Homosexuality, science, and morality;...

Homosexuality, science, and morality; a civil discussion

Posted in the Gay/Lesbian Forum

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Benjamin

Harrisonburg, VA

#1 Feb 10, 2014
I'd really like to discuss the matter of homosexuality and get to understand other people's views on it. It's something I think about from time to time, but I rarely have a chance to express my thoughts to anyone else or get anyone else's thoughts about it. So I'll start by explaining my views.

First, just to be up front about it: yes, I do believe that engaging in homosexual behavior is immoral. I do NOT, however, believe that makes people who do engage in such behavior worse than anyone else, and I certainly do not believe that it gives anyone a right to judge or hate such people.

Now to dig into the issue. I've done some research on my own, and based on what I've found, I'm convinced that genetics can be one factor in determining sexual orientation. That being said, though, I have yet to find any evidence that leads me to believe that orientation is absolute, innate, or immutable. I certainly don't see it as a trait comparable in nature to race. To me, it seems more comparable in nature to traits such as handedness or alcoholism. Let's look at these analogies more in depth.

Clearly, not many people would claim to have chosen to be left- or right-handed. And I'll concede that there may be a genetic factor in handedness. But at the same time, it does seem a bit odd to say, "I was born right-handed." Personally, I don't think I came out of my momma writing with either hand. It was something I had to learn. In my case, I ended up learning to do most everything with my right hand, but I would argue that this was not because my right hand was inherently more capable of fine motor skills. I think it's no coincidence that when I've recently tried to write with my left hand, it ended up looking like I was a child learning to hold a pen for the first time. My right hand is better at writing because I've written with it for nigh on twenty-one years, not the other way around. Sure, I may have had an inherent tendency toward using my right hand, but if my folks had watched me like a hawk and never let me pen a word but with my left hand, then I feel confident I would write left-handed even now.

My point here is that, much like handedness, sexual orientation seems to me perhaps influenced by genetics, but not absolutely predetermined or impossible to change.

Then there's alcoholism. Unless I'm mistaken (which is entirely possible, and if I am, please let me know), it's been shown that a predisposition to alcoholism can be inherited genetically. But this doesn't mean that people with such a predisposition are "born as alcoholics", and it certainly doesn't mean they have no choice in the matter. Yes, it may be easier for them to live in it than to live outside of it, but it's still an active, conscious choice every time an alcoholic has a drink. It's not so much a choice to desire to drink, but that desire can generally be diminished and suppressed by not feeding it. It may never go away entirely, but that does not mean an alcoholic has no choice but to abuse alcohol until the day he dies.

My point here is that, even though genetics may play a role in determining sexual orientation, I think there's more to it than that, and even a genetic predisposition toward one orientation or another doesn't mean someone has no choice but to follow that predisposition.

Of course, all of this is merely speculation on my part. And I sincerely hope I have not offended anyone, as offense is not at all my aim. I just enjoy hearing what other people have to say and engaging in debate!
Campy

Las Vegas, NV

#2 Feb 10, 2014
"First, just to be up front about it: yes, I do believe that engaging in homosexual behavior is immoral."

Forget the facts. Your above statement means the homosexuals will brand you as a "troll" and a "homophobe" and will try to crucify you.
Benjamin

Harrisonburg, VA

#3 Feb 10, 2014
Campy wrote:
"First, just to be up front about it: yes, I do believe that engaging in homosexual behavior is immoral."
Forget the facts. Your above statement means the homosexuals will brand you as a "troll" and a "homophobe" and will try to crucify you.
Yeah, that's what I'm always afraid of. That's why I never get any real, good discussions on the topic. No one wants to listen because my opinion bears some resemblance to the opinions of people who DO actively hate gays.
Campy

Las Vegas, NV

#4 Feb 10, 2014
Benjamin wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, that's what I'm always afraid of. That's why I never get any real, good discussions on the topic. No one wants to listen because my opinion bears some resemblance to the opinions of people who DO actively hate gays.
The word "hater" is one of many buzzwords the gays use to disarm their opponents.
With the gays, no one is allowed to repectfully disagree. Gays are digital. One or zero. You are either for them or against them.
Gremlin

Louisville, KY

#5 Feb 10, 2014
Campy wrote:
<quoted text>
The word "hater" is one of many buzzwords the gays use to disarm their opponents.
With the gays, no one is allowed to repectfully disagree. Gays are digital. One or zero. You are either for them or against them.
Wrong. If a straight person doesn't agree with the homosexual lifestyle, that's his opinion and he's entitled to it. I respect that person for his honesty. The individuals I don't care for are those like yourself who do all the hateful name calling and discrimination. Gays are human beings just like you are, but as we all know, treating us like human beings is too much to ask, right?

