Is homosexuality inherently harmful?

[Wyn Morrigan]

In another topic ( Is patriarchy inherently wrong? ), mms20102 and I strayed a bit off topic to the question of whether homosexuality is harmful to the participants in itself, and per their suggestion, I have moved that aspect of the discussion to another thread.

Every major medical and psychological research and treatment organization in the world agrees that homosexuality is a real, natural phenomenon, and that there are individuals who are attracted only to individuals of the same sex, though I'm not going to waste my time finding lists of all of them. Psychologists used to consider homosexuality a mental disorder - but they don't anymore.

And to be sure, I am not telling you that science is infallible; scientists make mistakes all the time.
But what I am telling you is that international scientific organizations, and large groups of scientists and researchers? Don't like to change their mind on established science. If they do, it will mean that many of them have wasted years or decades of their lives in irrelevant research.
They only reverse themselves on previous established theory when presented with overwhelming mountains of evidence they cannot ignore.

I'm not saying that science is never wrong; what I AM saying is that if large bodies of scientific researchers pull a complete 180? change their minds completely upon a specific point or theory?
It is possible that they are still wrong. But it is an effective certainty that they were wrong.

They call what you just said Bandwagon Fallacy. Where you are basing your argument on the majority of people accepting it other than focusing on the idea itself.
You disagreed with all the overwhelming studies of past but you are only agreeing with current studies only because it fits your personal preference not because it shows real evidence.
Yes organizations and psychologists had to do this because some idiots used wrong methods to identify homosexuality and wrong methods to treat it (Thanks to the church and pastors) and in return we have some psychologists that made a great work for the favor of making homosexuals understand their probem and engage back in hetrosexual relationships.
and I will mention two books that I don't expect you to read but only for the sake telling you that what you think is not the ultimate truth:
1- Battle for Normality by Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg (about gay relationships)
2- The Heart of Female Same-Sex Attraction Janelle Hallman (about lesbian relationships)

Of course not to mention the health problems and risks happened due to out of marriage and same-sex relationships

now do you know that only the attempt of helping homosexual get rid of his feelings is considered as crime ?
Not only homosexuality was forced to be normal for political reasons but also people who seek treatment are ignored and forcedly pushed to stay homosexual.

I'm not here to discuss homosexuality so if you want to discuss it then open another thread since this thread speaks about patriarchy which you avoid speaking about.

We also strayed to the related question of whether having same-sex parents is harmful to children:

Looking over your response, it appears that you believe that...
Such women <Note - this is referring to women in same-sex marriages who have children> should break apart a happy marriage and traumatize their children in order to take a long shot in the dating lottery that they can find a man who would be a better provider for them and their children?
And you think this would be less harmful to them and/or their children?

As a Muslim yes they should not use sperm of unknown men to have children that they don't know who is their real father and live in house without a father where they are fully prone to psychological disorders due to the lack of a father.

And you can check those sites here to see what are the risks and again those are few out of many

https://oureverydaylife.com/psychologic ... 41414.html
https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/P ... t-A-Father
https://drprem.com/globalhealthcare/fat ... -on-a-girl
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... her-hunger

Now you will argue as long they are two the child won't feel the difference this child has a different opinion
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/six-da ... u1ue5.html

Topics for debate:
1) Are homosexual relationships inherently harmful to the involved partners?
2) Is having parents of the same sex inherently harmful to children?

[Miles]

Topics for debate:
1) Are homosexual relationships inherently harmful to the involved partners?

No.

2) Is having parents of the same sex inherently harmful to children?

No.

.

[mms20102]

[Replying to Wyn Morrigan in post #1]

In any debate, I like to ask for the guidelines we are going to follow to measure what we are debating, to have a well-organized answer to our questions, and to benefit from exchanging information.
The debate is not a battle to win but a method to reach the truth, this is how I see it.

There are some points that I would like to make clear before we engage in this topic. I hope after the agreement of Wyn Morrigan, and also any moderator that may voluntarily intervene in case of preach of any of the forum rules and the suggested guidelines below:
1- Respect for the other is a must.
2- Respecting other beliefs and Ideas is a must.
3- Ridiculing other beliefs or ideas is not allowed.

Suggestion: Moving this conversation to the H2H section will provide a more focused topic, avoid posts going with no end and avoid converting the debate into a regular discussion.


We have to define the following:
Based on which standard we will define homosexuality as harmful or not?
What criterion to use to test whether homosexuality is right or wrong?

