Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[palerider]

Well Black labs have a pathetic lifespan. Every person I know who has one older than about 8 has a deaf/blind one (and fairly often a tumour)

The average life span for black labs on average is 10 to 12 years and as a breed, they are prone to eye problems. Inbreeding isn't the source of the problem. And the argument wasn't made that inbreeding is necessarily good, the argument was made that all inbreeding isn't bad necessarily bad.

[dahermit]

I am going to jump in here because this thread has gotten off track.
To the question: "Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic", I am going to speak from my own experience.
From my own experience, I am not attracted sexually to other males. I find their bodies to have no sexual attraction for me whatsoever. It occurs to me that homosexuality for me cannot be a choice...to be a choice, I would have to be sexually aroused by both male and female and choose the male.
According to the psychology, normal and abnormal, psychiatry that I studied eight hours and day for two months, and the on the job training I received for two months in a mental hospital, there is a name for persons who are attracted to the same sex but do not act upon that desire: Latent Homosexuals. Now if you Conservatives wish to go on saying that homosexuality is a choice, considering what it reveals about you, go right ahead.

[jb_1430]

According to the psychology, normal and abnormal, psychiatry that I studied eight hours and day for two months, and the on the job training I received for two months in a mental hospital, there is a name for persons who are attracted to the same sex but do not act upon that desire: Latent Homosexuals.

Aaaaand do you also think it is some genetic characteristic that prevents them from acting upon that desire??? Or did they simply make a choice?

[vyo476]

Aaaaand do you also think it is some genetic characteristic that prevents them from acting upon that desire??? Or did they simply make a choice?

They do make a choice not to act on it. Mostly its out of fear of the social stigma that still surrounds homosexuality.

Don't confuse homosexuality with homosexual behavior. We choose how to behave. We don't choose how to prefer to behave.

[Coyote]

Aaaaand do you also think it is some genetic characteristic that prevents them from acting upon that desire??? Or did they simply make a choice?


Would you choose celibacy?

[top gun]

Your continued obsession with homosexuality is typical of the average conservative Republican...

One of the things I found most humerus is the statements about anal sex being so deadly homosexual or "heterosexual".

If that's true nobody told the Greeks. Greeks must be dropping like flies. Probably not a Greek in the world over the age of 50.

Because for about "forever" Greeks have used anal sex as a form of birth control. Hence the saying... Doin' it Greek style. :)

[palerider]

One of the things I found most humerus is the statements about anal sex being so deadly homosexual or "heterosexual".

If that's true nobody told the Greeks. Greeks must be dropping like flies. Probably not a Greek in the world over the age of 50.

Because for about "forever" Greeks have used anal sex as a form of birth control. Hence the saying... Doin' it Greek style. :)

So you are arguing that the introduction of fecal matter into the circulatory system does not tax the immune system? Is that your position?

[jb_1430]

Would you choose celibacy?

Most latent homosexuals probably continue screwing their wife or girlfriend.

[jb_1430]

Well, not to disagree with our resident expert on homosexuality, but I think that is how you define homosexuality.


Homosexuality can refer to both attraction or sexual behavior between people of the same sex, or to a sexual orientation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#_note-apahelp





They do make a choice not to act on it. Mostly its out of fear of the social stigma that still surrounds homosexuality.

Don't confuse homosexuality with homosexual behavior. We choose how to behave. We don't choose how to prefer to behave.

[vyo476]

Well, not to disagree with our resident expert on homosexuality, but I think that is how you define homosexuality.

Perhaps I should refine my statement. There is a difference between homosexual behavior and homosexual orientation. One may have a homosexual orientation and yet not engage in homosexual behavior; is this person, then, not a homosexual?

[jb_1430]

Perhaps I should refine my statement. There is a difference between homosexual behavior and homosexual orientation. One may have a homosexual orientation and yet not engage in homosexual behavior; is this person, then, not a homosexual?

Perhaps then it wasnt I who was confused.

[vyo476]

Perhaps then it wasnt I who was confused.

Nice dodge.

[jb_1430]

Nice dodge.

"DODGE"???? LOLOL! no, just really couldnt give a shiit how the word is defined. That is, until some smart ass tries to characterize my question as a product of my confusion.

[numinus]

Perhaps I should refine my statement. There is a difference between homosexual behavior and homosexual orientation. One may have a homosexual orientation and yet not engage in homosexual behavior; is this person, then, not a homosexual?

WTF!

A person who does not engage in homosexual acts is NOT a homosexual for the same reason that a person who wishes to bash your skull in is not a murderer.

[jb_1430]

Lets ask Segep. When he was married to his wife and having children was he a homosexual? When he switched, did he make a choice, or did his genetics change? Or is he a bi-sexual. Maybe everyone is bisexual until they make a choice.

[vyo476]

From the American Psychological Association Help Center:

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.

It's important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation, and the reasons may be different for different people.

So it may be biological/genetic, but is probably preconditioned. Is it a choice?

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

Take a gander: http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31

[Coyote]

WTF!

A person who does not engage in homosexual acts is NOT a homosexual for the same reason that a person who wishes to bash your skull in is not a murderer.


There is a difference between being (a noun) and behavior (a verb) -- engaging in the verb does not by itself make the noun.

Everyone feels depressed at times and happy at times. Does that make you Bi-Polar? No.

[Segep]

Lets ask Segep. When he was married to his wife and having children was he a homosexual? When he switched, did he make a choice, or did his genetics change? Or is he a bi-sexual. Maybe everyone is bisexual until they make a choice.

I was and am bisexual. I am happily committed to my (male) partner of 5 years this November. I still find some women sexually attractive, but I have no desire to pursue a relationship with one. Call it whatever you want.

[numinus]

There is a difference between being (a noun) and behavior (a verb) -- engaging in the verb does not by itself make the noun.

LOL.

Engaging in the verb automatically makes the noun. Conversely, not engaging in the verb does not make the noun.

Where in god's green earth can you find a homosexual who does not engage in a homosexual act, hmm?

Everyone feels depressed at times and happy at times. Does that make you Bi-Polar? No.

Depressed and happy are not verbs. Try harder.

[numinus]

From the American Psychological Association Help Center:



So it may be biological/genetic, but is probably preconditioned. Is it a choice?

Of course they would say biological or genetic. Its not like human free will and choice can be measured, now can it?

And if you have a rudimentary knowledge of matrix algebra, you can very well derive a functional relationship between the occurence of human stupidity and the full moon. Using your mathematical expression for any predictive purpose, however, is another matter entirely.

[vyo476]

Where in god's green earth can you find a homosexual who does not engage in a homosexual act, hmm?

There are plenty. Many do not do so for reasons of social stigma. Thankfully, that's starting to change, but even today it isn't easy for one to admit to family and friends that one is homosexual.

My cousin came out to our family about eight years ago. His mother, my aunt, told him he was "just going through a phase." His best friend from high school stopped talking to him; they haven't mended things to this day. His home was egged.

It's about as easy to find a homosexual who does not engage in homosexual acts as it is to find a heterosexual who does not engage in heterosexual acts.

[numinus]

There are plenty. Many do not do so for reasons of social stigma. Thankfully, that's starting to change, but even today it isn't easy for one to admit to family and friends that one is homosexual.

My cousin came out to our family about eight years ago. His mother, my aunt, told him he was "just going through a phase." His best friend from high school stopped talking to him; they haven't mended things to this day. His home was egged.

It's about as easy to find a homosexual who does not engage in homosexual acts as it is to find a heterosexual who does not engage in heterosexual acts.

A homosexual, by definition, is one who engages in homosexual acts.

Conversely, someone who does not engage in homosexual act is not a homosexual.

A homosexual who does not engage in a homosexual act is a lLOGICAL CONTRADICTION. No such person exists.

[vyo476]

A homosexual, by definition, is one who engages in homosexual acts.

Conversely, someone who does not engage in homosexual act is not a homosexual.

A homosexual who does not engage in a homosexual act is a lLOGICAL CONTRADICTION. No such person exists.

A heterosexual, then, is one who engages in heterosexual acts.

Conversely, someone who does not engage in heterosexual acts is not a heterosexual, in your world.

Someone ought to go tell all the nuns that took vows of celibacy that they're not straight anymore and see what they have to say about it.

[numinus]

A heterosexual, then, is one who engages in heterosexual acts.

Conversely, someone who does not engage in heterosexual acts is not a heterosexual, in your world.

Someone ought to go tell all the nuns that took vows of celibacy that they're not straight anymore and see what they have to say about it.

Correct.

It wasn't hard, was it? Logical thinking, I mean.

[gtanner79]

What an interesting question - how could I pass it up?

I believe that homosexuality and sexuality in general is related to experience, environment, love, attraction, and emotional connections.

Some people I know just happened to be open to the idea of developing connection with men as well as women - and if that connection grows then attraction and love can set it - just as it does with two people of opposing genders.

Experience and environment always play a role. Even in other ways that we don't realize. Behavior is modeled and developed during the years that we live with our family. The idea that "we become our parents" is a pretty good one to an extent. If you had gay parents - you would certainly see it as a possibility. Not that it's a given, but you would probably accept it as a choice. I also belive this is true for other behaviors - how we act around a spouse, abuse, alcoholism, drugs, violence, religion, etc.

I also think that attraction plays into it - you have to be attracted to the same sex. But I do not feel that being attracted to men/women is black and white (meaning you're always attracted to either the same or opposite sex) - for some people it's probably akin to being attracted to blondes, athletic people, huge boobs, butts, etc.

Such an interesting topic.

As a final thought - I do not think it's "genetic" - I know a set of identical twins - one is gay, one is undeniably straight. Now, I don't know all that much about DNA - but aren't identical twins supposed to have exactly the same DNA?

[vyo476]

Correct.

It wasn't hard, was it? Logical thinking, I mean.

So do you believe that there is no such thing as sexual orientation?

[Cookie Parker]

I say it is a choice but what sayest thou?

Only the religious consider homosexuality a choice..that's because they are NOT allowed to think freely and research. It's also because it gives them a false sense of power and rule over people....like they are and want to be the government.

This crushing of individual rights, our constitution and the bill of rights by the religious right in this nation makes them more dangerous to our freedoms than any foreign religious zealot group that exists today.

[USMC the Almighty]

Only the religious consider homosexuality a choice..that's because they are NOT allowed to think freely and research. It's also because it gives them a false sense of power and rule over people....like they are and want to be the government.

