Getting clear about homosexuality

[OneDayASaint]

Wow, 33% of people are pedophiles, I’m sure this is verifiable too!

Oh wait a second, that’s funny, I thought 33% were pedophiles!

Oops, ignore the last 2, it’s actually 73%!

It doesn’t show the stats you’re responding to and I don’t know how to do that.

Maybe they are contradictory, but it’s also possible they have different parameters they define things by. By underage they might include 17 year olds, and it’s possible the ones who answered yes to that only did once, and perhaps they were in their early to mid 20’s at the time, so that would increase the number of people who answered affirmative to this question without necessarily being a definitive orientation for them. It’s also possible that out of those who answered yes, a much smaller percent of them were exclusively attracted to under aged people (17 and under by my state). And perhaps they defined pedophilia as being attracted to 14 years and younger, or even younger than 14 as the age cap. There’s more than one possible answer to the disparity in numbers, and of course simply being contradictory is one of those possibilities.

There were other stats in there that could be looked at in either way as well, with different questions to be raised based on the information provided.

Research findings in general are sketchy. There are ways to read the numbers allowing a “slightly more than” and a “slightly less than” on the actual numbers provided. But it’s also really easy to manipulate the findings to suit an agenda. In this case it doesn’t take a stretch to convince some people that it is completely inaccurate and laughable OR to say these numbers are exactly what they look like. The only way for any of us to find value in the information provided unfiltered by another person’s bias is to look at each one of them ourselves with an eye kept as neutral as possible and to not just read the numbers, but any notes given by the researchers to assist with our understanding of what the numbers mean. And also to know who the researchers are and what their possible agenda is to see if that can also alter your perception of it. For instance, the AMA in I believe it was 2008 or 2009 said doctors were the third leading cause of death in America. Since the AMA supports doctors I didn’t really scrutinize too hard, but if the information was put out by a big acupuncture organization I would want more back up on that from other sources or perhaps more information as to how they come up with that because it’s possible they may want to discredit traditional western medicine to promote acupuncture.

It’s really hard to maintain that “neutral eye”. Something I’ve always made myself do when looking at the possibilities of truth in a specific instance is to try to find how I can make the one I like the least to seem the most likely. I force myself to prove something I don’t want to be true. That way I know I’m not looking at it through rose tinted glasses and misleading myself. And when I’ve built a really strong argument for the side I don’t want to be right, I look at how I can disprove it in favor of the outcome I prefer. That way I’m less likely to delude myself. It’s not flawless but it’s a method some might like to try for themselves. I guess you could liken it to me playing chess with myself or perhaps me trying to debate myself.

 

[Ethan88]

Well said OneDayASaint, you seem more interested in facts as opposed to someone Domiy, who is more concerned with an agenda of being right.

What bothered me about his posts was not that he simply posted an argument against homosexuality, I’ve faced that thousands of times, it’s that he just scoured anti-gay propaganda and posted it without even looking at the sources, the likes of which include FRI. Imagined if I posted arguments against the Catholic church and used Bill Maher as a “source”

 

[OneDayASaint]

Well said OneDayASaint, you seem more interested in facts as opposed to someone Domiy, who is more concerned with an agenda of being right.

What bothered me about his posts was not that he simply posted an argument against homosexuality, I’ve faced that thousands of times, it’s that he just scoured anti-gay propaganda and posted it without even looking at the sources, the likes of which include FRI. Imagined if I posted arguments against the Catholic church and used Bill Maher as a “source”

Well, I am not familiar with FRI. I will have to check out some of those sources and data he posted.

And please don’t use Bill Maher as a reflection on Catholicism!

To be more clear on this, years ago before I converted I used to love going to gay clubs. As a female, I was able to have fun and not get harassed like I did at straight clubs. And if I was to just use that as an example I would think his statistics are accurate. But it was a club where people went specifically to party so I wouldn’t use my personal experience as a general census on homosexuality. And I don’t pry into that sort of information with my gay friends and acquaintances.