The first question will outline our conversation and make it not fully generalized since standards are different due to cultural differences.
The second question will define how we will test homosexuality as right or wrong.
I guess your second question [Is having parents of the same sex inherently harmful to children?] will fit as a criterion to test homosexuality.

[PolytheistWitch]

At this point homosexuality has been around long enough and has been in the open enough that we have pretty much found that homosexual couples are happy. They have healthy relationships and they're able to raise healthy happy children. Their divorce rates seem to be less of not comparable to shape people. They're abuse rates of children and spouses seem to be less than that of straight people. Homosexual couples also adopt and foster at higher rates than straight couples benefiting children.

So other than the social stigma that used to be and can still be attached to homosexuality making the person feel their abnormal no there's nothing wrong inherently with being homosexual.

[mms20102]

At this point homosexuality has been around long enough and has been in the open enough that we have pretty much found that homosexual couples are happy. They have healthy relationships and they're able to raise healthy happy children. Their divorce rates seem to be less of not comparable to shape people. They're abuse rates of children and spouses seem to be less than that of straight people. Homosexual couples also adopt and foster at higher rates than straight couples benefiting children.

So other than the social stigma that used to be and can still be attached to homosexuality making the person feel their abnormal no there's nothing wrong inherently with being homosexual.

What is the standard you used to say about homosexuality Good or Bad?

Sex with minors that include a happy relationship for both parties can be considered good as well as sex with anything if Happiness is the standard then we can include all fetish to be normal behavior and abuse is a different case that we can see later.

They have healthy relationships and they're able to raise healthy happy children.

So far the studies made by Loren Marks which examined the official brief of (APA) that was supported by 59 published studies had conclusion that the studies were not empirically warranted which means it's not a reliable thing.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23017844/

In 2005, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued an official brief on lesbian and gay parenting. This brief included the assertion: "Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents" (p. 15). The present article closely examines this assertion and the 59 published studies cited by the APA to support it. Seven central questions address: (1) homogeneous sampling, (2) absence of comparison groups, (3) comparison group characteristics, (4) contradictory data, (5) the limited scope of children's outcomes studied, (6) paucity of long-term outcome data, and (7) lack of APA-urged statistical power. The conclusion is that strong assertions, including those made by the APA, were not empirically warranted. Recommendations for future research are offered.

Also
The American College of Pediatricians said in there statement.
the Authors are: Michelle Cretella, MD, FCP and Den Trumbull, MD, FCP
Orignally posted in Jan 2004
Revised in March 2013
Updated refrences in May 2019

There is a significant risk of harm inerent in exposing a child to the homosexual lifestyle. Given hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibtiob on same-sex parenting, whethere by adoption, foster care, or reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.

Their divorce rates seem to be less of not comparable to shape people. They're abuse rates of children and spouses seem to be less than that of straight people.

That's not true to generalize since lesbian relationships is different from Trans, Gay and Hetrosexuals. So generalization is not also supported by any study

[Jose Fly]

What is the standard you used to say about homosexuality Good or Bad?

I say it's none of your damn business.

Sex with minors that include a happy relationship for both parties can be considered good as well as sex with anything if Happiness is the standard then we can include all fetish to be normal behavior and abuse is a different case that we can see later.

If you can analogize between pedophilia and being gay, perhaps we should analogize between Christianity and ISIS? They're both religious after all.

The American College of Pediatricians said in there statement.

They are a conservative social activist group, not a medical association.

If you think it's wrong to be queer, then don't be queer. But that doesn't give you the right to prevent others from doing so, just as Orthodox Jews believing it's wrong to eat pork doesn't give them the right to ban the rest of us from eating pork.

If you believe in freedom and liberty, then if you were consistent you'd support queer people's right to live their lives as they please, even if you don't like it. Otherwise, what exactly is it you want? Big government telling people (adults) who they can and can't have relationships with? Locking up people merely for being queer?

[mms20102]

What is the standard you used to say about homosexuality Good or Bad?

I say it's none of your damn business.

Sex with minors that include a happy relationship for both parties can be considered good as well as sex with anything if Happiness is the standard then we can include all fetish to be normal behavior and abuse is a different case that we can see later.

If you can analogize between pedophilia and being gay, perhaps we should analogize between Christianity and ISIS? They're both religious after all.

The American College of Pediatricians said in there statement.

They are a conservative social activist group, not a medical association.

If you think it's wrong to be queer, then don't be queer. But that doesn't give you the right to prevent others from doing so, just as Orthodox Jews believing it's wrong to eat pork doesn't give them the right to ban the rest of us from eating pork.

