I write with is not an elemental part of my being charged with desire, love, intimacy, and the complexity of emotion.

-Realisticly, we still do not know enough about the origins of sexuality to claim what is natural. OBVIOUSLY heterosexual sex is the most productive and would be encouraged in our genetics but few of our close ape cousins are strictly heterosexual, either. Why decide that only having heterosexual relations is what is most healthy?

-I thought a disease needed to be harmful to be a disease. A benign tumor is just that, a benign tumor.

-No chance, I should think. That doesn't mean they can't have children however. Lesbians often have artificial insemination.

-Infertility. Non-fertility suggests choice, infertility is the inability to breed. Homosexuals don't need to pass on their genes to create more homosexuals and although, obviously, it's not fun for your DNA to never travel, that doesn't render you useless to society or even useless biologically to your population.

-I don't ask you.

-I don't see my orientation as a disease. I'm not a victim of my genetics. I'm happy this way, and I bet I'd be happy straight if that'd been the case. There's nothing wrong with homosexuality (or bisexuality in my case) so why should the issue of its treatment even be considered?

-The lesbian parents I've met (two sets of them, so far) are quite happy. Not everyone has the undying desire to pass on their lineage.

-Yeah, it's reasonable to not care if people aren't being given their rights as long as you aren't one of those people.

continued...

 

-Allow me to clarify. Those who promote reparative therapy have no clinical studies to back up their hypothesis on the causes or cures of homosexuality. That is why the APA does not support it.

-It is unfair to simplify everything I said into such a pathetically unencompassing statement. This is the framework for what's called a "strawman" argument. Observe.

-So if that's the bottom line why do you insist it is a disorder? You are contradicting yourself. And I disagree that that's the bottom line, in any case.

-I am not a righteous defender of anything. This is another strawman. (I'm counting now: 2)

You are not homophobic because there is no such thing. Calling ignorance a phobia is a misnomer. I associate it much closer to racism and I don't do so without foundation.

-Anal sex is not the only homosexual act, nor is it one exclusively to homosexuality. Yes, it was not designed to have a penis stuck up it, but niether was a mouth. What makes one so much more unnatural than the other?

-(Strawnman count: 3) It taught that based on a Freudian perspective of psychology and psychotherapy. They believed all homosexuals were gender inverts based on some of Freud's assumptions on the development of heterosexuality. Freud is no longer held up as true by the majority of psychologists-- whether they are APA members or not. Medical and scientific knowledge in general has room to evolve, change, and continuously improve -- this does not mean it is untrustable and incredible.

-I understand that. I'll go to the library again tomorrow and find the title of the book so you may read it yourself. I think it was titled "Perspectives on Homosexuality" but that might've been another book.

-Joking about sexuality doesn't make you unhomophobic.

-(Strawman: 4) I am not a crusader and my chair has no arms. Only you can know if you are a homosexual or not.

Master of Nuhn--

-I have never heard anything remotely resembling the word homophily but I'm going to assume your meaning is homophilia-- like in the word pedophilia.

-Well, you're on the right track distinguishing an orientation from an action, but your terms are a tad screwy.

-Again, your terms make this impossible to respond to. I now have a feeling English isn't your first language.

-Why can't you cope with it? Homosexuals must cope with heterosexuals being allowed to be perfectly frank about their sexuality constantly. Homosexuals aren't a different species, either. And the "lifestyle" of a homosexual varies as much as that of a heterosexual.

-I don't see the difference between being a homosexual and a homophil(e) as you dubbed it. The orientation and the choice to act upon the orientation are not seperate orientations in and of themselves.

-...*******.

[ September 12, 2002, 23:40: Message edited by: Kooran ]

 

DAMN! NOT AGAIN!

WHY CAN'T THIS BE OVER ?!

Leave people be!

No one tells you what type of life you should lead; except your parents, and even in that case you don't certainly like it.

If you think being gay is not good... your problem.

If you think being gay is good... your problem.

LET OTHERS LIVE AS THEY WANT DAMN IT!

NO ONE HAS TO HEAR COMPLAINS ABOUT WHAT THEY DO IF THEY DON'T HURT OTHERS !

You don't let anyone poke with your nose. Why do you mess with other's affairs in the first place?

Stop being moronic and learn to respect others, their culture, their language, their gender and their ideas.

Am I telling you how to spell? NO! Because I don't care!

Am I telling you not to be of certain religion because I think they are evil? NO! Because I don't care also.

Will you accept me telling you to pop your eyes off because you read too much profanities? Of course not!

See, I honestly don't give a **** if you or anyone likes me or not or likes what I think or not or likes what I do or not, I will be myself regardless of you or any other because I don't need whinnies; I need constructive people.

