Sexuality and Choice...

[rojse]

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.

With the bible, there really is no decent arguement for them other than they simply do not like homosexuality.

 

[TheKnight]

It´s irresponsible.

And? People subject themselves to irresponsible things every single day.

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

I know that it isn't. In fact, I believe I said that it should be up to the individual to decide whether or not it is undesirable. If a person is a homosexual, and they don't want to be, then it's undesirable. Obviously, this means that a homosexual who wants to be doesn't find it undesirable.

They will be frustrated and waste their time and money.

And? People waste their money in frustration everyday in Las Vegas.

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

Congratulations! However, not every homosexual does.

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

In my opinion there isn't much difference.

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

How one views reality is a conglomeration of one's past experiences. Maybe in the world you live in, my religious values don't "give with reality." However, if my beliefs did not "gibe" with the reality that I live on a constant basis, then I never would have believed in them in the first place.

Or for anyone who has successfully integrated their true selves.

Successfully, integrated, true selves. All words that have subjective meaning.

 

[rojse]

I know that it isn't. In fact, I believe I said that it should be up to the individual to decide whether or not it is undesirable. If a person is a homosexual, and they don't want to be, then it's undesirable. Obviously, this means that a homosexual who wants to be doesn't find it undesirable.

I wonder how much of this "homosexuals finding homosexuality undesirable" occurs because of the discrimination and ostracization that occurs to homosexuals?

 

[TheKnight]

I wonder how much of this "homosexuals finding homosexuality undesirable" occurs because of the discrimination and ostracization that occurs to homosexuals?

I wouldn't know. But I personally know of four people who do not want to be homosexual because of the fact that they want to be religiously devoted and their homosexual desires conflict with that.

There are even more that I don't know personally but have talked to concerning the matter. It's quite a problem in the religious community considering the fact that homosexuality is relatively common.

The problem is that these people can't go to non-religious people because they will try to convince them that their religion is unnecessary, and they don't see it that way (Obviously not all non-religious people will do this, but they aren't very helpful when it comes to the problem).

At the same time, they can't go to religious people because very very very few of us religious people are willing to listen to a homosexual who is religious without condemning them. I have a friend who almost committed suicide because he had no one to turn to and I swear that I could have murdered the people who ran his church.

All in all, at least from my perspective, I think that if a person truly desires to be religious, then they should be aided to do so. Sometimes, all it takes for them to feel better is to know that someone gives a dam about their struggle. It seems like they face opposition from both sides. The non-religious don't like that they're religious and the religious don't like that they're gay. It really is a tragedy, especially because of the religious reaction. The religious are supposed to be the ones that are "more moral". If only they lived that way.

 

[blackout]

I wouldn't know. But I personally know of four people who do not want to be homosexual because of the fact that they want to be religiously devoted and their homosexual desires conflict with that.

There are even more that I don't know personally but have talked to concerning the matter. It's quite a problem in the religious community considering the fact that homosexuality is relatively common.

The problem is that these people can't go to non-religious people because they will try to convince them that their religion is unnecessary, and they don't see it that way (Obviously not all non-religious people will do this, but they aren't very helpful when it comes to the problem).

At the same time, they can't go to religious people because very very very few of us religious people are willing to listen to a homosexual who is religious without condemning them. I have a friend who almost committed suicide because he had no one to turn to and I swear that I could have murdered the people who ran his church.

All in all, at least from my perspective, I think that if a person truly desires to be religious, then they should be aided to do so. Sometimes, all it takes for them to feel better is to know that someone gives a dam about their struggle. It seems like they face opposition from both sides. The non-religious don't like that they're religious and the religious don't like that they're gay. It really is a tragedy, especially because of the religious reaction. The religious are supposed to be the ones that are "more moral". If only they lived that way.

You think yours is the only religion?

There are PLENTY of religions/churches etc... that welcome homosexuals.

It is so damaging to the Self to be around people
who castigate you for being you.
Is this love?
Who needs a religion like that?
Who needs an enviornment like that?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Don't read much anthropology, do you?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

In your mind.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Missed that "evidence" part. All I got was your preconceived notion.

 

[Autodidact]

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.


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.

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.

What special privilege are gay people asking for that you do not enjoy?

Did you all notice that "without scientific intervention or surrogates?" So I guess no one who cannot produce children "without scientific intervention or surrogates" should not be entitled those special privileges?

Not to mention the many married couples who do not choose to have children.

Apparently madhatter is not familiar with adoption, either.

Don't you all think madhatter's typical Mormon obsession with reproduction is both weird and primitive?

 

[Autodidact]

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.


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 thus we see how hollow madhatter's claim to have supported his assertion with evidence. He seems to believe that merely showing something to be in the minority is the same as showing it is abnormal.

All those poor abnormal left-handed, red-haired and brilliant people. Clearly, they should not be allowed to enjoy special privileges that normal people get.

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

Because it isn't. Not having 18 children does not equal counter-productive to societal increase.

Why should I support your unnatural, abnormal and societally counter-productive desire to have an abnormally large family? (hint: words like "freedom" "equality" and "rights" may feature in your answer to this question.)

 

[Autodidact]

In my opinion there isn't much difference.

[between homosexuality and cancer.]

Need I say more? Not only does The Knight advocate genocide and infanticide, but he cannot make any distinction between loving someone of the same sex and suffering from a painful, terminal disease.

In my opinion there isn't much difference between thinking as you do and being completely retarded. Thank you for making that clear.