I also have a very keen interest in some sciences and because of my recreational research I am aware of how information can be misused. I just wanted people reading to see that it is possible to exploit that information in either direction. I think both of you are coming from what you feel are good intentions (you defending homosexuals whom we are all called to love and Domiy who is defending the Church’s stance that homosexual acts are a disordered use of our sexuality). I respect both of your sentiments in this regard. I haven’t checked the information, which I’m interested in doing, so I don’t have a firm opinion on how accurate the statistics are. I would like to encourage everyone else to do so as well.

 

[OneDayASaint]

But how about instead of finding loose ways to pick apart my sources, you provide some of your own? Is there any sort strong evidence you can give that supports the homosexual position, ie that encouraging the lifestyle that lead to the spread of STD’s would be beneficial?

This is an interesting proposition. I would like to see where this thread would go if people tried what I like to do and those supporting open homosexuality tried to find reasons it would have a negative impact on society if it was universally accepted then posted it with equally compelling counter arguments and people saying it is disordered tried to find reasons it is completely harmless and posting those with their own counterarguments. With no facetiousness - an honest go at proving themselves wrong in order to build an even stronger belief in why they are right.

 

[Jala]

The existence of gay gene is still rejected by many scientists.

Biological inheritance is far more complex than a single gene controlling a phenotype.

Left-handedness absolutely does run in families (including my own). But there is no “left-handed gene.” Both my father and I were forced, as children, to “be right-handed.” It didn’t work out well for either of us. I didn’t force my daughter, and other than doing a few things right-handed out of convenience (using scissors, for example), she’s happily a southpaw.

Three generations of lefties, but no single left-handed gene…hmmm…

Jala

 

[Domiy]

This is an interesting proposition. I would like to see where this thread would go if people tried what I like to do and those supporting open homosexuality tried to find reasons it would have a negative impact on society if it was universally accepted then posted it with equally compelling counter arguments and people saying it is disordered tried to find reasons it is completely harmless and posting those with their own counterarguments. With no facetiousness - an honest go at proving themselves wrong in order to build an even stronger belief in why they are right.

Much appreciated for your mediation efforts between the argument Thanks!

Also, a very good idea about the whole counterargument thing, but I believe I’ve made my position quite clear. As the Church, I stand against homosexuality. It’s an illness of the mind, a rejection of reality and nature and everything the human race stands for or relies on, and those kind of stats are a good indication of that. As has already been pointed out in this thread as well, there is no gay gene, and at best one may be able to argue that gays are born with a slight imbalance of hormones etc, but then again you can account that to people’s desire for alcohol or other things, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a justified excuse to encourage that lifestyle. When it comes to sexual preference, one can easily also claim that they’re attracted to animals, and thus bestiality shouldn’t be illegal as it refuses their rights of sexual expression. With the gays already managing to get pedophilia removed from the list of mental illnesses, I deeply for our society that bestiality will eventually be granted the same right as well (since the exact same argument that favors legalizing homosexuality can be made for that as well).

Trying my best to take out my bias, I can’t really say that I can identify any beneficial position for the legalizing and acceptance of homosexuality. To be honest, neither can the gays themselves, their arguments are based around personal and anecdotal feelings and experiences which can neither be accounted for or measured. The only benefit that comes from it is that it may take away some guilt or fear that troubled people feel growing up, but then again that’s no more a benefit of homosexuality than it is for any sexual condition or preference (bestiality included). They can’t reproduce, and I’d also question their ability to unconditionally love and equally support a child (when it’s quite clear that based on their sexual past and tendency, they don’t even love eachother in that way).

 

[OneDayASaint]

Trying my best to take out my bias, I can’t really say that I can identify any beneficial position for the legalizing and acceptance of homosexuality. To be honest, neither can the gays themselves, their arguments are based around personal and anecdotal feelings and experiences which can neither be accounted for or measured. The only benefit that comes from it is that it may take away some guilt or fear that troubled people feel growing up, but then again that’s no more a benefit of homosexuality than it is for any sexual condition or preference (bestiality included). They can’t reproduce, and I’d also question their ability to unconditionally love and equally support a child (when it’s quite clear that based on their sexual past and tendency, they don’t even love eachother in that way).

