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?

[JoeyKnothead]

1) Are homosexual relationships inherently harmful to the involved partners?

2) Is having parents of the same sex inherently harmful to children?
[/b]

Given the negativity surrounding their mere existence, it's kinda hard to really nail down what all problems, and to what extent, such folks face.

The Spruce did an excellent analysis of organizations that work with folks who are adamantly opposed to homosexuality. Their article can be found here.

[mms20102]

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.

I think someone don't know what is the meaning of debating so I will ignore big parts only because it's related to the debate.

I'm protecting my kids from being affected by a psychologically disordered people

How you generalize that other people don't want the same? also why you think queer is right up to this point I can't find your argument.

Yes homosexuals are supposed to hide their sexual preference as part of protecting children from early exposure to sexual acts.

We are not debating what I think or what you think I hope you focus on the debate and leave what I think.

Bigotry noted

This is how you make sense ? ...... ok

[JoeyKnothead]

I think someone don't know what is the meaning of debating so I will ignore big parts only because it's related to the debate.

I'm protecting my kids from being affected by a psychologically disordered people.

Yet you'd allow em to hang with folks who think a magic being roams the skies?

Yes homosexuals are supposed to hide their sexual preference as part of protecting children from early exposure to sexual acts.

It's quite telling that homosexuality has you so focused on the sexual aspect.

If ya cut em, do they not bleed?

[Bust Nak]

Yes homosexuals are supposed to hide their sexual preference as part of protecting children from early exposure to sexual acts.

Does holding hands, holding each other, or kissing count as sexual acts? I doubt you expect heterosexuals people to refrain from these things, so why should other people hid their sexual preference?

[Jose Fly]

I'm protecting my kids from being affected by a psychologically disordered people

How you generalize that other people don't want the same? also why you think queer is right up to this point I can't find your argument.

Yes homosexuals are supposed to hide their sexual preference as part of protecting children from early exposure to sexual acts.

We are not debating what I think or what you think I hope you focus on the debate and leave what I think.

Standard, run of the mill bigotry and hate. You should be ashamed.

[JoeyKnothead]

Yes homosexuals are supposed to hide their sexual preference as part of protecting children from early exposure to sexual acts.

Does holding hands, holding each other, or kissing count as sexual acts? I doubt you expect heterosexuals people to refrain from these things, so why should other people hide their sexual preference?

In the interest of full disclosure, I think Bill Burr said it best for me (language and content warning)...


There's no hatred. May the gods bless em all.

[Purple Knight]

Yes homosexuals are supposed to hide their sexual preference as part of protecting children from early exposure to sexual acts.

Does holding hands, holding each other, or kissing count as sexual acts? I doubt you expect heterosexuals people to refrain from these things, so why should other people hid their sexual preference?

Italians don't refrain from kissing one another when they aren't gay, so I don't see how you can claim kissing is a sexual act children need to be protected from.

The consistent position would be that full open-mouth Frenching is sexual, and I have seen people not wanting heterosexuals doing that around their children. Or outside of a hotel. "Get a room."

My position is that kids only think it's gross because we give them that conditioning and we don't need to do that. A lot of exposure to everything might make lesbians but for most men, sexual orientation is just going to be what it's going to be. I watched one documentary that featured a man learning he was gay without ever having had the exposure. The magazines with pictures of women weren't affecting him the same as the other men of his age.

[mms20102]

I think someone don't know what is the meaning of debating so I will ignore big parts only because it's related to the debate.

I'm protecting my kids from being affected by a psychologically disordered people.

Yet you'd allow em to hang with folks who think a magic being roams the skies?

Yes homosexuals are supposed to hide their sexual preference as part of protecting children from early exposure to sexual acts.

It's quite telling that homosexuality has you so focused on the sexual aspect.

If ya cut em, do they not bleed?

What the magic being has to do with the topic we have here ?.

the only difference between homosexuals and normal people is the sexual aspect.

Again where is the argument, or are we having an analysis session about what I think?

[mms20102]

Yes homosexuals are supposed to hide their sexual preference as part of protecting children from early exposure to sexual acts.

Does holding hands, holding each other, or kissing count as sexual acts? I doubt you expect heterosexuals people to refrain from these things, so why should other people hid their sexual preference?

Well in many countries men and women each hug, kiss and hold hands, as part of greeting each other and it's considered as sexual acts because it's normal method of communication but for homosexuals kissing on the lips or sexual depiction of the acts is the problem so if this is changed as normal thing then yes it envolves sexual act.

No I expect heterosexual people to also refrain from these things if it includes mixed gender acts and my answer to your question is just said in your quote.

[mms20102]

Yes homosexuals are supposed to hide their sexual preference as part of protecting children from early exposure to sexual acts.

Does holding hands, holding each other, or kissing count as sexual acts? I doubt you expect heterosexuals people to refrain from these things, so why should other people hid their sexual preference?

Italians don't refrain from kissing one another when they aren't gay, so I don't see how you can claim kissing is a sexual act children need to be protected from.

The consistent position would be that full open-mouth Frenching is sexual, and I have seen people not wanting heterosexuals doing that around their children. Or outside of a hotel. "Get a room."

My position is that kids only think it's gross because we give them that conditioning and we don't need to do that. A lot of exposure to everything might make lesbians but for most men, sexual orientation is just going to be what it's going to be. I watched one documentary that featured a man learning he was gay without ever having had the exposure. The magazines with pictures of women weren't affecting him the same as the other men of his age.

What many people don't know is why people are becoming gay. And the answer is very simple huge part is psychological (wanting to belong to masculine world or wanting to revenge from the masculine world)
In fact each one of them has it's own problem and usually gays having those relationships end up disgusted what they have done in the relationship but its compulsory repetition is what makes them repeat again the loop.
In women it's totally different story but still it's a psychological problem.