I agree that by your logic you must force homosexuals to reveal their paraphilia. I further agree by your logic that if you don’t force homosexuals to out themselves they are vulnerable to blackmail. The high prevalence of mental disorders among homosexuals presents a security risk in and of itself.No, I’m saying that an open homosexual is not a blackmail threat. Once the repeal to DADT has gone through, there is no way to blackmail a homosexual since their job is not under threat if their homosexuality is revealed. Explain to me exactly how an open homosexual is a security threat.
I never said that homosexuals must be forced to reveal their “paraphilia”, that was your deduction. As regards a high prevalence of mental disorders, each soldier should be treated as an individual and tested for mental disorder on their own basis, not as a member of their sexual orientation.I agree that by your logic you must force homosexuals to reveal their paraphilia. I further agree by your logic that if you don’t force homosexuals to out themselves they are vulnerable to blackmail. The high prevalence of mental disorders among homosexuals presents a security risk in and of itself.
That’s a logical consequence of your position.I never said that homosexuals must be forced to reveal their “paraphilia”, that was your deduction.
So you would forcibly remove two thirds of the homosexual soldiers that you forced to reveal their paraphilia?As regards a high prevalence of mental disorders, each soldier should be treated as an individual and tested for mental disorder on their own basis, not as a member of their sexual orientation.
First of all, homosexuality has not been considered a paraphilia since 1973. If a soldier has a mental disorder that means he can’t serve, of course he should be removed whatever his sexuality. I would be surprised if that figure came in practice to two-thirds of any group.That’s a logical consequence of your position.
So you would forcibly remove two thirds of the homosexual soldiers that you forced to reveal their paraphilia?
Homosexual behavior is intrinsically disordered according to the Lex Naturalis which cannot change, therefore it is still a paraphilia.First of all, homosexuality has not been considered a paraphilia since 1973. If a soldier has a mental disorder that means he can’t serve, of course he should be removed whatever his sexuality. I would be surprised if that figure came in practice to two-thirds of any group.
Can’t a scientific view change, when new evidence appears? I’m expressing surprise, since the two-thirds figure doesn’t match what I see around me. It would be interesting to see what future studies show. Often, scientific studies are followed up by a different group of scientists performing a similar study to test it.Homosexual behavior is intrinsically disordered according to the Lex Naturalis which cannot change, therefore it is still a paraphilia.
The science shows that two thirds have psychiatric disorders. Are you denying the science simply because it doesn’t reinforce your worldview?
Take your squabble up with the government scientists and their facts.Can’t a scientific view change, when new evidence appears? I’m expressing surprise, since the two-thirds figure doesn’t match what I see around me. It would be interesting to see what future studies show. Often, scientific studies are followed up by a different group of scientists performing a similar study to test it.
Pay close attention both to the population sampled and to the mental disorders that the study was looking for. From the abstract, it appears that the population was men who sleep with men (so not “homosexuals” per se), and the mental disorders the researchers were testing for were limited to “major depression, specific phobia, social phobia, alcohol dependence, and drug dependence.”I agree that by your logic you must force homosexuals to reveal their paraphilia. I further agree by your logic that if you don’t force homosexuals to out themselves they are vulnerable to blackmail. The high prevalence of mental disorders among homosexuals presents a security risk in and of itself.
Why the use of euphemisms? They’re homosexuals. The psychiatric disorders rampant among active homosexuals would represent a security risk in any group including heterosexuals.Pay close attention both to the population sampled and to the mental disorders that the study was looking for. From the abstract, it appears that the population was men who sleep with men (so not “homosexuals” per se), and the mental disorders the researchers were testing for were limited to “major depression, specific phobia, social phobia, alcohol dependence, and drug dependence.”
Thus, (1) it is not possible to use this study to conclude that two out of every three gay men have one of the given mental problems. (2) None of the disorders represents a security risk: drug and alcohol dependence will get you kicked out of the military; social phobia will keep you from trying to enlist in the first place; specific phobias (such as a pathological fear of spiders or heights) may or may not keep you out, and if it doesn’t that’s because there is no reasonable expectation it will affect your performance; and, finally, major depression will probably prevent you from completing basic training.
So much for that part.