 

[Autodidact]

I wouldn't know. But I personally know of four people who do not want to be homosexual because of the fact that they want to be religiously devoted and their homosexual desires conflict with that.

That's O.K., we have a treatment for their religious desires. And unlike your so-called treatment, it works.

There are even more that I don't know personally but have talked to concerning the matter. It's quite a problem in the religious community considering the fact that homosexuality is relatively common.

The religious community needs to change.

The problem is that these people can't go to non-religious people because they will try to convince them that their religion is unnecessary, and they don't see it that way (Obviously not all non-religious people will do this, but they aren't very helpful when it comes to the problem).

Not only unnecessary, but also clearly counter-productive. Because the actual problem is that this so-called therapy doesn't work. So you're encouraging them not only to waste their time and money, but to suffer inevitable failure and self-hatred. The solution is proper therapy, to learn to live an integrated, honest, and fulfilling life with true reciprocated love.

At the same time, they can't go to religious people because very very very few of us religious people are willing to listen to a homosexual who is religious without condemning them. I have a friend who almost committed suicide because he had no one to turn to and I swear that I could have murdered the people who ran his church.

Think, think, think. What should you religious people do?

All in all, at least from my perspective, I think that if a person truly desires to be religious, then they should be aided to do so.

No, they should go to therapy to overcome these desires.

Sometimes, all it takes for them to feel better is to know that someone gives a dam about their struggle. It seems like they face opposition from both sides. The non-religious don't like that they're religious and the religious don't like that they're gay. It really is a tragedy, especially because of the religious reaction. The religious are supposed to be the ones that are "more moral". If only they lived that way.

Here's a better idea: why don't they join one of the thousands of churches and synagogues and accept and welcome gay and lesbian people just as they are!

 

[TheKnight]

You think yours is the only religion?

There are PLENTY of religions/churches etc... that welcome homosexuals.

It is so damaging to the Self to be around people
who castigate you for being you.
Is this love?
Who needs a religion like that?
Who needs an enviornment like that?

That's your opinion. However, there are people who actually believe that the Bible is true and should be lived by and are also homosexual. It's these people that I'm talking about. Going to a church that "accepts" open homosexual activity as "OK" is a church that isn't Biblical and therefore it would be a compromise on the part of the religious homosexual.

 

[madhatter85]

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

But having red hair does not inhibit ones desire or compulsion to reproduce with members of the opposite sex.

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.

I never mentioned what they do in private, I am talking Genetics and why there is no reason we should support providing special provisions to people based on behavioral abnormalities.

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.

Please point to a single post in this thread i have made in regards to a religious stance. I have made none and I have maid no claims towards morality or religious ideals.

 

[darkendless]

But having red hair does not inhibit ones desire or compulsion to reproduce with members of the opposite sex.

Since when have homosexual couples decided that they don't want children? Most have kids. Thats a non-issue

I never mentioned what they do in private, I am talking Genetics and why there is no reason we should support providing special provisions to people based on behavioral abnormalities.

What makes you think its right to separate these people from the rest of society?
- they reproduce
- they are as competent as normal parents
- one of them created what you are using to read what i am saying

Once again though, what is special about the provisions they ask for? As far as i am aware they just want to be treated equally, did i miss something about their plans for world domination or something?

Please point to a single post in this thread i have made in regards to a religious stance. I have made none and I have maid no claims towards morality or religious ideals.

You havn't, but on this forum its a common trait for members of Abrahamic religions. It was a general statement not directed solely at you.

 

[madhatter85]

Since when have homosexual couples decided that they don't want children? Most have kids. Thats a non-issue

homosexual couples cannot reproduce together, they have to use other means such as a surrogate or artificial insemination or Adopt. Either way. The children are provided via a sperm and egg, sexual reproduction is the only possible way to reproduce.

What makes you think its right to separate these people from the rest of society?
- they reproduce
- they are as competent as normal parents
- one of them created what you are using to read what i am saying

they cannot reproduce as a couple, it requires scientific intervention (or infidelity).

Once again though, what is special about the provisions they ask for? As far as i am aware they just want to be treated equally, did i miss something about their plans for world domination or something?

They are already treated equally. They can marry any member of the opposite sex whom they chose and raise a family and have all the benefits of marriage. IF you chose otherwise you should get no such benefits.
And before you say anything, This cannot compare to sterility in heterosexual couple because that is not behavioral.

You havn't, but on this forum its a common trait for members of Abrahamic religions. It was a general statement not directed solely at you.

Thank you for noticing my arguments are based in scientific data and established social traditions.

 

[Commoner]

But having red hair does not inhibit ones desire or compulsion to reproduce with members of the opposite sex.

Though it might severly hurt your chances of doing so.

 

[Commoner]

They are already treated equally. They can marry any member of the opposite sex whom they chose and raise a family and have all the benefits of marriage. IF you chose otherwise you should get no such benefits.
And before you say anything, This cannot compare to sterility in heterosexual couple because that is not behavioral.

You're not going to believe this, but not all heterosexual couples want to have kids. Should we not allow them to marry?

 

[darkendless]

Though it might severly hurt your chances of doing so.

You're lucky this is the internet and i can't backhand you right now , my lady has red hair.... she's a fiery one

 

[Commoner]

You're lucky this is the internet and i can't backhand you right now , my lady has red hair.... she's a fiery one

Well, it only applies to guys anyway, doh!