Is Homosexuality Genetic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MugenOne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You did the same thing in your repressed religious comment.
did you miss the part about how i try my hardest not to? that doesnt guarantee success…
and no, its ok, i understand, my feelings dont matter when it comes to the greater good and defeating sin. i dont mind being marginalized as a whore who spreads disease and ruins societys moral values.
 
did you miss the part about how i try my hardest not to? that doesnt guarantee success…
and no, its ok, i understand, my feelings dont matter when it comes to the greater good and defeating sin. i dont mind being marginalized as a whore who spreads disease and ruins societys moral values.
Sure you mind! However, you are celibate.

Everyone of us are sinners and we all fail. What we do not do is try to make claims that the sins are OK. That is the essential difference. The arguments are trying to justify deviant behaviors. That is the same a trying to justify murder, abortion, euthanasia, theft as being OK. We know they are wrong and most of us try to do good and avoid evil.
 
Sure you mind! However, you are celibate.

Everyone of us are sinners and we all fail. What we do not do is try to make claims that the sins are OK. That is the essential difference. The arguments are trying to justify deviant behaviors. That is the same a trying to justify murder, abortion, euthanasia, theft as being OK. We know they are wrong and most of us try to do good and avoid evil.
that may be what you think youre doing, but while what you believe to be a sin may also be illegal, its not in this case, so comparing the “sin” homosexuality to murder, abortion, euthanasia and theft, is again, horribly offensive. you are forcing your morality onto someone else, and i know thats part of being a christian and stuff, but its also the number one thing that drives people away from god.
 
that may be what you think youre doing, but while what you believe to be a sin may also be illegal, its not in this case, so comparing the “sin” homosexuality to murder, abortion, euthanasia and theft, is again, horribly offensive. you are forcing your morality onto someone else, and i know thats part of being a christian and stuff, but its also the number one thing that drives people away from god.
First off we are talking about the act not the condition. God has set morality. He has done so through the natural law and Revelation. Don’t tell me that by me trying to explain to you why something is wrong drives you away from God. Don’t shoot the messenger! :tsktsk:

The Catholic proposition is one you can accept or reject. However, do so on complete knowledge of the facts.

Certain acts are sinful, and some are intrinsically evil.

I thinks many who come here and argue the position are trying to convince themselves.

Even if one day you were successful, you still have to deal with God, even though you do not acknowledge Him. I see most who argue the act being Ok are usually non-believers. It certainly is an interesting correlation.

I want to do what I want to do and if it is clear God says no, then I say no to God. Geeesh!😦
 
i generally dont accept “studies” of any kind as fact, simply because you can ALWAYS find a study that contradicts it, and its a pointless argument. everything ive stated above is 100% fact.
What do you accept as fact, then, and what do you expect us to accept as fact? Your word?

Medical studies are used reliably to develop treatments, drugs, risk rates, insurance rates, etc. To say that you just discard those studies is just plain foolish. The peer review process exists to winnow out the poorly-conducted studies. This is how science arrives more accurately at fact, and it is so reliable that many things you use every day are based upon similar studies and verification processes. The journals cited are widely respected and the number of corresponding studies establishes the fact–and the wide acceptance of it as fact. That you don’t want to accept it just shows how unreasonable you are and how disinterested you are in real world facts.

It sounds like you’re just tossing out what you don’t like and want to have an “argument” based on no facts at all.
 
I have been with my partner for over nine years. Our roommates have been together for over 20. Our best friends down the street have been together for over forty years.

I believe the studies do not take account of the many homosexuals in the suburbs and various other areas. Every time I ever see a survey or study done, it’s done in an inner city. We don’t all live in the inner city and partake of bathhouses, it’s a very biased sample.

Also, ‘love’ is not a one night stand, I would think that be self evident. The medical studies you have linked and others have linked, again have only studied the inner city homosexual, which is entirely different. Why not study just the homeless junkies in an inner city and conclude everyone that’s ever done drugs is exactly like that.
I’ll try to find time to look at those studies, but I’d be surprised if the peer review process didn’t catch at least some of that, at least without qualification.

