Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[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.