If you believe in freedom and liberty, then if you were consistent you'd support queer people's right to live their lives as they please, even if you don't like it. Otherwise, what exactly is it you want? Big government telling people (adults) who they can and can't have relationships with? Locking up people merely for being queer?

Sometimes running away from answering questions is the best way to avoid looking bad but until when you will escape from answering.

Sure, we can analogize both as beliefs, but we have the mind to distinguish based on a standard what is good and what is bad that's the difference between me and you.

It absolutely gives me the right if it happens to be wrong because I have the right to protect my kids from you. you have your freedom when you are alone not when you are in public also, we are not discussing here what I like or what I dislike, so far you failed to tell me why being queer is good.

So you say they are bad only because they say something you don't like, I really wonder what being biased means now? you tell people you have no right to say queer is bad but you say you have the right to say queer is good. If you have no evidence to refute them you just make logical fallacy. Now where is the liberty you were calling for? Suddenly gone when it opposes your ideas.

Your freedom stops when the freedom of others is on the line. freedom doesn't mean you can do whatever you please just because you think it's right.
Being queer is just one psychological disorder just like any other psychological disorder and many psychologists presented reason on why a person can turn to be queer and what are the steps to move to normality yet you only think it's normal because you like it not because it's inherently right.

[Miles]

What is the standard you used to say about homosexuality Good or Bad?

I say it's none of your damn business.

Sex with minors that include a happy relationship for both parties can be considered good as well as sex with anything if Happiness is the standard then we can include all fetish to be normal behavior and abuse is a different case that we can see later.

If you can analogize between pedophilia and being gay, perhaps we should analogize between Christianity and ISIS? They're both religious after all.

The American College of Pediatricians said in there statement.

They are a conservative social activist group, not a medical association.

Very interesting. I believe I once confused them with the American Academy of Pediatrics. So as to clear this up here is a brief selection from the Wikipedia article on The American College of Pediatricians.

The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a socially conservative advocacy group of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States.[1] The group was founded in 2002. In 2005, it reportedly had between 150 and 200 members and one employee; in 2016, it reportedly had 500 physician members.[2][3] The group's primary focus is advocating against abortion and the adoption of children by gay or lesbian people. It also advocates conversion therapy.[4][5]

The organization's view on parenting differs from the position of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which holds that sexuality has no connection with the ability to be a good parent and to raise healthy and well-adjusted children.[3][6][7] ACPeds has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for pushing "anti-LGBTQ junk science".[4] A number of mainstream researchers, including the director of the US National Institutes of Health, have accused ACPeds of misusing or mischaracterizing their work to advance ACPeds' political agenda.[8][9]

(My emphases,) and thanks for the heads up.


.

[Jose Fly]

Sure, we can analogize both as beliefs, but we have the mind to distinguish based on a standard what is good and what is bad that's the difference between me and you.

You don't seem to get it. If you think something is "bad", then don't do it. But you have no right to impose that belief on everyone else.

It absolutely gives me the right if it happens to be wrong because I have the right to protect my kids from you.

First, what exactly are you protecting your kids from?

Second, if you want to lock your kids away and raise them in a sheltered way so they are never exposed to anything queer, that's your right. But no one else is obligated to do the same.

you have your freedom when you are alone not when you are in public also

Are you saying gays should be banned from being out in public? What do you want, some sort of morality police like the Taliban?

we are not discussing here what I like or what I dislike, so far you failed to tell me why being queer is good.

I don't care what you think about queer folks, just as I don't care what members of the KKK think about Jewish people.

So you say they are bad only because they say something you don't like, I really wonder what being biased means now? you tell people you have no right to say queer is bad but you say you have the right to say queer is good. If you have no evidence to refute them you just make logical fallacy. Now where is the liberty you were calling for? Suddenly gone when it opposes your ideas.

You're not making the slightest bit of sense. I never said anything like "they are bad because they say something I don't like" or that "people have no right to say queer is bad".

Like I said before, if you think it's wrong to be queer, then don't be queer. Won't bother me one bit.

Your freedom stops when the freedom of others is on the line. freedom doesn't mean you can do whatever you please just because you think it's right.
Being queer is just one psychological disorder just like any other psychological disorder and many psychologists presented reason on why a person can turn to be queer and what are the steps to move to normality yet you only think it's normal because you like it not because it's inherently right.

Bigotry noted.

[otseng]

I say it's none of your damn business.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid use of profanity, even if you consider it mild.

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.