johndylan1
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,932
- Reaction score
- 375
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I don't have time to play games with you. Take a hike.
Good response.
I don't have time to play games with you. Take a hike.
Not sure why it matters if it is or isn't a choice.
It matters to fundi's because if it's not a choice then it's not a moral question. They need it to be a moral question so they can rationalize their hatred for homos. People with weak and fragile egos need someone to be superior to, and if homosexuality isn't a moral fault, then they have to find a new out-group to replace them.
1. They are when you purposefully want to change someone for something that cannot be changed.OR instead of hatred.... we could actually care about truth, societal values, and the culture in which we live and raise our children.
1. Opposing opinions are not equal to hate.
2. Moral fault and voluntary action (choice) is not the same thing.
3. Are all sexual predilections equally ok and beyond choice, or is it just the behavior that is being advocated for as being the new norm?
1. They are when you purposefully want to change someone for something that cannot be changed.
2. There is nothing immoral about homosexuality other than certain out dated control devices, ie religion
3. No not all are ok, we as a society have deemed consensual sexual choices as favourable and the laws of the land reflect this.
1.
No not all are ok, we as a society have deemed consensual sexual choices as favourable and the laws of the land reflect this.
1. Then you are either ignorant of a group called NARTH or willfully blind to it. Homosexuality should be taught in schools in the same vein as heterosexuality in a class called Sex Ed. As it is a normal trait among humans.1. I see no advocacy groups that try to change homosexuals against their will. I do, however, see groups that do not want homosexual values imposed upon them via public institutions such as schools.
2. Morality to the nonreligious is relative, but to the religious it is not. Fortunately freedom of religion is enshrined in our constitution and is practiced by a large majority that does not view it as outdated nor as a control device.
3. If the decision on what is acceptable sexual behavior is based on societal norms as you have stated, and not on how one is born or predisposed, then you have agreed with those who say it is a moral choice.
I have no idea what you mean by this.''We as a society''
...So not looking to blend in?
1. Then you are either ignorant of a group called NARTH or willfully blind to it. Homosexuality should be taught in schools in the same vein as heterosexuality in a class called Sex Ed. As it is a normal trait among humans.
2. Morality is relative to both nonreligious and religious after all the religious will changes their views on what is moral based on the time period an excellent example is the Christian change from not eating shellfish to allowing shellfish.
3. Sexual acts are the choices, your orientation is not. I have no desire to return to the Roman/Greek bathhouses where boys and girls were raped on a daily basis. Psychology has proven this is harmful to the children, which is why we have age of consent laws now. We as a society have matured.
I have no idea what you mean by this.
1. Then you are either ignorant of a group called NARTH or willfully blind to it. Homosexuality should be taught in schools in the same vein as heterosexuality in a class called Sex Ed. As it is a normal trait among humans.
2. Morality is relative to both nonreligious and religious after all the religious will changes their views on what is moral based on the time period an excellent example is the Christian change from not eating shellfish to allowing shellfish.
3. Sexual acts are the choices, your orientation is not. I have no desire to return to the Roman/Greek bathhouses where boys and girls were raped on a daily basis. Psychology has proven this is harmful to the children, which is why we have age of consent laws now. We as a society have matured.
1. Yes, NARTH does seek to change the unwilling, that is why all of their reparative therapies have been incredibly harmful to the individual and they are sponsoring forcing parents to put their homosexual children into said therapy, ie unwilling. Human sexuality is based on many factors and reproductive function is not always reason there is a reason we do not have a penis bone, pleasure has been part of human sexuality for hundreds of thousands of years. Homosexuality is a societal norm; you may disagree with that assessment but it has been around as long as humans have been around. On top of being heavily documented in the animal kingdom as well, it is not a human construct, which is why teaching children there is nothing wrong with them if they are homosexual is a good thing.1. NARTH does not seek to change the unwilling. Are their clients kidnapped and forced into therapy? Just silly. Homosexuality should not be taught. Human sexuality based on anatomy, reproductive function, and health is more than sufficient. Just because something is a part of society doesn't mean it should be taught or advocated for inpractice and as a societal norm.
2. You are incorrect, understanding changes because humans are fallible, but moral relativism is much more than this. Moral relativism invites anything to be moral if one can convince enough people that it is. What a very dangerous standard for minorities don't you think?
3. But what if you are born that way, it's your orientation? Why is it wrong in your world? Is it because it is a minority opinion?
Incoherent thought, I have no idea what you mean. Explain please.''we are a society''
Think about it!!
