your opinions on gays

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gingerfish
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tim_Kirchoff said:
One could argue that the substance abuse, depression, etc. are results of the rejection by family and friends that some homosexuals experience, and a general feeling of being rejected by society. Using this argument deosn’t necessarily help your side.🤷
Click to expand...
goofyjim said:
We must tell those who only have the condition that they are okay instead of making them feel so darn miserable. It is society that contributes to these extra illnesses.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard that some studies of homosexuals living in the tolerant northern European nations like Denmark also suffer from higher rates of depression, drug use, and suicide. I can’t confirm that, though. Someone once said that San Francisco homosexuals, living in one of America’s most tolerant communities, also display higher rates of the abovementioned ailments. I am not saying that homosexuality is a mental disorder, because I don’t believe it is. However, I don’t think we should assume that intolerance is the cause of these higher rates.
 
goofyjim said:
I am totally indifferent. I would advise them against multiple partners or any other such risky behavior but do not care who they find attractive, sexual or otherwise.
Click to expand...
In the OP you said you’re all for it. Now you’re indifferent. What happened to change your mind?
 
goofyjim said:
But why must we look at same sex attraction as disease?
Click to expand...
I’ve never thought of SSA as a disease. I do not think of it as a disease. I do think of diabetes and TB as things typically called disease. It was a previous poster’s use of those two terms in the snip I gave that triggered my use of the word.

Maybe part of what bothered me when I read their post was a potential underlying assumption that an SSA person’s life and, by their comparison, my life are tragic. Huh. You mentioned “curable” (incurable) in your post. I think that concept is related to why I sensed this idea of tragic.
 
goofyjim said:
At this point I really don’t care anymore. I have same sex attraction and I am not going to walk around like I have any disorder.
Click to expand...
Some people feel the urge to shoplift. We should have a Shoplifters Pride March
 
tiggeriffic said:
It most certainly can NOT be “overcome”.
Click to expand...
There are many individuals who lived homosexual lifestyles, but don’t any longer. (The organization “courage” offers assistance to these folks.) Whether they’ve “overcome” their condition, I can’t say–I doubt they themselves would all agree on that question.

Those who’ve lived the lifestyle, then rejected it, believe that, whether their same-sex attraction was an innate condition or something they acquired, it was NOT something they were called to act on, give in to, or live out.

Peace.
John
 
Montalban said:
Some people feel the urge to shoplift. We should have a Shoplifters Pride March
Click to expand...
A logical answer to the claim, “I have same sex attraction and I’m not going to walk around like it’s a disorder”, but your point is reflexively rejected by people who’d say, "Now you’re saying shoplifting and homosexuality are the same thing.’
You’re not saying that, but they won’t get it.

Instead, keep it generic:
"So you say the fact that you have same sex attraction means it must be ‘who you are’, not a disorder…

Leaving aside homosexuality, do you always hold to the theory that every tendency and impulse–every attraction, ought to be lived out? How about every other conceivable type of tendency–sexual or otherwise–if they’re part of your makeup, does that make them always not disordered?
To be consistent, then, I hope you also support polygomous relationships and marriages, as well as incestual ones (provided pregnancy’s made impossible), for it is undeniable that there are people who have such desires.
And what about people who are more prone to anger and physical outbursts than others? Are they called to deal with this as a cross, or, since it’s ‘who they are’, should they act on it and live it out?
If your philosophy of acceptance applies to homosexuality but not these, are you being arbitrary? What is your criteria?
Click to expand...
Peace
John
 
john_ennis said:
A logical answer to the claim, “I have same sex attraction and I’m not going to walk around like it’s a disorder”, but your point is reflexively rejected by people who’d say, "Now you’re saying shoplifting and homosexuality are the same thing.’
You’re not saying that, but they won’t get it.
Click to expand...
I had an argument with gays on another forum. I asked them would they support rights of people to conduct bestiality. They said no. I asked what was the difference.

One tried an interesting point by stating that the animal is not a ‘willing’ participant.

I said that it’s ‘will’ is neither here nor there - 'cause what bull wants to be eaten, yet this person’s quite happy eating it - we just don’t *consult *animals. Further another gay was happy pleasuring himself with devices. These devices don’t have a say either. So the fact one participant was not able to give an opinion of consent didn’t matter to this case because that participant can not of its very nature have any value regarding consent.

