Homosexuality

[razovor]

I was wondering if anyone who considers homosexuality a sin, could tell me what is wrong with it.

I'm talking in the sense of utilitarian morals. How does homosexual intercourse, or homosexual marriage, increase the suffering in the world?

[Sonofason]

[Replying to post 145 by Sonofason]

I was merely contesting your claims that anal sex causes AIDS, or that by simply using that sex position, one can contract AIDS -- even if neither partner, gay or straight, already have the infection. I was also correcting your view that anal sex is the only way same sex intercourse can occur. All I did was use scientific terms to inform you on a topic you seem quite uninformed about. However, based on your bizarre reaction, it is as if I had provided you with a porn link.

I don't understand why you choose to disengage now, and as far as I'm concerned the only thing you need be sorry for is for being wrong.

Believe whatever you want about gays and homosexuality... but don't stretch the truth to try and prove that same sex activity is somehow responsible for disease.

There is so much more evil in the world to concern oneself with, so I don't understand why a simple sex position troubles you so. It doesn't seem that important or worth worrying about all things considered. No one is making you try it if you don't want to.

In all honesty, this is as ridiculous as a vegetarian who gets angry at people who eat meat. Yes eating contaminated or raw meat is unsafe, but there are precautions one can take to avoid getting sick. It's certainly not grounds for saying meat is evil.

Oh, I get it. It's like the argument, nobody dies from guns. It's the bullets that do the damage. Or guns don't kill,people do. I get it. Or better yet. Guns don't kill so long as you keep the safety locked. Really, I get it.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 149 by Sonofason]

I'm sorry, I cannot read this comment. I cannot read any more comments on this thread. I'm sorry for leaving my two cents. I cannot stomach this topic. It is a most evil subject to discuss. I'm out.

Obviously this was an untrue statement lol

[Darias]

Oh, I get it. It's like the argument, nobody dies from guns. It's the bullets that do the damage. Or guns don't kill,people do. I get it. Or better yet. Guns don't kill so long as you keep the safety locked. Really, I get it.

That's not quite the best analogy for this situation, but let's roll with it.

Guns are but one of many tools which can be used ethically by people. (for self-defense, sport, hunting etc. Guns don't get up by themselves and murder.)

Sex is one of many social interactions that can be used ethically by people (for reproductive, or non-reproductive purposes).

Just because some people rape, just because some people kill, just because some people have careless sex, and just because some people handle their weapon improperly -- it doesn't mean there's anything inherently bad about the tools or behaviors in question.

If you're not hurting anyone and you're being responsible, then there's no victims and no harm being done. No one's freedom has been violated.

What makes something immoral is if someone instigates aggression or force against another against their will. Obviously self defense does not fall within this definition of the initiation of force.

National decrees and divine dictates are subjective in nature, and cannot be a rational basis for objective morality. Neither can nature. I'm not saying anal sex is good because people of all stripes people enjoy it, I'm saying there's nothing inherently immoral about it.

Unprotected sex is risky, but if you choose to do that, you're only hurting yourself and the other person who consents to the risks. AIDS does not magically appear after butt sex. No amount of unprotected anal sex will result in either partner contracting the disease if neither person involved is infected.

You can't honestly sit here and tell me the goings on of what other people do in their bedrooms keeps you up at night. You can't seriously blame 5% of the global population for a disease that originated in the animal kingdom and which now plagues straight people and children mostly. You can't seriously tell me that anal sex in particular creates this disease, and you can't seriously expect me to believe that 5% of the population is responsible for popularizing a sex position that most humans enjoy.

I'm perfectly okay with your personal disgust over this position. I personally find a number of fetishes and sexual activities revolting, and I have no personal desire to try any of them.

But personal dislike is not a basis for a national policy. I dislike the fundamentalism that informs your worldview, but I'm not out to outlaw your church of choice. You can't say the same because you vote to deny state privileges to others, which are already available to you.

So much for "Do unto others... ."

[Wissing]

[Replying to post 136 by DanieltheDragon]

I think the point of "social constructionist" view is that homosexuality is *not* biological. This is not a genetic trait. (I mean, think about it: you need a sperm and an egg to reproduce... how could this trait have possibly evolved?) Boswell makes the claim, in his postscript, that he has changed his mind on the issue over 5 years' time, and that he really doesn't see any argument for the essentialist perspective.

My point is this: the assumption is out there that there are "gays". There are no gays. There is gay behavior. It is possible that it's still not a choice. But it's not some fundamental part of your identity as a human. This isn't comparable to race.