I have known “suburban homosexuals,” as well, and while I’m sure you have plenty more knowledge about people living in those areas, my anecdotal knowledge suggests they were as promiscuous as promiscuous heterosexuals. More to the point (and I don’t know the details, but judging by the talk, and sometimes the militancy behind it) it seemed like it was encouraged as a norm in the community. Still, such anecdotes are hardly authoritative.

Again, the morality of the issue goes back to nature/natural law and intrinsic wrongs. Depending on the moral philosophical approach, it involves asking questions like,
  1. “What’s the harm to the individual, to the society?”
  2. “Is it good for society to encourage?”
  3. “What’s the best thing for individuals, for society?”
  4. “Should the best thing be encouraged, and to what extent should other things be discouraged?”
  5. “Is there value in natural norms–what value to the species?”
  6. “Is there a deterring effect against some good if another action is encouraged?”
  7. “What is the harm in stigma? Is the harm any greater than other stigma’s important to the society? Is the stigma worth it?”
We’ve already at least touched on most of these. What I’ve never really heard is an argument from moral philosophy as to why homosexual actions are good, one that also takes into account potential evils.

What I have tended to hear as a justification for homosexual acts is that it’s “not harmful” (which is under debate); that it’s “no worse than” heterosexual acts that are arguably also immoral; that homosexuality is not a choice. For reasons I’ve already mentioned, these justifications don’t work.
 
What do you except as fact, then, and what do you expect us to accept as fact? Your word?

Medical studies are used reliably to develop treatments, drugs, risk rates, insurance rates, etc. To say that you just discard those studies is just plain foolish. The peer review process exists to winnow out the poorly-conducted studies. This is how science arrives more accurately at fact, and it is so reliable that many things you use every day are based upon similar studies and verification processes. The journals cited are widely respected and the number of corresponding studies establishes the fact–and the wide acceptance of it as fact. That you don’t want to accept it just shows how unreasonable you are and how disinterested you are in real world facts.

It sounds like you’re just tossing out what you don’t like and want to have an “argument” based on no facts at all.
I am sorry, I am not going to believe anything in a pay to publish medical journal.
 
I am sorry, I am not going to believe anything in a pay to publish medical journal.
Um, do you know that virtually all medical research is conducted on a pay basis and published in paid medical journals? It’s how all that time and effort is compensated. Please, be my guest and discard all such information. But do be consistent. Become a Christian Scientist or something and refuse all medical care. Heck, go out and live like a hermit on some plot of land, entirely self-sufficient, because virtually everything you use is the product of paid investigation and development.

Your basis for rejecting such information is patently ridiculous. I hope you can see that and revise your view to be more reasonable.
 
Um, do you know that virtually all medical research is conducted on a pay basis and published in paid medical journals? It’s how all that time and effort is compensated. Please, be my guest and discard all such information. But do be consistent. Become a Christian Scientist or something and refuse all medical care. Heck, go out and live like a hermit on some plot of land, entirely self-sufficient, because virtually everything you use is the product of paid investigation and development.

Your basis for rejecting such information is patently ridiculous. I hope you can see that and revise your view to be more reasonable.
The research is paid for of course, I am referring to the publishing of the articles. There are medical journals that will publish anything, as long as they are paid. That is what almost all of this research goes into.

wthrockmorton.com/category/paul-cameron/

Warren has covered one of the more notorious suspects in this field, Paul Cameron.
 
And have you reviewed each of the many journals cited to see which ones you want to pick and choose? Or, more fairly, reviewed the actual studies that you question, rather than just dismissing them outright even if they happen to appear in a paid journal?

I find it much more reasonable, as a lay person and not a doctor, psychologist, or anthropologist, to accept that a diverse body of information from many different journals and authors as a pretty reliable set of data as currently understood by the medical community. A quick cross-check online to find the extent to which such studies are challenged or corroborated further validates them.

I’m having difficulty finding links on that site that take me to something useful. Do you have a more specific one?