I'm not religious (though I do believe in God) Cookie and I believe that in most cases homosexuality is a choice.


This crushing of individual rights, our constitution and the bill of rights by the religious right in this nation makes them more dangerous to our freedoms than any foreign religious zealot group that exists today.

Please elaborate on this. Religion has been an inseparable part of our culture and history since this country's birth.

[9sublime]

Please elaborate on this. Religion has been an inseparable part of our culture and history since this country's birth.

Because you have so many more right winger, power hungry, freedom crushing religious politicians and general religious nutters thesedays.

[PoliticalGrrrl]

Its a Behavoral problem. The reason why Men comit those faggot acts cause theyre so damn frustrated dealing with women. Women do it cause theyre to god damn lazy finding a good man instead of taking whats offered to them.So i dont think Gay or Lersbian Marrage should be legal. I think Insurance companies should deny anyone whos gay or lesbian health insurance. And if you file an job application if the employer finds out youre gay or lesbian you dont get the job. If you turn gay or lesbian your boss finds out he has the right to fire you!

Good. Lord. :eek:

Since I'm new here and not really familiar with everyone's personality....

Are you serious?!


To answer the question: I believe it not to be a choice. I don't know of any logical thinking, sane person that would choose to be discriminated against, beaten up and worse for the sake of being a sexual deviant (as my new found friend above makes it sound). Before anyone comes at me with a red herring, let me thwart that off now: I am a heterosexual and happily married for almost 20 years.

[9sublime]

Steveox was an obese, and I'm pretty sure mentally handicapped poster who was one of the most moronic and immature people I've ever come accross.

He was one of those people who was trying to sue McDonalds because he stuffed his face too much and got diabetes, and wanted restuarants to be told how to cook their food because he couldn't stop himself from eating a carsonagenic flame grilled burger.

[Coyote]

Steveox was an obese, and I'm pretty sure mentally handicapped poster who was one of the most moronic and immature people I've ever come accross.

He was one of those people who was trying to sue McDonalds because he stuffed his face too much and got diabetes, and wanted restuarants to be told how to cook their food because he couldn't stop himself from eating a carsonagenic flame grilled burger.

He was a troll yanking chains:rolleyes:

[vyo476]

He was a troll yanking chains:rolleyes:

Don't forget the part where those chains contain women, as it was, he believed, the only way he could get them to date him.

[USMC the Almighty]

Don't forget the part where those chains contain women, as it was, he believed, the only way he could get them to date him.

But it was so much easier in the 50s. Just look at Leave It to Beaver.

[vyo476]

But it was so much easier in the 50s. Just look at Leave It to Beaver.

It would also be easier with the KGB there to help out.

[Bunz]

It would also be easier with the KGB there to help out.
See I wish he would post more. Is he banned? Or just not showing up anymore?
That dude cracked me up!

[vyo476]

See I wish he would post more. Is he banned? Or just not showing up anymore?
That dude cracked me up!

I think he just stopped coming. Maybe he caught on that we were all just making fun of him.

[Bunz]

Except it isn't a religion - it is nothing more or less then keeping secular secular and religious religious. Religion no more belongs in the governmental sphere then the government belongs in the religious sphere.

plausibly true. All I am saying is that his posts resulted in further discusion.

[numinus]

So do you believe that there is no such thing as sexual orientation?

Of course. One has appetites, no?

Human appetites are meant to be controlled by our reasoning faculty.

[vyo476]

Of course. One has appetites, no?

Human appetites are meant to be controlled by our reasoning faculty.

So how do you define people of differing sexual orientation?

[Coyote]

Don't forget the part where those chains contain women, as it was, he believed, the only way he could get them to date him.

hehe...I actually liked him - he made me laugh:D

[Coyote]

I think he just stopped coming. Maybe he caught on that we were all just making fun of him.

I think the laugh was really on us...;)

[numinus]

So how do you define people of differing sexual orientation?

People with different tastes and appetites.

[vyo476]

People with different tastes and appetites.

So one person may, naturally, have a "taste" for people of the same gender. How would you define this person, based on his/her sexual orientation?

[numinus]

So one person may, naturally, have a "taste" for people of the same gender. How would you define this person, based on his/her sexual orientation?

You define a person based on his actions, not appetites. It really is that simple. You couldn't call me a murderer for simply wanting to break your neck until you are dead, now, could you?

[9sublime]

So a man that finds the idea of sex with a woman repulsive, but is aroused by the idea of sex with a man, is not gay?

[Bunz]

I have come into this way late and have avoided this thread by and large. Has anyone mentioned my theory.

Some people are born gay.
Others for any number of reasons choose to be gay.
Then there are those who arent picky and are attracted to both sexes. I wont even make a 9sublime mum joke here on that one.

I guess I can say of these three, I know examples of all of them.
Has this been covered here?

[vyo476]

You define a person based on his actions, not appetites. It really is that simple. You couldn't call me a murderer for simply wanting to break your neck until you are dead, now, could you?

So you'll admit that these "appetites" exist, and won't dispute that some people have an "appetite" only for people of the same gender, and yet still won't define these people as homosexuals?

"Homosexual" refers to the orientation as well as the action. Look it up if you'd like. Or better yet, I'll do it for you.

American Heritage Dictionary
adj. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
n. A homosexual person; a gay man or a lesbian.

WordNet
adjective
1. sexually attracted to members of your own sex [ant: bisexual, heterosexual]
noun
1. someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex

[r0beph]

You define a person based on his actions, not appetites. It really is that simple. You couldn't call me a murderer for simply wanting to break your neck until you are dead, now, could you?

That is plain and simple a fallacious comparison. In fact, you're not even defining the definition correctly. No it's not. However if you serious consider murdering someone, not a fleeting or joking response, and feel no moral repercussions, one could rightly say you are a sociopath. a Murderer is a definition BASED on action, sociopath, homosexual, socialist, liberal, conservative, those are all based on an idealistic criteria not action. Thus one can be a homosexual without ever committing an action in line with such a standard. Eg. A man who marries for the social implications, or perhaps he loves the woman however misaligned and remains not sexually attracted to her due to his attraction to men.

[r0beph]

I have come into this way late and have avoided this thread by and large. Has anyone mentioned my theory.

Some people are born gay.
Others for any number of reasons choose to be gay.
Then there are those who arent picky and are attracted to both sexes. I wont even make a 9sublime mum joke here on that one.

I guess I can say of these three, I know examples of all of them.
Has this been covered here?

I believe there are many variables to sexuality. For example, a person sexually abused as a child, male on male, will likely find a sexual appetite in young male children, while still being sexually attracted to women of his age. This is due to sexuality being thrust on him at a young age by his abuser and causing an incorrect link in his brain as to attraction/love. In this it proves there is an environmental aspect to sexuality. As such one can assume that it exists on other levels to a lesser degree. Someone could use sex as an outlet for stress and while being heterosexual (or homosexual) may cross over their sexuality line to assert this behavior of stress relief. There's the obvious genetic linkage, why someone would ever begin to assume that a genetic predisposition COULD not exist is beyond me, if genetics is the basis of our being and everything is written in that codex one has to assume our sexuality is as well, if genetic templates can give us hare lips, blue eyes, black hair, facial hair, no facial hair (native american's etc), why not our sexual attraction, if it isn't predefined by our genetic template, what do you suggest defines it? In this there will always be varying degrees of sexuality, from the urges, to what we find attractive, to what we find NOT attractive. This combines with social expectations, environmental variable, will determine our final outcome and level of assertion.

[numinus]

So you'll admit that these "appetites" exist, and won't dispute that some people have an "appetite" only for people of the same gender, and yet still won't define these people as homosexuals?

"Homosexual" refers to the orientation as well as the action. Look it up if you'd like. Or better yet, I'll do it for you.

American Heritage Dictionary
adj. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
n. A homosexual person; a gay man or a lesbian.

WordNet
adjective
1. sexually attracted to members of your own sex [ant: bisexual, heterosexual]
noun
1. someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex

The dictionary defines words as they are often used. And if anyone is to apply any intellectual rigor to this definition, then it would be necessary to differentiate between a homosexual in thought, a homosexual in action and a homosexual in both thought and action.

And what is the thread actually asking? Choice has an element of action. Without action, one can not be said to have chosen, no?

[numinus]

That is plain and simple a fallacious comparison. In fact, you're not even defining the definition correctly. No it's not. However if you serious consider murdering someone, not a fleeting or joking response, and feel no moral repercussions, one could rightly say you are a sociopath. a Murderer is a definition BASED on action, sociopath, homosexual, socialist, liberal, conservative, those are all based on an idealistic criteria not action. Thus one can be a homosexual without ever committing an action in line with such a standard. Eg. A man who marries for the social implications, or perhaps he loves the woman however misaligned and remains not sexually attracted to her due to his attraction to men.

This is rubbish.

A sociopath is a BEHAVIORAL disorder - which means it must manifest in some action before one can be so.

Thought is inseparable from action, althought the rational relationship between the two may not always be obvious. And if, for arguments sake, a thought may be divorced completely from action, then there is no point to call a person such.

[vyo476]

The dictionary defines words as they are often used. And if anyone is to apply any intellectual rigor to this definition, then it would be necessary to differentiate between a homosexual in thought, a homosexual in action and a homosexual in both thought and action.

And one would have to recognize that all three are, in fact, homosexuals. Will you do so?

And what is the thread actually asking? Choice has an element of action. Without action, one can not be said to have chosen, no?

The thread is asking if it is genetic or if it is a choice. The choice option implies action; the genetic option (while not widely regarded as correct) implies a state-of-being. Without formulating an opinion prior to answering the question, the role of action in determining whether someone is a homosexual or not is only half the point, the other half being determining his state-of-being.

You're using circular logic. By assuming one answer, you justify your answer by excluding the other answer. Nice try.

If you really don't believe that there are homosexuals who don't engage in homosexual acts, then perhaps you haven't ever heard of "closeted" individuals.

[numinus]

And one would have to recognize that all three are, in fact, homosexuals. Will you do so?

Certainly not.

To do so, one must necessarily accept that a thought divorced from its corresponding action has any meaning.

I have always tried to imagine what homosexuals feel, in an effort to understand. That doesn't make me a homosexual, does it?