“Equality marches on! ”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#7 Feb 10, 2014
Ulysses wrote:
<quoted text>
Perverts that force their sick lifestyle on everyone else against their will don't deserve to be treated like human beings.
Look, don't project what your parents harped at you on others. You need to deal with your own issues. Those of us not in the closet are living very happy, satisfying, lives. Your constant changing of usernames/locations only magnifies your insecurities and socially fragile ego. You poor little damaged misfit. Tick-tock. Maybe it is time for you to move the clock forward. Speed up the ole time line.
Campy

Las Vegas, NV

#8 Feb 10, 2014
Gremlin wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong. If a straight person doesn't agree with the homosexual lifestyle, that's his opinion and he's entitled to it. I respect that person for his honesty. The individuals I don't care for are those like yourself who do all the hateful name calling and discrimination. Gays are human beings just like you are, but as we all know, treating us like human beings is too much to ask, right?
Thanks. You are entitled to your opinion and I respect you for your honesty.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#9 Feb 10, 2014
Benjamin wrote:
I'd really like to discuss the matter of homosexuality and get to understand other people's views on it....
Your issues with people engaging in same sex acts and/or expressing their natural, innate orientation, your problem. There is no need for us to try to change our sexual orientation (which has proved incredibly ineffective and emotionally, spiritually and psychologically damaging, by the way) simply because folk like you choosing to pray that your God finds it immoral. Your problems with our homosexuality, not our problems anymore.
Gremlin

Louisville, KY

#12 Feb 11, 2014
Ulysses wrote:
<quoted text>
Perverts that force their sick lifestyle on everyone else against their will don't deserve to be treated like human beings.
LMAO! Can't you come up with something more original, you insignificant POS? Fecal matter like yourself who try to force thier hateful homophobia on others are the ones who don't deserve to be treated like human beings. Sit back and watch as state after state and country after country legalizes same sex marriage. Oh....did I mention that gays can now serve openly in the military, and there are openly gay politicians?(Yes, I'm rubbing it in). What a pity all you can do is come to this forum and cry like a little girl about it.
Benjamin

Edinburg, VA

#13 Feb 11, 2014
Oh, wow, Topix totally didn't send me e-mail updates on this thing like I asked it to. Not trying to ignore everyone!

Also, I really would rather engage in civilized discussion here, ideally without name-calling or blatant disrespect of other people. Not only has this thread evidently veered pretty far from "civil", it doesn't even seem to have stayed much on topic. If anyone actually does want to have a debate without insults and the like, I'm happy to! Just, y'know, throw a comment at me with your thoughts and whatnot!:)

“Equality marches on! ”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#14 Feb 11, 2014
Do realize that, "Campy", "Ulysses", "Calvin", and "Ultimate Truth" are one and the same. Trollix would not be a great source for any serious fact finding mission. But hey, the more hits the place gets, the more the advertisers place ads. Thus the lax registration process. Even newspapers require names and addresses of people writing editorials. This place has become a haven for a few trolls, with no life, to monopolize every thread with their pent up, closeted, "life has passed me by", aggression. Good luck with your research. Topix has nothing to offer with any validity.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#15 Feb 11, 2014
Benjamin wrote:
Oh, wow, Topix totally didn't send me e-mail updates on this thing like I asked it to. Not trying to ignore everyone!
Also, I really would rather engage in civilized discussion here, ideally without name-calling or blatant disrespect of other people. Not only has this thread evidently veered pretty far from "civil", it doesn't even seem to have stayed much on topic. If anyone actually does want to have a debate without insults and the like, I'm happy to! Just, y'know, throw a comment at me with your thoughts and whatnot!:)
Part of the problem is there isn't really anything to "debate". For those of use who are gay, it's a non-issue. We didn't ask for it, can't change it, and most of us have no desire to, even if it were possible, since it is an integral part of who we are.

Bring gay doesn't stop anyone from living a perfectly normal and healthy life. We work, play, pray, fall in love, marry, raise kids, serve in our communities, and grow old, just like everyone else. Our lifestyles are the same as everyone else's - the good and the bad - from single player, to church Pastor, to soccer Dad, to corporate CEO, to jailbird, to inventor, and every other type. No differences based on the gender we can be attracted to.

