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

[tonyrey]

I don’t think Gays are perverted, if by that you mean they are necessarily hedonistic, ill mannered sexual predators, who enjoy using people for sex. Its evident that some gay people love each-other. I think most gay people truly believe that their sexual actions are moral, and i understand entirely why they embrace the gay identity, since they think they are merely embracing who they are. I also believe that people should have the legal right to be gay. I also, like you, dislike those who bully, abuse, and discriminate against those who embrace that identity. I have no problem with the idea of their being ministers or circular leaders who happen to have same sex attraction.

However, that does not mean that homosexuality is a sexual identity that everybody should or ought to embrace as a moral lifestyle. I think people should have the legal choice to be gay, but legal does not necessarily mean that such actions are moral in a true objective sense. Gay people believe that sexual identity begins with attraction. Catholic doctrine, on the other-hand, believes that the fundamental meaning of human sexuality begins with your “gender”, and not who you’re attracted to. What you believe about human sexuality is necessarily going to be colored by your philosophical view of human reality as a whole. The fact that it has been become popular to believe that the homosexual lifestyle is just as normal and morally healthy as a heterosexual one, does not truly identify the moral facts, but rather it identifies the fact that society is willing to embrace a sexual ideology which does not conform to traditional beliefs about sexuality.

It is now popular to view any questioning of homosexuality as discrimination akin to racism. However, it is evident to me that black people, of which i am a proud member, are evidently human and are of the same objective value as everybody else, which is the same for every race; and thus any view that suggested that being black was some how a disorder or subhuman was unjustified and prejudice. However the same cannot be said for the moral defense of same sex relationships; since it has not been rationally demonstrated that same sex attraction is not the disorder it appears to be. That you have friends that are gay and that they are nice people, does not prove that homosexuality is normal in the moral sense of the word. The Progress of gay rights is more political than moral. Some of it is good in terms of protecting the gay community from unjust mistreatment from other members of society; on the other-hand, i feel that some its ideology should have no political right such as teaching kids that same sex relationships are “morally” normal. They should make a distinction between legal rights and objective moral rights. Gay rights is mostly pragmatic in nature.

Simply having a different belief about the purpose and meaning of sexuality is not necessarily an expression of discrimination or prejudice and it is not evident to me that gay people have the moral high ground. Neither is it evident to me that same sex attraction is not a disorder of somebodies gender identity; and however unpopular this view may be it appears to me that it is disorder. In fact i feel it would be more honest of the gay community to ask people to be tolerant of their lifestyle choice rather than assert that people are discriminating for disagreeing with the homosexual identity.

You speak of it as being dumb to unjustly discriminate and express irrational hatred, and i agree. However It is equally dumb to except something as moral on the basis that it is popular.

The moral legitimacy of homosexuality is a “belief”; not a fact.

A well-balanced, reasonable post! The problem now is that British society is now leaning over backwards so far to accommodate the rights of homosexuals that children are given the impression that their sexuality is a matter of choice to which they have a right and the Catholic Adoption Society was forced to close down because it did not permit babies to be adopted by homosexual couples. Tolerance has led to intolerance in the other direction. Gay rights are now being rammed down people’s throats…

 

[John21652]

So you consider homosexuality as a disordered perversion? Then I stand by my statement:thumbsup:

Considering how homosexuals make up somewhere between 1%-3% of any given human population, just by the numbers alone, homosexuality is not "normal’ and is a disorder. It has never been considered to be ‘normal’ by any human society, ever.

Now if you look up the word “perversion”, you will find that it refers to aberrant behaviour. It also means to put to a wrong or improper use; or to misuse.
Now one man shoving his penis up another man’s anus is not the proper use of those organs! Nor is it normal for one woman to strap on a pretend penis and then use it to sexually gratify another woman!!

Btw, are most people on earth right wing conservatives? I personally don’t know anybody who thinks like that.

I really have no idea. However, it would seem that ou, for some reason, equate the citing of moral reasons for describing certain behaviours as abnormal is therefore a sign of someone’s political persuasion. Wow, it would seem you have invented a whole new political science. You’d better explain it to us more fully, because the connection between morality and politics escapes me.