When I’ve looked at things I felt were wrong but society says were to be expected I’ve often proven myself right after all! I’m always really happy when that happens. Once I get to that point I feel I no longer have a bias but an informed truth that I can defend with enough information on either side to convince others of it. So depending on where you are at on a particular subject you can eventually move from being biased to actually knowing the truth.

And thank you for appreciating my efforts.

 

[Ethan88]

Much appreciated for your mediation efforts between the argument Thanks!

Also, a very good idea about the whole counterargument thing, but I believe I’ve made my position quite clear. As the Church, I stand against homosexuality. It’s an illness of the mind, a rejection of reality and nature and everything the human race stands for or relies on, and those kind of stats are a good indication of that. As has already been pointed out in this thread as well, there is no gay gene, and at best one may be able to argue that gays are born with a slight imbalance of hormones etc, but then again you can account that to people’s desire for alcohol or other things, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a justified excuse to encourage that lifestyle. When it comes to sexual preference, one can easily also claim that they’re attracted to animals, and thus bestiality shouldn’t be illegal as it refuses their rights of sexual expression. With the gays already managing to get pedophilia removed from the list of mental illnesses, I deeply for our society that bestiality will eventually be granted the same right as well (since the exact same argument that favors legalizing homosexuality can be made for that as well).

Trying my best to take out my bias, I can’t really say that I can identify any beneficial position for the legalizing and acceptance of homosexuality. To be honest, neither can the gays themselves, their arguments are based around personal and anecdotal feelings and experiences which can neither be accounted for or measured. The only benefit that comes from it is that it may take away some guilt or fear that troubled people feel growing up, but then again that’s no more a benefit of homosexuality than it is for any sexual condition or preference (bestiality included). They can’t reproduce, and I’d also question their ability to unconditionally love and equally support a child (when it’s quite clear that based on their sexual past and tendency, they don’t even love eachother in that way).

Claim homosexuality is an illness (despite the same thing being said about religion): ✓
Compare homosexuality to bestiality: ✓
Compare homosexuality to pedophilia: ✓
Repeat the lack of gay gene despite there be no gay or straight gene found: ✓
Lie and pretend gay people are trying to legalize pedophilia: ✓
Promote the banning of homosexual relationships: ✓

I think you’d love Saudi Arabia or Iran this time of year, but in any case, you’re not even the current type of crazy commonly found today in the anti-gay movement, you’re more like, 40 years ago crazy. It’s so refreshing to know that society has evolved and IQ’s have increased

 

[OneDayASaint]

Lie and pretend gay people are trying to legalize pedophilia: ✓

There is an organization called NAMBLA - North American Man/Boy Love Association that is homosexual and is trying to legalize pedophilia. So it does exist but it’s a subculture within a subculture.

If you use a search engine to see if your average homosexual supports this group you will find several sites saying they don’t, which is good. One site said that they have been kicked from gay pride parades in Orlando and Miami. I haven’t found hard evidence of that being true but I haven’t looked very hard, either. If I was a gay rights activist I would want them kicked from all gatherings. I think it’s comparable to a public Protestant gathering putting up with the presence of Neo-Nazis. They’re a radical minority group that label themselves as Protestants and if they are allowed to be there, all of the other Protestants are communicating to the world at large they don’t mind them so much - whether or not that’s how they actually feel about it.

 

[Domiy]

Claim homosexuality is an illness (despite the same thing being said about religion): ✓

It is within human nature to seek hope, logic or faith, especially what is backed up and supported, ie religion. Those who claim it’s an illness are desperate atheists and the like. Homosexuality goes against nature, social customs, and in some cases even the law. It’s been proven to have links to depression and negative outcomes such as STD’s. Therefore desiring to live your life by it is quite clearly an illness, perhaps a seek for attention or lack of heterosexual appreciation being the cause.

Compare homosexuality to bestiality: ✓
Compare homosexuality to pedophilia: ✓

What exactly makes that wrong? I’m so sick of people like you using this simple cop-out. “Oh Goodness, you compared it to something terribly related but not yet legal, what a horrible person you must be that argument is void!”.