I’m being dogged about this because it really bothers me when people just dismiss arguments or whole sets of data without giving reasonable arguments to refute them. That’s just not honest and doesn’t further intellectual discussion. Too many people have adopted the lazy and disrespectful bad habit of just refusing to consider the arguments of someone who presents an opposing point of view–while also having the arrogance to continue preaching their own point of view as if it should be respected despite the lack of respect they demonstrate. I have perceived this coming from you and iamme, perhaps in error, but it is worth bringing up so we can move past such burdens to a reasonable discussion.
 
even Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle recognized this.
I find this very hard to believe, especially given the fact that Socrates himself was a homosexual. Pedophilia and androphilia were very common in Ancient Greece. In fact, according to Plato, Socrates was “boy crazy” and would “lose his senses” when an adolescent neared. The only way he could control himself was by teaching them philosophy; in a sense, he sublimated his desire to have sex with them.

It is believed that Socrates was executed by the Athenian government for corrupting the youth, specifically young boys. In fact, it is believed that he coerced them to sell themselves, which was a grave offense in Greece at the time. Pederasty and homosexuality was O.K., but prostitution was not.

It is only in the dialogue Gorgias that Socrates claims to be against all forms of “excessive sexual acts,” but he never specifically mentions homosexuality or pederasty. It would seem rather foolish given the fact that he was, for all intents and purposes, a homosexual and pedophile.

As for Plato, I can tell you’ve not been introduced Symposium and Phaedrus; for, if you had, you would have noted that Plato himself was quite the fan of homo-erotic sex, and referred to it as the “superior love.”

Aristotle didn’t write a great deal about sexuality, but we know that only **passive homosexuality **(essentially, being the woman) was something he frowned upon.
  1. Homosexuals tend to live a comparatively more promiscuous lifestyle than heterosexuals, with all the associated emotional/psychological and physical ills, including increased transmission of venereal disease;
The reason for this is actually pretty simple: Roughly 2% of the population falls under the category of homosexual, which isn’t very many. So homosexuals tend to flock to known hangouts to quell their sexual appetite.

Another reason for the promiscuous behavior has to do with dramatically high rates of mental illness among homosexuals, which is most likely caused by prejudice and non-acceptance. Essentially, by people like yourself who promote an anti-gay agenda.

Many hangout spots for homosexuals are bars, and what do they have in bars? Alcohol. What’s one thing most depressed people run to? Alcohol. People do things when they’re drunk and depressed; it’s a fact of life.
  1. There is a higher incidence of infidelity in the homosexual population than the heterosexual one, creating more of the above plus less stability, particularly in terms of households children may be brought into;
Again, this goes back to prejudice and non-acceptance. Also, children raised in homosexual households exhibit absolutely no developmental differences to those raised in heterosexual households; that’s simply a fact.
seems that developmental factors are the majority influence on sexual orientation…
Sexual orientation is formed at an early age, so it doesn’t stand to reason that greater acceptance will lead to greater confusion and thus more homosexuals. Not at all. Sensible parents keep their children away from sexuality for a good portion of their childhood, so whether or not something is accepted is not a thing children would be aware of - generally. Sexuality is an adult issue, to be honest, and by the time one begins learning about homosexuals, their sexual orientation is likely already formed.

Too, you imply that somehow teaching acceptance and understanding leads to gender confusion. Well, I can tell you aren’t a psychologist. That has nothing to do with why gender confusion arises.
heterosexual marriage is statistically the best lifestyle and form of relationship for adult humans across many variables and every studied culture.
That’s not really true either. There are many gay couples who live happily and do not exhibit the “social ills” you mention above, particularly because they are better suited to handle the non-acceptance and general disgust exhibited by most of the public.
** So acceptance of homosexual behavior as equal to heterosexual behavior in every way is harmful to society.**
I hope you don’t think you’ve actually proven this, because you haven’t.
Considering the argument from nature, homosexuality is a disorder. Its natural occurrence does not change this; it is an unfavorable behavior in the sense that it does not increase the genetic diversity of the population but rather detracts from it, and instead has tended to spread disease and psychosocial stress and illness.
Firstly, the psychological problems are caused by people like yourself. General non-acceptance and prejudice, in fact.

Secondly, its natural occurrence does change “this.” Anything you see in animals is likely to have an evolutionary impact on human beings. As a biology major, you should know this.