How is any of that debatable? And what benefit would there be for us to debate our lives? We are too busy LIVING them.
Campy

Las Vegas, NV

#16 Feb 11, 2014
Benjamin wrote:
Oh, wow, Topix totally didn't send me e-mail updates on this thing like I asked it to. Not trying to ignore everyone!
Also, I really would rather engage in civilized discussion here, ideally without name-calling or blatant disrespect of other people. Not only has this thread evidently veered pretty far from "civil", it doesn't even seem to have stayed much on topic. If anyone actually does want to have a debate without insults and the like, I'm happy to! Just, y'know, throw a comment at me with your thoughts and whatnot!:)
Benjamin-
You obviously are new here. Your attempt to have a civil discussion is admirable, but homosexuals are not interested in dialog. Since 1970, when they terrorized an APA convention, eventually resulting in homosexuality being removed from the DSM as a mental disorder, their M.O. has been to utilize bully tactics, ad hominem attacks, ad nauseum, censorship, and outright terrorism to achieve their goals.
For example: About three years ago, a straight poster who used the alias "thales", started a similar thread, with a similar subject and intent. There were about four regular gay respondents, but primarily "nhjeff". Initially the thread was civil, but when "thales" provided irrefutable evidence that homosexuals live a dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle, and have negative effects on society, the gays resorted to vicious ad hominem attacks. I could sense that "thales" would not be able to withstand such vicious attacks, and sure enough, he soon disappeared, never to be heard from again.

Over the years, I have probably witnessed several hundred straight posters who, like you, arrived with good intentions, but were unable to withstand the vicious attacks. The gays have learned that they can get what they want, by acting like a pack of jackals.
Benjamin

Edinburg, VA

#18 Feb 12, 2014
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Part of the problem is there isn't really anything to "debate". For those of use who are gay, it's a non-issue. We didn't ask for it, can't change it, and most of us have no desire to, even if it were possible, since it is an integral part of who we are.
Bring gay doesn't stop anyone from living a perfectly normal and healthy life. We work, play, pray, fall in love, marry, raise kids, serve in our communities, and grow old, just like everyone else. Our lifestyles are the same as everyone else's - the good and the bad - from single player, to church Pastor, to soccer Dad, to corporate CEO, to jailbird, to inventor, and every other type. No differences based on the gender we can be attracted to.
How is any of that debatable? And what benefit would there be for us to debate our lives? We are too busy LIVING them.
I suppose the main thing I'm interested in discussing is the physiological nature of sexual orientation. Being gay doesn't make someone an expert on how homosexuality occurs any more than being straight makes someone an expert on how heterosexuality occurs. I'm not interested in trying to convince anyone than gays are dangerous or live less meaningful lives,'cause that's just silly. I just think that this culture has falsely indoctrinated people to believe that their sexual orientation is more set in stone than it really is, regardless of its moral standing. That's really the main point I'm interested in discussing.
Benjamin

Edinburg, VA

#19 Feb 12, 2014
Campy wrote:
<quoted text>
Benjamin-
You obviously are new here. Your attempt to have a civil discussion is admirable, but homosexuals are not interested in dialog. Since 1970, when they terrorized an APA convention, eventually resulting in homosexuality being removed from the DSM as a mental disorder, their M.O. has been to utilize bully tactics, ad hominem attacks, ad nauseum, censorship, and outright terrorism to achieve their goals.
For example: About three years ago, a straight poster who used the alias "thales", started a similar thread, with a similar subject and intent. There were about four regular gay respondents, but primarily "nhjeff". Initially the thread was civil, but when "thales" provided irrefutable evidence that homosexuals live a dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle, and have negative effects on society, the gays resorted to vicious ad hominem attacks. I could sense that "thales" would not be able to withstand such vicious attacks, and sure enough, he soon disappeared, never to be heard from again.
Over the years, I have probably witnessed several hundred straight posters who, like you, arrived with good intentions, but were unable to withstand the vicious attacks. The gays have learned that they can get what they want, by acting like a pack of jackals.
I appreciate your evident concern, but what I can't really appreciate is your blatant rudeness toward homosexuals. They are not evil people any more than anyone else, and while some of them may use dishonest tactics to get what they want, that is not all of them, and plenty others have done the same for plenty other reasons. Perhaps I will not withstand the "vicious attacks", but please don't be so puffed up as to think you know "the gays" so well.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#20 Feb 12, 2014
Benjamin wrote:
<quoted text>
...... I just think that this culture has falsely indoctrinated people to believe that their sexual orientation is more set in stone than it really is, regardless of its moral standing. That's really the main point I'm interested in discussing.
"Falsely indoctrinated" isn't likely, since it's very easy to test a person's innate responses to external stimuli. As far as I know, there is not a single case where a person has been tested to have changed orientation. And many people have tried and failed, sometimes to their deaths from depression.

