|
Post by GoSaraGo on Jul 3, 2010 23:33:00 GMT -5
homosexuallity is unnatural. it goes against human nature. I'm not going to exactly disagree, but I would like to know what that's based on. The Bible? Because yes, based on the Bible, homosexuality is unnatural. So you do have a point. It just depends how you are looking at it.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Jul 3, 2010 23:38:22 GMT -5
homosexuallity is unnatural. it goes against human nature. I'm not going to exactly disagree, but I would like to know what that's based on. The Bible? Because yes, based on the Bible, homosexuality is unnatural. So you do have a point. It just depends how you are looking at it. No it doesn't. Here's a firsthand testimony: it's not unnatural. It's not a choice. It's perfectly normal.
|
|
|
Post by GoSaraGo on Jul 3, 2010 23:42:13 GMT -5
I'm not going to exactly disagree, but I would like to know what that's based on. The Bible? Because yes, based on the Bible, homosexuality is unnatural. So you do have a point. It just depends how you are looking at it. No it doesn't. Here's a firsthand testimony: it's not unnatural. It's not a choice. It's perfectly normal. That's your opinion. I do agree, however. It is normal, and not a choice. I dont choose the way I feel about people, I just feel that way. But what I meant by saying "It depends how you look at it" is that it depends on what YOU believe.
|
|
|
Post by swan on Jul 4, 2010 0:20:13 GMT -5
Even if being gay was a choice why would it matter? Why should the government (or any other organization for that matter) be making such a choice for someone? Behind closed doors I would imagine that most gay couples do the exact same thing most straight couples do (give or take a few small details). Factor in that there is significant evidence that supports that homosexuality is not a choice and the fact that attraction in general doesn't really involve choices and I think the conclusion should be pretty clear.
And it's not like there are any real negatives to homosexuality either.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Jul 4, 2010 0:53:13 GMT -5
No it doesn't. Here's a firsthand testimony: it's not unnatural. It's not a choice. It's perfectly normal. That's your opinion. I do agree, however. It is normal, and not a choice. I dont choose the way I feel about people, I just feel that way. But what I meant by saying "It depends how you look at it" is that it depends on what YOU believe. That's the point. It's how I feel about it. It's 100% natural, not a choice and perfectly normal. It's my feelings and it's a fact that I feel that way. After all, the entire discussion is ABOUT feelings, therefore saying that it's "just my opinion" only further proves my point.
|
|
|
Post by Enemynarwhal on Jul 4, 2010 1:09:08 GMT -5
People can screw whatever they want to screw, the only rules are if it's living is has to be able to give consent and it can't be related to you.
That being said a five year old is perfectly capable of saying yes and i would rather none of you judged our love either.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Jul 4, 2010 1:10:30 GMT -5
People can screw whatever they want to screw, the only rules are if it's living is has to be able to give consent and it can't be related to you. That being said a five year old is perfectly capable of saying yes and i would rather none of you judged our love either. Are you actually trying to divert this into a conversation about pedophilia or are you just trolling?
|
|
|
Post by NormanTheOne on Jul 4, 2010 1:35:50 GMT -5
Trolling for the victory. glorious
As well as that I think calling homosexuality a mental disorder is invalid, yet there is a point to that, seeing as it is a part of the brain functioning differently than the majority of people. If that majority changes, then being heterosexual would be perceived as different and could end up being criticised as a mental disorder, as harsh as it may be.
Hope my 2 cents have some value.
|
|
Yokailo
Star
[AWD:020307]
I like things.
Posts: 734
|
Post by Yokailo on Jul 4, 2010 4:05:57 GMT -5
Let me start with the fact that I've found that homosexual or bisexual people are often the most open-minded, nice and social people in a group, just because they know what it's like to have their ideas and opinions not accepted. (bad grammar. I'm sorry.)