No, sorry, takes more than that. Pedophilia is the controversial sexual desire for minors. Bestiality is the controversial sexual desire for animals. Homosexuality is the controversial sexual desire for the same sex. Let’s see. All are controversial, debatable, illegal in most countries, sexual and mental. Oh, not to mention they’re exactly the same thing except for switching around the partner from an animal to a minor to a same-sex person. What makes those claiming to have a love for the same sex more rational than those claiming to have a love for animals?

Repeat the lack of gay gene despite there be no gay or straight gene found: ✓

No gene required. It’s called the natural process.

Lie and pretend gay people are trying to legalize pedophilia: ✓

Yeah. Just because they rallied for it to be taken off the list of mental illnesses and are further rallying for society to be more accepting of all sexual preferences AND the fact that they themselves are associated with pedophilia, it can’t possibly mean they’re trying to get it legalized, what an outrageous and unsupported claim right?

Promote the banning of homosexual relationships: ✓

Right on. Although it’s already banned in many places.

 

[Baelor]

As the Church, I stand against homosexuality.

The Church does not stand against homosexuality.

It’s an illness of the mind,

Sure.

a rejection of reality and nature and everything the human race stands for or relies on

That makes no sense. Illnesses are not choices per se, and consequently cannot involve “rejection” of a mindset.

As has already been pointed out in this thread as well, there is no gay gene,

That has not been proven and therefore may as well not have been stated.

and at best one may be able to argue that gays are born with a slight imbalance of hormones etc, but then again you can account that to people’s desire for alcohol or other things, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a justified excuse to encourage that lifestyle.

Here, you are saying that gays are born as such.

With the gays already managing to get pedophilia removed from the list of mental illnesses

Proof that every single gay person wanted this? If you cannot produce it, then “the gays” is inaccurate.

Homosexuality goes against nature, social customs, and in some cases even the law.

Illnesses relate only to nature, not social customs or the law. Please keep your argument consistent – it is not fair to create a moving target.

It’s been proven to have links to depression

Being homosexual is correlated with suicide and depression. That does mean that homosexuality is correlated with depression.

and negative outcomes such as STD’s.

Again, not related to homosexuality per se.

All are controversial, debatable, illegal in most countries

Irrelevant; again, your argument seems to argue from nature and then you start mentioning social customs. Pick a basis and stick to you.

Yeah. Just because they rallied for it to be taken off the list of mental illnesses and are further rallying for society to be more accepting of all sexual preferences AND the fact that they themselves are associated with pedophilia, it can’t possibly mean they’re trying to get it legalized, what an outrageous and unsupported claim right?

Who is “they?” Homosexuals are not a homogeneous group. Do you honestly wonder why we are losing this battle? Are chaste Catholic homosexuals attempting to legalize pedophilia? If not, then “the gays” is inaccurate.

 

[Patavium]

Allow me to illustrate how science works. Scientists don’t “reject” things, that is unscientific; rather, they analyze them and come to conclusions. Not finding a gay gene is not equivalent to rejecting it.

While we’re on topic, could you refer to me the gene that determines you a heterosexual?

No, this is misguided. Scientist do reject after many studies fail to prove. They can conclude such element do not exists. Or Do you think scientists still believe in the Ether/Aether theory? Theories evolve with the evidence. Theories are not stored in a file until they proved. The evidence (so far) is such genetic connection does not exist.

 

[Patavium]

Claim homosexuality is an illness (despite the same thing being said about religion): ✓
Compare homosexuality to bestiality: ✓
Compare homosexuality to pedophilia: ✓
Repeat the lack of gay gene despite there be no gay or straight gene found: ✓
Lie and pretend gay people are trying to legalize pedophilia: ✓
Promote the banning of homosexual relationships: ✓

I think you’d love Saudi Arabia or Iran this time of year, but in any case, you’re not even the current type of crazy commonly found today in the anti-gay movement, you’re more like, 40 years ago crazy. It’s so refreshing to know that society has evolved and IQ’s have increased

This is hilarious, no straight gene found?. You don’t realize the importance of a genetic link, do you? If such genetic link is not found for sexual orientation then sexual orientation is by CHOICE, and possibly influenced by the environment. If it is BY CHOICE, then they can CHANGE.

 

[Ethan88]

There is an organization called NAMBLA - North American Man/Boy Love Association that is homosexual and is trying to legalize pedophilia. So it does exist but it’s a subculture within a subculture.