Which means the underlying assumption in most of your arguments is simply not true. Comparing your opponent to Hitler rests entirely on the assumption that he wants to eradicate *people*, which is simply not the case. He wants to eradicate a *behavior*, which may or may not be a individual's choice, and may or may not be wrong, but is certainly not a core identity. Do you honestly believe that your romantic relationships define you as a person?

He's just angry we don't share his homicidal hitler rage to homosexuality.

Really?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 152 by Wissing]

The general consensus on orientation is a combination of genetic and pre-natal environmental factors. Severe trauma has been shown to also affect orientation.

For the most part, it is biological. Stroke and brain trauma victims have been known to suddenly switch orientation. However, try thinking about orientation as a disposition. Strong dispositions can manifest as a sexual identity. For example I am sexually attracted to athletic women, I would not want to have sex with an obese woman. in fact this disposition is so strong I could never be in a relationship with an obese woman. I am attracted to caucasions, Asians, Indians, Latin, slovik, etc.

I am not attracted to Thais, Africans, and Hawaiians.
or women who have visible facial hair.
If you told me I could only marry or have sex with Obese African women with facial hair, I would be incredibly depressed. Perhaps even suicidal.

Honestly it's a good book to read as far as sociology and history is concerned, but it's not a good book to understand the biology or psychology of sex. I commend your willingness to inform your knowledge on the matter truly my hats off to you.

as far as sonofason the original question I asked him was.

so how does this make you rhetoric different from Hitler or Lennon?

I unfortunately misquoted him to which I apologized, instead of answering my question he responded with this.

I see. Well, even though it appears to me that you do not deserve my forgiveness, I will forgive you anyway. You see, we do not deserve to be forgiven by others when we do them wrong. An apology is not a payment of a debt. It is a request for mercy. We do not deserve God's mercy. But by His grace, we can be saved.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 152 by Wissing]

The general consensus on orientation is a combination of genetic and pre-natal environmental factors. Severe trauma has been shown to also affect orientation.

For the most part, it is biological. Stroke and brain trauma victims have been known to suddenly switch orientation. However, try thinking about orientation as a disposition. Strong dispositions can manifest as a sexual identity. For example I am sexually attracted to athletic women, I would not want to have sex with an obese woman. in fact this disposition is so strong I could never be in a relationship with an obese woman. I am attracted to caucasions, Asians, Indians, Latin, slovik, etc.

I am not attracted to Thais, Africans, and Hawaiians.
or women who have visible facial hair.
If you told me I could only marry or have sex with Obese African women with facial hair, I would be incredibly depressed. Perhaps even suicidal.

Honestly it's a good book to read as far as sociology and history is concerned, but it's not a good book to understand the biology or psychology of sex. I commend your willingness to inform your knowledge on the matter truly my hats off to you.

as far as sonofason the original question I asked him was.

so how does this make you rhetoric different from Hitler or Lennon?

I unfortunately misquoted him to which I apologized, instead of answering my question he responded with this.

I have no cause to retract anything I've said, and I see no advantage of divulging that which I consider a secret.

I have not accepted your first apology, and so you remain in an un-forgiven state

Firstly I didn't ask him to retract anything I said I would retract my statement if he would simply illuminate me on his solution to eradicate/vanquish homosexuality.
and he continues

I see. Well, even though it appears to me that you do not deserve my forgiveness, I will forgive you anyway. You see, we do not deserve to be forgiven by others when we do them wrong. An apology is not a payment of a debt. It is a request for mercy. We do not deserve God's mercy. But by His grace, we can be saved.

at this point I just lost all respect for him which led to your quote of me. I regret if this devalued your opinion of me as you have earned considerable respect from me. I may engage with a heavy hand in dealing with son of a son I tried to force his hand in getting an answer to my question. In the end secrecy was more important than respect from his peers.

for reference

Yes of course. It is my opinion that homosexual behavior should not only be restricted, but vanquished.

But I do believe that homosexuals and the indoctrination of tolerance toward homosexuals may pose a threat to the naive, and to the innocent. I believe these may pose a threat to children

.

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: 'by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.'
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Unless we expel the Jewish people soon, they will have judaized our people within a very short time

Hitler doesn't say kill or genocide in his rhetoric neither does sonofason

so the pertinent question is how does one accomplish these goals.

So I press onto you how would you eradicate homosexuality behavior given supreme power.