Now, about the mental disorder thing. What I've always learned, is that homo/bisexuality is caused by an overdose or lack of testosteron for the foetus when it's still growing inside the womb. When a female baby gets testosteron and doesn't change into a boy, she will have a higher chance of becoming lesbian - when a male baby gets a shortage of testosteron there is a bigger chance of this boy not completely mentally developing into a boy and as such become gay. I realize there are other factors that have to do with this and that it's not this straightforward, please try to prove me wrong if I am, but I think this is what it's like: Due to an overdose or shortage of hormones, the brain develops differently and more like the brain of the opposite gender, causing homo/bisexuality. A mental disorder can be defined in a couple of ways, and it depends on your definition whether you can say it's a mental disorder. If you say that a mental illness is whenever one's brain functions in a way that it usually doesn't, yes, you can argue that this is a mental illness. However, if you say that a mental illness is quote: "Any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors, such as infection or head trauma," then it depends on whether you think homosexuality is an impairment or simply a preference, like Alex said. And as Alex made it very clear that it's a preference, there is no way one could say that it's a mental disorder.
|
|
|
Post by RandiKthxxx on Jul 4, 2010 7:33:14 GMT -5
I wouldn't go as far as to say that gay people tend to be nicer than straight people. I don't think it correlates too well. Your sexual orientation doesn't necessarily decide your personality, or at least it shouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by kreacherxluver on Jul 4, 2010 7:45:32 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure a gay couple could even be better than a hetro couple for adopting. Most gays are more understanding and open, open to adopt and open to let that child blossom into whatever they want to be as they grow up. Which is EXACTLY what people are afraid of. God knows, there's too many closeted homosexuals/bisexuals in the world who have been forced into thinking that way because of their upbringing by homophobic straight parents. Think, if there are gay parents who are open about sexuality and their child ends up being gay or bisexual, then crazy homophobes would use that as an excuse "OH LOOK! THEM FAGS ARE MAKING MORE FAGS! APOCALYPSE!!!! JESUS SAVE US!" blah blah blah... Exactly. It's not like being gay is contagious. Even if being gay was a choice why would it matter? Why should the government (or any other organization for that matter) be making such a choice for someone? But in the past we have decided for people who they are to marry. Like marrying within a culture, forced marriages when the King's Daughter's came to Canada. It's not the same, I know, but we've done it. Old habits die hard?
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jul 4, 2010 9:14:26 GMT -5
Let me start with the fact that I've found that homosexual or bisexual people are often the most open-minded, nice and social people in a group, just because they know what it's like to have their ideas and opinions not accepted. (bad grammar. I'm sorry.) Now, about the mental disorder thing. What I've always learned, is that homo/bisexuality is caused by an overdose or lack of testosteron for the foetus when it's still growing inside the womb. When a female baby gets testosteron and doesn't change into a boy, she will have a higher chance of becoming lesbian - when a male baby gets a shortage of testosteron there is a bigger chance of this boy not completely mentally developing into a boy and as such become gay. I realize there are other factors that have to do with this and that it's not this straightforward, please try to prove me wrong if I am, but I think this is what it's like: Due to an overdose or shortage of hormones, the brain develops differently and more like the brain of the opposite gender, causing homo/bisexuality. A mental disorder can be defined in a couple of ways, and it depends on your definition whether you can say it's a mental disorder. If you say that a mental illness is whenever one's brain functions in a way that it usually doesn't, yes, you can argue that this is a mental illness. However, if you say that a mental illness is quote: "Any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors, such as infection or head trauma," then it depends on whether you think homosexuality is an impairment or simply a preference, like Alex said. And as Alex made it very clear that it's a preference, there is no way one could say that it's a mental disorder. First of all good research I still don't see an argument behind calling it a preference. I am not arguing that its not a preference, but preference simply implies that you like one thing more then another. As I said before I could go on with it, but there is no point. Also, I have a feeling I would end up insluting Alex, and I don't want to do that.
|
|
Yokailo
Star
[AWD:020307]
I like things.
Posts: 734
|
Post by Yokailo on Jul 4, 2010 9:44:23 GMT -5
Well. It's either a preference or an actual impairment, you agree? Impairment: "any disorder in structure or function resulting from anatomic, physiologic, or psychologic abnormalities that interfere with normal activities." And I may be wrong, I'll need Alex's opinion on this, but if you'd force a homosexual to have sex and have babies with a woman/man, they could, even if they're gay. It's not like their sperm is different, or their wombs. They just prefer not to, which makes it a preference.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jul 4, 2010 10:02:27 GMT -5
Well. It's either a preference or an actual impairment, you agree? Impairment: "any disorder in structure or function resulting from anatomic, physiologic, or psychologic abnormalities that interfere with normal activities." And I may be wrong, I'll need Alex's opinion on this, but if you'd force a homosexual to have sex and have babies with a woman/man, they could, even if they're gay. It's not like their sperm is different, or their wombs. They just prefer not to, which makes it a preference. But you could have a pedophile that likes both, heretosexual and "that other thing." If he likes "that other thing" more, that is his preference. The simplest definition of preference is '•a strong liking; ", this is just stating a fact. You can be have a mental disorder that effects your preference, can you not? I also think Alex is not fully gay, I think he said he is bisexual leaning towards homosexuality, so I don't think he can give us a picture of a fully homosexual person.
|
|
Yokailo
Star
[AWD:020307]
I like things.