See, it's a nice I don't care -- you don't care game we all should play when we are about to flame other people just because they are different!

Homosexuality is a sin? C'mon you ***** ******** ******* ******** **** !!

Didn't you knew Alexander, Florence Nightingale, and SO MANY others were homosexuals and aided mankind to be what is today ??!! In that case you should NEVER step in a hospital or take certain medicine because are prescribed by a gay that does't dress like you and the first nurse was lesbian! SIN!

In fact MOST of the things you enjoy today are homosexual branded you little sinner! AND MOST of the great people in History IS homosexual you little ignorant!

P.S.:

Hey Methylviolet... Where have you been? We missed you as you can obviously see!

[ September 13, 2002, 02:33: Message edited by: Shadowhunter ]

 

I would like more information from you biologist types (Hi Ms Violet! Welcome back!) on exactly why it is dismissed as impossible that homosexual inclination is a neutral genetic characteristic from an evolutionary point of view. Infertility, OK, but homosexuality? That would only follow, as far as this layman understands, if the homosexually-inclined are considered unlikely to produce children, which doesn't hold much water from a historical point of view. Only 1st world women, and only in the last couple of decades, have really had much choice about getting married and bearing children. It has been the "only game in town" for almost everyone who's ever set foot on this earth, modern mores notwithstanding, and most homosexuals aren't so repelled by the opposite sex that it would have even occurred to them, in less open societies, to flout convention and family-based economies by remaining single. Witness, to take just one example, Oscar Wilde.

In ancient Athens women were treated like livestock, laughable as targets of romantic interest among most sophisticated men, and yet the few women who survived to adulthood in that inhospitable culture were passed around as wives from man to man, with serial divorce the norm. Society adapted to ensure each male citizen got sons- passion for the females who bore them had nothing to do with it.

I know a number of gay men who came of age in the sixties who *knew* they were gay and still got married & made babies because they felt it was expected of them. They certainly have no regrets about it now - a desire to become a parent is totally independent of the gender of the person we end up falling in love with. And now that I think about it, more of my lesbian friends have kids than my straight girlfriends. And none of this nonsense with turkey basters, they went out and found a willing old friend or a one-night stand, and then "lay back and thought about England" as the saying goes. Societally, I see no negative correlation whatsoever between likelihood of reproduction and attraction to the same sex.

If male homosexuality *is* genetically based, now that men and women alike have more lifestyle choices in the free world, isn't it possible that male homosexuality will now start to die out on its own with "gay pride" making it easier than ever for men who love men to choose women-free, baby-free lives? I can't imagine this will be true for women, though. I've never met a lesbian who wasn't baby-mad.

 

hehehe...my view on homosexuality is pretty twisted.

• Male + Male = Gross...not "bad" just gross
• Female + Female = hot, a major turn on!
• Male + Male + Female = lucky female
• Male + Female + Female = VERY lucky male!!!
• Male + Female + Another Female about once or twice a month = My current relationship (I love having a bi-sexual girlfriend)
• Male + Female = The only way this world will survive...not much "spice" but it works for the majority

I don't think I'll ever be gay...mainly because I don't think having a dick being rammed up my a** would fell that good. Would I try it? Possibly, it all depends on the circumstances, but if I *did* like it, I wouldn't go full blown gay...I love my g/f too much.

 

Well, I don't care if other males think I'm attractive or not, how ever I don't like the idea of them try to hit on me, neither.

Well, so we got different definitions of "homosexual" it seems. For me, there's the natural homosexual (or homophyl as someone stated earlier?) and the unnatural homosexual. So the same apply to heterosexuals. there are the natural ones and the unnatural ones (unnatural being "natural homosexuals" but maybe some tragic experience turn them into heterosexuals). And I myself I can assure you I'm a natural heterosexual. You still put it like if "some" homosexual could be the result of tragic past experiences, then my heterosexuality "must" come from tragic past experience too. However the keyword is "some". some homosexuals are unnatrual, and I don't deny that "some" heterosexuals could be unnatural. However I cleared don't belong to that "some". Also since in "the natural population" heterosexuals are more than homosexuals, the case of "unnatural heterosexuals" would be quite small. Lets' say for everyone there's 10% chance of having a tragic past experience which swayed his/her sexual preferences. so if 87% of people are natural heterosexuals, and 13% of people are natural homosexuals, then there would be 8.7% of people are unnatural homosexuals, and 1.3% of people are unnatural heterosexuals...

So? the same could be argued that those homosexuals that could be "cured" are actually natural bisexuals, and just had a preferential sex... so changing them to heterosexuals just make them change their preferential sex thus they can reproduce better?

