Sexuality and Choice...

[madhatter85]

Seriously.. Who's going to argue in favor of rape?

I dunno... rapists?

 

[Kerr]

No, it provides the exact same rights to everyone. Except in some states, A heterosexual male may not marry another male. It applies to everyone, and it is not a "right." there are prerequisites to marriage. A right is something that is inherent to all. same as voting, That is also a privilege because it can be taken away if you do not obey the other laws.

So marriage has nothing to do with the people involved and just that they are going to have kids? I happen to hold a very different view.

 

[madhatter85]

Thing is marriage means two different things to us. Family Guy summed my my opinion nicely.

:areyoucra I'm glad you do your cultural research by watching Family Guy.I knew a guy who got all of his political news from The Daily Show. He wasn't the brightest person in the world.

 

[madhatter85]

So marriage has nothing to do with the people involved and just that they are going to have kids? I happen to hold a very different view.

Cultural tradition, dating back into recorded history, happens to be family which consists of a Mother and a Father with children. that is the traditional family model that has allowed the human race to flourish. There is not a single person on this earth who is or ever was alive who does not have two biological parents consisting of one male and one female. To disregard that, would be to disregard your own birth.

 

[Kerr]

How does it not matter? The only way it would not be a disorder is if it was a choice. because genetics would not deliberately create an anomaly that would inhibit the desire to copulate with a member of the opposite sex in humans, Unless you are implying that natural selection is taking it's course and attempting to kill off the human race. (which i don't believe to be the case)

No, it is not this or that. Something can be genetic without being a disorder, just as something does not have to be genetic to be a disorder. Fact is, homosexuality is not harmful and dangerous to the individual that is homosexual, something disorders tend to do. I don´t care if it is different, I don´t care about if it is according to natural selection or not. It is not a disorder if it does not actually do any form of harm against anything.

And no, homosexuality is not a part of some plan, but since it has always existed, I guess natural selection does not care that much about it.

 

[Kerr]

Cultural tradition, dating back into recorded history, happens to be family which consists of a Mother and a Father with children. that is the traditional family model that has allowed the human race to flourish. There is not a single person on this earth who is or ever was alive who does not have two biological parents consisting of one male and one female. To disregard that, would be to disregard your own birth.

No, what has allowed us to flourish is our ability to adapt the the environment we live in. The traditional family is not relevant to that.

And on the topic of traditions, it is the people who dare to challenge already existing ideas and go against tradition that makes the society move forward. Tradition has no inherit value, it is the nature of the tradition in question that is important, and the problem with the traditional family is that it is a very static and unflexible structure. Which is why I do not care about it, and believe we have to move away from it.

 

[Kerr]

:areyoucra I'm glad you do your cultural research by watching Family Guy.I knew a guy who got all of his political news from The Daily Show. He wasn't the brightest person in the world.

I edited the post. Besides, I never said I took my values from that show, I said I agreed with them in that particular episode.

 

[Kerr]

Abnormal

Thanks. Now I must ask, why is that relevant to this context?

 

[TheKnight]

Just like not controlling it can make you a very happy person.

I suppose that is possible.

I guess then also that you have the same tolerance for heterosexuals that might want to be homosexual?

Yes, I would have that same tolerance for heterosexuals who want to be homosexual.

I have not seen any objective study of therapies that yielded the result "there is a therapy X that does the job".
Have you?

No. But lack of a successful therapy doesn't mean that there isn't one. I have yet to see an objective study of cures for cancer that yielded the result "there is a cure X that does the job". Does that mean we should stop trying to find a cure? There are those with cancer who don't want cancer and would take a cure. There are those with physical aspects of themselves that they would rather not have and have plastic surgery preformed. There are those with mental states that they do not like and want changed. I see no reason why a person who's sexuality is not as they want it should be stigmatized for trying to change it. Neither do I see a reason why the person who tries to help them change it has done anything criminal.

I could go with that.

Then I have no argument with you.

Frankly I do. A "religious" organization per default has no "apropriate therapy". Either there exists a scientifically secured one or not.
Why do you think it seems to be the case that there are ONLY religious based efforts to offer a therapy?

I don't. I'm sure the field of psychology could come up with a way to do it. However, I believe that there is a specific way a human being should attempt to live his/her life and I believe so based on my religious values. My religion also teaches that if one is naturally inclined to a certain action that goes against those religious values, a person can successfully change that natural inclination.

