A Candid Discussion on Homosexuality

[Rick O'Shez]

I am pretty sure @Al-Fatihah has left this conversation permanently. But I could be wrong.

Bliss and relief.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have answered all three questions in all their hundreds of forms that pro-homosuality folks cough up. I however no longer see the button that will take me back to the question so I can't make absolutely sure.

The question was, when did you choose to be heterosexual? Or, when did you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex? Or, when did you convince your brain that it is attracted to human beings of the opposite sex?

Modern times are the most accepting of gays in history not that acceptance is necessary for choice. No one is unaware that drugs, driving drunk, over drinking, over eating, etc... are bad ideas yet millions do them everyday. I love how you attack traditional morality by appealing to accepting people as they are which you don't do. Jails are full of folks virtually no one wants to accept as they are. I want to accept the right to live and their own money those who do not practice aberrations but forfeit both to pay for them. What about their rights if your so accepting?

You seem to have avoided answering this question as well.

People in many parts of the western world are more accepting of gay people than they used to be, but there are still people like you here, who wish to demonize and marginalize them.

But that ignores the rest of the world like the Middle East and Russia, for example where gay people are treated appallingly. Yet there are still gay people there. And you seem to think being gay is a choice, or at least you suggest that it’s not yet settled that people are born that way. So why on earth would anyone living in a place where being gay is punishable by death, chooseto be gay?

I love how you try equating being gay to every crime on the planet. We’re not talking about committing crimes, which cause harm to others – we’re talking about having an attraction for someone of the same sex. That’s what homosexuality is.

No, gays not only demand to do what they desire despite history, but expect the rest of us to pay for it and shut up.

[/quote]

Despite what history?

We could say the exact same thing for heterosexuals, but you have no problem with heterosexuality. Heterosexuals participate in all kinds of acts of depravity, including acts that you would define as homosexual in nature. As I said before, you’re talking about human behaviors, not gay behaviors. But you want to blame all the ills of society on gay people.


But again, it really appears to me that your problem is with promiscuous sex, rather than with people who are attracted to members of the opposite sex. I’m not the first one to point that out in this thread.

I think gay people just want to live and be accepted as the human beings they are – just like anyone else on the planet. What’s hard to understand about that?

The heck there is not. However I know for a fact I have been over this dozens and dozens of times in thread after thread besides this being perfectly obvious to everyone.

Well, if there is some big difference, you should probably be able to point it out.

It is perfectly consistent with reality. Pre-teens drink, do drugs, and have sex, etc..... is that no longer a choice and now good simply because it occurs?

Okay, if it is consistent with reality, let’s see you magically start enjoying something you don’t like. Hate olives? Let’s see you decide that you actually love them and want to eat them every single day. Let’s see you chew them up and swallow them with a big smile on your face.

And back to my response that the answer has no relevance. Countless sexual acts that have occurred to me have been a choice. Actually every sexual act I have ever engaged in has been a choice and those I used to indulge I had to stop because they were wrong. BTW I am not against an orientation (choice or biology) I am against acting on it if unjustifiable. I am against adultery and promiscuity in either orientation and at least one is biological.

People who have been raped or molested have engaged in sexual acts for which they made no choice, but that’s a whole other thing.

Okay, so you actually have no problem with gay people. You have a problem with sex acts, that both gay and straight people can and do participate in. Yet you demonize one group as being responsible for most of the ills of the world, but not the other. Does that make any sense to you?

Are you implying that sexual promiscuity in gay people is biological? What are you saying? Where’s your cost-benefit analysis for heterosexual relationships?

I trained myself to restrict countless desires I had to do a thing. Most to late to prevent damage but all before I killed anyone at least.

What do you suggest gay people do then? Just live their lives all alone, without love and companionship until they die or commit suicide because people like you want to make them feel subhuman?

What’s your big solution here? Gay people aren’t going anywhere.

The statement you responded to was not a point, it was a preamble or prefix for what followed. You would argue with anything.

I’m arguing with someone who’s making an argument.

Ah, hah you do claim that nature is justification for homosexuality.

I’m saying I find it kind of strange that people refer to it as unnatural when it has the appearance of being natural. I believe you were the one who brought natural/unnatural into the discussion.

I will use this to point out just how biased you guys are. Forget every other claim about homosexuality for this. Despite the fact that less than 1% of animal life has homosexual tendencies, despite the fact that these too may be spiritual evidence of a fallen creation, and despite no species practice life long homosexuality you are actually going to use it as justification. So a thing not done in 99% of cases is actually your justification. Now this kind of wishful thinking shows up in every argument and every defense made by those who defend homosexuality. That all by it's self is enough to see that preference and emotion is what I am contending with, not reason.

There is a species that practices lifelong homosexuality – humans. And despite what you seem to think, homosexuality can be found all over the animal kingdom.

I’m not using it to justify anything and I’m pretty sure you’re the one who dragged natural/unnatural into this discussion. I was pointing out that referring to homosexuality as unnatural when it is something that exists throughout the animal kingdom and throughout the history of mankind is something of a misnomer. There’s no wishful thinking involved here. Maybe homosexuality is your god’s way of evening out the population.