Lastly, psychologists have determined (and I oughta know) that sex does not only serve the purpose of procreation, but in fact fulfills the Love/Belonging and Esteem hierarchies.
I have seen videos of animal behavior that captured and attempted to explain instances not only of homosexual behavior, but of pedophilia (even resulting in death) and even necrophilia.
Homosexual behavior is quite common in the wild. Only Bonobos engage in pederasty, but full-fledge sexual interaction is extremely rare. Typically, it’s touching and rubbing. As for necrophilia, it has been observed in mallards only, to my knowledge. Typically this happens only when the two are alive and engaging in sex, and then one dies. When the male gets no feedback, it just keeps doing what its doing. The female can’t give feedback if she’s dead.
 
. I have perceived this coming from you and iamme, perhaps in error, but it is worth bringing up so we can move past such burdens to a reasonable discussion.
I don’t need studies to tell me how I live my own life and my friends live their own lives. I observe it with my own eyes. I don’t need anyone to tell me we are sex crazed anonymous bathhouse using fiends, because I know we aren’t and I don’t know a single person that is that way and I know hundreds of people.

The studies don’t smell right to me, because they don’t seem to be based on any reality I have observed in my entire life. I find it hard to believe that I somehow ‘missed’ this ‘vast majority’ of homosexuals that rut in the street and spread diseases in the manner these studies hint at.
 
It doesn’t offend me at all.

It’s just that if there is a genetic factor at the root of homosexuality then it would certainly corrolate satistically.

My gut feeling about it is that there probably are some cases of that. Very rare though. We had a kid in our high school class who was very unfortunate. He was more girl that boy and I can see how there must be some kind of genetic screw-up there, but in my whole life I have only encountered one like that. My sence of satistical occurances is confronted by that. I still think that most homosexuality is the results of poor or improper bonding during their formative years and it’s something that for them is totally overwhelming. It becomes a very complex matter very soon analytically speaking. And then frankly, there are still those who just don’t have a sence of morality. Nuther words… those who will stick it to anything if it moves, is wet and warm who call themselves bi-sexual, as if there could actually be such a thing as a “bisexual sexual orientation”… those people are simply depraved but want us to accept them as normal.
Environment could be a factor, but we all have a built in conscience. Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle. God wouldn’t create a person this way then condenm him in his word.
God id Love. Have you read what the Bible says about this sin?

God bless,
jean8
 
Since Ar appears to have a special place in his heart for medical research, I thought I would simply provide a few statements by a couple of different organizations on homosexuality. (Keep in mind, I will not be citing studies, but statements. If the current tone persists, I’ll get on LexisNexis and find over 50 studies which can refute many of the common stereotypes.)

From the APA:

Is homosexuality a mental disorder?

No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. *Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. *Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

What is the nature of same-sex relationships?

Research indicates that many lesbians and gay men want and have committed relationships. *For example, survey data indicate that between 40% and 60% of gay men and between 45% and 80% of lesbians are currently involved in a romantic relationship. *Further, data from the 2000 U.S. Census indicate that of the 5.5 million couples who were living together but not married, about 1 in 9 (594,391) had partners of the same sex. Although the census data are almost certainly an underestimate of the actual number of cohabiting same-sex couples, they indicate that there are 301,026 male samesex households and 293,365 female same-sex households in the United States.

Stereotypes about lesbian, gay, and bisexual people have persisted, even though studies have found them to be misleading. For instance, one stereotype is that the relationships of lesbians and gay men are dysfunctional and unhappy. However, studies have found same-sex and heterosexual couples to be equivalent to each other on measures of relationship satisfaction and commitment.

A second stereotype is that the relationships of lesbians, gay men and bisexual people are unstable. **However, despite social hostility toward same-sex relationships, research shows that many lesbians and gay men form durable relationships. For example, survey data indicate that between 18% and 28% of gay couples and between 8% and 21% of lesbian couples have lived together 10 or more years. **It is also reasonable to suggest that the stability of same-sex couples might be enhanced if partners from same-sex couples enjoyed the same levels of support and recognition for their relationships as heterosexual couples do, i.e., legal rights and responsibilities associated with marriage.

I think those are pertinent to the point I am trying to make. Here.