From what you have written here and in other posts, I think you really need to get out a bit more and meet a wider range of people. Not everyone embraces the moral relativism that you do.

 

[Mudgely]

But really, no one can deny that there is a fundamentally different mode of awareness that is exclusive to mankind. You don’t deny it or you wouldn’t have mentioned extraterrestrial life or expressed indignation at the thought that we might be special

It’s like man is lonely again like before the fall looking ‘out there’ for a helpmeet.

But there was no helpmeet suitable for Adam,

Hmmm, the breakdown of the marital bond, loneliness, lookin to outer space for a helpmeet, same sex couples taking up the slack enabling…

Yes, I would go even further to propose that nearly every species has a fundamentally different mode of awareness from every other. A blue whale which can ping the terrain more than 1,500 km, and can move 150 tons through the water with the flip of a fluke, has its own unique mode of awareness, and so does a house fly. But I think that what you are getting at is a unique awareness of being made in God’s image, and being blessed with a soul? I doubt that the peers of the pair-bonded male ducks are quacking and hissing their approbation or disapprobation of the behavior, which leads us to good and evil. The tigress who selects a tender morsel of a child from the village for her meal is doing something different than the sniper who squeezes off a round aimed at that same child.

 

[Mudgely]

Considering how homosexuals make up somewhere between 1%-3% of any given human population, just by the numbers alone, homosexuality is not "normal’ and is a disorder. It has never been considered to be ‘normal’ by any human society, ever.

I thought Kinsey put it closer to 10%, and other studies have ranged from about 1% to about 10%, with most coming in closer to 10%. But I am no expert. I don’t accept that being a minority defines a variation as a “disorder”. There is always that 10% of high achievers on an exam, yet would one call that behavior or aptitude “disordered”, necessarily due to their small numbers?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

A well-balanced, reasonable post! The problem now is that British society is now leaning over backwards so far to accommodate the rights of homosexuals that children are given the impression that their sexuality is a matter of choice to which they have a right and the Catholic Adoption Society was forced to close down because it did not permit babies to be adopted by homosexual couples. Tolerance has led to intolerance in the other direction. Gay rights are now being rammed down people’s throats…

This was an inevitable symptom of the split between Church and state. Not only was it a split between a religious institution and the circular authorities, but it was a split between the idea of Divine Law and circular ethics. It has taken a long time for people to realize that fact, but the fruits of such a truth is now coming to bear. We live in a fundamentally non-Christian society, and people are deluded if they ever thought otherwise. The legalism of todays world is inherently pragmatic and methodologically naturalistic which leads necessarily to pluralistic values. Law is culturally pluralistic because of its pragmatic foundation, and as such it cannot favor moral truths that require religious assumptions - which are exclusive to Christianity - in-order to be true. The system only supports a religious view if it provides a pluralistic and pragmatic benefit to the system. For example, views such as “thou shall not kill” is acceptable, but not because it is a divine truth, but rather it is because we all want to be protected regardless of our different beliefs or religious convictions; therefore such a rule has pragmatic and pluralistic value. As Catholics it is impossible for us to argue on a purely pragmatic basis that homosexuality is wrong and that positive views on gay relationships should be kept out of schools. Given such a system it therefore follows that non-Christian ideals can gain political favor on a pragmatic basis. That gay rights, such as adoption, has come this far, is largely consistent with the nature of circular law.

It is not a surprise to me. I think it is largely foolishness and a lack of wisdom that drives Catholics in to thinking that they can change the law to favor Catholic morality through politics. That is what surprises me. I have never understood why people attack gay marriage through a system that provides the methodological basis for its existence.

All that we can do is try to teach our children the truth and continue to express our faith. Change will only come through conversion; and even then, so long as a split between church and state exists, the legalization of immoral acts will persist.

Anything less than a revolution in the human soul, will fall on the deaf ears of legality.

 

[inocente]

The moral legitimacy of homosexuality is a “belief”; not a fact.

