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]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #28]

You said the ( vast majority said ) ....
Ok free lesson about logical debates

First you didn't present an evidence to support the statement

Second it's a logical fallacy to say it's right because the vast majority said ( Argumentum ad populum ).

I simply noted that the vast majority of professionals in pertinent field/s of psychological study disagree with calling homosexuals "psychologically disordered people", as you've chosen to do.

Please note, my referencing the opinion of recognized and licensed experts in this matter is to point out that your opinion is just one among many.

So now the observer has more data with which to inform their own opinions in this regard.

Third you are attacking my ideas instead of focusing on the topic which is another fallacy called ( Ad hominem )

If you feel my comments are a violation of site rules, please report the offending post, and don't just accuse me of being in violation.

If you're offended with having your ideas put to the harsh glare of debate, maybe coloring books could help relieve that stress.

Fourth I didn't ask you about what you do or have and the topic is not about it so why you need to tell us about it ?! that's actually another fallacy called ( Red herring )

Please let me know which specific comment of mine you're fussing about here.

Fifth we are here to debate the ideas and the topics said in the OP (logically) not debate our own ideas simply because our ideas don't present any weight in debating

"We're here to debate ideas, but it upsets me to know you'd debate my ideas" is as goofy a notion as I've ever known.

You're idea that homosexuals suffer em from being "psychologically disordered people" is the most offensive idea anyone in this thread is yet to present. I aim to challenge, debate, and attack that idea, and don't care how offended you get for my doing so.

You might find this resource helpful.

[boatsnguitars]

So, has anyone made the case that homosexuality is inherently harmful? I haven't seen it.

I can't understand how a mutual, loving, consensual relationship is made dangerous just because they may have the same gender.

In fact, homosexuality is inherently less dangerous, since it doesn't lead to childbirth (A woman dies from childbirth related causes every 2 minutes).
Not to mention, if you are Pro-Life, abortions are performed predominately by heterosexuals, which accounts for about 73 million dead babies each year.

Homosexuality is far less dangerous.

[Purple Knight]

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.

Are there other things you require of society, so you can live your life as you wish, regardless of their wishes? Is there anything else we can do for you?

I want people to refrain from murdering me, and I also want them to refrain from slandering me to my workplace if they're just making it up. Most people will agree with these despite them fitting the same category of restraining freedom. The only difference is, more people agree.

Do you not want fat people to go to the beach? Do you want ugly people to wear a mask? Will you allow mixed-race couples to eat in restaurants?

I know people who genuinely believe beaches should be for thin people. It's not qualitatively different as a moral directive than don't be naked in public, because it's for the same reason: If you do not follow said directive, you're bothering people and nothing more. And the former is not discriminatory either, since no one is forbidden from the beach; they're just required to work on their bodies to access it.

There's no one alive who can pretend that they don't want some actions restrained for the mere reason that they are bothered by those actions. Even Libertarians want no livestock in cities because they are bothered by the smell and noise. But the noise from dogs? Well, don't be bothered by that, Statist. Stop trampling my rights. (And it's because they want to have a dog, and they also want to use the power of more agreement to gang up on the guy who wants a goat.)

[JoeyKnothead]

So, has anyone made the case that homosexuality is inherently harmful? I haven't seen it.

The literature is strewn with evidence of a medical condition known as, "it's icky". If we're to stamp out this horrible condition, we must recognize that homosexuality needlessly and negatively impacts those who suffer the comorbid condition of "busybodiness".

I can't understand how a mutual, loving, consensual relationship is made dangerous just because they may have the same gender.

Homosexuals who are in loving, commited relationships means that my own relationship is less loving and committed.

In fact, homosexuality is inherently less dangerous, since it doesn't lead to childbirth (A woman dies from childbirth related causes every 2 minutes).
Not to mention, if you are Pro-Life, abortions are performed predominately by heterosexuals, which accounts for about 73 million dead babies each year.

Abortions are only acceptable when it comes to them abortions that benefit me.

Homosexuality is far less dangerous.

And far more icky.

Don't you see? If I ain't got me nobody to hate, folks'll set to thinking I just hate myself.

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

Are there other things you require of society, so you can live your life as you wish, regardless of their wishes? Is there anything else we can do for you?

I want people to refrain from murdering me, and I also want them to refrain from slandering me to my workplace if they're just making it up. Most people will agree with these despite them fitting the same category of restraining freedom. The only difference is, more people agree.

Do you not want fat people to go to the beach? Do you want ugly people to wear a mask? Will you allow mixed-race couples to eat in restaurants?

I know people who genuinely believe beaches should be for thin people. It's not qualitatively different as a moral directive than don't be naked in public, because it's for the same reason: If you do not follow said directive, you're bothering people and nothing more. And the former is not discriminatory either, since no one is forbidden from the beach; they're just required to work on their bodies to access it.

There's no one alive who can pretend that they don't want some actions restrained for the mere reason that they are bothered by those actions. Even Libertarians want no livestock in cities because they are bothered by the smell and noise. But the noise from dogs? Well, don't be bothered by that, Statist. Stop trampling my rights. (And it's because they want to have a dog, and they also want to use the power of more agreement to gang up on the guy who wants a goat.)