CONTINUED…
 
PART 2

The Royal College of Psychiatrists in the U.K. responded to the Church of England’s request to explain homosexuality. I’m going to list a few statements:

The Royal College of Psychiatrists holds the view that LGB people should be regarded as valued members of society who have exactly similar rights and responsibilities as all other citizens. This includes equal access to health care, the rights and responsibilities involved in a civil partnership, the rights and responsibilities involved in procreating and bringing up children, freedom to practice a religion as a lay person or religious leader, freedom from harassment or discrimination in any sphere and a right to protection from therapies that are potentially damaging, particularly those that purport to change sexual orientation.

There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment.However, the experiences of discrimination in society and possible rejection by friends, families and others, such as employers, means that some LGB people experience a greater than expected prevalence of mental health and substance misuse problems (5, 6).

Although there have been claims by conservative political groups in the USA that this higher prevalence of mental health difficulties is confirmation that homosexuality is itself a mental disorder, there is no evidence whatever to substantiate such a claim (7).

**A large part of the instability in gay and lesbian partnerships arises from lack of support within society, the church or the family for such relationships. **

Legal and social recognition of same-sex relationships is likely to reduce discrimination, increase the stability of same sex relationships and lead to better physical and mental health for gay and lesbian people.

Gay men and lesbians’ vulnerability to mental disorders may diminish in societies that recognise their relationships as valuable and become more accepting of them as respected members of society who might meet prospective partners at places of work and in other such settings that are taken for granted by heterosexual people.

In conclusion the evidence would suggest that there is no scientific or rational reason for treating LGB people any differently to their heterosexual counterparts. People are happiest and are likely to reach their potential when they are able to integrate the various aspects of the self as fully as possible (19). Socially inclusive, non-judgemental attitudes to LGB people who attend places of worship or who are religious leaders themselves will have positive consequences for LGB people as well as for the wider society in which they live.

Here

It’s also well to note that the neither World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, or the AMA regard homosexuality as a mental illness. In fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics endorses same-sex parenting. This endorsement, however, led to the founding of the American College of Pediatricians, an organization Ar cited previously.

Here is a little bit of info on the American College of Pediatricians:

The positions taken by the American College of Pediatricians are socially conservative. These positions include:

*Opposition to adoption by homosexual individuals

*Support for parentally guided access of young children’s television viewing

*Support parental choice regarding HPV vaccinations for young children (as opposed to legal mandates)

*Opposition to the legalization of marijuana use

*Support for the right to life of preborn children
  • Defense of traditional mother-father heterosexual marriage
Now, as a psychologist, there are certain socially conservative positions the ACP has taken that I wholeheartedly agree with. However, some of their positions lack any sort of reasoning. For example, there is no evidence to suggest that same-sex parenting is harmful. In fact, studies have shown that there are no developmental differences among children raised by homosexuals compared with those raised by heterosexuals.

In addition, ACP is tiny compared with the other organizations I mentioned that do not regard homosexuality as harmful. ACP is very small, and their political persuasion is clear, and it is that, not research, which forms their opinion.

There simply is no credible research which suggest that homosexuality is in any way harmful to society. I believe what’s more harmful is all the intolerance and discrimination homosexuals face.
 
I hope you don’t think you’ve actually proven this, because you haven’t.

Firstly, the psychological problems are caused by people like yourself. General non-acceptance and prejudice, in fact.
Please, this is like saying psychological problems in alcoholics is caused by non acceptance.
 
Environment could be a factor, but we all have a built in conscience. Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle. God wouldn’t create a person this way then condenm him in his word.
God id Love. Have you read what the Bible says about this sin?

God bless,
jean8
I got it. Homosexuality is the results of Demonic Possession.
 