The thread is asking if it is genetic or if it is a choice. The choice option implies action; the genetic option (while not widely regarded as correct) implies a state-of-being. Without formulating an opinion prior to answering the question, the role of action in determining whether someone is a homosexual or not is only half the point, the other half being determining his state-of-being.

Homosexuality has NO 'state-of-being' separate from human nature.

Remember ockham's razor? Try applying it to the 'state-of-being' of an individual.

You're using circular logic. By assuming one answer, you justify your answer by excluding the other answer. Nice try.

Please expound.

I'd love to hear this.

If you really don't believe that there are homosexuals who don't engage in homosexual acts, then perhaps you haven't ever heard of "closeted" individuals.

Everyone has appetites. They manifest in one form or another.

The point of civilization is to subvert human appetites to a discernable good through the operations of logic.

In this regard, we are all 'closeted' humans.

[r0beph]

Certainly not.

To do so, one must necessarily accept that a thought divorced from its corresponding action has any meaning. I have always tried to imagine what homosexuals feel, in an effort to understand. That doesn't make me a homosexual, does it?


Trying to perhaps, think as you think, a homosexual would think, differs GREATLY from thinking as a homosexual thinks, being heterosexual, how could you EVER even BEGIN to assume you may know HOW they think? People to often associate homosexuality as a "sexual" status, (prompted by the reference in the name, homoSEXUAL) however this is not the case, in truth it means they are attracted to others of the same gender, which in itself does not mean that sex is necessitated. Just as you may have a girlfriend and never have sexual relations with her (religion, assumed moral state, whatever drives you to not, perhaps low testosterone, doesn't matter why is arbitrary) and yet could date her for years, a homosexual needn't "Act" upon "sexual urges." The fact remains, when they see a man (or woman for lesbians) they find attractive, they'd get the same butterflies, or the same smile at the sight of the person, as we would seeing someone of the opposite sex we have a crush on. This is NOT an "appetite" and I REALLY would love you to stop using that pseudo-buzzword, it's ridiculous sounding and really stupid. But no, unless you ACTUALLY have a crush on another man, you cannot be truly "feeling" what a gay male feels. Just as a homosexual can NEVER feel what a heterosexual feels unless he garners feelings for someone of the opposing gender. (which would be that he's not homosexual, because to be defined as such requires justly that he/she be attracted to their SAME gender, anything else is OUTSIDE of this classification.)


Homosexuality has NO 'state-of-being' separate from human nature. Remember ockham's razor? Try applying it to the 'state-of-being' of an individual.

Pet peeve 2; STOP WITH THE NEWLINES, make paragraphs, don't hit enter at the end of every sentance...it makes replying a real *****, as I spend way to much time trying to format your crap.

Homosexuality is as heterosexuality is. It's a human nature. Programmed in majority by our dna (like everything else is, unless you wish to convince me that homosexuality is a spontaneous occurrence of human sexuality morphism ) And I'm highly confused by your logic. If it is genetic, the state (of the sexuality of the person) of being ( is as is) which is as it is for someone who is homosexual, it is there state of being (of their sexuality) it is as it is, go look up the defintion of that phrase, it is simply defining the state of a presence, the presence is sexuality, the gender bias is that of the individuals same gender. Occam's Razor, I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, Occam's Razor, Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. However, this does not mean the SIMPLEST solution is correct, nor does it postulate such, in reality the idea is that if all solutions are equal, then the one with the least number of assumptions is likely the correct one; or better still If you say A+B+C= 4 and I say A+2+1 = 4, the chances that I am correct in my assumption that A = 1, are much greater than those of you assuming the quantities of 3 unknowns... In this case the cater to genetic predisposition is much stronger in fact, and all your basis is on assumption, since you cannot HOPE to know how a homosexual thinks in his mind, you may only assume. Yet it is quite easy to surmise that since sexual orientation of men to like women, is a built in factor in our dna (to induce propagation) thus sexual orientation itself is based on dna, thus in the case of the homosexual, his dna states he is to be attracted to men. The reason for the existence of homosexuality (genetic mutation, a species survival trait in overcrowded colonies to reduce propagation) does not matter as it's arbitrary, because it is assumed.


Everyone has appetites. They manifest in one form or another. The point of civilization is to subvert human appetites to a discernable good through the operations of logic.

Pet Peeve 1; see first quote reply.
Ok, you're WAY wrong on what civilization is for. In fact, Civilization I assume you're using in the definition meaning civilized defined as "To bring out of a savage, crude state" Human "drive" needn't be subverted to be "civilized" I have no drive to be a criminal, no drive to do anything "uncivilized" I never have, and while THIS is because of my civilized nature, being civilized does not stop me from being with my girlfriend, which I have a drive to do. Your assumption here is that homosexuality is something that is to be modified by civilized culture because it is "wrong" but your assumption of wrongness is baseless, outside of some inapt religious ideology. ie. Fail.

In this regard, we are all 'closeted' humans.
You perhaps. However I have never, cultured or otherwise, ever had ANY drive to seek out male companionship in a love like realtionship, it simply isn't something I have ever found appealing, I have no ability to find a male attractive. If asked if a guy is cute (by a girl for example) I'd have to make an assumption based upon what other guy qualities in the person in question, I've seen to be attractive to other females, and make a broad assumption as to whether these qualities create "cute." it'd be a difficult judgment and one I'd usually refer to someone who could speak from experience. Your whole argument is silly, as usual.

[vyo476]

Certainly not.

Let's run down the list:

You accept that people have certain "appetites." (Sexual orientation).

You accept that some people have these "appetites" exclusively for the same sex. (Homosexual orientation).

You are able to read and comprehend the dictionary definition of "homosexual," in that it states that a homosexual may refer to a practitioner OR one with an orientation for homosexuality, yet you reject this due to its status as vernacular. ("The word is defined as it is used.")

You would insist on differentiation between homosexuals in thought, homosexuals in practice, and homosexuals in both, yet in your next statement deny that you would refer to all three as homosexuals. (As it would be "divorcing thought from action.")

To do so, one must necessarily accept that a thought divorced from its corresponding action has any meaning.

Self-identity is entirely thought-based; actions are then reflected by those thoughts. Fear, however, is an especially powerful motivator in suppressing the self-identity of those society considers "bad" for whatever reason.

A homosexual in, for instance, the Middle Ages would have been too terrified of the consequences of engaging in what would have otherwise been natural for him to do so. Is he not a homosexual, then, because he was frightened into not acting on his desires?

Were Jews during the Holocaust no longer Jews simply because many were frightened into feigning Christianity to avoid persecution?

I have always tried to imagine what homosexuals feel, in an effort to understand. That doesn't make me a homosexual, does it?

If the definition had been "attempting to consciously understand attraction to the same sex," then yes, it would. Since that isn't the definition, no, it doesn't.

Homosexuality is not a thought that can be turned on or off; it's an ingrained predilection, no more voluntary than pain. Do we discuss the "action" of being in pain? No, you simply are, due to whatever circumstances have precipitated that pain.

Homosexuality has NO 'state-of-being' separate from human nature.

Remember ockham's razor? Try applying it to the 'state-of-being' of an individual.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Occam's Razor tells us to eliminate unnecessary assumptions. That "homosexual" refers to a sexual orientation is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. You were attempting to oversimplify the issue, and now you're attempting to obfuscate the facts by likening them to "assumptions."

Please expound.

I'd love to hear this.

I already did. I will again, if necessary.

One option is choice. This option implies that homosexuality is an action. One option is "genetic." This option implies that homosexuality is involuntary.

When you stated this:

And what is the thread actually asking? Choice has an element of action. Without action, one can not be said to have chosen, no?

You excluded the second option entirely in order to justify your position on the first. This is circular logic.

Everyone has appetites. They manifest in one form or another.

The point of civilization is to subvert human appetites to a discernable good through the operations of logic.

In this regard, we are all 'closeted' humans.

So perhaps you'd like to enlighten me as to how anti-sodomy laws "subvert human appetites to a discernible good."

[numinus]

Let's run down the list:

You accept that people have certain "appetites." (Sexual orientation).

Yes.

You accept that some people have these "appetites" exclusively for the same sex. (Homosexual orientation).

Some people have the same appetites for exclusively blonde, or large chested, or what not. Are you inclined to classify them in a particular category of 'existence' as well?

You are able to read and comprehend the dictionary definition of "homosexual," in that it states that a homosexual may refer to a practitioner OR one with an orientation for homosexuality, yet you reject this due to its status as vernacular. ("The word is defined as it is used.")

Correct. Usage does not imply intellectual rigor. While the definition may be sufficient for everyday meaning, it may not stand the scrutiny of debate.

You would insist on differentiation between homosexuals in thought, homosexuals in practice, and homosexuals in both,

I do not insist on differentiating them. I am merely demonstrating its absurdity in the context of everyday language. A homosexual who does not practice homosexuality is meaningless, in the same way that a murderer who killed no one is meaningless, in the same way that a sociopath who does not manifest any sociopathic behavior is meaningless.

yet in your next statement deny that you would refer to all three as homosexuals. (As it would be "divorcing thought from action.")

That would be the logical conclusion of the argument.

Self-identity is entirely thought-based; actions are then reflected by those thoughts.

And a self-identity that does not manifest in one's being is meaningless.

Fear, however, is an especially powerful motivator in suppressing the self-identity of those society considers "bad" for whatever reason.

The operation of logic and natural law is more powerful.

A homosexual in, for instance, the Middle Ages would have been too terrified of the consequences of engaging in what would have otherwise been natural for him to do so.

Fear is not a condition conducive to human existence.

There is nothing natural about indulging all concieveable appetites. And it is precisely the function of the reasoning faculty to subvert the appetites that accrue to no concieveable good.

Is he not a homosexual, then, because he was frightened into not acting on his desires?

You premise your argument by stating that he IS a homosexual, and subsequently ask if he is not, in fact, a homosexual.

What do you want me to say?

Were Jews during the Holocaust no longer Jews simply because many were frightened into feigning Christianity to avoid persecution?

You have already demonstrated, and I agreed, that fear is not a condition of human existence. And when a human person lives in a condition not conducive to such an existence, it normally results in logical inconsistencies.

That does not make the inconsistent consistent. It does however, define the imperatives of the human condition.

Understand?
If the definition had been "attempting to consciously understand attraction to the same sex," then yes, it would. Since that isn't the definition, no, it doesn't.