The constant parade of threads on CAF about homosexuality is clear evidence that it’s neither immoral nor a disorder, since if there was anything like a killer argument there’d be nothing to debate. The prospect of a solid case recedes with every new post and thread, and just adds to the impression that the supposed immorality of homosexuality and/or the act is a belief desperately in search of facts.

Is there even a case that it’s a moral question at all, any more than the morality of daisies or green sweaters? Why should there be a line in the sand between gay and straight? Who’s next, the left-handed? Ginger hair? A French accent?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The constant parade of threads on CAF about homosexuality is clear evidence that it’s neither immoral nor a disorder, since if there was anything like a killer argument there’d be nothing to debate. The prospect of a solid case recedes with every new post and thread, and just adds to the impression that the supposed immorality of homosexuality and/or the act is a belief desperately in search of facts.

Okay, i see your assertion. Any chance we can see your actual argument?

 

[inocente]

Okay, i see your assertion. Any chance we can see your actual argument?

Thought it was clear enough, but I’ll rephrase it: It is illegitimate to brand a minority as being immoral or disordered without good cause. The very existence of all the threads on homosexuality demonstrates the absence of good cause, since if there was one there would be no need for continued debate. In the absence of good cause it is illegitimate to brand the minority as immoral or disordered.

 

[Lui]

From what you have written here and in other posts, I think you really need to get out a bit more and meet a wider range of people. Not everyone embraces the moral relativism that you do.

I lived and worked in the US, GB, Germany, France, Italy, Belgium and South America. Is that out enough for you? Where did you live other than Australia that you need to dish out advice to me to get out more and meet a wider range of people? Maybe it’s because I don’t associate with moral preachers and right wing conservatives who think they are better than others. I mingle with people who aren’t preaching from the Bible and tell others how to live.
Perversion is something that takes place anywhere. How many fathers rape their daughters? Believe me, it’s enough. There are homosexuals who are perverted just like there are heterosexuals who are perverted. I just don’t consider homosexuality as something perverted in general but neither do I consider having sex without being married as perverted. I’m sure many people within a marriage are perverted though.
Nothing is black and white and to think that your moral standards are higher than mine is just your illusion. Maybe you need that to feel better about yourself.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It is illegitimate to brand a minority as being immoral or disordered without good cause.

correct

The very existence of all the threads on homosexuality demonstrates the absence of good cause, since if there was one there would be no need for continued debate.

Denial, and perhaps a conceptual limitation or inability to comprehend well defended arguments, is a very good possibility, knowing that human-beings have the capacity to deceive themselves and blind themselves to that which is obvious when presented with powerful temptations. Thus your supposed counter claim, as ridiculous and not well thought out as it is, has failed miserably.

In the absence of good cause it is illegitimate to brand the minority as immoral or disordered.

Correct

 

[Lui]

[However, that does not mean that homosexuality is a sexual identity that everybody should or ought to embrace as a moral lifestyle.

Who said you should embrace it? Just accept it. I don’t see any difference in same sex love or opposite sex love. I’m not gay myself but why should I condemn people who are as long as they are both adults who freely decide to be in a relationship? Why is that morally wrong?
[/quote]

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Who said you should embrace it? Just accept it. I don’t see any difference in same sex love or opposite sex love. I’m not gay myself but why should I condemn people who are as long as they are both adults who freely decide to be in a relationship? Why is that morally wrong?

It depends on what you mean by wrong. What you really mean is that there is no “pragmatic-disorder” with same sex relationships. I agree. I just don’t think its moral.

 

[Lui]

I just don’t think its moral.

Why not?

 

[John21652]

I thought Kinsey put it closer to 10%, and other studies have ranged from about 1% to about 10%, with most coming in closer to 10%. But I am no expert. I don’t accept that being a minority defines a variation as a “disorder”. There is always that 10% of high achievers on an exam, yet would one call that behavior or aptitude “disordered”, necessarily due to their small numbers?

Kinsey wasn’t alive when his institute did the study into homosexuality.

Go here and read all about it. The sample was so small as to be not nationally significant. It was confined to the Bay Area of San Francisco. Lots of other studies have been done and the fugures for exlusive homosexuality are within the range I quoted. The national percentages are fudged when the part time homosexuals are added in.