So they were stuck with being against a particular sexul act - for no obvious reason.

Other ones that they were against included incest amongst adults, and necrophilia. The latter also being covered by the fact consent can never be an issue.

Ultimately I feel that people who are drawn towards homosexual desires are told by society not to attempt to control these - that control itself is wrong. Other compulsive behaviours society seems to be against, but not this one.
 
Homosexaulity is not natural. The primary reason for sex in all nature since time began is reproduction. If I were to condone the homosexual lifestyle I would be saying that GOD is capable of error by creating someone as one sex but mistakenly giving them the sexual drive of the other sex. Homosexuality is a cross that some people have to bear. We all have them. Some of us don’t carry our crosses very well and since I belong to this group I would be a hypocrite to condemn someone for their homosexaulity. However, I do not have to accept their lifestyle any more than they have to accept me when I lose my temper (one of the crosses I have to bear).
 
Montalban said:
I had an argument with gays on another forum. I asked them would they support rights of people to conduct bestiality. They said no. I asked what was the difference.

One tried an interesting point by stating that the animal is not a ‘willing’ participant.

I said that it’s ‘will’ is neither here nor there - 'cause what bull wants to be eaten, yet this person’s quite happy eating it - we just don’t *consult *animals. Further another gay was happy pleasuring himself with devices. These devices don’t have a say either. So the fact one participant was not able to give an opinion of consent didn’t matter to this case because that participant can not of its very nature have any value regarding consent.

So they were stuck with being against a particular sexul act - for no obvious reason.

Other ones that they were against included incest amongst adults, and necrophilia. The latter also being covered by the fact consent can never be an issue.

Ultimately I feel that people who are drawn towards homosexual desires are told by society not to attempt to control these - that control itself is wrong. Other compulsive behaviours society seems to be against, but not this one.
Click to expand...
You quickly led them to the flaw in their philosophy. They ended up saying that the “wrong” thing about sex with animals was the inability of the animal to consent. To that I’m always unable to stop myself from shouting, “That’s ALL that’s wrong with it?!”

Right along that line, I wonder: do any on this thread who say homosexuality is a normal condition and valid lifestyle, reject incestual behavior at the same time? If so, why? What is the philosophy which accepts one and rejects the other?

Peace.
John
 
Elric said:
Well that was certainly helpful.

Subjective to what?

Objective: meaning that others object to it?
Click to expand...
Well I I’m not a proponent of this, I was merely being cheeky - and to continue

Subjective to what? To the subject!
 
john_ennis said:
You quickly led them to the flaw in their philosophy. They ended up saying that the “wrong” thing about sex with animals was the inability of the animal to consent. To that I’m always unable to stop myself from shouting, “That’s ALL that’s wrong with it?!”

Right along that line, I wonder: do any on this thread who say homosexuality is a normal condition and valid lifestyle, reject incestual behavior at the same time? If so, why? What is the philosophy which accepts one and rejects the other?
Click to expand...
It’s hard to see why they shouldn’t be supporting every kind of sexual deviance. What makes theirs so special?
 
Montalban said:
It’s hard to see why they shouldn’t be supporting every kind of sexual deviance. What makes theirs so special?
Click to expand...
I went down the same path of discourse with a straight colleague–a gay rights supporter. I said the animal thing, he said the animal rights/consent thing…then I said what about dead animals.

He admitted that it was not wrong or disordered.

The only way to reject it would be to deny his inderlying philosophy that “what consenting adults do…” or to arbitrarily reject acts just because they seem wrong–which would have made him as hypocritical as he would accuse homophobics of being.
 
Elric said:
LoL, I dont think you want this. Its one of those “disorders”, although Im not sure if it is “objective”, “subjective” or something else.
Click to expand...
I believe in this case the word “objective” is from the natural law view that since the body parts are “objectively ordered” towards procreation (i.e., the objects – reproductive organs – are built to make babies), the natural order is for people with tab A to be attracted to people with slot A so that the “objective” function of the parts can be realized to their natural end.

So “objectively disordered” means that the attraction to connect tab A with tab A is a non-starter, and thus the objective circumstance is improperly ordered: dis-ordered.

The term is not a question of character but of function. SSA is ordered towards an object not in accord with the natural law.

That’s the grit. All the rest – the emotional and psychosocial concomitants – are ornaments to the issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top