I find this very hard to believe, especially given the fact that Socrates himself was a homosexual. Pedophilia and androphilia were very common in Ancient Greece. In fact, according to Plato, Socrates was “boy crazy” and would “lose his senses” when an adolescent neared. The only way he could control himself was by teaching them philosophy; in a sense, he sublimated his desire to have sex with them.
Re: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, my information comes from several sources, but I do not recall the specifics right now, just the takeaway I got from them. I’m shakiest on Plato, but I do remember specific words from Socrates (recorded by Plato) and Aristotle speaking on problems with homosexuality and its effects on society. Still, you bring up a point that I shouldn’t mention things like this without my specific sources handy. As of right now, I can only refer back to my sources generally: Agnes Savill’s “Alexander the Great and His Time,” several courses on Philosophy, the ancient world, and Greece in particular from the Teaching Company (www.teach12.com) taught by some of the leading professors of our times; and from Peter Kreeft’s lectures (a Catholic Boston University philosophy professor who is an expert in Socrates, among other things). So I’ll leave this argument at that for now; I’ll accept that you have some reasonable question to the contrary, but please accept also (unless you just want to mistrust me) that I am drawing my information from reasonable sources as well.

I will point out something interesting in what you mentioned, though: if Socrates was trying to limit his impulses, does not that show some belief that they were problematic in some way? The other point, about corrupting youth, I think your position on that is quite controversial; I thought even the common belief about that trial was that it was a farce and Socrates was not guilty of anything, and that the corruption had to do more with his teachings than something sexual.
The reason for this is actually pretty simple: Roughly 2% of the population falls under the category of homosexual, which isn’t very many. So homosexuals tend to flock to known hangouts to quell their sexual appetite.
Why should being 2% of the population (they would say much higher) increase promiscuity?
Another reason for the promiscuous behavior has to do with dramatically high rates of mental illness among homosexuals, which is most likely caused by prejudice and non-acceptance.
You brought up Greece before, where homosexuality was much more widely accepted. Now, I don’t know the degree to which fidelity was promoted (I believe it was, particularly for heterosexual relationships), but is there not a lot of evidence of promiscuity among the homosexual relationships then? I’m not sure your link is a strong one.
Essentially, by people like yourself who promote an anti-gay agenda.
Wait just a minute here. What kind of “anti-gay agenda” am I “promoting?” I’m taking part in a discussion of both the causes of homosexuality and of the moral philosophy about whether certain acts are morally wrong or not. In the course of this discussion I have also talked about many other types of sin, including sins among heterosexuals. I have not talked about any kind of public policy that I can remember. I have linked to arguments on other forums where we were discussing the promotion/legitimization of gay marriage, but even there I was not promoting any kind of persecution, just resisting a public policy change for a whole slew of reasons.
Also, children raised in homosexual households exhibit absolutely no developmental differences to those raised in heterosexual households; that’s simply a fact.
What would you cite to support your assertion? In my links, I have cited quite a few studies from different sources that at best link the developmental challenges of children brought up in a homosexual household to being similar to those of children brought up in divorced households. Your assertion is not “simply a fact;” at best, it is quite debatable, challenged by the data. And in case you or anyone else was wondering, the vast majority of the data I chose for the links on that other forum came from entirely secular sources, not even compiled by the Church or any organization attached to it. Much of it was referenced in news articles and government documents.
 
Sexual orientation is formed at an early age, so it doesn’t stand to reason that greater acceptance will lead to greater confusion and thus more homosexuals…
Too, you imply that somehow teaching acceptance and understanding leads to gender confusion. Well, I can tell you aren’t a psychologist. That has nothing to do with why gender confusion arises.
Do you dispute that homosexuality or bisexuality has been on the rise? Not just people coming out of the closet. What about all these “cuddle parties” and other open experimentation among pre-pubescent and adolescent children that we keep hearing about? Is this not influenced at least in part by cultural acceptance and even encouragement? You don’t think that’s learned behavior at all?

What is your opinion of bisexuals? Has bisexuality not been on the rise? I have read plenty of anecdotes of people “trying” sex with the same sex and deciding they liked it and thus are at least bisexual. Would you say that these people should identify as homosexuals, and were that way because of early development issues or late development/learned behavior issues?

Don’t people learn to connect an act that causes arousal for whatever reason with sexual pleasure–in the case of acquired fetishes and sexual tastes? As an example of learned behavior, what about porn actors? What about even people who have been the subject of abusive relationships later than early childhood and been affected in their sexual life by that?