Hence, I believe that a religious organization could come up with an appropriate therapy. We demean the status of the common man's ability to act when we limit our use of the word "valid" to the work done by scientists.

Of course. However, the facts are that such "treatment" does not change sexual preference, and contributes to unhealthy feelings of shame and a fragmented, dishonest life. Better therapy would be to learn acceptance and positive expression of one's true nature.

I actually agree with everything you have said above. Appropriate therapy would be to learn acceptance of and positive expression of one's true nature. The problem with existing therapies is that they are based on condemning one's true nature.

On what do you base this assumption? Is there some therapy that would change your primary orientation?

It is the belief of my religion that a person can change their natural proclivities through discipline and meditation. In other words, I believe a person can successfully change any of their natural desires.

Well, they're mistaken, for starters. In fact they don't change people, which is why they never publish and controlled, double-blind research. The results completely discredit their so-called "therapy."

Who's mistaken?

Then why mention it in a thread about homosexuality?

Because my point was that controlling the emotions of your body (which is what I'm advocating) does not lead to a life of miserable frustration.

 

[Scott C.]

No, it is not this or that. Something can be genetic without being a disorder, just as something does not have to be genetic to be a disorder. Fact is, homosexuality is not harmful and dangerous to the individual that is homosexual, something disorders tend to do. I don´t care if it is different, I don´t care about if it is according to natural selection or not. It is not a disorder if it does not actually do any form of harm against anything.

And no, homosexuality is not a part of some plan, but since it has always existed, I guess natural selection does not care that much about it.

For me, it's impossible to debate if homosexuality is right or wrong with an atheist. My view that homosexual behavior (not attraction) is wrong, is 100% based on what I consider to be the word of God.

So to win you over to my side (which granted is different from winning the debate), I would have to 1) first convince you that there is a God and then 2) convince you that we are accountable to God for our actions and then 3) convince you that homosexuality is one of those actions for which God holds us accountable. That convincing is probably not going to happen, so why have the debate? I don't mean to spoil the fun, but I am at a total loss as to how to get anywhere in such a discussion.

 

[Kerr]

For me, it's impossible to debate if homosexuality is right or wrong with an atheist. My view that homosexual behavior (not attraction) is wrong, is 100% based on what I consider to be the word of God.

So to win such a debate with an atheist, I would have to 1) first convince you that there is a God and then 2) convince you that we are accountable to God for our actions and then 3) convince you that homosexuality is one of those actions for which God holds us accountable. That convincing is probably not going to happen, so why have the debate? I don't mean to spoil the fun, but I am at a total loss as to how to get anywhere in such a debate.

Because some of us likes to debate for the sake of the debate? It is fun !

 

[rojse]

Using the information provided in this speech: Beau Lotto: Optical illusions show how we see | Video on TED.com We can see that people are defined not by the information we recieve through our sense but rather what we do with that information.

Whether or not it's genetic, It's a problem. at a very primal level, A genetic trait that promotes behavior contrary to the reproduction of the species is a genetic flaw or defect. Even so, Genetics do not remove volition from the subject. You always have a choice whether or not to ACT on the said urges. It is the same as people who are born with genetic defects or flaws. For example, there are genetic traits that make people more susceptible to addictive behaviors, submissiveness, dominance, anger, depression or any other myriad of behavior variances from the center of the bell curve. Does that mean we should put rules in place to provide them with extra privileges based on behavioral desires? I do not believe so. You are free to act how you want, but forcing everyone to accept abnormal behaviors (whether based on choice or genetic predisposition) as "normal" I believe to be morally wrong.

1) What are "abnormal behaviours"?
2) Why should there be a difference between urges and acts in this case, if it involves consenting adults?

 

[rojse]

So, to answer the last two questions:

2. They feel they have no other alternative than to submit to their desires?

3: There is no evidence that would change my mind regarding this subject.

But you aren't tackling part one - what is the evidence behind your opinion?

 

[rojse]

Here I will make it simple for you. Seminal fluid comes from boys. Unfertilized eggs come from females. sexual reproduction (whether artificially produced through Insemination or natural means) is the only way to produce children to further the human race.

1. So, what about all those women who can't give birth for some reason or other?
2. Do you see anything wrong with gay people adopting children?

 

[Scott C.]

Because some of us likes to debate for the sake of the debate? It is fun !