It's easy (if lazy) to think you're just some fence sitting, middle of the roader.

I strongly caution folks against that errant conclusion. Your arguments so often hold a mirror up to everyone - good and bad, right and wrong, everyone should see themselves in your responses.

[Purple Knight]

It's easy (if lazy) to think you're just some fence sitting, middle of the roader.

I strongly caution folks against that errant conclusion. Your arguments so often hold a mirror up to everyone - good and bad, right and wrong, everyone should see themselves in your responses.

I'm actually pretty extreme on some issues. I stand for Critical Race Theory, for example.

But what's true is that I wish I believed in more things than I do.

The PC people all hate me because I will always see the reason they're trying to apply some universal mandate to someone, yet they are in violation of it themselves. And this isn't against a specific poster but this thread is an example, with some people not wanting to see gay acts in public and I'm supposed to say omg so intolerant and leave it at that, but I can't because the reasoning behind that castigation is that it is wrong to trample freedom because you are merely bothered, and yet everyone tramples freedom because they are merely bothered, and when more people agree they just gloss it over that that's exactly what they're doing.

I dare you to test this with Libertarians. I dare you. Think up ten examples where something would bother them personally and they'll probably denounce eight of them as somehow actually being rights violations. And they'll have some convoluted reasoning, usually involving unsubstantiated claims of risk. For example, they'll say things like, livestock carries diseases, and that is an overreach of risk and a rights violation, but a dog's chance of carrying and transmitting a disease is low enough that it is not an overreach.

[JoeyKnothead]

It's easy (if lazy) to think you're just some fence sitting, middle of the roader.

I strongly caution folks against that errant conclusion. Your arguments so often hold a mirror up to everyone - good and bad, right and wrong, everyone should see themselves in your responses.

I'm actually pretty extreme on some issues. I stand for Critical Race Theory, for example.

But what's true is that I wish I believed in more things than I do.

The PC people all hate me because I will always see the reason they're trying to apply some universal mandate to someone, yet they are in violation of it themselves. And this isn't against a specific poster but this thread is an example, with some people not wanting to see gay acts in public and I'm supposed to say omg so intolerant and leave it at that, but I can't because the reasoning behind that castigation is that it is wrong to trample freedom because you are merely bothered, and yet everyone tramples freedom because they are merely bothered, and when more people agree they just gloss it over that that's exactly what they're doing.

I dare you to test this with Libertarians. I dare you. Think up ten examples where something would bother them personally and they'll probably denounce eight of them as somehow actually being rights violations. And they'll have some convoluted reasoning, usually involving unsubstantiated claims of risk. For example, they'll say things like, livestock carries diseases, and that is an overreach of risk and a rights violation, but a dog's chance of carrying and transmitting a disease is low enough that it is not an overreach.

Very much.

In life and law, the toe stepping on can't be avoided. We just need to try to step on the least amount of toes, it is we can.

[boatsnguitars]

It's easy (if lazy) to think you're just some fence sitting, middle of the roader.

I strongly caution folks against that errant conclusion. Your arguments so often hold a mirror up to everyone - good and bad, right and wrong, everyone should see themselves in your responses.

I'm actually pretty extreme on some issues. I stand for Critical Race Theory, for example.

But what's true is that I wish I believed in more things than I do.

The PC people all hate me because I will always see the reason they're trying to apply some universal mandate to someone, yet they are in violation of it themselves. And this isn't against a specific poster but this thread is an example, with some people not wanting to see gay acts in public and I'm supposed to say omg so intolerant and leave it at that, but I can't because the reasoning behind that castigation is that it is wrong to trample freedom because you are merely bothered, and yet everyone tramples freedom because they are merely bothered, and when more people agree they just gloss it over that that's exactly what they're doing.

I dare you to test this with Libertarians. I dare you. Think up ten examples where something would bother them personally and they'll probably denounce eight of them as somehow actually being rights violations. And they'll have some convoluted reasoning, usually involving unsubstantiated claims of risk. For example, they'll say things like, livestock carries diseases, and that is an overreach of risk and a rights violation, but a dog's chance of carrying and transmitting a disease is low enough that it is not an overreach.

Very much.

In life and law, the toe stepping on can't be avoided. We just need to try to step on the least amount of toes, it is we can.

Or, really smash the toes that are clearly wrong and get them off the dance floor so we have more room to dance and not step on the other toes... OK, perhaps I went too far...

[Purple Knight]

Or, really smash the toes that are clearly wrong and get them off the dance floor so we have more room to dance and not step on the other toes... OK, perhaps I went too far...

You didn't go too far at all. In fact, you captured the essence of what it is to be moral.

To hurt people who hurt people because hurting people is bad.

[JoeyKnothead]

Or, really smash the toes that are clearly wrong and get them off the dance floor so we have more room to dance and not step on the other toes... OK, perhaps I went too far...

You didn't go too far at all. In fact, you captured the essence of what it is to be moral.

To hurt people who hurt people because hurting people is bad.

The only acceptable hurting is the hurting of those who hurt others.

That kinda thing.

I like it because it exposes us to the same retribution we might seek to impose on others.

Morals're hard.