Well, as you stted earlier, since there's no clear evidence whether homosexuality is caused by genes, or a certain pattern of genes / genome or somehting totally different. But if it has anything related to genes/genome, it means the children of homosexuals (if that's possible...hmm.. maybe a lesbian get artificially inseminated by the sperm from a gay?) should be more likely to be homosexuals since they contain the genes/genome from their parents...

Hmmm... I'm not sure, I guess a lot of people just want some natural, normal grandchildren (especially in eastern culture) or that artifical insemination are considered an affront to God (especially in western culture). Speaking of which, why shouldn't we allow the homosexuals to make children from their own genes by the use of cloning technology? I see no reason why artificial insemination is allowed while clone is banned for the homosexuals. We can just get two eggs (or two sperms) from the homosexuals and make them a true child of their own.

Not everyone, but "some". "some" is still the keyword here. So for some they have to either change their sexual preference or change their feeling for genetic links (as far as I can tell, this link is especially more present and stronger in females...) to be happy. But both aspects are natural and by your argument should not be changed, so are they the unfortunate one deemed to be unhappy? Of course all problems will be solved if we allow cloning technology used for homosexuals.

And lastly, there is a problem concerning adopted children. I mean, you seems to overestimate the power of instincts and natural factors and underestimate the power of outside influences and educations. Why people speak different languages? Why there are things called cultural differences? Why people have differnet religions and beliefs? Why some ancient cultures consider women to be no more than livestocks? That's not their intrinsic differences, but rather from the society and education and such. So a child adopted by homosexual parents, will there really be no problem at all for the child? I'm not sure on this issue myself though...

PS: sorry for the poor English but it's not my first language...

[ September 13, 2002, 08:28: Message edited by: alighter ]

 

I know Kull said he wasn't going to read this thread, (shame), so this is for ALL those who claim that Gods word is that homosexuality is a sin, an abomination, an evil and should not be tolerated by Christians. (Which includes my father I'm very sad to say although it's given us a few good wars of words so to speak)

The following may well not be a true story exactly, but the references are all correct, that much I've confirmed. I have a feeling it's been written to make a point, and imho it makes it beautifully:
---
Laura Schlesinger is a well known radio personality in the US who gives advice to callers.

A little while back she advised a caller referring to Leveticus [3rd book of Moses] 18:22, that homosexuality is an abomination and can therefore not be tolerated under any circumstances.

What follows is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by an anonymous American citizen.

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to teach people to live according to God’s laws. I have learnt a lot from you, and now I’m trying to share this knowledge with as many people as I am able. Should someone for example attempt to defend homosexuality, I just remind them that in Leveticus 18:22 it is clearly stated that homosexuality is an abomination. Nothing more to talk about there.

Now, however, I’m looking for some guidance as to how I should live according to God’s laws.

1. Every time I burn a bull as an offering , I know this shall be of a sweet savour unto the Lord. (Leveticus 1:9). I’m having a problem with the neighbours.

2. I wish to sell my daughter into slavery (Exodus [2nd book of Moses] 21:7). In today’s climate, what would be an appropriate price?

3. In Leveticus 25:44 it clearly states that I may keep slaves as long as they are bought from a neighbouring country. Now a friend of mine maintains that this is only true for Mexicans and not Canadians. This is where I need guidance. Can I own Canadians?

4. I have a neighbour who insists on working the sabbath. Exodus 35:2 is very clear on this, he should be killed. Am I morally responsible if I do this myself?

5. A friend of mine is of the opinion that even though it is an abomination to eat fish and shellfish (Leveticus 11:10), homosexuality is worse. I do not agree. Who is right?

6. In Leveticus 21:20 it clearly states that I must not approach God’s altar if I have poor eyesight. I have to admit that I’m short sighted and I use glasses. Must I have 20/20 vision, or do we have some margin here?

7. Most of my friends go to the hairdresser. They have their hair cut on the sides, and trim their sideburns. This is clearly a sin according to Leveticus 19:27. How should they be punished?

8.I have read in Leveticus 11:7-8 that I may not touch the remnants of a dead swine as it is unclean to me. Can I still play [American] football if I wear gloves?

9. My uncle has a farm. He sins against Leveticus 19:19 because he has more than one crop in the same field. His wife is no better as she wears clothes made from two different types of materials (a mixture cotton and polyester). He also swears a fair bit. Is it really necessary to gather the whole congregation to stone them to death (Leveticus 24:10-16)? Would it not be just as easy to burn them at a family gathering the same way as we do with people who sleep with their relatives (Leveticus 20:14)?

I know you have studied these sorts of problems in depth, so I’m sure you can help me. Thank you for reminding us that God’s words are unchangeable and forever.

With kind regards from a loyal disciple and fan.