Posts: 734
|
Post by Yokailo on Jul 4, 2010 10:21:19 GMT -5
Well. It's either a preference or an actual impairment, you agree? Impairment: "any disorder in structure or function resulting from anatomic, physiologic, or psychologic abnormalities that interfere with normal activities." And I may be wrong, I'll need Alex's opinion on this, but if you'd force a homosexual to have sex and have babies with a woman/man, they could, even if they're gay. It's not like their sperm is different, or their wombs. They just prefer not to, which makes it a preference. But you could have a pedophile that likes both, heretosexual and "that other thing." If he likes "that other thing" more, that is his preference. The simplest definition of preference is '•a strong liking; ", this is just stating a fact. You can be have a mental disorder that effects your preference, can you not? I also think Alex is not fully gay, I think he said he is bisexual leaning towards homosexuality, so I don't think he can give us a picture of a fully homosexual person. I find it a little disturbing that you keep comparing homosexuality with pedophilia, to be honest. There's an enormous difference between falling in love with an adult of the same gender and sexually abusing children. I think Alex has enough first-hand experience and is passionate enough about this to help me out whenever I make assumptions. The point here is exactly that it is impossible to tell a gay person that it's immoral what he's doing, because they are not forcing anyone into loving them - or having sex with them, for that matter. It's merely a way of living that, through several but I think mostly biological factors, has been thrown upon them. The difference with pedophiles is that they don't leave a choice for the subjects of their affection, and as such are a danger for others. This can be treated through convincing this person that it is immoral and sometimes even dangerous for the kid what they are doing: something you can never tell a homosexual. Of course, if they force an adult into sex, that is immoral and should be punished, but that's not different from heterosexuals. I hope I still make sense, my grammar might fail epically in some places, I'm sorry. =/
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jul 4, 2010 10:48:15 GMT -5
But you could have a pedophile that likes both, heretosexual and "that other thing." If he likes "that other thing" more, that is his preference. The simplest definition of preference is '•a strong liking; ", this is just stating a fact. You can be have a mental disorder that effects your preference, can you not? I also think Alex is not fully gay, I think he said he is bisexual leaning towards homosexuality, so I don't think he can give us a picture of a fully homosexual person. I find it a little disturbing that you keep comparing homosexuality with pedophilia, to be honest. There's an enormous difference between falling in love with an adult of the same gender and sexually abusing children. I think Alex has enough first-hand experience and is passionate enough about this to help me out whenever I make assumptions. The point here is exactly that it is impossible to tell a gay person that it's immoral what he's doing, because they are not forcing anyone into loving them - or having sex with them, for that matter. It's merely a way of living that, through several but I think mostly biological factors, has been thrown upon them. The difference with pedophiles is that they don't leave a choice for the subjects of their affection, and as such are a danger for others. This can be treated through convincing this person that it is immoral and sometimes even dangerous for the kid what they are doing: something you can never tell a homosexual. Of course, if they force an adult into sex, that is immoral and should be punished, but that's not different from heterosexuals. I hope I still make sense, my grammar might fail epically in some places, I'm sorry. =/ I addressed your arguments before I believe (given by a different person). First of all, I see the difference between those two cases, I just use pedophilia as an example of another sexual disorder, that's all. Now to your agrument, you assume that morality is a guide to mental disorders, but they are two different things. Lets take a pedophile in a test envoriment. We consider him to have some kind of a dissorder, but if he makes love to a child that has nothing agains that (remember, its a test envoriment so for the sake of argument child does not have emotions of feeling), is the pedophile healed now? My point is that mental disorders should not be classified based on how society reacts to it, and this is what we have here.
|
|
Yokailo
Star
[AWD:020307]
I like things.