I was wondering, though, if you could flesh out the argument that gets you from kaid100’s position to your conclusions about compulsory outing and blackmail. From where I sit that part of the conversation seems very confusing.
No they aren’t. It turns out, as a little thought would also suggest, that the concepts “men who sleep with men” (MSM) and “gay men” are not even coextensive (ie, cover the same persons) let alone synonymous. In the first place, bisexual men are often MSM; a large number of straight, or if you prefer, heterosexual men experiment in this area; some drug addicts sleep with persons of their own sex in order to get money or more drugs. If you dig into the literature on this topic a little, I think, if I remember correctly, you will find that a small majority of the men who report ever having slept with another man are actually straight. Thus, using a study about MSM in order to make a claim about gay men is more than a little iffy.Why the use of euphemisms? They’re homosexuals.
I stand corrected. But that doesn’t help your case, since people with such debilitating phobias would probably not attempt to join the armed forces, would probably be excluded if they tried, and would almost certainly not make it through basic training if they got in.And the small percentage with “specific phobias” doesn’t mean the typical fear of spiders or heights that many people have it’s a crippling fear that interferes with someone’s ability to function.
Men who have sex with other men are not engaging in homosexual behavior? :hypno:No they aren’t. It turns out, as a little thought would also suggest, that the concepts “men who sleep with men” (MSM) and “gay men” are not even coextensive (ie, cover the same persons) let alone synonymous. In the first place, bisexual men are often MSM; a large number of straight, or if you prefer, heterosexual men experiment in this area; some drug addicts sleep with persons of their own sex in order to get money or more drugs. If you dig into the literature on this topic a little, I think, if I remember correctly, you will find that a small majority of the men who report ever having slept with another man are actually straight. Thus, using a study about MSM in order to make a claim about gay men is more than a little iffy.
Well, just for fun let’s pretend that merely engaging in homosexual behavior makes someone homosexual. Then based on what I said (cases like bisexuality, experimentation, trading sex for drugs, being “gay-for-pay,” etc), some heterosexuals will be homosexuals because they presently do, or at one time did, engage in homosexual behavior. That objection alone seems to me to vitiate the usefulness of the proposed definition, but you’re free to disagree and in that case there’s nothing I can do about that.Men who have sex with other men are not engaging in homosexual behavior? :hypno:
Source?Lex Naturalis is wrong.
Burden of proof is on the one claiming something is true.Source?
necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agitscipio337;7422927:
Source?Burden of proof is on the one claiming something is true.kaid100;7419570:
Lex Naturalis is wrong.
Lex Naturalis is, apparently, claiming that homosexuality is wrong. It is there that the burden lies. How does Lex Naturalis know this?necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit
The necessity of proof lies with he who complains.
That would be you.
From what you’ve posted you don’t even appear to understand Lex Naturalis, much less present a rational objection to it.
The way you’ve presented the question indicates that you are completely unfamiliar with Christianity and philosophy.Lex Naturalis is, apparently, claiming that homosexuality is wrong. It is there that the burden lies. How does Lex Naturalis know this?
Ah, so you’ve dodged the point instead of responding to it. No, the onus is on you to justify Lex Naturalis and it’s claim that homosexuality is wrong.The way you’ve presented the question indicates that you are completely unfamiliar with Christianity and philosophy.
I’m not going to spoon feed you the perennial philosophy that you’re challenging.
The onus is on you. First, to understand what you’re challenging. Second, to prove your complaint is warranted.
If there’s any dodging it’s on your part. What part of “perennial” don’t you understand? You’re challenging the normative knowledge of the nature of sex acts. The onus is upon you to prove why the rest of the world (even atheist states) are and always have been wrong.Ah, so you’ve dodged the point instead of responding to it. No, the onus is on you to justify Lex Naturalis and it’s claim that homosexuality is wrong.
You are still dodging. All you have to do is say why homosexuality is against Lex Naturalis and why Lex Naturalis is true.If there’s any dodging it’s on your part. What part of “perennial” don’t you understand? You’re challenging the normative knowledge of the nature of sex acts. The onus is upon you to prove why the rest of the world (even atheist states) are and always have been wrong.
You’ve provided nothing more compelling than a truculent “nuh-uh” so far.