All that said none of what you said was a response to what I remember stating. Psychopathy has been around as long as man, virtually everything we consider to be unnatural has been.

I answered your question right below it.

I don’t know where you’re going with the psychopathy thing – there are a whole lot of other things involved in the development of a psychopathic personality than we’re getting into here.

Yes I believe that is it.

Actually it was the secular researchers who said it was abnormal. I am just parroting it to see how others would handle it. Unnatural is used constantly to mean abnormal. Maybe technically, crap technical failures in the lab yet again. Have to go.

How about less vagueness and more details?

 

[YmirGF]

I am pretty sure @Al-Fatihah has left this conversation permanently. But I could be wrong.

To be fair, Fatihah is only stating his convictions as per that of a "good" Muslim. That said, I would completely understand if he does not show his face for awhile. Wouldn't you (after being completely eviscerated)?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Please could somebody start a thread called "A candid discussion on dalmatians"?

 

[The Hammer]

To be fair, Fatihah is only stating his convictions as per that of a "good" Muslim. That said, I would completely understand if he does not show his face for awhile. Wouldn't you (after being completely eviscerated)?

True, he is only stating his views. Does not make his views right, or psychologically/biologically accurate.

 

[Draka]

What about us poor bisexuals? Are we really just confused by demons? Possessed by a spirit of sexual wickedness? Unable to truly love the homo-gender only lust for them?

EDIT: I apologize, as I cannot take this thread seriously anymore.

I thought it was quite obvious myself. Bisexuals just obviously are not having sex with the opposite sex that are really any good at sex. They just haven't been "properly" screwed by a competent opposite sex partner. Thus their lust, their sexual needs, are unfulfilled and are reaching out in sin for the same sex hoping that they will get their lust fulfilled there. The solution? Just pick better opposite sex sexual partners. Like lesbians...bisexuals just need a really good "proper" lay.

 

[The Hammer]

I thought it was quite obvious myself. Bisexuals just obviously are not having sex with the opposite sex that are really any good at sex. They just haven't been "properly" screwed by a competent opposite sex partner. Thus their lust, their sexual needs, are unfulfilled and are reaching out in sin for the same sex hoping that they will get their lust fulfilled there. The solution? Just pick better opposite sex sexual partners. Like lesbians...bisexuals just need a really good "proper" lay.

LMAO.. at least this made me giggle.

I should have figured, I just need a good lay. Hmmmm. Oh well.

 

[YmirGF]

I thought it was quite obvious myself. Bisexuals just obviously are not having sex with the opposite sex that are really any good at sex. They just haven't been "properly" screwed by a competent opposite sex partner. Thus their lust, their sexual needs, are unfulfilled and are reaching out in sin for the same sex hoping that they will get their lust fulfilled there. The solution? Just pick better opposite sex sexual partners. Like lesbians...bisexuals just need a really good "proper" lay.

Gives new meaning to the word layman, doesn't it. *giggles*

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I thought it was quite obvious myself. Bisexuals just obviously are not having sex with the opposite sex that are really any good at sex. They just haven't been "properly" screwed by a competent opposite sex partner. Thus their lust, their sexual needs, are unfulfilled and are reaching out in sin for the same sex hoping that they will get their lust fulfilled there. The solution? Just pick better opposite sex sexual partners. Like lesbians...bisexuals just need a really good "proper" lay.

Okay. I just found this disturbingly hilarious.

 

[methylatedghosts]

I am pretty sure @Al-Fatihah has left this conversation permanently. But I could be wrong.

It's easier to run than to admit you're wrong...

Of course, it's also easier to deny you're wrong by avoiding things altogether

 

[rivenrock]

There are many points that could be made, and have been made. IF you believe the biological imperative is the core of human existence, then sure, homosexuality could be seen as a dysfunction, as it does not serve that imperative. Neither does polycystic ovarian syndrome or any of the many other circumstances which hinder or prevent conception. But POS is not unnatural. It's not a curse. It's not weird. It's just part of how human development and genetics sometime work out. As is lefthandedness. As is homosexuality.

The point is that none of these things actually have moral value. Just as we look back now and see clearly that people were ignorant and wrong to assume that lefthandedness was an unnatural evil that needed to be corrected, so too should viewing homosexuality that way be recognised as ignorant and wrong. Being righthanded is not a sign of virtue any more than being lefthanded is a sign of sin. Being heterosexual has no moral value. It isn't righteous to be straight and it isn't sinful. It isn't a choice anyone makes. It simply has no moral value either way. And neither does homosexuality. It is neither good nor bad. It just is what it is - one of the ways a human can be.

 

[pearl]

It isn't a choice anyone makes

Exactly. Its also what those who so vehemently oppose homosexuality refuse to admit.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Some seagulls are probably gay too, I don't know.