Posts: 734
|
Post by Yokailo on Jul 4, 2010 10:53:54 GMT -5
I find it a little disturbing that you keep comparing homosexuality with pedophilia, to be honest. There's an enormous difference between falling in love with an adult of the same gender and sexually abusing children. I think Alex has enough first-hand experience and is passionate enough about this to help me out whenever I make assumptions. The point here is exactly that it is impossible to tell a gay person that it's immoral what he's doing, because they are not forcing anyone into loving them - or having sex with them, for that matter. It's merely a way of living that, through several but I think mostly biological factors, has been thrown upon them. The difference with pedophiles is that they don't leave a choice for the subjects of their affection, and as such are a danger for others. This can be treated through convincing this person that it is immoral and sometimes even dangerous for the kid what they are doing: something you can never tell a homosexual. Of course, if they force an adult into sex, that is immoral and should be punished, but that's not different from heterosexuals. I hope I still make sense, my grammar might fail epically in some places, I'm sorry. =/ I addressed your arguments before I believe (given by a different person). First of all, I see the difference between those two cases, I just use pedophilia as an example of another sexual disorder, that's all. Now to your agrument, you assume that morality is a guide to mental disorders, but they are two different things. Lets take a pedophile in a test envoriment. We consider him to have some kind of a dissorder, but if he makes love to a child that has nothing agains that (remember, its a test envoriment so for the sake of argument child does not have emotions of feeling), is the pedophile healed now? My point is that mental disorders should not be classified based on how society reacts to it, and this is what we have here. In your test environment, any mental disorder would be 'healed' and as such wouldn't be a mental disorder. The point of mental disorders is the fact that it is harmful to society and can endanger a good and caring society. Other than that, what is the problem with mental disorders anyway? Or with any disorder, for that matter? If everyone would just be happy and without emotions or feelings, we'd have a brilliant world, right? The problem with mental disorders is that it is about how society deals with it. Homosexuality does not do any harm to society.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jul 4, 2010 12:20:47 GMT -5
I addressed your arguments before I believe (given by a different person). First of all, I see the difference between those two cases, I just use pedophilia as an example of another sexual disorder, that's all. Now to your agrument, you assume that morality is a guide to mental disorders, but they are two different things. Lets take a pedophile in a test envoriment. We consider him to have some kind of a dissorder, but if he makes love to a child that has nothing agains that (remember, its a test envoriment so for the sake of argument child does not have emotions of feeling), is the pedophile healed now? My point is that mental disorders should not be classified based on how society reacts to it, and this is what we have here. In your test environment, any mental disorder would be 'healed' and as such wouldn't be a mental disorder. The point of mental disorders is the fact that it is harmful to society and can endanger a good and caring society. Other than that, what is the problem with mental disorders anyway? Or with any disorder, for that matter? If everyone would just be happy and without emotions or feelings, we'd have a brilliant world, right? The problem with mental disorders is that it is about how society deals with it. Homosexuality does not do any harm to society. Lets start with a definition of a mental disorder: •(psychiatry) a psychological disorder of thought or emotion; a more neutral term than mental illness. You can clearly see from the definition that it has nothing to do with how society reacts to it, a disorder is a disorder no matter how society is looking upon it. The argument that I am presenting is that it's a mental disorder, not that its harmful to the society, those are two VERY different ideas. "In your test environment, any mental disorder would be 'healed' and as such wouldn't be a mental disorder." No, the man in the test envoriment is not healed, nothing about him changed, its the envoriment that was changed for the sake of argument. To build on my argument I will use ancient greece, where homosexuality was widely accepted. Of course pedophilia has accepted there also, as a form of entreteiment. They had set of laws to protect children from physical damage, but outside of that they looked at it as something normal. So was it a disorder back according to what you just said if society is accepting it then its not.
|
|
Yokailo
Star
[AWD:020307]
I like things.
Posts: 734
|
Post by Yokailo on Jul 4, 2010 14:34:43 GMT -5
What exactly are you arguing? Whether homosexuality is a mental disorder. Your definition of a disorder is anything that's not functioning normally, right? Then, yes, homosexuality is a disorder in those cultures where homosexuality is not deemed normal. Which, sadly, is globally right now. I don't, however, see the problem here, as it is not harming anyone.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jul 4, 2010 14:59:16 GMT -5
I was arguing that homosexuality is a mental disorder according the the definition of a mental disorder. You should have read my first post: "Well, I do consider it a mental disorder, but at the same time its not hurting anyone, so its fine by me."
I wasn't planning to go into it, put when people start "facepalming" me and compering my idea's to Glenn Beck's I stated my reasoning, and I think I did a good job at it.
|
|