1. Yes, NARTH does seek to change the unwilling, that is why all of their reparative therapies have been incredibly harmful to the individual and they are sponsoring forcing parents to put their homosexual children into said therapy, ie unwilling. Human sexuality is based on many factors and reproductive function is not always reason there is a reason we do not have a penis bone, pleasure has been part of human sexuality for hundreds of thousands of years. Homosexuality is a societal norm; you may disagree with that assessment but it has been around as long as humans have been around. On top of being heavily documented in the animal kingdom as well, it is not a human construct, which is why teaching children there is nothing wrong with them if they are homosexual is a good thing.
2. I'm quite correct. If you'd look back and see how the Christian faith has rewritten itself several times over on top of splitting up into different factions due to moral relativism that is your own unwillingness to see it. Another example besides just shellfish are lighting rods. They were considered immoral at the time they were invented and now they are acceptable. Just more revisionist religious moral justification.
3. What orientation are you talking about? Pedophilia? It is damaging to the child pysche as they are not a willing participant in the act. Confusing authoritative figure over said child as consent is the problem the Greeks/Romans had with the bath houses. My opinion has nothing to do with it being a minority.
we could actually care about truth, societal values, and the culture in which we live and raise our children.
3. Are all sexual predilections equally ok and beyond choice, or is it just the behavior that is being advocated for as being the new norm?
Answered this before... but. There are currently no studies that definitively conclude that attraction is biological or genetic. There are however several studies that do conclude that attraction is learned behavior.
To address directly the Idea of a natural (uncontrollable) attraction to the same sex, and how learned behavior can coexist. I would say that reproduction is not the base instinct, but sex is. Most if not all will have a base instinct to engage in sexual activity, but that is not limited to a particular object or set of objects of sexual interest. Those interests are developed, and I would suggest they become entrenched within the psyche at times of rapid neurological development and subsequent neurological pruning, leaving one feeling as if it is their natural state. Neurological development and plasticity is a very interesting topic with regard to human behavior, and this is the core of learned behavior.
Truth is being discovered as we speak. All of the major studies have shown a strong correlation/implication that homosexuality has a biological background. Societal values you don't get to dictate. No one does. Same with culture. We don't have an authority on culture like they have in communist and fascist states. In free countries, societal values and culture are whatever they are based on what the majority feels like doing.
If you don't find them okay, then that's your deal. If someone else finds them okay, then that's their deal. What's "Okay" isn't to be determined by any central authority, but by individual choice. The current trend is that something that was once considered immoral, and even illegal, is no longer considered a problem by the majority of Americans. If that's what the majority of Americans think, then that's what the societal values and cultural norms are. We don't need some authoritarian over lord to tell us what our culture and our values are going to be.
If you find it immoral for homos to have sex, that's your problem. If most of the rest of the country doesn't feel the need to shame or attack gays, then that's the new societal value: individual liberty is more valuable than conformity.
it is a normal trait among humans.
Actually the last line of your post is about all you got right. Societal values are not simply accepting norms, the overriding american value is liberty covered by governmental protection. Freedom to do something however does not make it moral nor a societal norm. Not looking for authoritarian government nor oppression of any type, I just want to clarify the issue. The advocates on this thread are trying to argue two opposing positions at the same time.
1. acceptance based on predisposition
2. acceptance based on societal norms, while drawing their own moral lines on other sexual preferences that maybe just as predisposed in those people.
I am for liberty. Liberty to draw my own moral lines and to avoid public advocacy for others moral lines that I disagree with. If you actually think about this from a bidirectional perspective instead of from a position of advocacy, I'll bet you'd agree.
Nope. Not normal. Normal means usual, or typical.
A handful of percent of the population being homosexual is not normal. It is a small, small minority. Just say'in.
I think Meara means that it is a natural trait in humans, it certainly isn't usual, so therefore it is not normal. But then again if you look at the entire life of a human individual you a are going to find something that is unusual. Therefore abnormality is the normal state of being for a person.
When talking about a human populous where no two individuals are alike, the term normal really losses its meaning.
So saying a human is abnormal is like saying water is wet.
Hmmm... it's normal to have two arms, two legs, two hands, 10-fingers, 10-toes, one head,... you get the picture.
There are norms. Most people are not homosexual... by a long shot.
Heterosexuality is the norm.
Good try though.
