Thanks - my (perhaps needlessly sarcastic) point exactly.
Allow me to introduce you to The Kinsey Scale.
Esprix
Huerta88, I never once suggested that the APA or anyone advocated… well, whatever it was you were going for. (“Re-education camps?” The hell?)
Your witty sarcasm aside, do you disagree that discrimination is more of a problem than homosexuality is?
Esprix
Esprix
Esprix, I’m just as confused as you are about that comment. I haven’t figured out if this poster is suggesting that:
A) homosexuality is in the same realm as pyromania, as in "who cares about its origin, as long as you don’t act upon it. (This, I would find very offensive.)
B) Regardless of the cause, homosexuality is ok as long as you don’t engage in anything that hurts others. (far less offensive)
It would be nice to have a clarification, yoyo3500
Sorry if you’re offended, but I’m not a fan of the ethic “do what you want as long as you don’t hurt others” since I do not believe that anyone acts in a vacuum. musicguy, You may disagree, but I think you would be wrong.
If a person hurts him or herself, than we are all affected. We should all love each other.
The debate as to whether or not a person hurts himself by engaging in homosexual activity has been debated, and I do not plan to go into the details of my position. I am not a psychologist. (My wife is, and she agrees with me completely…) I do believe that homosexuality is harmful to a person. I do not want to be shown “research references” since most studies I have seen, whether put sponsored or supported by the APA, churches, universities, etc. are typically infused with a bias of some ideology.
The point of the comparison of pyromania with homosexuality is to highlight the idea that it is possible to have an urge or inclination to do things that are harmful or destructive. There are cases of children who mutilate themselves for no truly understandable reason. Should we allow them to continue to mutilate themsevles, and encourage them to find self-esteem for their self-mutiliating lifestyles? Of course not. Whether an urge is “natural” is less of an issue than the effect of the urge. I would not argue with a person about what urges he or she feels. But a human is not imprisoned by urges as are animals, [insert debate about free will here].
And if you are offended by the notion that homosexuality is harmful, and you wish to encourage the continued practice of homosexuality, then I think you are cruel for encouraging other to harm themselves.
Unfortunately, yoyo, I’m going to have to demand you bring out some information. Simply tossing out that homosexuality is harmful then saying studies are useless because of bias leads to no ground for debate, because no evidence is acceptable. This is Great Debates, not In My Humble Opinion.
Thanks Esprix I am aware of the scale, and am somewhere between 1.5 and 2, but what I was asking is can someone move their position on the scale through learning or force of will, or would that be ultimately foolish, because your position on the scale is set by your biological makeup?
yoyo cite please as to why homosexuality is harmful. Or to how someone engaging in it is hurting themselves.
Bippy the Beardless
I dunno if this will make much sense, but I believe orientation is unchangable. This does not, however, preclude making the most of what you have. Orientation is, to me, a ground state of sorts. It is what you fall into when alone inside your head.
I also believe that, so long as a spark is there, so long as you have some attraction for desire to latch on to, it is possible to run against your ground state orientation. More difficult? Absolutely. Like running uphill against the wind in some cases, I’m sure. But if the person is worth the effort, completely feasible.
A 6 or a 0 is going to find it nigh impossible to run against their orientation, because it is so extreme one way or the other, but 5-1s could probably do it if the goal was worth it.
That is debatable, especially since you specifically reject the research as biased. Perhaps you are confusing the notion of “doesn’t agree with my beliefs” with “biased”.
However, it is true that eating Big Macs is harmful. All that fat is not good for you at all, and can lead to obesity and heart disease. Now:
By your logic, eating Big Macs is wrong and should not be allowed. I certainly hope you don’t like fast food, because you can’t eat it without being a hypocrite.
If you are offended with the notion that stating things as fact woth no evidence is harmful, and wish to encourage the continued practice of non-citation of claims, then I think you are cruel for encouraging other to harm themselves.
Again, this particular thread is reagarding whether or not homosexuality is a learned behavior or if one is “born with it”. My contribution is to say that it doesn’t matter, but is it is the effect that is important.
As is being pointed out, the right or wrong aspect of it belongs in IMHO. I mention my opinion primarily to emphsize the consequence of ignoring the issue that I raise, that differences in perspective are that call for so much attention are not rooted in the cause, but in the effect. Defenders of homosexual activity often point to the casue being “natural” as an excuse for such activity, but if the activity is otherwise proven harmless, then who really needs the cause for justification?
If you all really want a debate regarding the harmfulness of homosexuality, then start a different thread. I assume that these debates have likely been in GD before. I will evade this particular debate, however, since I have not seen any good studies that would point to any conclusion satisfactory to anyone in GD, for or against. And since nobody can successfuly tell an atheist to believe in a religion, or tell a religious person to be an atheist, we can dump anything non-“scientific” out the window, too. I think it would merely be a debate for the sake of arguing, to see who is the best masterdebater.
I simply fail to see how homosexuality is harmful by itself. What one does about acting on it, just as with heterosexuality, makes all the difference in the world. Homosexuality isn’t an act, in other words, but rather a modifier to that act. Kissing isn’t gay. Holding hands isn’t gay. Promiscuity certainly isn’t gay. All the various forms of sex aren’t gay. What makes them gay is two people of the same sex doing them together.
Please pardon my indugence here. Joe.
Quote: “However, it is true that eating Big Macs is harmful. All that fat is not good for you at all, and can lead to obesity and heart disease.”
Quote: “By your logic, eating Big Macs is wrong and should not be allowed. I certainly hope you don’t like fast food, because you can’t eat it without being a hypocrite.”