The analogy you used, intelligence percentiles, refers to how people use their brains effectively. It doesn not show how people use their brains in a disordered way. studies into homosexuality are predicated upon the subjects using their sexual organs very differently from the bulk of the general population and contrary to their designed functions. Thus, you are comparing apples with oranges.

 

[Mudgely]

Kinsey wasn’t alive when his institute did the study into homosexuality.

Go here and read all about it. The sample was so small as to be not nationally significant. It was confined to the Bay Area of San Francisco. Lots of other studies have been done and the fugures for exlusive homosexuality are within the range I quoted. The national percentages are fudged when the part time homosexuals are added in.

The analogy you used, intelligence percentiles, refers to how people use their brains effectively. It doesn not show how people use their brains in a disordered way. studies into homosexuality are predicated upon the subjects using their sexual organs very differently from the bulk of the general population and contrary to their designed functions. Thus, you are comparing apples with oranges.

I still don’t buy that being a minority automatically makes a class of people, disordered.

 

[Mudgely]

Kinsey wasn’t alive when his institute did the study into homosexuality.

Go here and read all about it. The sample was so small as to be not nationally significant. It was confined to the Bay Area of San Francisco. Lots of other studies have been done and the fugures for exlusive homosexuality are within the range I quoted. The national percentages are fudged when the part time homosexuals are added in.

The analogy you used, intelligence percentiles, refers to how people use their brains effectively. It doesn not show how people use their brains in a disordered way. studies into homosexuality are predicated upon the subjects using their sexual organs very differently from the bulk of the general population and contrary to their designed functions. Thus, you are comparing apples with oranges.

Just wiki’d around. Looks like the range is 1-14% depending on where you are and how you measure it. Self reported at gay or bi runs 6-7% in cities, and 1-3% overall.

 

[John21652]

I lived and worked in the US, GB, Germany, France, Italy, Belgium and South America. Is that out enough for you? Where did you live other than Australia that you need to dish out advice to me to get out more and meet a wider range of people?

Well, you tell us you mix with people who have a very narrow point of view and who label others as haters and bigots.

Maybe it’s because I don’t associate with moral preachers and right wing conservatives who think they are better than others. I mingle with people who aren’t preaching from the Bible and tell others how to live.

This passage proves my point. You automatically label those who offer moral guidance as "moral preachers: and “right wing conservatives”. Why is it that you automatically attach those two labels onto anyone who offers moral guidance.? Let me guess, your parents were right wing conservatives and you rebelled against their moral guidance. True?

Perversion is something that takes place anywhere. How many fathers rape their daughters? Believe me, it’s enough. There are homosexuals who are perverted just like there are heterosexuals who are perverted.

That’s why I pointed you to the dictionary definition of what 'perversion’eans. It can indeed be applied to a whole range of human behaviours. Just as incest is a perversion and just as I’m ure there are a few perverted heterosexuals, there is another perversion and that is sex between same sex couples. Like I said, one man shoving his penis into another man’s elementary canal is really perverting the use of the sex organs. Not to mention perverting the use of the elementary canal!

I just don’t consider homosexuality as something perverted in general

How can forced incest be a perversion (as described by you) and yet the misuse of human anatomy is a perversion? The dictionary definition tells us it is a perversion. Human anatomy tells us it is a perversion. The incredibly high risk factors associated with same sex couplings show us it is a perversion. Or is it not a perversion because you have a perverted morality?

but neither do I consider having sex without being married as perverted.

So, sex, to you, is nothing special? Just another pleasure to throw oneself into. The issue is the type of sex.

I’m sure many people within a marriage are perverted though.

How can you be so sure? Or does it just suit your view of the world to tell yourself that there must be lots of perverted married people?

Nothing is black and white and to think that your moral standards are higher than mine is just your illusion. Maybe you need that to feel better about yourself.

After reading your diatribe against any sort of morality, I’d have to say I’m under no illusions about your moral standards. According to what you post, morality is whatever you want it to be. You see, many things in life are indeed black and white. The thing is, you fudge them into grey and think that’s the way the world is.

