Sexuality and Choice...

[Autodidact]

I
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.

Really? Tell all about your extensive research into those existing therapies.

The only existing "therapy" (aka quackery) that does that is the one you're advocating.

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, you're wrong, and the important point is that there is no reason to.

 

[TheKnight]

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

If a person is willing to subject themselves to such therapy, then what is the problem with it?

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?

Hmm, both are undesirable conditions. Distinction? Well, that would depend on who you ask.

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

They believe that it does.

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

I constantly re-examine my beliefs, and each time I reach the same conclusion that they are correct.

The important point is that there is no reason to.

Not for you anyways.

 

[Kerr]

If a person is willing to subject themselves to such therapy, then what is the problem with it?

It´s irresponsible.

 

[Kerr]

Hmm, both are undesirable conditions. Distinction? Well, that would depend on who you ask.

Must point out that it is not an objective truth that homosexuality is an undesirable condition.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

I didn't choose to be bisexual. I have always had those desires. Acting on the desires may be a choice, but acting on opposite-sex desires is a choice as well. It is no easier to push aside same-sex feelings than it would be to push aside opposite-sex desires. You can't help who strikes you as attractive and desirable.

 

[Autodidact]

If a person is willing to subject themselves to such therapy, then what is the problem with it?

They will be frustrated and waste their time and money.

Hmm, both are undesirable conditions.

Well, I'm homosexual and I find it quite desirable.

Distinction? Well, that would depend on who you ask.

Who do you think I was asking? *hint: the post was directed at you.

They believe that it does.

They're mistaken.

I constantly re-examine my beliefs, and each time I reach the same conclusion that they are correct.

Despite the fact that they don't gibe with reality?

Not for you anyways.

Or for anyone who has successfully integrated their true selves.

 

[madhatter85]

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.

Neither are other genetic disorders.

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.[/quote]

The reason that homosexuality must be a genetic disorder (if it is genetic) is because it is counter-productive to the natural order of a species that reproduces sexually. Anything that inhibits the desire to reproduce sexually would be considered a disorder because it would extinct the species. evolution will never cause genetic code to be changed that would inhibit the reproduction of the species unless it was Natural Selection. Which cannot be the case because homosexuality has existed since near recorded history.

 

[Autodidact]

Neither are other genetic disorders.

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.

The reason that homosexuality must be a genetic disorder (if it is genetic) is because it is counter-productive to the natural order of a species that reproduces sexually. Anything that inhibits the desire to reproduce sexually would be considered a disorder because it would extinct the species. evolution will never cause genetic code to be changed that would inhibit the reproduction of the species unless it was Natural Selection. Which cannot be the case because homosexuality has existed since near recorded history.[/quote]

Since homosexuality exists, and clearly has existed in all times and places, maybe you're mistaken, and it actually is conducive to reproduction and survival. Who are you to tell God how to go about His business? Maybe you should trust that God (or nature, or reality) knows what He's doing better than you, that gay people are part of His plan.

I have a pretty good hypothesis that female homosexuality is conducive to reproduction and survival.

Why do you think most animals also exhibit homosexual behavior? Maybe you need to rethink this--if your religion lets you, that is.

 

[madhatter85]

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.

Actually that is what makes cultures so strong is that the family model is static. It is how humans naturally congregate and live and have survived through recorded history. all other models fail.

 

[madhatter85]

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.

Which is why I am using logical reasoning to disprove the myth that homosexuality is normal and should not be accepted as normal. Morality aside.

 

[madhatter85]

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

I have been tackling #1 with my first post in response to your OP.

 

[madhatter85]

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.

No, because it is not behavioral.

 

[madhatter85]

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?

1: See my previous post
2: it's irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[madhatter85]

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

there is always a difference between urges and acts. And i am not making any provisions saying people cannot behave a certain way.

I am merely stating that in light of the evidence that homosexuality is a behavior abnormality, there should be no special treatments or provisions made to force people to accept it as normal, or to grant them extra privileges based on how they desire to behave.

 

[madhatter85]

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.

There are no current available models that show that we are "over capacity." I speak regularly with a researcher out here in Washington who has a PhD in Ecology. we have spoken regarding this very subject and there has been research, but not nearly enough data to come to that particular conclusion.

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.

You should seriously look at the real data. fertility rates have been declining and by 2050 fertility will be down to less than 1.5 children per female. Meaning the human race will already have been in steady decline for this last generation.