This line of argument is clearly going nowhere.

You say that homosexuality is thought-based, and yet, one cannot be a homosexual by simply trying to empathize. You need to actually 'feel' it.

But the rational relationship between a feeling and its corresponding action may not always be clear. One may be a homosexual for want of, say, paternal love - or one may sublime a sexual inclination for the same sex.

In the end, you have a definition that is utterly ambiguous for the purpose of any intelligent discussion.

Homosexuality is not a thought that can be turned on or off;

Same can be said with most thoughts. That's no reason to give vent to all thoughts.

it's an ingrained predilection, no more voluntary than pain.

And if you simply listen to your own urges, then you would realize that you are saddled with a great many 'predilections'. One cannot simply cast you in a mold of your predilection, nor are you obliged to satisfy all of them.

Do we discuss the "action" of being in pain? No, you simply are, due to whatever circumstances have precipitated that pain.

Pain is an inevitable part of the human condition. One cannot be excused for all actions simply because one feels pain.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Occam's Razor tells us to eliminate unnecessary assumptions. That "homosexual" refers to a sexual orientation is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. You were attempting to oversimplify the issue, and now you're attempting to obfuscate the facts by likening them to "assumptions."

Ockham's razor, originally, is a principle in the reductionist philosophy of nominalism. It suggests parsimony in the assumption of MODES OF EXISTENCE.

In your previous argument, you are assuming a MULTIPLICITY IN THE STATE-OF-BEING of an individual human being. A certain inclination for this or that appetite IS NOT a reason for you to assign a different set of logical rules for an individual.

I already did. I will again, if necessary.

One option is choice. This option implies that homosexuality is an action. One option is "genetic." This option implies that homosexuality is involuntary.

When you stated this:

You excluded the second option entirely in order to justify your position on the first. This is circular logic.

No.

Genes do not preclude the fundamental operation of choice - regardless of any statistical correlation between genes and behavior. Choice is the natural and logical consequence of free will.

That has always been my position since the beginning.

So perhaps you'd like to enlighten me as to how anti-sodomy laws "subvert human appetites to a discernible good."

Did I say anything about anti-sodomy anything?

[ArmChair General]

I am patient with stupidity, but not with those who are proud of it.

[r0beph]

Genes do not preclude the fundamental operation of choice - regardless of any statistical correlation between genes and behavior. Choice is the natural and logical consequence of free will.


holy **** you're stupid. No offense to your parents, but wow. What do you think makes us who we are on core drives? DNA, yep, we eat cos we're hungry we're hungry because we're made to get that way when we need to eat. We choose foods based on different criteria, most of which, is programmed by dna. Did you know that people in general will find gross looking things inedible, because it looks "sickly or rotten" for example, green slimy looking jello, although tasty, is still tough to eat for many, THIS IS A BUILT IN (there was a study at oxford I think that showed this to be the case, I'd have to find the paper if it's necessary but you can look it up.) . Some people like fish, some don't. It's a genetic predisposition. A homosexual is a person who is attracted to people of the same gender. Now, you needn't have sex to be homosexual, you need only be attracted to your same gender. THAT IS THE DEFINITION. END OF STORY STOP BEING SO ILLITERATE AND STUPID, MOVE NORTH OF THE PANHANDLE...SOMETHING...before I snap from reading your nonsense...you've not an ounce of logic and a ton of misinformation.

[Coyote]

The only choice is whether or not to act on ones inate proclivities to have a sexual relationship with an equally consenting partner. People expect homosexuals to have the "free will" to make the "choice" to not act on it but somehow heterosexuals are free from this expectation.

[r0beph]

The only choice is whether or not to act on ones inate proclivities to have a sexual relationship with an equally consenting partner. People expect homosexuals to have the "free will" to make the "choice" to not act on it but somehow heterosexuals are free from this expectation.

See the problem is he's muxxing the issue. He's associated the "good/right/correct" as being Heterosexual (the actions of a male being with a woman defining this.) But if this is the case, then someone who has NO mate/spouse/sex partner, has no orientation, this however is obviously not the case. I must point out he IS correct in saying homosexuals have the choice on whether or not to act on their inherent attraction to those of the same gender, however it must also be noted that heterosexuals have the same choice to act on their inherent attraction to the opposite gender. Given these facts, his argument is not truly about what homosexuality is due to, but rather that he feels that it is WRONG and that's that, and thus they're WRONG because they make the choice to follow their orientation, heterosexuals are precluded from this because he feels this is the CORRECT orientation. This is a flawed argument that is actually a very good example petitio principii,. Homosexuals are wrong because they don't make the choice to be Good (heterosexuals) which begs the question why is homosexuality bad? It's ridiculous and to answer the question of why, you fall into a trap of circular logic and questions begged that are central to the religious debate. Give me a reason outside of the "Good Book" that homosexuals are "Perverse" or "Wrong." It cannot be done. Please numunis go on, reproduce and take your precious little snowflakes to the hate mongering Jesus Camps so they can learn that the heathens should be killed for the all loving christ.

[vyo476]

Some people have the same appetites for exclusively blonde, or large chested, or what not. Are you inclined to classify them in a particular category of 'existence' as well?

Sociologically speaking, there is no commonality between these people. Societies have never much cared if men preferred women with blonde hair. Societies have cared if men preferred men. The classification was already there; recognizing it and encouraging it today are the first steps to equalizing it and eventually tearing down its differentiation.

In other words, you can make that argument...in a couple hundred years.

Correct. Usage does not imply intellectual rigor. While the definition may be sufficient for everyday meaning, it may not stand the scrutiny of debate.

Anyone else astounded by the role reversal? I'm the gay marriage advocate and I'm defending a dictionary definition.

I guess the difference is that the dictionary definition of "homosexual" is grounded in scientific fact, whereas the definition of marriage is grounded in a few thousand years of societal injustice.

I do not insist on differentiating them. I am merely demonstrating its absurdity in the context of everyday language. A homosexual who does not practice homosexuality is meaningless, in the same way that a murderer who killed no one is meaningless, in the same way that a sociopath who does not manifest any sociopathic behavior is meaningless.

A homosexual who does not practice homosexuality is neither absurd nor meaningless, because we must ask why he or she is not practicing what is natural for him to practice. Once again I'm speaking sociologically. The sociological factors that encourage murderers not to murder are generally positive (we don't like murder); the sociological factors that discourage homosexuals from doing what is natural for them are negative.

Your inability to recognize the validity of sexual orientation is also negative, by the way, as it would easily be construed as an attempt to diminish who and what they are, and what they've been through over the years.

If you deny that homosexuality exists without homosexual action, then you deny that thousands (probably millions) of homosexuals were forced to live in fear of what they were for the last couple thousand years. I'm betting you wouldn't deny that women have been similarly mistreated - but then, the differences between women and the men who oppressed them are much more easily discernible than the differences between homosexuals and the heterosexuals who oppressed them.

That would be the logical conclusion of the argument.

You said that you would not insist on differentiating them...yet you still wouldn't refer to all three as homosexuals. I'm sorry, but that's "differentiating" in my book.

And a self-identity that does not manifest in one's being is meaningless.

Utterly untrue. A self-identity which is forced to not manifest by society has a lot of meaning, as it is a form of repression and will build over the years.

The operation of logic and natural law is more powerful.

Care to explain what this means in the context of what you were responding to?

Fear is not a condition conducive to human existence.

Finally, something we agree on.

There is nothing natural about indulging all concieveable appetites. And it is precisely the function of the reasoning faculty to subvert the appetites that accrue to no concieveable good.

So what are you suggesting? That people with these "appetites" (gotta say I'm getting sick of using that word) suppressed them in themselves for thousands of years because no "conceivable good" would come from them? "Good" to whom exactly?

Or are you suggesting that society's constraints upon homosexuals were justified in that homosexual behavior contributes no "conceivable good" to society? Because if you are, not only do I disagree with your logic, but with your opinion as well.

You premise your argument by stating that he IS a homosexual, and subsequently ask if he is not, in fact, a homosexual.

What do you want me to say?

I want you to answer the question. I want you to tell me that you think that frightening someone with a homosexual orientation into not practicing homosexuality makes that man something other than a homosexual.

That does fit with your argument, doesn't it?

You have already demonstrated, and I agreed, that fear is not a condition of human existence. And when a human person lives in a condition not conducive to such an existence, it normally results in logical inconsistencies.

That does not make the inconsistent consistent. It does however, define the imperatives of the human condition.

Understand?

Yes, I understand that you didn't answer the question, but instead dodged.

I'll ask again and cross my fingers for something resembling a straight answer: If you can frighten someone with a homosexual orientation into not practicing homosexual activities, thereby making that person something other than a homosexual, can you frighten a Jewish person into not practicing Jewish activities and therefore remove that person's Judaism?

You say that homosexuality is thought-based, and yet, one cannot be a homosexual by simply trying to empathize. You need to actually 'feel' it.

But the rational relationship between a feeling and its corresponding action may not always be clear. One may be a homosexual for want of, say, paternal love - or one may sublime a sexual inclination for the same sex.

In the end, you have a definition that is utterly ambiguous for the purpose of any intelligent discussion.

Sexual orientation is defined as "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction to another person," by the American Psychological Association. This is not all that ambiguous.

http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html

Same can be said with most thoughts. That's no reason to give vent to all thoughts.

What I meant was that homosexuality is not a conscious thought. I'm not sure that came across.

And if you simply listen to your own urges, then you would realize that you are saddled with a great many 'predilections'. One cannot simply cast you in a mold of your predilection, nor are you obliged to satisfy all of them.

And yet people have been "cast into a mold of (their) predilection(s)" for centuries, which is why we even bother to take all this time distinguishing homosexuality from heterosexuality. If society had never decided that homosexuality was wrong, all these things would still be facts, but no one would care enough to research them, as the behavior would be open and acceptable and wouldn't have any history of oppression (kind of like your blonde-loving men).

Ockham's razor, originally, is a principle in the reductionist philosophy of nominalism. It suggests parsimony in the assumption of MODES OF EXISTENCE.

In your previous argument, you are assuming a MULTIPLICITY IN THE STATE-OF-BEING of an individual human being. A certain inclination for this or that appetite IS NOT a reason for you to assign a different set of logical rules for an individual.

The erasure of societal inequality is.

No.