Yes, but it can be like one person debating in Russian and the other in Chinese. Both sides can talk their brains out, but there is no understanding.

 

[Kerr]

Yes, but it can be like one person debating in Russian and the other in Chinese. Both sides can talk their brains out, but there is no understanding.

It is still fun . And someone disagreeing with you does not mean that someone does not understand your position.

 

[rojse]

Sterility has no effect on this conversation as it is also a genetic defect. There are no provisions given for sterile people as it is not behavioral.

If someone wishes to make an argument based on the morality of homosexuality based on the fact that homosexual people cannot reproduce, then the fact that there are heterosexual couples that cannot is a pertinent discussion.

 

[darkendless]

Here I will make it simple for you. Seminal fluid comes from boys. Unfertilized eggs come from females. sexual reproduction (whether artificially produced through Insemination or natural means) is the only way to produce children to further the human race.

Trust me we've done more than enough of this "furthering the human race." We're 2.5 billion over capacity so we need a world war or something to stop ourselves running out of food. Some people would say its rediculous, but they'll be the first ones having a whinge when the crisis hits home.

The harsh reality is unless we cut our breeding by about 75% we're up the creek without a paddle. So some homosexuals would not be a bad idea even though they do have children.

Whether or not it's genetic, It's a problem. at a very primal level, A genetic trait that promotes behavior contrary to the reproduction of the species is a genetic flaw or defect. Even so, Genetics do not remove volition from the subject. You always have a choice whether or not to ACT on the said urges. It is the same as people who are born with genetic defects or flaws. For example, there are genetic traits that make people more susceptible to addictive behaviors, submissiveness, dominance, anger, depression or any other myriad of behavior variances from the center of the bell curve. Does that mean we should put rules in place to provide them with extra privileges based on behavioral desires? I do not believe so. You are free to act how you want, but forcing everyone to accept abnormal behaviors (whether based on choice or genetic predisposition) as "normal" I believe to be morally wrong.

This person is a disgrace. Primates have performed homosexual behaviour since primates were primates, and probably before then as well. So to call it abnormal behaviour is just stupid and ignorant.

The most abnormal behaviour i can identify is people who think its up to them to judge other people for what they do. What does it matter what homosexuals do in private? Does the notion that they're touching you make people so sick that they have to fight against it? Are they scared of homosexuality? Are they scared that God cannot save them from their animal urges? So should we, those who support equality, be forced to accept the behaviour of fundies and homophobes because they simply "do not like" the way homosexuals act?

Double standards mate.

 

[Autodidact]

Cultural tradition, dating back into recorded history, happens to be family which consists of a Mother and a Father with children. that is the traditional family model that has allowed the human race to flourish.

No, you're mistaken. There are many cultural family models, with one of the most common being a father and lots of mothers.

There is not a single person on this earth who is or ever was alive who does not have two biological parents consisting of one male and one female. To disregard that, would be to disregard your own birth.

Sure, but you can't get from that biological fact to a prohibition against same-sex marriage. It just doesn't follow.

 

[Autodidact]

No. But lack of a successful therapy doesn't mean that there isn't one.

Well it sure doesn't mean there is.

I have yet to see an objective study of cures for cancer that yielded the result "there is a cure X that does the job".

So let's not inflict therapies that don't work on people with cancer. That doesn't make sense, does it?

Does that mean we should stop trying to find a cure?

Now put on your thinking cap and go to work. Can you think of any distinction between homosexuality and cancer? Does anything at all come to mind?

There are those with cancer who don't want cancer and would take a cure. There are those with physical aspects of themselves that they would rather not have and have plastic surgery preformed. There are those with mental states that they do not like and want changed. I see no reason why a person who's sexuality is not as they want it should be stigmatized for trying to change it.

And who does that?

Neither do I see a reason why the person who tries to help them change it has done anything criminal.

It is if they lie and say it works, when it doesn't.

Then I have no argument with you.



I don't. I'm sure the field of psychology could come up with a way to do it. However, I believe that there is a specific way a human being should attempt to live his/her life and I believe so based on my religious values. My religion also teaches that if one is naturally inclined to a certain action that goes against those religious values, a person can successfully change that natural inclination.

Hence, I believe that a religious organization could come up with an appropriate therapy. We demean the status of the common man's ability to act when we limit our use of the word "valid" to the work done by scientists.

And yet none has done so. Maybe you should re-examine your beliefs, based as they are on air.