That said, what sexual orientation really IS, and the labels we apply to ourselves, and each other, might be confusing you.

My understanding is that sexual orientation is about who you CAN be attracted to, not who you are attracted to at the moment, or the label you apply. I personally believe that many if not most people are somewhere alone the spectrum with the capability to be attracted to both genders to a smaller or larger degree. By definition, this would make them bi-sexual, regardless of the person they are with at the moment, or the label applied to them.

Studies have shown that this is much more common for women, not as much for men.

Then, there are folks at the far ends of the spectrum, who can only be attracted to ONE gender, either the same one, or the opposite. They are homosexuals or heterosexuals.

And then, just to confuse everyone, there are people who live their lives pretending to be the orientation they are not. And when the deception fails, it looks like they are switching orientation, when in fact they are doing no such thing.

But none of this really maters, does it? It's rather silly that labels are required at all, but if they are, then it's polite to accept the labels we place on ourselves.
Benjamin

Harrisonburg, VA

#21 Feb 12, 2014
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
"Falsely indoctrinated" isn't likely, since it's very easy to test a person's innate responses to external stimuli. As far as I know, there is not a single case where a person has been tested to have changed orientation. And many people have tried and failed, sometimes to their deaths from depression.
That said, what sexual orientation really IS, and the labels we apply to ourselves, and each other, might be confusing you.
My understanding is that sexual orientation is about who you CAN be attracted to, not who you are attracted to at the moment, or the label you apply. I personally believe that many if not most people are somewhere alone the spectrum with the capability to be attracted to both genders to a smaller or larger degree. By definition, this would make them bi-sexual, regardless of the person they are with at the moment, or the label applied to them.
Studies have shown that this is much more common for women, not as much for men.
Then, there are folks at the far ends of the spectrum, who can only be attracted to ONE gender, either the same one, or the opposite. They are homosexuals or heterosexuals.
And then, just to confuse everyone, there are people who live their lives pretending to be the orientation they are not. And when the deception fails, it looks like they are switching orientation, when in fact they are doing no such thing.
But none of this really maters, does it? It's rather silly that labels are required at all, but if they are, then it's polite to accept the labels we place on ourselves.
See? This is the kind of reasonable discussion I'm aiming for. Thank you!:)

True, it may seem that scientific evidence points to a certain conclusion, but science, while absolutely worth pursuing, is not always reliable. Or rather, the people who carry it out are not reliable, being as they are flawed humans, so the results can easily be biased. At the peak of racism, well-respected scientists the world over proved scientifically that African peoples were inherently inferior to other races. On top of that, American's proved that they were the highest race, and Germans proved they were the highest, etc. Science is absolutely a worthwhile pursuit, but it is not by immune to cultural influence and bias by any stretch of the imagination.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#22 Feb 12, 2014
Benjamin wrote:
I suppose the main thing I'm interested in discussing is the physiological nature of sexual orientation. Being gay doesn't make someone an expert on how homosexuality occurs any more than being straight makes someone an expert on how heterosexuality occurs. I'm not interested in trying to convince anyone than gays are dangerous or live less meaningful lives,'cause that's just silly. I just think that this culture has falsely indoctrinated people to believe that their sexual orientation is more set in stone than it really is, regardless of its moral standing. That's really the main point I'm interested in discussing.
The reality is, one's sexual orientation is pretty much unchangeable, if you aren't born with the programming to become opposite sex attracted, you aren't going to find it later. People have been trying to eliminate homosexual orientations ever since the reality sunk in that they existed, with universally unsuccessful results. The lengths that some folk have gone to to make heterosexuals out of homosexuals are downright scary. None have worked. Behavior can be modified, but the underlying sexual orientation has never been proved to be altered.

