Is it objectively meaningful and functionally correct to class Same Sex Attraction as a genuine form of human Sexuality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MindOverMatter2

Guest
Is it objectively meaningful and functionally correct to class Same Sex Attraction as a genuine form of human Sexuality?

By function and objectivity i mean, does it follow coherently from the fact that i am a “man” that i should or could be homosexual or bisexual? Is bisexuality or homosexuality a coherent expression of the gender identity that is a man or a women?

To put it another way…
  1. Does the definition of Human Sexuality begin with “Gender Identity”.
Or
  1. Does the definition of Human Sexuality begin with “Sexual Attraction”.
If it begins with attraction, then wouldn’t we have to say that attraction to animals, children, or inanimate objects, are genuine forms of human sexuality also?

If it begins with gender identity, then doesn’t that class any sexual attraction which doesn’t conform to the intrinsic meaning expressed through our gender identity as a deformity of genuine human sexuality? In other-words, same sex attraction is a deformity of the intrinsic heterosexuality self evidently implied by our Gender Identity as Men and Women.

Please discuss.
 
If homosexuality is hereditary then it is a genuine form of human Sexuality**. 🙂
**
 
tonyrey said:
If homosexuality is hereditary then it is a genuine form of human Sexuality**. 🙂
**
Click to expand...
Your claim here is that inheritance should be the criteria that defines health.

So you would say that the inheritance of a disease, or perhaps a flesh eating virus, is a true expression of a healthy human body, and should therefore not be considered to be an illness’s or disease? How about being born with no limbs; should this not be considered a deformity because it is inherited from the genes of their parents?

Do you admit defeat?🙂
 
tonyrey said:
If homosexuality is hereditary then it is a genuine form of human Sexuality**. 🙂
**
Click to expand...
Genuine human sexuality starts and ends with heterosexuality.
Homosexuality is a disordered perversion that carries tons of disease and typically a very early death.
Being hereditary has nothing to do with it…drug addiction can be hereditary.
 
babylonsfalling said:
Genuine human sexuality starts and ends with heterosexuality.
Homosexuality is a disordered perversion that carries tons of disease and typically a very early death.
Being hereditary has nothing to do with it…drug addiction can be hereditary.
Click to expand...
Heterosexuality also carries disease. STD effects everybody. I think you should drop that line of argument.
 
In my opinion no, because I am convinced based on evidence and research that homosexuality is a kind of emotional immaturity, not an alternative sexuality.
 
VicTorDominican said:
In my opinion no, because I am convinced based on evidence and research that homosexuality is a kind of emotional immaturity, not an alternative sexuality.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Emotional immaturity? Could you please give a paragraph or two on what you mean by emotional immaturity in relation to same sex attraction?
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Heterosexuality also carries disease. STD effects everybody. I think you should drop that line of argument.
Click to expand...
People have been trying that schtick for years and it’s never worked. Everyone knows the disease rates are hugely disproportionate in homosexuals, along with suicide rates, mental problems, etc. It’s a degenerated lifestyle with degenerated results.
 
babylonsfalling said:
Being hereditary has nothing to do with it…drug addiction can be hereditary.
Click to expand...
"The origins of homosexuality may never be fully understood, and the phenomenon is so complex and varied – as is every other kind of love – that no single neat explanation is likely to suffice to explain any one man or woman, let alone multitudes. But the search for understanding advanced considerably last week with the release of new studies that make the most compelling case yet that homosexual orientation is at least partly genetic.
A team at the National Cancer Institute’s Laboratory of Biochemistry reported in the journal Science that families of 76 gay men included a much higher proportion of homosexual male relatives than found in the general population. Intriguingly, almost all the disproportion was on the mother’s side of the family. That prompted the researchers to look at the chromosomes that determine gender, known as X and Y. Men get an X from their mother and a Y from their father; women get two X’s, one from each parent. Inasmuch as the family trees suggested that male homosexuality may be inherited from mothers, the scientists zeroed in on the X chromosome.
Sure enough, a separate study of the DNA from 40 pairs of homosexual brothers found that 33 pairs shared five different patches of genetic material grouped around a particular area on the X chromosome. Why is that unusual? Because the genes on a son’s X chromosome are a highly variable combination of the genes on the mother’s two X’s, and thus the sequence of genes varies greatly from one brother to another. Statistically, so much overlap between brothers who also share a sexual orientation is unlikely to be just coincidence. The fact that 33 out of 40 pairs of gay brothers were found to share the same sequences of DNA in a particular part of the chromosome suggests that at least one gene related to homosexuality is located in that region. Homosexuality was the only trait that all 33 pairs shared; the brothers didn’t all share the same eye color or shoe size or any other obvious characteristic. Nor, according to the study’s principal author, Dean Hamer, were they all identifiably effeminate or, for that matter, all macho. They were diverse except for sexual orientation. Says Hamer: “**This is by far the strongest evidence to date that there is a genetic component to sexual orientation. **We’ve identified a portion of the genome associated with it.”

time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,978923,00.html#ixzz1Zen61Erl
 
tonyrey said:
"But the search for understanding advanced considerably last week
Click to expand...
This was in 1993.
tonyrey said:
Sure enough, a separate study of the DNA from 40 pairs of homosexual brothers
Click to expand...
…who grew up together in the same household with the same controlling mother and do-nothing father?
tonyrey said:
Statistically,
Click to expand...
…on ***40 ***people!!!
tonyrey said:
Homosexuality was the only trait that all 33 pairs shared
Click to expand...
They forgot to mention whether they grew up in the same household with the same parents, and forgot to mention whether any of them were sexually abused as children.
tonyrey said:
Nor, according to the study’s principal author, Dean Hamer, were they all identifiably effeminate or, for that matter, all macho.
Click to expand...
Was this during the work day, or after hours at a gay bar where they think nobody’s looking?
 