NAMBLA is an obscure organization that is about as relevant as a sand pebble on a beach. The only people who bring them up are anti-gay advocates. It would be equivalent to me suggesting that Catholics support pedophilia because of the Priests who’ve molested children.

No, this is misguided. Scientist do reject after many studies fail to prove. They can conclude such element do not exists. Or Do you think scientists still believe in the Ether/Aether theory? Theories evolve with the evidence. Theories are not stored in a file until they proved. The evidence (so far) is such genetic connection does not exist.

No, you’re misguided. You can not “reject” a gene unless we’ve identified and labelled every gene, which we havent. Until we map out every single gene’s purpose, you can’t reject it.

This is hilarious, no straight gene found?. You don’t realize the importance of a genetic link, do you? If such genetic link is not found for sexual orientation then sexual orientation is by CHOICE, and possibly influenced by the environment. If it is BY CHOICE, then they can CHANGE.

You need to take a course on genetics 101. If someone is not a gene, that doesn’t mean it’s a choice. If someone likes hockey more than they do cricket, you don’t say “show me the hockey gene!” do you? Likewise, if we looked at every gene and didn’t find a gay or straight gene, then it wouldn’t matter anyway, because both would be just as much of a choice as the other.

I mean, religion is a choice and there certainly is no gene there, but no one cares about that “link”.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Hi everyone,

I just watched the 2008 movie called “Milk.” It’s a movie based on a true story about the campaign for gay rights in the U.S.

As I watched the movie, I saw the way homosexuals expressed their outrage at the laws that prevented them from getting jobs. I am torn about homosexuality because although I see gay people as human beings, I also see an evil force at work that wants unhealthy sexual acts to run rampant to the destruction of the human race.

What do you guys think?

To quote media expert Glenn Beck:

“If you’re a homosexual, you probably don’t want to work at heterosexuals R us, and if you are heterosexual, you probably don’t want to work at homosexuals R us.”

Constitutionally, there is no “right” to a job. A job, in terms of our Anglo-Saxon heritage, is an at-will contract.

Homosexuals have the right to engage in contracts if they are of legal age.

You can be against homosexual behavior and still hold the view that homosexuals should be able to provide from themselves.

Would you have a problem if two cohabitating Christians had a job? Or a single mom?

No. Because they can all engage in contracts.

But that does not mean that you have to approve of their behavior. I know a lot of progressive liberals would love to force that on us, but that’s why we have freedom of religion and freedom of association, for now anyways.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Well said OneDayASaint, you seem more interested in facts as opposed to someone Domiy, who is more concerned with an agenda of being right.

What bothered me about his posts was not that he simply posted an argument against homosexuality, I’ve faced that thousands of times, it’s that he just scoured anti-gay propaganda and posted it without even looking at the sources, the likes of which include FRI. Imagined if I posted arguments against the Catholic church and used Bill Maher as a “source”

You’re being overly sensitive if you think that the FRI and Bill Maher are in the same league.

Maybe when the FRI starts calling Rosie O’Donnell and Whoopie Goldberg names in public in front of social conservative audiences for laughs and money (apparently, it’s okay for liberals to slam democrat-defined groups to get rich), then you can start making the comparison and using emoticons as an expletive.

Otherwise, come to grips with the fact that there is considerable, indisputable evidence that homosexuality has problems and isn’t some magical state of mind.

 

[Ethan88]

Claim homosexuality is an illness (despite the same thing being said about religion): ✓

It is within human nature to seek hope, logic or faith, especially what is backed up and supported, ie religion

So “religion” is backed up and supported…let me guess, by religion you mean the one you believe in, right?

Those who claim it’s an illness are desperate atheists and the like.

, and “the like”, yeah the likes of doctors, scientists, and psychologists who aren’t putting their religion above facts and research.

Homosexuality goes against nature, social customs, and in some cases even the law. It’s been proven to have links to depression and negative outcomes such as STD’s. Therefore desiring to live your life by it is quite clearly an illness, perhaps a seek for attention or lack of heterosexual appreciation being the cause.

This is coming from the same person who linked a study claiming homosexuals were pedophiles, but one source said 5%, another 33%, and another 73%.