Genes do not preclude the fundamental operation of choice - regardless of any statistical correlation between genes and behavior. Choice is the natural and logical consequence of free will.

That has always been my position since the beginning.

I am not denying the existence of free will.

Did I say anything about anti-sodomy anything?

Here is what you said:

The point of civilization is to subvert human appetites to a discernable good through the operations of logic.

Civilization's attempts to "subvert" the "human appetites" of those who would prefer those of the same gender resulted in harsh anti-sodomy laws and other restrictions/oppressive dictates. I'd like to know what "discernible good" came of this. Or, for that matter, what's logical about it.

[9sublime]

Preferring woman with blonde hair is simply a sub preference to being heterosexual.

Preferring men is being homosexual, and preferring men with blonde hair would be the same.

[r0beph]

Vyo;

See he has a problem understand sexuality on whole. A completely heterosexual person, could participate in homosexual activity and yet BE heterosexual (as he is biologically attracted to women, yet for whatever reason (usually due to some environmental factor, child abuse, et al)). On the same token you have homosexuals who due to social chastising (yet again environmental, thusly abusive) or religious indoctrination (I'd label this abuse as you've programmed this person since a young age to fear for his eternal sole if he goes through with his biologically pressed actions) dates women, although I can safely say this usually ends in trouble, either he ends up married and running around with men in the background, or he has serious troubles in his relationships with women. (both situations are termed bisexuality, which is really not the case, I would have to assume that there is a primary sexual attraction which is then incorporated with an adverse sexuality which is due to environmental affect)

The fact remains sexuality is a factor which we're born with, I'm attracted to women. The thought of not just sex, but romantic relationship of any type with a male simply does not compute. In a homosexual, the very opposite is true, he simply cannot make the choice to BE attracted to women, HE cannot anymore than I can make the choice to be attracted to men. No matter how much I would want to be gay I simply never could. Anything further is implausible, the argument is as it stands. The continuous denial by numunis and invest of conclusive information is becoming rather monotonous. They refuse to accept facts when given, they muddy the puddle by swirling in their strange abstractions of reality and then ask us to again prove what we say by disporving what they say, yet their statements are dogmatic and are simply outside the realm of provable or disprovable. This fundamentally flawed form of debate is tiring, and I'm confused as to how to further explain things to them at risk of continuously repeating myself

[vyo476]

See he has a problem understand sexuality on whole.

I'm not sure it's a problem with comprehension so much as a problem with admitting he was wrong.

A completely heterosexual person, could participate in homosexual activity and yet BE heterosexual (as he is biologically attracted to women, yet for whatever reason (usually due to some environmental factor, child abuse, et al)).

Yes. This demonstrates the difference between orientation and action.

On the same token you have homosexuals who due to social chastising (yet again environmental, thusly abusive) or religious indoctrination (I'd label this abuse as you've programmed this person since a young age to fear for his eternal sole if he goes through with his biologically pressed actions) dates women,

Yup. Good so far, except that many scientists believe now that the development of homosexuality is at least partially due to environmental factors. More on that later.

although I can safely say this usually ends in trouble,

One of my cousins was raised Catholic and dated one girl throughout all of high school; she was expecting him to marry her. Instead, he finally admitted to everyone that he was gay (my mother, his biological aunt and someone who'd played a sizable role in raising him, had suspected this for some time) and broke both her heart and his mother's. It was a mess.

(both situations are termed bisexuality, which is really not the case, I would have to assume that there is a primary sexual attraction which is then incorporated with an adverse sexuality which is due to environmental affect)

Bisexuality is a whole different ball game. And then there's pansexuality and asexuality, which haven't been given a whole lot of attention until recently.

The fact remains sexuality is a factor which we're born with,

And here you're not necessarily right. According to the APA, the general consensus is that homosexuality results from "a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive, and biological factors." They also state that while biology and genetics probably/might play a role in the development of homosexuality, in most people sexual orientation is shaped at an early age.

http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#whatcauses

I'm attracted to women. The thought of not just sex, but romantic relationship of any type with a male simply does not compute. In a homosexual, the very opposite is true, he simply cannot make the choice to BE attracted to women, HE cannot anymore than I can make the choice to be attracted to men. No matter how much I would want to be gay I simply never could.

Demonstrating that while action is a choice, orientation is not. Perfectly true.

Anything further is implausible, the argument is as it stands. The continuous denial by numunis and invest of conclusive information is becoming rather monotonous. They refuse to accept facts when given, they muddy the puddle by swirling in their strange abstractions of reality and then ask us to again prove what we say by disporving what they say, yet their statements are dogmatic and are simply outside the realm of provable or disprovable. This fundamentally flawed form of debate is tiring, and I'm confused as to how to further explain things to them at risk of continuously repeating myself

I just can't wait to see what they come up with next.

[numinus]

holy **** you're stupid. No offense to your parents, but wow. What do you think makes us who we are on core drives? DNA, yep, we eat cos we're hungry we're hungry because we're made to get that way when we need to eat. We choose foods based on different criteria, most of which, is programmed by dna. Did you know that people in general will find gross looking things inedible, because it looks "sickly or rotten" for example, green slimy looking jello, although tasty, is still tough to eat for many, THIS IS A BUILT IN (there was a study at oxford I think that showed this to be the case, I'd have to find the paper if it's necessary but you can look it up.) . Some people like fish, some don't. It's a genetic predisposition. A homosexual is a person who is attracted to people of the same gender. Now, you needn't have sex to be homosexual, you need only be attracted to your same gender. THAT IS THE DEFINITION. END OF STORY STOP BEING SO ILLITERATE AND STUPID, MOVE NORTH OF THE PANHANDLE...SOMETHING...before I snap from reading your nonsense...you've not an ounce of logic and a ton of misinformation.

Not as stupid as you are if you are not even aware of the consequences of your argument.

You have just described a MECHANICALLY DETERMINISTIC REALITY. And for the benefit of your inifinitessimally minute mind, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR FREE WILL IN SUCH A REALITY.

And assuming I'm dumb enough to go along with you on this one, the next logical question - to what PURPOSE does such a genetic predisposition serve? Sex is a genetic predisposition for procreation, is it not? In fact, if you are inclined to take darwinism to its absurd limit, the entire point of evolution is the perpetuation of the specie. By your own argument, evolutionary genetics is working in such a way as to NEGATE ITSELF.

As for your dictionary definition of homosexuality, does it go along the same vein as your 'sociopath' analogy, hmmm? Can you still say that a person is a sociopath without its corresponding BEHAVIORAL MANIFESTATIONS, hmmm?

And if only the resident humean fan of the forum had any intellectual integrity, he would point out that hume's empiricism describes reality as the union of an empirical matter-of-fact and its relationship with ideas - more importantly, the operation of cause and effect. So a thought, like all ideas, do not have any independent reality. So how does homosexuality - an empirical matter-of-fact, be confined exclusively to ideas, eh?

But then again, it might be too much to ask for intellectual honesty, if even a modicum of logic is so withheld.

[numinus]

Trying to perhaps, think as you think, a homosexual would think, differs GREATLY from thinking as a homosexual thinks, being heterosexual, how could you EVER even BEGIN to assume you may know HOW they think?

How does a homosexual think (using your dictionary definition of the word), that makes it impossible for me to think in the same way, hmmm?

Oh, and if you think 'appetite' is a psuedo-buzzword, then you might want to consult your dictionary.

Pet peeve 2; STOP WITH THE NEWLINES, make paragraphs, don't hit enter at the end of every sentance...it makes replying a real *****, as I spend way to much time trying to format your crap.

The new lines are an invitation for a response for whoever would care to. If you don't like it, then leave it the hell alone.

Homosexuality is as heterosexuality is. It's a human nature. Programmed in majority by our dna (like everything else is, unless you wish to convince me that homosexuality is a spontaneous occurrence of human sexuality morphism ) And I'm highly confused by your logic. If it is genetic, the state (of the sexuality of the person) of being ( is as is) which is as it is for someone who is homosexual, it is there state of being (of their sexuality) it is as it is, go look up the defintion of that phrase, it is simply defining the state of a presence, the presence is sexuality, the gender bias is that of the individuals same gender.

It is not human nature since it is entirely without rational purpose.

Take fallacy for instance. The human mind makes mistakes, as you have demonstrated quite well. That does not mean fallacy is integral to human nature in such a way that we fashion our existence around them.

Occam's Razor, I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, Occam's Razor, Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

Correct. Entities are modes of existence. The principle states that you may not attach a multiplicy of existence for a multiplicity of inclinations and predispositions, all of which occur in the human condition.

Do you finally get it?

However, this does not mean the SIMPLEST solution is correct, nor does it postulate such, in reality the idea is that if all solutions are equal, then the one with the least number of assumptions is likely the correct one; or better still If you say A+B+C= 4 and I say A+2+1 = 4, the chances that I am correct in my assumption that A = 1, are much greater than those of you assuming the quantities of 3 unknowns... In this case the cater to genetic predisposition is much stronger in fact, and all your basis is on assumption, since you cannot HOPE to know how a homosexual thinks in his mind, you may only assume. Yet it is quite easy to surmise that since sexual orientation of men to like women, is a built in factor in our dna (to induce propagation) thus sexual orientation itself is based on dna, thus in the case of the homosexual, his dna states he is to be attracted to men. The reason for the existence of homosexuality (genetic mutation, a species survival trait in overcrowded colonies to reduce propagation) does not matter as it's arbitrary, because it is assumed.

Okham's razor is a philosophical principle that was merely adopted as a scientific precept for parsimony. By no means, is it exclusively used in science.

Pet Peeve 1; see first quote reply.
Ok, you're WAY wrong on what civilization is for. In fact, Civilization I assume you're using in the definition meaning civilized defined as "To bring out of a savage, crude state"

No. By civilization, I mean the state of CIVIL SOCIETY.

Human "drive" needn't be subverted to be "civilized" I have no drive to be a criminal, no drive to do anything "uncivilized" I never have, and while THIS is because of my civilized nature, being civilized does not stop me from being with my girlfriend, which I have a drive to do. Your assumption here is that homosexuality is something that is to be modified by civilized culture because it is "wrong" but your assumption of wrongness is baseless, outside of some inapt religious ideology. ie. Fail.

No.

In the state of nature (without civilization), one's perfect liberty (which is synonymous to whatever you are inclined to) gives him right over whatever he can procure using his own personal powers. Its natural consequence is that one's perfect liberty would collide with another's perfect liberty, hence creating a state of perpetual chaos.