3. Any non traditional sexual orientation will do. You seem to want to have an arbitrary line drawn between acceptable and unacceptable sexual behavior based on your ever-changing standard of moral relativism. I am simply pointing out that this is inconsistent with the notion that if one is predisposed to any certain sexual orientation that makes it ok, as you argued with regard to homosexuality. In essence you started with one argument ie, predisposition insulates one from moral judgments and then when you draw a line of acceptable sexual behavior its then based on your sense of a moral society. Totally inconsistent, dishonest and smacks of advocacy at any cost.
I am for liberty. Liberty to draw my own moral lines and to avoid public advocacy for others moral lines that I disagree with. If you actually think about this from a bidirectional perspective instead of from a position of advocacy, I'll bet you'd agree.
Nope. Not normal. Normal means usual, or typical.
A handful of percent of the population being homosexual is not normal. It is a small, small minority. Just say'in.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/normal?show=0&t=1379187531 said:nor·mal adjective \ˈnȯr-məl\
1: perpendicular; especially : perpendicular to a tangent at a point of tangency
2 a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle
b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
3: occurring naturally <normal immunity>
4 a : of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development
b : free from mental disorder : sane
5 a of a solution : having a concentration of one gram equivalent of solute per liter
b : containing neither basic hydroxyl nor acid hydrogen <normal silver phosphate>
c : not associated <normal molecules>
d : having a straight-chain structure <normal butyl alcohol>
6 of a subgroup : having the property that every coset produced by operating on the left by a given element is equal to the coset produced by operating on the right by the same element
7: relating to, involving, or being a normal curve or normal distribution <normal approximation to the binomial distribution>
8 of a matrix : having the property of commutativity under multiplication by the transpose of the matrix each of whose elements is a conjugate complex number with respect to the corresponding element of the given matrix
Hmmm... it's normal to have two arms, two legs, two hands, 10-fingers, 10-toes, one head,... you get the picture.
There are norms. Most people are not homosexual... by a long shot.
Heterosexuality is the norm.
Good try though.
Hmmm... it's normal to have two arms, two legs, two hands, 10-fingers, 10-toes, one head,... you get the picture.
There are norms. Most people are not homosexual... by a long shot.
Heterosexuality is the norm.
Good try though.
I went on to say that normal doesn't really exist, but that is absolutely true, and it doesn't mean that i says homosexuality is normal.I think Meara means that it is a natural trait in humans, it certainly isn't usual, so therefore it is not normal. But then again if you look at the entire life of a human individual you a are going to find something that is unusual. Therefore abnormality is the normal state of being for a person.
When talking about a human populous where no two individuals are alike, the term normal really losses its meaning.
So saying a human is abnormal is like saying water is wet.
Nope. Not normal. Normal means usual, or typical.
A handful of percent of the population being homosexual is not normal. It is a small, small minority. Just say'in.
The only arbitrary line that gets drawn is the age at which an individual is capeable of giving consent for sex. But when it comes to any given sex act, the true line is both the ability to give consent and that said consent is indeed given. I understand that you are looking at the latest theory/evidence that pedophillia may be an inborn trait or at least something that is ingrained so early in life as to make no difference. And I will agree that if a person realizes that they have these attractions and seeks help prior to acting upon them then no shame or negative stigma should be applied to them. Indeed they should be applauded for over coming the attractions and seeking help so as not to harm a child. A predisposition towards anything should never be looked up negatively in and of itself. If acting upon said predisposition causes harm to another then the act indeed should be looked upon negatively and the action punished at some level. Homosexual activity harms no one in and of it self. Any harm that can come from homosexual acts can also come from heterosexual acts. You cannot name a single harm from homosexual acts that cannot also be applied to heterosexual ones.
Depending upon what you mean by avoiding public advocacy for other moral lines that you disagree with. If it means that you have the right to attempt to avoid them, then you have that liberty. If it means that you should never have to encounter them outside of your private domain, then no that liberty does not exist for you or anyone else. That bidirectional perspective works for public advocacy for preventing/stopping the moral lines that you disagree with or, depending upon your prospective advocating the opposite of what you disagree with as the only possibility.
Most people aren't left handed either. Most people aren't red headed, most people don't have two different colored eyes, yet these things exist.
You said homosexuality isn't normal, because it is unusual, i say what is your point? Lots of people are abnormal because they are unusual. I Betty there is something about you that is unusual and therefore abnormal.
gay people normally have 10 fingers, 10 toes, one head, so on. That just really defines them as a rather usual human being. When you look at just their sexuality yes they are going to seem abnormal, just like if you just looked at someone's dexterity left handed people would be abnormal, or people with red hair would look abnormal compared with people that have colors of hair other than red.
You are proving that people are unique and that normal and abnormal have no meaning when applied to a species that is so vastly diverse as humans.