[otseng]

[Replying to Darias]

He's just angry we don't share his homicidal hitler rage to homosexuality. Anal is not the only form of homosexual sex he is only considering men not women to boot lol. Thanks for saving my time refuting his closeted rage.

Moderator Comment

Please do not make any comments of a personal nature about another poster.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Wissing]

Ok, fair enough. Let's get off the "Hitler" analogy, shall we?

I think we can move in a new direction with this discussion.

First, Daniel, you mentioned

The general consensus on orientation is a combination of genetic and pre-natal environmental factors.

I'm interested to know what caused you to come to this conclusion. I'm not necessarily asking you to look up a study. Instead, I'd like to know which study, poll, or class it was that taught this to you, so that I may also see that. You and I have obviously drawn different conclusions on the matter, and I'd like to learn from the source of your information, for mine is quite different. For me, this seems like a hotly debated topic, meaning "general consensus" is a tough term to use.

Second, you mentioned

I would not want to have sex with an obese woman. in fact this disposition is so strong I could never be in a relationship with an obese woman

I find myself having the same sort of opinion. However, I also find myself fighting that opinion. There are many obese women who have very strong romantic relationships. Personally, I can't muster any romantic feelings for someone who isn't physically attractive. I wish I could, but I just can't. But I think maybe that's because there's something about relationships I just don't understand. It feels like a cop-out to just say "I'm not oriented towards big girls". Honestly, I think this is why I'm drawn to this topic... not because I am concerned with gay rights, but because the issue of homosexuality draws into question the very nature of relationships in general. The nagging question is, "Is love something you choose, or something your body chooses for you?"

[Darias]

[Replying to post 155 by Wissing]

I normally address everything in a post, but I just wanted to briefly touch on what you said.

It's important not to confuse the philosophical concept of love with natural impulses, infatuation, orientation, lust, attachment etc.

The distinction is as critical as distinguishing a capacity for empathic experience with ethics.

Someone can love another person whether their sex drive is high or low, whether their orientation is gay, straight, bisexual, or asexual -- someone can just as easily behave ethically by acting in a rationally self-interested manner, even if they have a diminished or non-existent capacity for empathy (either due to childhood trauma or genetics (brain tumors, etc.).

Love may involve shared sexual experiences, but typically love is a conscious decision to act ethically and fairly in the interest of upholding a mutually beneficial or rewarding relationship. Love isn't infatuation one may experience upon meeting someone.

And yes, relationships are a choice. Whether or not you believe in free will is irrelevant to the fact that you are making a choice.

Studies have shown the subconscious makes a decision several seconds before your conscious mind becomes aware of the action. However, it's not as though some "other" is the pilot of your life and you're just along for the ride. The subconscious is as much a part of you as your conscious mind is. Yes certain genes may predicate behavior, but childhood upbringings and outside experiences that constantly provide input mean for an enormous ability to change behavior (such as starting healthy habits). These things also inform your subconscious impulses. Repeated behaviors light of the pleasure center of the brain, which explains why you have a favorite song. The brain is a very plastic thing, provided you have the mental capacity to learn and shape your behaviors(provided you have no brain damage or imbalances). Even if free will in the colloquial sense does not exist, it doesn't mean you don't have the capacity for self-control or self-improvement. Your behaviors which are determined by prior behaviors and outside influences or your own genetics all influence unconscious decision making or impulse. Your actions can literally turn on and off certain genes at your disposal. This explains why twins separated at birth can lead entirely different lives.

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]

One reason why if one twin is gay, the other is likely to be also is probably has something to do with hormones during pregnancy. The more children a mother has the greater the chance they might be gay.

It's very possible that the fetus that became me did not produce enough testosterone to make my brain straight later in life, but since how I was first born, I didn't get so much estrogen that my mind would remain the female type (since all fetuses start with a female template). And maybe that be the reason why I am of the bisexual persuasion currently. Or perhaps my tastes expanded through exposure to learning about sex and being curious. However I could just be unsure because I haven't had much experience in the sex department to know for sure what I really like. It's pretty much a given that I like females, but anyways I digress.



-

[keithprosser3]

I found this in the article linked to above

A case of spontaneous same sex preference has, however, been described and studied in detail. It concerns a sheep population in the western part of the United States. A significant fraction of rams in this population (8%) mate exclusively with other males when given a choice between a male or female partner.

So much for homosexuality being an acquired behaviour. Later in the article it describes how these same rams also enjoy arranging other sheeps' woolly coats and placing rocks and colourful vegetation tastefully around the paddock to give it more homely feel.