Civil society was invented precisely to curb your perfect liberty.

Understand?

You perhaps. However I have never, cultured or otherwise, ever had ANY drive to seek out male companionship in a love like realtionship, it simply isn't something I have ever found appealing, I have no ability to find a male attractive. If asked if a guy is cute (by a girl for example) I'd have to make an assumption based upon what other guy qualities in the person in question, I've seen to be attractive to other females, and make a broad assumption as to whether these qualities create "cute." it'd be a difficult judgment and one I'd usually refer to someone who could speak from experience. Your whole argument is silly, as usual.

But you can discern beauty in, say, a work of art, or a car, or a house, or nature, or a mathematical proof, etc., no? Why the hell can you not discern it in another human being of the same gender, eh?

Let me guess - because you think homosexuality is exclusively thought-based, and that admitting beauty in the same gender makes you one in your own mind.

What unbelieveable stupidity!

[numinus]

Sociologically speaking, there is no commonality between these people. Societies have never much cared if men preferred women with blonde hair. Societies have cared if men preferred men. The classification was already there; recognizing it and encouraging it today are the first steps to equalizing it and eventually tearing down its differentiation.

In other words, you can make that argument...in a couple hundred years.

Correct. It is merely a preference, just like every other preference for a great many things.

So, how does your preference create a separate state-of-being, hmmm?

Anyone else astounded by the role reversal? I'm the gay marriage advocate and I'm defending a dictionary definition.

I guess the difference is that the dictionary definition of "homosexual" is grounded in scientific fact, whereas the definition of marriage is grounded in a few thousand years of societal injustice.

It is not a fact.

The dictionary considers common usage of words rather than any factual standard.

A homosexual who does not practice homosexuality is neither absurd nor meaningless, because we must ask why he or she is not practicing what is natural for him to practice.

And what makes you think it is natural for him to practice such a thing, hmmm?

And while you're at it, what makes you think it is natural to give vent to whatever inclination we have, hmmm?

Once again I'm speaking sociologically. The sociological factors that encourage murderers not to murder are generally positive (we don't like murder); the sociological factors that discourage homosexuals from doing what is natural for them are negative.

Your inability to recognize the validity of sexual orientation is also negative, by the way, as it would easily be construed as an attempt to diminish who and what they are, and what they've been through over the years.

And you do not consider medical reasons as valid, hmmm? From a physiological standpoint, is there anything natural about sticking your erect penis in someone else's anal passage, hmmm?

If you deny that homosexuality exists without homosexual action, then you deny that thousands (probably millions) of homosexuals were forced to live in fear of what they were for the last couple thousand years.

I don't deny that human existence includes a host of urges, including the urge to indulge in homosexual acts. What I am denying is that you can define a separate set of human nature for these urges.

I'm betting you wouldn't deny that women have been similarly mistreated - but then, the differences between women and the men who oppressed them are much more easily discernible than the differences between homosexuals and the heterosexuals who oppressed them.

And what have I said to make you think that of me, hmmm?

Are you in the habit of making assertions not based on facts and logic?

You said that you would not insist on differentiating them...yet you still wouldn't refer to all three as homosexuals. I'm sorry, but that's "differentiating" in my book.

Because among the three, only one is logically a homosexual.

Utterly untrue. A self-identity which is forced to not manifest by society has a lot of meaning, as it is a form of repression and will build over the years.

Eh?

Is there such a thing as an identity that does not manifest AT ALL??

Care to explain what this means in the context of what you were responding to?

Ethical imperatives shape human behavior more than inclinations.

Finally, something we agree on.

Good for you.

So what are you suggesting? That people with these "appetites" (gotta say I'm getting sick of using that word) suppressed them in themselves for thousands of years because no "conceivable good" would come from them?

That is the general idea of any ethical standard, no?

"Good" to whom exactly?

Good for and of itself.

Or are you suggesting that society's constraints upon homosexuals were justified in that homosexual behavior contributes no "conceivable good" to society? Because if you are, not only do I disagree with your logic, but with your opinion as well.

While standards of ethics may overlap with the laws of society, in its broadest sense, an ethical good is its own reward. Conversely, if one does not conform to an ethical standard, then one cannot claim its rewards, no?

I want you to answer the question. I want you to tell me that you think that frightening someone with a homosexual orientation into not practicing homosexuality makes that man something other than a homosexual.

Yes, of course.

Now answer this question. Isn't stealing primarily motivated by some inclination towards a bountiful existence? And does frightening someone from stealing, with the full force of the law, make that man something other than a thief?

That does fit with your argument, doesn't it?



Yes, I understand that you didn't answer the question, but instead dodged.

I'll ask again and cross my fingers for something resembling a straight answer: If you can frighten someone with a homosexual orientation into not practicing homosexual activities, thereby making that person something other than a homosexual, can you frighten a Jewish person into not practicing Jewish activities and therefore remove that person's Judaism?

Doesn't judaism refer to ethnic origins as well?

But assuming that it is purely religious, and that one is sufficiently frightened such that ALL actions that pertain to his religion is removed, then one simply is no longer an adherent of judaism.

Sexual orientation is defined as "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction to another person," by the American Psychological Association. This is not all that ambiguous.

http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html

It is ambiguous. Notice how your definition is put together by 'or'. An enduring emotional attraction, therefore, is in itself, a sexual orientation(?) Can you not see how absurd that is?

What I meant was that homosexuality is not a conscious thought. I'm not sure that came across.
LMAO.

So, in the absence of any action, not even the alleged homosexual knows that he is a homosexual. Your definition is getting ridiculous as you go along.

And yet people have been "cast into a mold of (their) predilection(s)" for centuries, which is why we even bother to take all this time distinguishing homosexuality from heterosexuality.

And to what end, do you even bother to make a distinction, if there is no action that is contemplated, hmmm?

If society had never decided that homosexuality was wrong, all these things would still be facts, but no one would care enough to research them, as the behavior would be open and acceptable and wouldn't have any history of oppression (kind of like your blonde-loving men).

It is wrong by ethical standards. The fact that it does not harm society done in privacy does not make it less wrong.

The erasure of societal inequality is.



I am not denying the existence of free will.

You are simply contradicting it, eh?

Here is what you said:



Civilization's attempts to "subvert" the "human appetites" of those who would prefer those of the same gender resulted in harsh anti-sodomy laws and other restrictions/oppressive dictates. I'd like to know what "discernible good" came of this. Or, for that matter, what's logical about it.

I am not for any anti-sodomy law.

[Coyote]

See the problem is he's muxxing the issue. He's associated the "good/right/correct" as being Heterosexual (the actions of a male being with a woman defining this.) But if this is the case, then someone who has NO mate/spouse/sex partner, has no orientation, this however is obviously not the case. I must point out he IS correct in saying homosexuals have the choice on whether or not to act on their inherent attraction to those of the same gender, however it must also be noted that heterosexuals have the same choice to act on their inherent attraction to the opposite gender. Given these facts, his argument is not truly about what homosexuality is due to, but rather that he feels that it is WRONG and that's that, and thus they're WRONG because they make the choice to follow their orientation, heterosexuals are precluded from this because he feels this is the CORRECT orientation. This is a flawed argument that is actually a very good example petitio principii,. Homosexuals are wrong because they don't make the choice to be Good (heterosexuals) which begs the question why is homosexuality bad? It's ridiculous and to answer the question of why, you fall into a trap of circular logic and questions begged that are central to the religious debate. Give me a reason outside of the "Good Book" that homosexuals are "Perverse" or "Wrong." It cannot be done. Please numunis go on, reproduce and take your precious little snowflakes to the hate mongering Jesus Camps so they can learn that the heathens should be killed for the all loving christ.

Interesting analysis. I would like to hear answers to some of this.

Why is homosexuality bad?
What reason, outside of the "Good Book" are homosexuals "Perverse" or "Wrong?"

I can not think of a single rational reason.

[ArmChair General]

Ya know Numinus, its been proven countless times in many different studys, that the most homophobic heterosexuals are usually the most aroused sexually by homosexual images.

But to respond to your claims, Yes, homosexuality would actually be beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint. But first you have to accept the fact, that in humans as in most of the more intelligent species (like chimpanzees), the main purpose of sexual activity is to form social cohesion, not to procreate.

However, its been shown that genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men apparently boost fertility in women. For instance, female relatives of gay men, usually have more children than female relatives of heterosexual men.

[numinus]

Ya know Numinus, its been proven countless times in many different studys, that the most homophobic heterosexuals are usually the most aroused sexually by homosexual images.

The point being.....?

But to respond to your claims, Yes, homosexuality would actually be beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint. But first you have to accept the fact, that in humans as in most of the more intelligent species (like chimpanzees), the main purpose of sexual activity is to form social cohesion, not to procreate.

What about solitary hunter species, hmmm? Are you saying evolutiion works differently for them?

However, its been shown that genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men apparently boost fertility in women. For instance, female relatives of gay men, usually have more children than female relatives of heterosexual men.

LMAO.

There is also a higher incidence of crime during the full moon.

[numinus]

robeph and vyo

It seems that answering your posts point by point only prompts you to spout more nonsense. One cannot suppose humanity to exist as multiple natures for a multitude of different individuals. And if ever something like this is logically allowed, one cannot pretend to base it on mere inclination or appetites, even if they are of a genetic nature.

Some people are inclined to multiple partners. Some people are inclined to very young partners. Some people are inclined to their brothers and sisters. Some people are inclined to a host of other weird sexual practices. One can argue that these are genetic predisopositions. Surely, it is proveable according to your standards of bogus science. Curiously enough, no one is challenging the limitations imposed by law or public morality on these sexual practices.

IT IS THE SAME REASONING THAT YOU PRETEND TO GIVE HOMOSEXUALITY THAT WILL ALSO LEND VALIDITY TO ALL THESE SEXUAL PRACTICES. That is how logic works. Ultimately, it is a CHOICE on whether to indulge these 'predispositions' or not.

[r0beph]

It is not human nature since it is entirely without rational purpose.