“Gender Identity” is the wrong category from which to begin a discussion of sexuality. “Gender Assignment” would be better. This assures that “gender” is an objective reality to which the subject must conform.
 
VicTorDominican said:
"The origins of homosexuality may never be fully understood, and the phenomenon is so complex and varied – as is every other kind of love – that no single neat explanation is likely to suffice to explain any one man or woman, let alone multitudes. But the search for understanding advanced considerably last week with the release of new studies that make the most compelling case yet that homosexual orientation is at least partly genetic.
Click to expand...
That is far from being the only evidence. Many gays and lesbians say they knew even in childhood that they were different. Moreover they are often distinguishable by some of their psychological traits, physical appearance and behaviour.
Click to expand...
 
tonyrey said:
"The origins of homosexuality may never be fully understood, and the phenomenon is so complex and varied – as is every other kind of love – that no single neat explanation is likely to suffice to explain any one man or woman, let alone multitudes. But the search for understanding advanced considerably last week with the release of new studies that make the most compelling case yet that homosexual orientation is at least partly genetic.
A team at the National Cancer Institute’s Laboratory of Biochemistry reported in the journal Science that families of 76 gay men included a much higher proportion of homosexual male relatives than found in the general population. Intriguingly, almost all the disproportion was on the mother’s side of the family. That prompted the researchers to look at the chromosomes that determine gender, known as X and Y. Men get an X from their mother and a Y from their father; women get two X’s, one from each parent. Inasmuch as the family trees suggested that male homosexuality may be inherited from mothers, the scientists zeroed in on the X chromosome.
Sure enough, a separate study of the DNA from 40 pairs of homosexual brothers found that 33 pairs shared five different patches of genetic material grouped around a particular area on the X chromosome. Why is that unusual? Because the genes on a son’s X chromosome are a highly variable combination of the genes on the mother’s two X’s, and thus the sequence of genes varies greatly from one brother to another. Statistically, so much overlap between brothers who also share a sexual orientation is unlikely to be just coincidence. The fact that 33 out of 40 pairs of gay brothers were found to share the same sequences of DNA in a particular part of the chromosome suggests that at least one gene related to homosexuality is located in that region. Homosexuality was the only trait that all 33 pairs shared; the brothers didn’t all share the same eye color or shoe size or any other obvious characteristic. Nor, according to the study’s principal author, Dean Hamer, were they all identifiably effeminate or, for that matter, all macho. They were diverse except for sexual orientation. Says Hamer: “**This is by far the strongest evidence to date that there is a genetic component to sexual orientation. **We’ve identified a portion of the genome associated with it.”

time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,978923,00.html#ixzz1Zen61Erl
Click to expand...
I don’t know that homosexuality is or isn’t hereditary…it may be but it doesn’t matter, it’s still an abomination in the eyes of God, still a disordered perversion that carries tons of disease and typically a very early death.
 
babylonsfalling said:
People have been trying that schtick for years and it’s never worked. Everyone knows the disease rates are hugely disproportionate in homosexuals, along with suicide rates, mental problems, etc. It’s a degenerated lifestyle with degenerated results.
Click to expand...
For starters the attempt to try and imply that suicide rates and mental health problems among gay people are due to having an intimate relationship with the same sex, is just ridiculous. Its more likely due to the fact that people with same sex attractions are scorned, ridiculed, alienated, and socially excluded, regardless of whether or not they choose to act on their attraction. That some people who have SSA choose to commit suicide is hardly surprising.

As for Std among the gay community, given the context of this thread, it is irrelevant. That there is a high rate of std among any community, race, or creed, is hardly evidence that homosexuality by itself is a disorder. If it was the other way round, and it was the heterosexuals who had a high rate of disease, you would not conclude on that basis that heterosexuality is a disorder; and for that reason it is an irrelevant and weak argument, and is more likely to be viewed as scare mongering rather than constructive criticism. The Gay community could just as well argue that the reason for the high rate of std is not because of same sex relationships, but rather it is because there is a lack sex education in schools for the gay person because of prejudice and irrational fear among people like yourself who think that there children will be turned gay.

This is why i said you should drop that line of argument and try a different approach. It will not help you, or the Christian cause, by making those kinds of arguments.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Are you aware that you are in the philosophy sub forum? If you want to do apologetics, i suggest you go to the apologetics forum.
Click to expand...
No I didn’t, but for a christian forum I thought scripture would provide answers…
 
tonyrey said:
That is far from being the only evidence. Many gays and lesbians say they knew even in childhood that they were different. Moreover they are often distinguishable by some of their psychological traits, physical appearance and behaviour.
Click to expand...
Appearance? You mean like how many openly gay people dress fabulously?

Psychological traits? You mean being neat in appearance? C’mon, what kind of guy is meticulously clean when they don’t have a woman making them?

Behaviour? Is it their fabulous word choice? Excessively superlative inflected speech? Not banging the number of chicks that hang out with them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top