Let’s look at YOUR logic:
A-Eating Big Macs is harmful.
B-yoyo thinks that anything that is harmful should not be allowed.
If A and B, then C (and D)
C-Eating Big Macs should not be allowed.
D-If yoyo eats a Big Mac, then he is a hyprocrite.
I will prove you wrong on all points.
A-Eating anything in moderation doesn’t seem to be harmful, certainly not more harmful than not eating anything! Therefore, Big Macs and fast food are not automatically harmful. (Obesity does seem to be harmful, so eating lots of BigMacs seems to be harmful. Sorry, your exagerations have no place in logic.)
B-“Not allowed” is certainly different than assuming I meant “unethical” or something else along those lines. But I do not recall referring to any sort of civil law, or otherwise.
C-Since A and B are both incorrect, C is not automatic and could only be correct by chance, which in this case it is not since I do not think that BigMacs should not be allowed.
D-As if Ineed to address this at this point, I will only point out that your logic makes the common mistake of the illogical to replacing the term “irrational” (I would even accept “unethical”) for “hypocritical”.
Thank you for playing the logci game with me.
Okay, the proposition has been advanced that “homosexuality is harmful” (apparently to the self). I’d say the onus is on those who regard it as such to make a case for their point – this being Great Debates, where one is expected to document one’s assertions.
And the idea that it ought to be in a different thread is probably a good one. But I’ve seen far more drive-by assertions of its evilness or harmfulness, with no backing asserted (except, from a certain group, their understanding of the Bible), to suit me.
If you have a case to make, yoyo, I’d like to see what it is. And I’d suggest that you examine the entire spectrum of gay behavior, from clublife to committed couples, from Radical Faeries to Log Cabin Republicans and Andrew Sullivan, to make your case.
Priam, I hear what you’re trying to say.
If one assumes that all we are are molecules held together by compelling forces, then one can describe anything and everything as a modifier. Eating is just putting food in your mouth, with the modifier that you will digest it.
However, if one were to accept the notion that a person is not just a physical entity, but there is a “mind” and “emotions”, more than just chemicals firing inthe brain, and that there is more than just being, but that there is free will, intentions, morality, etc., then “homosexuality” is more than just semantics. It is a willful act that transcends a mere trigger of the nerves and fulfillment of urges.
From this point can "harmful’ be discussed. Once you take the meaning out an act, then any attempt at morality or ethics unravels. In the end, we are just dust and who cares. Why even debate the matter. But discuss in the context of meaning, then you have ideas and the Teeming Millions once again have purpose!
Polycarp, I like how you use the term “drive-by assertions of its evilness or harmfulness” in regards to idea that homosexuality is harmful. I believe that this notion has been around for quite some time, and not in “drive-by assertions”, but rather steady ideologies. You merely refuse to recognize this to be a credable idea because you dismiss these ideologies. Perhaps if you had credible sources to express your assertion rather than put the onus on others, you might be seen as open-minded. But the underlying assumption that you seem seem to carry, that homosexuality is NOT harmful, is at least as shaky as any argument to the contrary would seem in your eyes, yet is also a very new idea in modern society. It seems that your sense of onus is misplaced.
I will admit that I was exaggerating to make a point, although I did misunderstand your position as being something a bit stronger than “unethical”.
I will, however, take a look at your assertions from a different angle. You claim that being homosexual is somehow harmful to an indvidual, yet you provide no cite. Instead, you say:
If someone were to consider the phrase “X is harmful”, the assertion is assumed to be false if there is a lack of evidence. In fact, the only time evidence is needed to show that “X is not harmful” is if there is already evidence showing “X is harmful” that needs to be disputed.
So, from a logic standpoint, if there is insufficient evidence either way, then the assertion that homosexuality is not harmful takes precidence over your statement that it is harmful.
The burden lies on you to demonstrate that homosexuality is harmful, else your argument is based solely on your own opinion, and not the reality of the situation.
That argument is not used to show that homosexuality is not harmful. It is used to debate those who state (with no logical backing, I might add), that homosexuality is somehow “wrong” because humans are designed to have intercourse with the opposite sex. People who use this “appeal to nature” to attack homosexuality are best defended against by using their own argument against them.
[quote]
But the underlying assumption that you seem seem to carry, that homosexuality is NOT harmful, is at least as shaky as any argument to the contrary would seem in your eyes, yet is also a very new idea in modern society. It seems that your sense of onus is misplaced.
Nonsense. You made the accusation, the burden is on you to make your case. Mere assertion is not proof.
If gay sex was good enough for the ancient Greeks, it’s good enough for me.
Ummm… my point was that meaning can be important. I simply wanted to point out that any discussion of homosexuality as harmful should focus around the meaning and intent instead of, as so often happens, the actions.
The bumper sticker “SO-DO-MY neighbors” etc. comes to mind. One must address why my doing these things with a person of the same sex is harmful when doing it with a person of the opposite sex is not. No act that two people of the same sex can do is unfeasible for two people of the opposite sex.
Well, if the assertion is “Homosexual sex is physically harmful”, that’s a statement that can easily be discussed and resolved, because we all have a general consensus on what constitutes physical harm. Saying “Homosexual sex is morally harmful”, on the other hand, is not easily discussed, because we don’t have a consensus on what constitutes moral harm, or even how one should judge moral behavior.
One person might believe, for example, that an act is moral if no one else is physically harmed by it. Someone else, on the other hand, might think that an act is moral if their moral teacher or guru says it is. A third might think that it is moral if it contributes to some ultimate goal.
So, without a common consensus on the source of moral authority, we’ll just be talking past each other.