---

In order to save any of you looking Leveticus 18:22 up, this is what it says:

 

No, actually. A strawman is the term for putting up fallacious (and usually easily disproven) arguments. You're arguing that I've reduced the arguments against me incorrectly. You're wrong, of course, but at least get your terms right.

Not at all, actually. I think it's a disorder. I can't prove it scientifically, but then I'll wager that you believe all kinds of things that have no scientific proof of. That homosexuality is not a disorder, for instance.

Well, ignoring the fact that my post was not aimed directly at you, I nonetheless disagree. No one else has taken up the pink triangle flag and ran with it like you have. You've taken the time to quote all objectors in several long posts. That, my friend, is something who thinks he's a righteous defender.

Excellent point in the first part. Homophobia is a term usually applied incorrectly. Your reasons are wildly off, however. Of what fact am I ignorant? Please enlighten me -- it is your duty to your fellow man. In fact, this is the thing I most want you or someone on the pro-homosexual side to answer: Of what fact am I ignorant? I assume you're referring to scientifically proven facts, right? If not, you've just tipped your hand.

Not even close. No one chooses his race. People choose to be homosexual. There is no fault in thinking someone has made a poor choice. I do the same for heterosexual infidelities, if it matters.

Interesting take on the APA decision, as Freud was falling out of favor at about that time IIRC. I don't recall my source for the claim that homosexual activists worked to overturn its classification as a disorder, but if I do come across the information again I'll update this thread.

LOL. You really don't know what I was referencing here, so maybe you shouldn't draw any conclusions.

 

In the hope that Kull will read this:
You know that the church has strictly forbidden Dungeons & Dragons, so what are you doing here??

Anyways, back to the topic:
I don´t really care if somebody is gay, if he makes a pass at me, I´ll just say "thanks, but I´m straight". Instead of kicking his ***. (Yes Sniper I mean you)

[Edit]
Oh, and Viking, ROTFLMAO!!
[/Edit]

[ September 13, 2002, 16:26: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

-I'm a she. And to stand up for what you believe in is a far cry from "running with the pink triangle flag".

Which, by the way, is also a strawman. It can be given a broader definition applying to any caricturization (not that that's a word, mind you) that is dismissive or faceticious. Traditionally I admit some people give it more narrow criteria -- I hope I clarified.

You can paint me as the sterotypical "pro-homosexual" (who comes up with these euphemisms? it reminds me of similar conservative tripe - "pro-abortionist") with my pink triangle* flag and a flaming sword, but this is not how I am. I own not a single "pride" piece and I don't plan to.

Again, there is no evidence that homosexuals (those who have a mutually exclusive orientation of sexual desire for the same sex) choose this orientation.

(But to play along for a moment.)To say they choose is to say people are innately bisexual in which case the only argument for heterosexuality over homosexuality is reproduction. I respect your more liberal interpretation of human sexuality, but why you decide homosexuality isn't right for you isn't a reason for all humans (bisexuals) to choose heterosexuality. (Oh wait, you aren't a bisexual?)

Yet you contradict yourself by saying you believe it to be a disorder -- since disorders are, assumedly, not conscious choices.

Incidentally, homosexuality doesn't fit the criteria for a disorder. Disorders are defined as out of the normal range of variability in a population (http://www.psychiatry.cam.ac.uk/BMU/SEMINARS/store/20011016bullmore.ppt a definition from a BRITISH authority and not the APA) but since homosexuality has so long been a consistent variation in our species (at a steady 8%, apparently) how is it not a normal variation?

As for it not being genetically fiscal to be homosexual (I mean, I can't mate with another girl, and quite unfortunately, too)-- I am cognizant and I have developed a loyalty to my consciousness beyond simply that of the survival of my species. I have the freedom to pursue my happiness especially when it does no others harm and is natural to me.

Yes, the sex is "unnatural" -- all types beyond vaginal intercourse are but by that logic birth control and non-vaginal heterosexual intercourse are also unnatural. This does not mean the desire to have it (or the pleasure found therein) is unnatural. Most of our leisure activities and pleasures aren't designed for our genetic fitness, after all.

I always forget how complex it is to explain sexuality and how easily people will pigeon-hole it with black and white terms. It's not simple, it's not easily explainable, yet it deserves someone to truly take the time to explain it -- even if I do not always do that well, I am trying harder now. I am very sorry for any vague statements that led you to a false conclusion about my arguments.

*An interesting point of trivia on where that triangle comes from, if you didn't know, is the Nazi Germany death camps. Also interesting is that after the Allies rescued the imprisoned Jews the homosexuals were left behind, turning a blind eye to their continued torture and murder.

As a way of turning a symbol of atrocity into triumph over opression, the pink triangle is now used just has it is popular for African Americans to call each other "niggaz".