 

[Draka]

Ok, let's see how this is taken. I present the counter-argument that those whom are against homosexuality, or really any type of relationship or sex which involves completely consenting adults, are the ones whom are truly perverse and have psychological issues. The intense need to condemn, judge, slight, make wild accusations about, concoct "statistics" and the like, all to self-validate their own line of thinking shows a deeply disturbed mindset. To have this much of an issue with a completely natural bodily function such as sex, is to demonstrate just how utterly scarred and/or perverse their mind is. To have this amount of effort into condemning something...is, let's face it, a sign of mental instability. To have to have this within them, the need to point fingers, to adamantly refuse to hear anything which proves them wrong, to have to hold onto this internal "hatred" (whether they want to admit that's what it is or not) within them, shows a need for therapy. They need to get to the root of their issues with sex in general. They obviously have them, they came from somewhere, they should be dealt with before they cause a danger to themselves or others.

 

[dgirl1986]

It gets very old when straight people, especially straight dudes, decide that homosexuality is dirty and wrong based on nothing but their fear of butt seks and misinformation.

 

[Trantorfuzz]

In discussing whether homosexuality is right or wrong, much of the logic that homosexuality should be justified and accepted is based on the argument that it is natural. Secondly, that it is based on two people loving each other, so there is no harm. If this is the case, it seems that these points only raises other issues, which offset the argument that homosexuality is okay and creates difficulty for its acceptance in society. Unless these raised issues are addressed, all of which stems from these points, then the argument that homosexuality is okay will remain invalid. Here, let us have a open-mined, honest, and candid discussion, on the following issues raised from these points.

When you say that homosexuality is natural, then what is the natural way that homosexuals have sex? In other words, explain how sex between those of the same gender is in accordance to nature. Also, if homosexuality is natural, then is it not also an abnormality or a dysfunction? After all, if a person is born with more than 10 fingers, two eyes or less, a tail or wings, etc. we call this an abnormality. Yet a male who is born with the natural ability to produce sperm and make a baby with a female, but has no sexual attraction to a female, why is this not considered an abnormality, rather than natural? The same applies to a female who is created by nature to have a baby by a male, but has no sexual attraction to them.

When you say there is no harm in homosexuality because two people love each other and are happy, then why would it be wrong to sell drugs to someone, as long as they are consenting adults and they are happy?

If homosexual sex is truly based on love, then what is the difference in the sexual nature of attraction between men and women that makes the same sex love each other sexually, but not the opposite sex?

None of these questions are stated to argue that homosexuality is unnatural or wrong. Rather, I only raise this discussion to highlight the problem with the answer that homosexuality is okay because it is harmless and natural. If this is the reasoning for some, then let's not stop there. If this is your reasoning, then it is essential to justify such reasoning if you expect someone to accept that homosexuality is okay because it is natural and based on love and happiness, without answering the following questions presented above.


Let's have a dialogue.

 

[Trantorfuzz]

First, we need to clarify what is meant by “natural.” Let us assume that “natural” means “occurring without the intervention of sapient life.” In this sense, homosexual behavior is natural because it has been seen to occur in a number of higher animal species. If “natural” does not have the meaning I’ve stated here, then what *does* it mean?

Second, for the purposes of moral judgment, it does not matter whether homosexuality is “natural” under any definition, since “natural” does not imply goodness and “unnatural” does not imply evil. There is nothing more unnatural than building and firing a laser. Neither the device nor the kind of light it emits occurs without human intervention. Yet we do not condemn the construction and use of lasers as immoral.

Third, whether homosexual love can be compared to sharing drugs depends on the drug. Caffeine is a mood altering substance. Yet the comparison between homosexual love and having coffee together doesn’t give one grounds to condemn the former. If, on the other hand, you are comparing homosexual love to the distribution of poisons such as methamphetamines, then by *assuming* that the comparison is valid, you are *assuming* that homosexuality is as harmful—an implicitly circular argument.

Fourth, consider your words: “If homosexual sex is truly based on love, then what is the difference in the sexual nature of attraction between men and women that makes the same sex love each other sexually, but not the opposite sex?” I can’t address this argument because it makes no sense.

 

[Trantorfuzz]

Response: Nor did anyone claim it was. So your point is pointless, and refutes your claim that homosexuals have sex naturally the same way as heterosexuals when only heterosexuals can have sex by placing the male penis in a woman's vagina.

The idea that penis-to-vaginal sex is "natural" and that any other form of sex is "unnatural" has no basis in science or fact. The very word, "natural," as you use it in this context, has no scientific meaning.

 

[Trantorfuzz]

Response" I have not stated any stance on homosexuality, so I have not over analyzed anything. I only showed the difficulty that arises when a person claims it is natural and right because it makes people happy. These claims only create more difficult questions and issues that no one seems to be able to answer. This is evident by the fact that thus far, no one has been able to answer the questions in the OP and most have ignored them.

It is strange for you to claim that you have no stance on homosexuality on one hand, yet challenge your readers to prove that it is "natural" (whatever that means) and harmless.

 

[Mdf.carter]

What isn't natural? What doesn't follow the natural physical laws of our universe? -- Obviously homosexuality is natural. So are mutations, and anything else existing in our world. The question of whether homosexuality is natural will cause more questions than it answers. Is homosexuality the norm, in human beings or other animals? No.[/QUOTE