Take fallacy for instance. The human mind makes mistakes, as you have demonstrated quite well. That does not mean fallacy is integral to human nature in such a way that we fashion our existence around them.

how far from correct you are. Love/Emotions/etc., exist because they tend to push us to procreate in the manner that survived best for our species. However, if the underlying gender bias of ones sexual attraction is for that of the same gender, regardless of if it causes reproduction, it still follows correctly the normal PATTERNING that evolution lead us to. The gender bias, and what causes this, is something for another argument, my point is that, questioned on if one has a choice in what he is attracted to, no, does he have a choice to hold back his true feelings and live a lie by pretending to be "heterosexual" sure, he DOES contain freewill, however, this is not something that is even really a good idea. You're muxxing the issue YET again, with assumptions that Orientation Gender Bias is a matter of will. Tell me, do you make the choice to be attracted to women, or are you simply just attracted to them without a thought on the matter, that adequately describes me, so I must logically derive that homosexuals, opposite of my sexuality, must feel the same about those of their gender as I do for those of the opposite. Your arguments lack any real manner, they're actually quite pathetic. But, then even if someone found the genetic material that is absolutely unequivocally responsible for creating homosexuals' orientation, and this absolved choice in the matter, you'd still have an argument.

[vyo476]

Correct. It is merely a preference, just like every other preference for a great many things.

So, how does your preference create a separate state-of-being, hmmm?

Go take a class in sociology and maybe you'll understand.

It is not a fact.

The dictionary considers common usage of words rather than any factual standard.

Your own definition of the word "fact" is suspect enough.

And what makes you think it is natural for him to practice such a thing, hmmm?

I've shown you. The APA has done extensive research into this.

And while you're at it, what makes you think it is natural to give vent to whatever inclination we have, hmmm?

What makes you think that this particular inclination deserves to be repressed?

And you do not consider medical reasons as valid, hmmm? From a physiological standpoint, is there anything natural about sticking your erect penis in someone else's anal passage, hmmm?

Sexual interactions today are in many cases more for pleasure or to derive a sense of closeness to one's partner than for reproductive purposes. In that vain, sure, there's plenty natural about it.

I don't deny that human existence includes a host of urges, including the urge to indulge in homosexual acts. What I am denying is that you can define a separate set of human nature for these urges.

Why not? Are you so afraid that a group of people who've received the short end of the stick for a couple thousand years might finally be accepted by society? Why does that frighten you so?

And what have I said to make you think that of me, hmmm?

Do you deny it, then?

Are you in the habit of making assertions not based on facts and logic?

No. That's you.

Because among the three, only one is logically a homosexual.

But the statement was a contradiction. First you said you wouldn't differentiate. Then you differentiated. Read it over again and tell me how I'm wrong about this.

Eh?

Is there such a thing as an identity that does not manifest AT ALL??

Have you never heard of the subconscious?

Ethical imperatives shape human behavior more than inclinations.

Bull.

Good for you.

Thank you. However, I'm generally not in the practice of taking encouragement from homophobes.

Good for and of itself.

Hey, way to not answer the question. I've never talked with anyone who could be vague like you.

While standards of ethics may overlap with the laws of society, in its broadest sense, an ethical good is its own reward. Conversely, if one does not conform to an ethical standard, then one cannot claim its rewards, no?

This is if you accept a universal model for ethics, which I do not.

Yes, of course.

Now answer this question. Isn't stealing primarily motivated by some inclination towards a bountiful existence? And does frightening someone from stealing, with the full force of the law, make that man something other than a thief?

In its most basic form, a "thief" is one who steals. So yes, threatening him with the force of the law and thereby preventing him from stealing keeps him from being a thief. HOWEVER - what if he has kleptomania, which predicates him towards stealing? Then, whether he is currently engaging in the act of stealing or not, he is a kleptomaniac.

I believe that society has the right to discourage thievery because it is harmful to others. Homosexuality is not harmful to others. If you wish to argue with me on this point, you may start by telling me how you, personally, have been harmed by homosexuality.

Doesn't judaism refer to ethnic origins as well?

Yes. Both Judaism as an ethnic origin and Judaism as a religion were targeted by the Nazis.

But assuming that it is purely religious, and that one is sufficiently frightened such that ALL actions that pertain to his religion is removed, then one simply is no longer an adherent of judaism.

There you have it, folks. Jews who were frightened into not practicing their religion to keep from being killed were no longer Jews, according to numinus.

You may as well give up, numinus. Your credibility is shot.

It is ambiguous. Notice how your definition is put together by 'or'. An enduring emotional attraction, therefore, is in itself, a sexual orientation(?) Can you not see how absurd that is?

No. I don't. Why don't you tell me rather than beating around the bush?

LMAO.

So, in the absence of any action, not even the alleged homosexual knows that he is a homosexual. Your definition is getting ridiculous as you go along.

Once again, there's the subconscious. There's innate psychological repression that goes along with not wanting to accept that one is different in a hostile world. Perhaps you wouldn't know anything about that type of insecurity, though - or how extreme it can get when one realizes that an issue such as this could completely and irrevocably remove one's emotional base of support.

You are simply contradicting it, eh?

I'll leave the contradictions to you. Like this one.

It is wrong by ethical standards. The fact that it does not harm society done in privacy does not make it less wrong?

I am not for any anti-sodomy law.

Well done, numinus, the homophobia is really starting to flow.

[vyo476]

It seems that answering your posts point by point only prompts you to spout more nonsense.

Funny, I was about to say the same thing to you.

One cannot suppose humanity to exist as multiple natures for a multitude of different individuals. And if ever something like this is logically allowed, one cannot pretend to base it on mere inclination or appetites, even if they are of a genetic nature.

So what can it be based on, then?

Some people are inclined to multiple partners. Some people are inclined to very young partners. Some people are inclined to their brothers and sisters. Some people are inclined to a host of other weird sexual practices. One can argue that these are genetic predisopositions.

Or simply mental conditioning written and locked in at an early age. One way or the other, yes, these can be called predispositions.

Surely, it is proveable according to your standards of bogus science.

I'd ask you to prove that it's "bogus" but the word "prove" only seems to mean what you want it to mean.

Curiously enough, no one is challenging the limitations imposed by law or public morality on these sexual practices.

Incest and statuatory rape are proven to have severe adverse psychological affects on the partner who is being victimized. This is not true of homosexuality. I'll personally question the limitations placed on polygamy if you'd like; I don't see any reason that that should be restricted, either, but for the sake of focus I usually keep my arguments to the homosexual question (one thing at a time, you know?).

IT IS THE SAME REASONING THAT YOU PRETEND TO GIVE HOMOSEXUALITY THAT WILL ALSO LEND VALIDITY TO ALL THESE SEXUAL PRACTICES.

That you lump homosexuality, which generally involves the consensual union between two individuals, in with statutory rape, which is by it's nature a severe violation of one individual by another, is indicative of your bias and lack of understanding of homosexuals.

That is how logic works. Ultimately, it is a CHOICE on whether to indulge these 'predispositions' or not.

Ultimately, there is a choice whether to indulge these predispositions, that's true. However, the choice should be and is affected by a simple question: "Should I?" You think there's something wrong with homosexuality so for you the answer is "no." Now it's up to you to prove that.

Or...and here's the better alternative...you just push back from the table now and realize that you've already made enough of a fool of yourself and to continue would be to continue plumbing the depths of your own intolerance and bigotry. I wouldn't think less of you for calling it quits here, but then, I'm not sure it'd be possible for me to think less of you after that comment about Jews and the Holocaust.

[Coyote]

What about solitary hunter species, hmmm? Are you saying evolutiion works differently for them?


Yes. It does work differently. Different characteristics are conducive to survival in social species where the emphasis may be on survival of a closely related family grouping with cooperative care of the young rather then survival and propagation of the individual (as in solitary hunter species). Within that context homosexuality can be seen to confer certain advantages: non-breeding member of the group that aids in defense and child care, homosexuality could reduce sexual tensions in a group where only a small number actually breed and, in some cases - like Bonobos - sexual behavior, including homosexual behavior, is a means of social cohesion.

[numinus]

Go take a class in sociology and maybe you'll understand.

And what makes you think I'm inclined to take a gay sociology class, if something remotely similar to that exists, hmmm?

Your own definition of the word "fact" is suspect enough.

Have you even read the introduction to any dictionary?

I've shown you. The APA has done extensive research into this.

Into what? That homosexuality is a genetic condition that takes away one's free will? And what is the business of a group of psychologist doing genetic research, eh?

I would expect you to lie, but to do so in such a blundering fashion is bordering on idiocy.

What makes you think that this particular inclination deserves to be repressed?

Did I say 'repressed'? I have always argued for privacy regarding sexual matters.

Sexual interactions today are in many cases more for pleasure or to derive a sense of closeness to one's partner than for reproductive purposes. In that vain, sure, there's plenty natural about it.

I said physiological. Pale rider already mentioned the hazards of introducing fecal matter in the blood stream - which is very likely when you introduce your erect penis in someone's behind, and pump vigorously.

Why not? Are you so afraid that a group of people who've received the short end of the stick for a couple thousand years might finally be accepted by society? Why does that frighten you so?

Good lord, you're dense!

Because if there are different forms of being, other than human being, for different individuals, then there can be no law that would logically bind all.

And what sort of right do you suggest for a gay being that isn't already covered in the universal declaration of human rights, the rights of women and children, hmmm?

Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.

Do you deny it, then?

I deny it absolutely.

No. That's you.

And who is the one claiming dictionary definitions as rigorously factual, hmmm?

But the statement was a contradiction. First you said you wouldn't differentiate. Then you differentiated. Read it over again and tell me how I'm wrong about this.

I said IF....

The point being to expose your statement to a patently ridiculous situation IF. And because I assert that thought and action are inseparable, then only a person who indulges in the act may be deemed a homosexual.

It is not my fault that you're somewhat slow.

Have you never heard of the subconscious?

Yes. And the reason we are aware that there is a subconscious is that it manifests in action, no?

Bull.

You behave on inclinations rather than on some discernable good??? That would explain a lot.

Thank you. However, I'm generally not in the practice of taking encouragement from homophobes.

Just because I see homosexuality as a choice makes me a homophobe??? You don't know me, nor the friends I keep. You might want to ease up on the labels and stick with facts and logic.

Hey, way to not answer the question. I've never talked with anyone who could be vague like you.

A lot of things appear vague to the ignorant.

An action that is though of as good, and is not calculated to promote a further good - that is a good in and of itself.

Clear enough for you?