The only attempt at false indoctrination here is your own.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#23 Feb 12, 2014
Campy wrote:
Benjamin-
You obviously are new here. Your attempt to have a civil discussion is admirable, but homosexuals are not interested in dialog. Since 1970, when they terrorized an APA convention, eventually resulting in homosexuality being removed from the DSM as a mental disorder, their M.O. has been to utilize bully tactics, ad hominem attacks, ad nauseum, censorship, and outright terrorism to achieve their goals.
For example: About three years ago, a straight poster who used the alias "thales", started a similar thread, with a similar subject and intent. There were about four regular gay respondents, but primarily "nhjeff". Initially the thread was civil, but when "thales" provided irrefutable evidence that homosexuals live a dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle, and have negative effects on society, the gays resorted to vicious ad hominem attacks. I could sense that "thales" would not be able to withstand such vicious attacks, and sure enough, he soon disappeared, never to be heard from again.
Over the years, I have probably witnessed several hundred straight posters who, like you, arrived with good intentions, but were unable to withstand the vicious attacks. The gays have learned that they can get what they want, by acting like a pack of jackals.
The reality remains that there has always been ZERO scientific evidence that having a homosexual orientation is in itself a mental illness. It was only ever classified as such, because those in the mental health field only knew of homosexuals with other mental health problems. They failed to recognize that the vast majority of homosexuals went through life perfectly content with their innate sexual orientation. The science proving that homosexuality wasn't a mental illness actually existed for years before the APA released the first DSM, but the US Army kept quiet about what they learned about all the homosexuals they were discharging after WW2.

There are homosexuals who live "dangerous lifestyles", they do not represent all of us, anymore than the much, much larger number of heterosexuals who also live "dangerous lifestyles" represent all heterosexuals. As "thales", you did not provide "irrefutable proof" that "homosexuals live a dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle, and have negative effects on society", merely propaganda attempting to blame all homosexuals for the behaviors of some of them. You really should attempt to recognize the difference.
Benjamin

Harrisonburg, VA

#24 Feb 12, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>The reality is, one's sexual orientation is pretty much unchangeable, if you aren't born with the programming to become opposite sex attracted, you aren't going to find it later. People have been trying to eliminate homosexual orientations ever since the reality sunk in that they existed, with universally unsuccessful results. The lengths that some folk have gone to to make heterosexuals out of homosexuals are downright scary. None have worked. Behavior can be modified, but the underlying sexual orientation has never been proved to be altered.
The only attempt at false indoctrination here is your own.
I'm gonna try to use an example that doesn't involve homosexuality to make my point better.

If I were to kill someone, that'd be a choice. I reckon we can agree on that. If I (a man) were to have sex with a woman, that would also be a choice

Let't take it back a few steps, though. Let's say I had a gun, and I was in a heated argument with someone, and he said something that offended me deeply, and I had a sudden urge to take my gun and kill him, but I immediately suppressed this urge and didn't dwell on it any further. Or let's say I was walking along a secluded beach with my girlfriend (assuming I had one), and she just stopped, took her clothes off, and asked to have sex. And naturally I had the urge to do so, but I refused to, refused to even think any further about it. Both of these cases involve what I'll call a "primal urge", a desire that is subconscious and not really a choice. My suppressing that urge, however, was a choice. I consciously chose not to dwell on the primal urge, but instead to let go of it and move on.

Suppose, though, that in the argument situation, I didn't kill the man, but I dwelt on my anger. I kept thinking all day about how much I should have killed him. I mentally ran through the event over and over, except in my mind I took out my gun and shoot him in the head. Or suppose that after refusing to have sex with my girlfriend, I dwelt on the image of her standing there naked. I fantasized about going back and having sex with her, and I let that thought pervade my mind. Both of these scenarios did involve a conscious choice on my part, the choice to consciously entertain the thought that sprung up on its own. A conscious choice to dwell on that primal urge, even without fulfilling it in action.

My point is that there are three different aspects of sexual orientation: the subconscious primal urge, the conscious thought, and the action. The primal urge is clearly not a choice, but the conscious thought and the action are pretty undeniably choices. Perhaps the "underlying sexual orientation", which is what I called the "primal urge", will never go away, but we human beings are neither bound nor defined by our primal urges. If we were, then we couldn't reasonably be held responsible for anything.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 13 min guest 1,638
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 22 min Frogface Kate 364
News AIDS Walk New York and Gay Men's Health Crisis:... 1 hr Rev Don Wildmoan 10
News Two men caned in Indonesia for gay sex 1 hr Sonny 1
Gay oovoo (Dec '12) 3 hr Mrmeeseeks 63
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 4 hr The Troll Stopper 25,593
News A look at the judges who will rule on Trump's t... 4 hr The Troll Stopper 170
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 4 hr The Troll Stopper 5,941
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 7 hr Frankie Rizzo 49,151
News More 11 hr Little Cheerleader 15
More from around the web