What exactly makes that wrong? I’m so sick of people like you using this simple cop-out. “Oh Goodness, you compared it to something terribly related but not yet legal, what a horrible person you must be that argument is void!”.

What makes it wrong? Perhaps because, umm, it is?

No, sorry, takes more than that. Pedophilia is the controversial sexual desire for minors. Bestiality is the controversial sexual desire for animals. Homosexuality is the controversial sexual desire for the same sex. Let’s see. All are controversial, debatable, illegal in most countries, sexual and mental. Oh, not to mention they’re exactly the same thing except for switching around the partner from an animal to a minor to a same-sex person. What makes those claiming to have a love for the same sex more rational than those claiming to have a love for animals?

Pedophilia and bestiality are illegal because the lack of consent. I thought anyone who’s graduated 9th grade would have known this. I could link you to a basics civics 101 course if you’d like?

No gene required. It’s called the natural process.

Why have customs of age, monogamy, etc then?

Yeah. Just because they rallied for it to be taken off the list of mental illnesses and are further rallying for society to be more accepting of all sexual preferences AND the fact that they themselves are associated with pedophilia, it can’t possibly mean they’re trying to get it legalized, what an outrageous and unsupported claim right?

The irony of you telling others they have a mental illness

Promote the banning of homosexual relationships: ✓

Right on. Although it’s already banned in many places.

Fortunately live in a free country and not under the Domiy theocracy. Oh and uhh, good luck getting it banned there buddy , hard to become dictator if you’re checked into Bellevue.

 

[SaintLouisIX]

Well, people with homosexual tendencies are unfortunately the victims of modern society, for they are enabled to act with a certain madness; this madness of course being the “gay culture”. Homosexual acts are objectively gravely sinful, and are never justified. It is sodomy, a ‘sin which cries to heaven for vengeance’. Sodom and Gomorrah were burned for sexual misconduct, which included homosexuality (among many other vile things). They do not necessarily have a choice in what they feel. However, what they feel is disordered, and acting on it is evil. We are all required to be chaste. Same-sex attraction is gravely disordered. Those of us who are attracted to the opposite sex must likewise remain chaste, until marriage. Homosexual marriage does not exist, it is against the natural order. We are all called to be chaste according to out state in life. It is indeed a great corruption and disease in society…but it does not have to be that way. They purposefully choose to make it so.

 

[Ethan88]

To quote media expert Glenn Beck

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This is the greatest quote I’ve ever seen on these forums

Maybe when the FRI starts calling Rosie O’Donnell and Whoopie Goldberg names in public in front of social conservative audiences for laughs and money (apparently, it’s okay for liberals to slam democrat-defined groups to get rich), then you can start making the comparison and using emoticons as an expletive.

SPLC has already labelled them a hate group, as have other rationale human beings

Well, people with homosexual tendencies are unfortunately the victims of modern society

The modern society that allows blacks equal rights, women to vote, and gay people to love and marry who they want. Sounds horrible!!!

 

[OneDayASaint]

NAMBLA is an obscure organization that is about as relevant as a sand pebble on a beach. The only people who bring them up are anti-gay advocates. It would be equivalent to me suggesting that Catholics support pedophilia because of the Priests who’ve molested children.

Hence my qualifier of them as a “subculture within a subculture” and also my comparison of NAMBLA to homosexuals as being similar to Neo-Nazis and Protestants. It would be equivalent to you suggesting Catholics support pedophilia if I had actually said homosexuals approve of NAMBLA. I said the opposite, and I will quote myself to refresh anyone’s memory who may have forgotten:

If you use a search engine to see if your average homosexual supports this group you will find several sites saying they don’t, which is good. One site said that they have been kicked from gay pride parades in Orlando and Miami. I haven’t found hard evidence of that being true but I haven’t looked very hard, either. If I was a gay rights activist I would want them kicked from all gatherings. I think it’s comparable to a public Protestant gathering putting up with the presence of Neo-Nazis. They’re a radical minority group that label themselves as Protestants and if they are allowed to be there, all of the other Protestants are communicating to the world at large they don’t mind them so much - whether or not that’s how they actually feel about it.