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.

It is abnormal behavior, If genetics are to blame for the behavior it is impossible for it to be natural. Genetics do not cause behavior that is self-destructive unless it is part of natural selection, in which case a much greater number of the human race would be homosexual.

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.

You seem to think i am attacking them, when in fact i am not. I have never told them they can't behave the way they want. But rather that we are not required to provide special privileges for them based on behavioral traits. the privileges in place for married couples are based around the principle that families primarily produce offspring and is thus an investment in the future of a nation. since homosexual couples cannot produce offspring together without scientific intervention or surrogates, it would be silly to provide them with the same privileges.

 

[darkendless]

There are no current available models that show that we are "over capacity." I speak regularly with a researcher out here in Washington who has a PhD in Ecology. we have spoken regarding this very subject and there has been research, but not nearly enough data to come to that particular conclusion.

You should seriously look at the real data. fertility rates have been declining and by 2050 fertility will be down to less than 1.5 children per female. Meaning the human race will already have been in steady decline for this last generation.

Crop rotation problems, mega-urban cities draining fertile land, political instability ruining agricultural trade *cough* Zimbabwe.... no, there is no evidence avaliable.

It is abnormal behavior, If genetics are to blame for the behavior it is impossible for it to be natural. Genetics do not cause behavior that is self-destructive unless it is part of natural selection, in which case a much greater number of the human race would be homosexual.

Its not abnormal. It is perfectly normal, it is just less common than heterosexual behaviour. Important distinction there.

You seem to think i am attacking them, when in fact i am not. I have never told them they can't behave the way they want. But rather that we are not required to provide special privileges for them based on behavioral traits. the privileges in place for married couples are based around the principle that families primarily produce offspring and is thus an investment in the future of a nation. since homosexual couples cannot produce offspring together without scientific intervention or surrogates, it would be silly to provide them with the same privileges.

You sure as hell aren't supporting them.

They are people, they contribute equally to society and all they're asking for is EQUAL rights, nothing special. They just want to be treated normally, is that so much to ask?

Its not like we're going to celebrate homosexuality, just blend it into society instead of casting them out and denying them basic civil rights. The privelleges they're asking for are not unique.

 

[Sunstone]

Of course, sexual orientation is a matter of choice. I myself decide daily to be heterosexual. Usually around 10 in the morning.

 

[madhatter85]

Crop rotation problems, mega-urban cities draining fertile land, political instability ruining agricultural trade *cough* Zimbabwe.... no, there is no evidence avaliable.

political instability has nothing to do with natural selection, genetics, or ecology. and since this portion is off topic i will direct you to this video from a TED conference
Hans Rosling's new insights on poverty | Video on TED.com it's wonderful and provides insight to poverty, fertility rates, GDP and health care over the last 200 years. It is quite astonishing.

Its not abnormal. It is perfectly normal, it is just less common than heterosexual behaviour. Important distinction there.

Less common, when the claim is made that it is genetic, denotes abnormality. If it was "normal" per se, it yould be more widespread than it is, Roughly half of the human race would be homosexual and they are not.

You sure as hell aren't supporting them.

They are people, they contribute equally to society and all they're asking for is EQUAL rights, nothing special. They just want to be treated normally, is that so much to ask?

Its not like we're going to celebrate homosexuality, just blend it into society instead of casting them out and denying them basic civil rights. The privelleges they're asking for are not unique.

Why should i support their desire to behave in a way that is counter-productive to societal increase and prosperity?

 

[madhatter85]

Of course, sexual orientation is a matter of choice. I myself decide daily to be heterosexual. Usually around 10 in the morning.

haha frubals

 

[darkendless]

political instability has nothing to do with natural selection, genetics, or ecology.

But it does help, to a degree, regulate population growth which is becomming dangerous t our survival prospects.

Less common, when the claim is made that it is genetic, denotes abnormality. If it was "normal" per se, it yould be more widespread than it is, Roughly half of the human race would be homosexual and they are not.

And you base this on what? Red hair is normal and genetic, but does half the human race have red hair? No.

Why should i support their desire to behave in a way that is counter-productive to societal increase and prosperity?

Counter-productive in what way? Because of what they do in private. Trust me there is a million more reasons to get rid of LDS for things they do publicly. Im curious why you think their prosperity would be counter-productive.

The problem with religious angles on homosexuality. Past their bible, there really is no decent arguement for them other than they simply do not like homosexuality.