This is if you accept a universal model for ethics, which I do not.

You have no idea how supremely stupid that is. Even the most ethical relativist, like hume, doesn't dare assert such a thing.

In its most basic form, a "thief" is one who steals. So yes, threatening him with the force of the law and thereby preventing him from stealing keeps him from being a thief. HOWEVER - what if he has kleptomania, which predicates him towards stealing? Then, whether he is currently engaging in the act of stealing or not, he is a kleptomaniac.

What are you talking about??? A kleptomaniac IS A THIEF, and the full force of the law will not suffer theft. It will compel him to undertake a cure so that he does not steal again, which is a similar fate to incarceration if such a condition did not exist in the thief.

To live a luxurious life is an inclination most people have. And so you may follow your inclinations up to the point the law permits. And your sociology is not worth a damn if you don't know that.

I believe that society has the right to discourage thievery because it is harmful to others. Homosexuality is not harmful to others. If you wish to argue with me on this point, you may start by telling me how you, personally, have been harmed by homosexuality.

And I have NEVER asserted that it is harmful to me. It is harmful to those who practice it. And I have no intentions of interfering with the private lives of others.

Yes. Both Judaism as an ethnic origin and Judaism as a religion were targeted by the Nazis.

So it isn't exclusively thought.

There you have it, folks. Jews who were frightened into not practicing their religion to keep from being killed were no longer Jews, according to numinus.

[QUOTE=vyo476;25444]You may as well give up, numinus. Your credibility is shot.

LOL.

How can anyone be of a religion, as a right of though, when he is forbidden to practice it, eh? You have probably heard of the word non-practicing whatever and fail to discern how utterly ridiculous that is.

No. I don't. Why don't you tell me rather than beating around the bush?

You may not have an 'enduring emotional attraction' to say your children and members of your family, regardless of gender? It is something reserved for homosexual behavior, eh?

Once again, there's the subconscious. There's innate psychological repression that goes along with not wanting to accept that one is different in a hostile world. Perhaps you wouldn't know anything about that type of insecurity, though - or how extreme it can get when one realizes that an issue such as this could completely and irrevocably remove one's emotional base of support.

Do you even know what subconscious means?

All sorts of demons can reside in the subconscious and there really isn't any way to know UNTIL THEY MANIFEST IN SOME FORM OF ACTION.

I've had just about enough of you quack psychology.

Well done, numinus, the homophobia is really starting to flow.

Not as vigorous as the flow of stupidity, I'm afraid.

[vyo476]

And what makes you think I'm inclined to take a gay sociology class, if something remotely similar to that exists, hmmm?

You prefer ignorance? Imagine that.

Into what? That homosexuality is a genetic condition that takes away one's free will? And what is the business of a group of psychologist doing genetic research, eh?

I would expect you to lie, but to do so in such a blundering fashion is bordering on idiocy.

It is you who is blundering here in attempting to produce an obfuscation. The psychologists have not proven that homosexuality is genetic; they've proven that is a born of a combination of "environmental, cognitive, and biological factors."

I've posted links to the APA's website far too many times to continue doing so, unless you want me to post them again so that you can actually read what they have to say this time.

Did I say 'repressed'? I have always argued for privacy regarding sexual matters.

And yet you do not believe society should accept homosexuality?

I said physiological. Pale rider already mentioned the hazards of introducing fecal matter in the blood stream - which is very likely when you introduce your erect penis in someone's behind, and pump vigorously.

There are plenty of risks involved in all forms of sexual activity.

Because if there are different forms of being, other than human being, for different individuals, then there can be no law that would logically bind all.

So?

And what sort of right do you suggest for a gay being that isn't already covered in the universal declaration of human rights, the rights of women and children, hmmm?

Recognition of the validity of their suffering at the hands of unfair oppression, and steps to be taken to correct the societal imbalance that creates a stigma around them still today.

I deny it absolutely.

So now there hasn't been any unjust mistreatment of women over the ages. Keep it coming numinus. I barely have to ask questions in order to get you to look like an idiot at this point.

I said IF....

The point being to expose your statement to a patently ridiculous situation IF. And because I assert that thought and action are inseparable, then only a person who indulges in the act may be deemed a homosexual.

It is not my fault that you're somewhat slow.

I'm having a hard time finding this "if" statement now. Care to point it out to me?

Yes. And the reason we are aware that there is a subconscious is that it manifests in action, no?

The human mind is not so simple as you seem to think it is. The subconscious of a repressed homosexual may manifest a variety of behaviors. For instance, a severely repressed homosexual may develop self-destructive habits in the presence of men to whom he is attracted to distract the conscious mind from accepting that attraction. I've seen it happen.

You behave on inclinations rather than on some discernable good??? That would explain a lot.

Our definitions of "discernible good" no doubt differ. I believe there is a discernible good in indulging consensual inclinations which are non-destructive to those who do not wish to participate. In that way, there is a discernible psychological good inherent in the homosexuals who accept their orientation and freely engage in activities pertaining to that orientation, whereas there is little discernible good that comes from repressing those activities.

Just because I see homosexuality as a choice makes me a homophobe??? You don't know me, nor the friends I keep. You might want to ease up on the labels and stick with facts and logic.

Fine, here are some facts. Homosexuality has been persecuted for hundreds of years. To say that homosexuality is a choice is to say that all those people who were persecuted chose to suffer. That's deeply insulting.

An action that is though of as good, and is not calculated to promote a further good - that is a good in and of itself.

That's not clear at all. What is "good"?

What are you talking about??? A kleptomaniac IS A THIEF, and the full force of the law will not suffer theft. It will compel him to undertake a cure so that he does not steal again, which is a similar fate to incarceration if such a condition did not exist in the thief.

Is a kleptomaniac who does not steal still a thief? Does his condition prevent him from choosing, or does it explain the choice?

And, interestingly, homosexuality as a parallel cannot be "cured." You can psychologically damage someone with a homosexual orientation to the point where they are incapable of acting on or even acknowledging their orientation without extreme amounts of distress?

To live a luxurious life is an inclination most people have. And so you may follow your inclinations up to the point the law permits. And your sociology is not worth a damn if you don't know that.

Society sets rules (norms and values) and people are generally allowed to exist withing those rules; violation of such results in society punishing the transgressor. That's pretty much how we'd just say what you said in a sociological discussion.

Now take it a step further and ask yourself why homosexuality is a transgression according to societal norms and values over the past couple thousand years. Ask yourself if that's particularly fair. And now ask yourself if maybe, just maybe, elevating the status of homosexuality for a finite (though indeterminate) period of time in order to encourage the erasure of the remainder of past inequalities and to truly put society on an equal footing in regards to homosexuality is worth it.

And I have NEVER asserted that it is harmful to me. It is harmful to those who practice it. And I have no intentions of interfering with the private lives of others.

Perhaps not directly. Indirectly you support the views of those who would interfere in the private lives of others in a negative way.

This is not an "us or them" statement. If you truly wish neutrality in this kind of argument you can keep your opinion to yourself.

How can anyone be of a religion, as a right of though, when he is forbidden to practice it, eh? You have probably heard of the word non-practicing whatever and fail to discern how utterly ridiculous that is.

Why don't you ask someone with more experience? Why don't you find a Holocaust survivor, tell him that you don't believe he was a Jew if he wasn't practicing his religion while the Nazis were killing his kind, and ask him how he could possibly assert that he was a Jew while the Nazis were persecuting him?

You may not have an 'enduring emotional attraction' to say your children and members of your family, regardless of gender? It is something reserved for homosexual behavior, eh?

Attraction is the key word. You may experience an emotional connection with your children or members of your family, but it is not necessarily an "attraction." To have an "attraction" towards these people falls into another category.

A man who loves his brother is not (necessarily) a homosexual. A man who is attracted to his brother is a homosexual. Get it?

Do you even know what subconscious means?

All sorts of demons can reside in the subconscious and there really isn't any way to know UNTIL THEY MANIFEST IN SOME FORM OF ACTION.

I've had just about enough of you quack psychology.

My "quack psychology" recognizes that the subconscious manifests in all kinds of ways. Just because someone isn't directly engaging in homosexual activities does not mean that they are not, on a subconscious level, a homosexual.

[r0beph]

A man who loves his brother is not (necessarily) a homosexual. A man who is attracted to his brother is a homosexual. Get it?

actually a lot more here going on than a homosexual orientation.


My "quack psychology" recognizes that the subconscious manifests in all kinds of ways. Just because someone isn't directly engaging in homosexual activities does not mean that they are not, on a subconscious level, a homosexual.

Sexuality is not simply "subconscious.", and it is SO far from a choice that numinus is arguing this point with the logic of a lobotomized rock. When you see someone you are attracted to (which is without contention, controlled sub consciously not even numinus will argue this...to do so would be silly anyhow) What causes the feelings? Is it simply your subconscious going into action? No there are distinct physical responses, release of high levels of seritonin, testosterone, vasodialation (flushing), increase in heart rate, dopamine release. This is not a choice, this is not just "subconscious" thought, this is a physical reaction based on something that is obviously tied to the mind. This is not something that counseling can change, this is not something that someone chooses, it simply IS as it is. Physical reactions to external stimuli are not something anyone can control. Logic insists under such observations that Homosexuality, in which these occur when a male sees another male whom sets off this response due to an non-choice, thus, pre-determined criteria, are therefore without a doubt a non choice matter. This is Homosexuality...the Attraction to the same gender, attraction is thus as YOU REQUESTED, AN ACTION, numunis, as this action exists, it falls squarely into your (albeit incorrect) conjecture and creates scientific evidence for the facts as I state.

You numunis, are incorrectly assuming the question, is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic, is referential to the action of having same gender relations, the actuality is that this question is a simple one that simple observation can assert. No one chooses to be homosexual, it is an innate factor, since currently there are two accepted modes of human development, environmental affects and genetic predispositions, it must be one or the other, it can easily be shown that homosexuals exist in most developmental and post-developmental stages, in all envrionments, in all upbringings, and in all areas of life. Thus environment is by virtue, not the case. Thus it is genetic, in this, it is not a choice.

You contend, however, that it is a choice, since one chooses to act on it, I agree, one does choose to act upon their predetermined drives. If suddenly society frowned upon being heterosexual, would you give up women and begin screwing men? I doubt the answer is yes. Either way, this choice, the choice to follow your sexual bias, is not the qu