 

[Lui]

I thought Kinsey put it closer to 10%, and other studies have ranged from about 1% to about 10%, with most coming in closer to 10%. But I am no expert. I don’t accept that being a minority defines a variation as a “disorder”. There is always that 10% of high achievers on an exam, yet would one call that behavior or aptitude “disordered”, necessarily due to their small numbers?

I think it’s higher than 2% too but even 2% is not that low. That’s still 120 million people. Let’s not forget that many people are bi-sexual which might even mean that up to 20% of the population may have same sex tendencies. I’m neither so I have no reason to stand up for homosexuality. I just don’t see anything immoral with it.

 

[Lui]

Well, you tell us you mix with people who have a very narrow point of view and who label others as haters and bigots. This passage proves my point. You automatically label those who offer moral guidance as "moral preachers: and “right wing conservatives”.

If someone regards gay people as disordered and perverted I don’t see them as moral guides but rather as moral fascists.

Why is it that you automatically attach those two labels onto anyone who offers moral guidance.? Let me guess, your parents were right wing conservatives and you rebelled against their moral guidance. True?

My father is a left-wing atheist. FAIL! Btw, I still think he has higher moral standards than many so-called Christians. He taught me to not discriminate against people who are gay, black, Chinese, women or whatever.

Just as incest is a perversion and just as I’m ure there are a few perverted heterosexuals, there is another perversion and that is sex between same sex couples

.

Your opinion. I find the death penalty morally wrong: my opinion.

Or is it not a perversion because you have a perverted morality?

Speak for yourself. Maybe your morality is perverted.

So, sex, to you, is nothing special? Just another pleasure to throw oneself into.

Where did I say that? Just because I don’t think having sex without being married is perverted you come to this conclusion?

The issue is the type of sex. How can you be so sure? Or does it just suit your view of the world to tell yourself that there must be lots of perverted married people?

Again, I’ve never said there must be a lot of perverted married people. I said there are many married people that are perverted too. Being married doesn’t automatically make you moral, nor does being homosexual make you automatically immoral. My point was that perversion can take place anywhere by anyone and is not restricted to a certain group of people.

After reading your diatribe against any sort of morality, I’d have to say I’m under no illusions about your moral standards. According to what you post, morality is whatever you want it to be. You see, many things in life are indeed black and white. The thing is, you fudge them into grey and think that’s the way the world is.

Here we go again. YOU claim to have higher moral standards than me and I have no moral values whatsoever. You even assume I’m perverted because I tolerate homosexuality. It just goes to show what a judgmental person you are. Your whole argumentation is a joke.
The difference between you and me is I don’t regard myself as morally better than others while you(and many others here) in fact do exactly that.

 

[Mudgely]

If someone regards gay people as disordered and perverted I don’t see them as moral guides but rather as moral fascists.

My father is a left-wing atheist. FAIL! Btw, I still think he has higher moral standards than many so-called Christians. He taught me to not discriminate against people who are gay, black, Chinese, women or whatever.

.

Your opinion. I find the death penalty morally wrong: my opinion.

Speak for yourself. Maybe your morality is perverted.

Where did I say that? Just because I don’t think having sex without being married is perverted you come to this conclusion?

Again, I’ve never said there must be a lot of perverted married people. I said there are many married people that are perverted too. Being married doesn’t automatically make you moral, nor does being homosexual make you automatically immoral. My point was that perversion can take place anywhere by anyone and is not restricted to a certain group of people.

Here we go again. YOU claim to have higher moral standards than me and I have no moral values whatsoever. You even assume I’m perverted because I tolerate homosexuality. It just goes to show what a judgmental person you are. Your whole argumentation is a joke.
The difference between you and me is I don’t regard myself as morally better than others while you(and many others here) in fact do exactly that.

per·vert·ed/pərˈvərtid/
Adjective:

1. (of a person or their actions) Characterized by sexually abnormal and unacceptable practices or tendencies.
   2, (of a thing) Having been corrupted or distorted from its original course, meaning, or state.

I guess the word is being used here in the sense or meaning unacceptable. If two people are married, and both consent to what they are doing, what would be considered perverted, except perhaps contraception?