Unless you can deny all of that, I don’t think you can deny that open cultural acceptance of homosexuality as being morally equal to heterosexuality would have some effect on sexual behavior in the culture. The question to moral philosophy, then, would be to consider what effects those might be, and whether they might be good, bad, or neutral. This helps inform whether the act is good, bad, or neutral.
That’s not really true either. There are many gay couples who live happily and do not exhibit the “social ills” you mention above, particularly because they are better suited to handle the non-acceptance and general disgust exhibited by most of the public.
You forgot about statistical rigor and population samples, my friend. You can’t cite individual anecdotes to attempt to effectively disprove an observed trend. In a bit of retaliation, ‘as a psychologist, you should know this.’ 🙂 I don’t deny at all that there are happy, totally faithful and healthy homosexual couples. The studies don’t rank that percentage very well against heterosexual marriages, however. There could be many reasons for that, but the raw data are there.

Are you disputing the benefits of heterosexual marriage? If so, I’d be interested to see how you can shut down the body of evidence I linked to. It’s only a small sampling of what’s out there.
I hope you don’t think you’ve actually proven this, because you haven’t.
No, that is one of the things we are debating in this question of morality. I have asserted this, backed up by data and reasonable logic. You or others can dispute it, but you can’t pretend that there is no data or no reasonable argument that homosexuality could be harmful in various ways.

In light of the data, it seems that at best you can say that in individual circumstances it is not harmful, or that if conditions were different in society it might (you don’t know for sure) not cause various harms to society that it seems to now.

The question that follows that is whether it is right or worthwhile to risk the experiment of trying to change the various conditions in society that contribute to homosexuality being associated with various ills, will the good of such a thing outweigh the bad?
Firstly, the psychological problems are caused by people like yourself. General non-acceptance and prejudice, in fact.
Again, it seems like you presume malice in me. I believe fornication among heterosexuals is a grave moral sin as well. Am I malicious or harmful to them? That brings up an interesting thought. Back when fornication was a social stigma, was that stigma a bad thing? Did it cause the sorts of things that you say this stigma against homosexuality causes? To a similar degree? If not, then I don’t think you can claim such a strong link between stigma and the ills afflicting homosexuals as a group today.
Secondly, its natural occurrence does change “this.” Anything you see in animals is likely to have an evolutionary impact on human beings. As a biology major, you should know this.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Maybe what I was saying wasn’t clear. I was responding to your assertion that pedophilia did not occur naturally among animals, and your inference from that that among humans, pedophilia was therefore a learned and morally wrong behavior. I showed that it did occur in nature, so your logical link doesn’t work. Second, if you wanted to derive morality or learned behavior lessons from nature, then I showed that as homosexuality occurs in nature, it is not beneficial, not a good. So the argument from nature, if that’s one of the (name removed by moderator)uts one wants to use to inform morality, is not in favor of homosexuality.

I do know of course that many behaviors that occur naturally are likely to crop up in some form among humans. That doesn’t tell us much, though, unless you don’t consider humans any different than animals. And if you don’t think humans are in some moral dimension different, then why are we having this discussion, particularly on a religious forum?
 
Lastly, psychologists have determined (and I oughta know) that sex does not only serve the purpose of procreation, but in fact fulfills the Love/Belonging and Esteem hierarchies.
Oh, “psychologists” have determined, eh? A bit presumptuous. You’re pretty late on that one. Humans figured it out a long time ago, and the Church recognizes it as well. Yes, many people within the Church placed much more emphasis on the procreative side for a long time, and some still do, but the core teachings have acknowledged the unitive, intimacy role of sex.

More to the point, why did you feel the need to bring this up? Where do you think I disputed it? I thought I explicitly included it. But procreation is the essential function of the sex organs. Entirely separating this part (procreation) of the essential purpose of sex from the moral equation is erroneous.
Homosexual behavior is quite common in the wild. Only Bonobos engage in pederasty, but full-fledge sexual interaction is extremely rare. Typically, it’s touching and rubbing…
I didn’t realize most of the homosexual behavior observed in the wild was so limited, but it makes sense. Thanks for the info. As for the rest, I gave you a few other examples witnessed from videos. Thanks for doing some research on this (I assume you did, since earlier you said you didn’t think pedophilia or necrophilia existed in the wild).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top