Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on April 29, 2015, 07:10:02 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Ok....the subject of homosexuality is always controversial and lots of people tend to get all charged up. This could be one such...(or maybe not).
Here is my favorite subject of epignetics again. They say that homosexuality could even be cured through epigenetic therapy.
Alright...some people may feel that homosexuality is not...repeat not... a disease and does not need to be cured! But I tend to disagree.
Here is some scientific stuff on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_theories_of_homosexuality
************************************************************************************
Epigenetic theories of homosexuality concerns the study of changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence.
One team of researchers examined the effects of epi-marks buffering XX fetuses and XY fetuses from certain androgen exposure and used published data on fetal androgen signaling and gene regulation through non-genetic changes in DNA packaging to develop a new model for homosexuality.[2] The researchers found that stronger than average epi-marks, epigenomes that are wrapped tightly around the DNA sequence, convert sexual preference in individuals without altering genitalia or sexual identity.[3]
This research gives support to the hypothesis that homosexuality stems from the under expression of certain genes on the DNA sequence involved with sexual preferences. This theory as well as other concepts involved with epi-marks, twin studies, and fetal androgen signaling will be explored here.
A "gay" gene does not produce homosexuality, rather, epigenetic modifications act as temporary "switches" that regulate how the genes are expressed[7] Only twenty percent of identical twins are both homosexual which leads to the hypothesis that even though identical twins share the same DNA, homosexuality is created by something else rather than the genes. Epigenetic transformation allows the on and off switch of certain genes, subsequently shaping how cells respond to androgen signaling, which is critical in sexual development.
This demonstrates that gene coding for these epi-marks can spread in the population because they benefit the development and fitness of the parent but only rarely escape erasure, leading to mismatched sexual preference in offspring.
Following a late 2012 publication on possible epigenetic origins of homosexuality,[10] some people[who?] have suggested that it might be possible to alter one's sexual orientation with epigenetic therapy,[11] similarly to treatment of diabetes, cancer or schizophrenia.
************************************************************************************
This also highlights the fact that lifestyle and environmental factors (that's what epigenetics is all about) could be producing homosexual tendencies.
For information.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi Sriram,
That all sounds very feasible, and I hope it can be proved and put into practice, with the proviso that the choice of sexuality modification is left to the individual concerned.
As a young man I would definitely have sought such help, but social norms are now more flexible, and gay youngsters are not treated so cruelly as they were in my day.
-
Does this mean some 'straight' people might have the choice to be 'gay'???
<does not need to be cured! But I tend to disagree>
So Sriram bhai, you feel being gay is akin to being a leper or carrying some disease that will wipe out mankind ??? ::)
Hitler would've loved your attitude !!!!!
Nick
-
Does this mean some 'straight' people might have the choice to be 'gay'???
<does not need to be cured! But I tend to disagree>
So Sriram bhai, you feel being gay is akin to being a leper or carrying some disease that will wipe out mankind ??? ::)
Hitler would've loved your attitude !!!!!
Nick
That was a bit quick for Godwin's rule.
Wow. The ability to change ones sexual orientation ! Fantastic ! If I was single and the supply of women was low, I could simply take a pill and hey presto I could chase after the boys !
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;)
-
Does this mean some 'straight' people might have the choice to be 'gay'???
<does not need to be cured! But I tend to disagree>
So Sriram bhai, you feel being gay is akin to being a leper or carrying some disease that will wipe out mankind ??? ::)
Hitler would've loved your attitude !!!!!
Nick
Why leper and wiping out mankind?! That's a bit over the top. :D
I have never thought of homosexuality as a big deal either way. Most Indians don't (you might know). It is not condemned in our scriptures nor are gays sent to hell or anything of that sort.
I think its an abnormality that occurs now and then in some people. No big deal. If it can be cured and people can live normal lives....why not?!
-
SOME people???
Do you realise what repercussions such a finding will have ????
The Christian churches will LOVE this kind of thing & jump on it to say how God really DOES hate gays but you CAN CHANGE !!!!
Of course I DO know that Hinduism loves ALL people regardless !!!!!
-
Does this mean some 'straight' people might have the choice to be 'gay'???
<does not need to be cured! But I tend to disagree>
So Sriram bhai, you feel being gay is akin to being a leper or carrying some disease that will wipe out mankind ??? ::)
Hitler would've loved your attitude !!!!!
Nick
Why leper and wiping out mankind?! That's a bit over the top. :D
I have never thought of homosexuality as a big deal either way. Most Indians don't (you might know). It is not condemned in our scriptures nor are gays sent to hell or anything of that sort.
I think its an abnormality that occurs now and then in some people. No big deal. If it can be cured and people can live normal lives....why not?!
Hey Sriram, maybe your heterosexuality can be cured.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Assuming he IS a hetero???!!!!
-
Oh and your 'An Odd Fact' shines through with this attitude too ?!?!!?
-
SOME people???
Do you realise what repercussions such a finding will have ????
The Christian churches will LOVE this kind of thing & jump on it to say how God really DOES hate gays but you CAN CHANGE !!!!
Of course I DO know that Hinduism loves ALL people regardless !!!!!
Ok...so what are you saying?! I don't know what Christians will say. I know what I think and that's what matters to me.
If we know for a fact that homosexuality can be cured through epigenetic therapy...what's the problem? Even Len seems to be ok with it. What's the problem is facing up to it instead of making a big deal about it?
In fact, it would prove to Christians that homosexuality is not a sin at all....and just a abnormality that can be corrected. Good show, I would think!
-
Are you bloody serious in your bigotry against gays ?!!?!?!?!?!!?!?!!??
I'm not sure if it's pity or just prejudice ?!?!?
-
Are you bloody serious in your bigotry against gays ?!!?!?!?!?!!?!?!!??
Bigotry...no. Facing scientific facts..yes!
Are you gay by the way? You are getting so upset! :)
I am off for lunch. See you later.
-
There's nothing personal here.
Oh & don't try THOSE tricks here, please being gay & not 'appreciating' changing gays is a poor argument.
-
Does this mean some 'straight' people might have the choice to be 'gay'???
<does not need to be cured! But I tend to disagree>
So Sriram bhai, you feel being gay is akin to being a leper or carrying some disease that will wipe out mankind ??? ::)
Hitler would've loved your attitude !!!!!
Nick
Why leper and wiping out mankind?! That's a bit over the top. :D
I have never thought of homosexuality as a big deal either way. Most Indians don't (you might know). It is not condemned in our scriptures nor are gays sent to hell or anything of that sort.
I think its an abnormality that occurs now and then in some people. No big deal. If it can be cured and people can live normal lives....why not?!
My gay friends would be perfectly able to lead normal lives of it wasn't for people like you stating they are diseased.
-
Are you bloody serious in your bigotry against gays ?!!?!?!?!?!!?!?!!??
Bigotry...no. Facing scientific facts..yes!
Are you gay by the way? You are getting so upset! :)
I am off for lunch. See you later.
What scientific fact says it is a disease?
-
Or something's not quite 'right' in the way they're made up !?!!?!??
Didn't Hitler or some other loony look into the chemical make-up of people in this ridiculous manner ???? :o ::)
<Are you gay by the way? You are getting so upset!>
Doesn't sarcasm like this stink of s..t?
-
As I have said many times before, Jesus might have been gay having a specific disciple whom he loved, and no bad thing if he had been.
-
Bigotry...no. Facing scientific facts..yes!
The science is very interesting. The use of the word 'cure' and saying that if cured people could then lead 'normal' lives is your problem here Sriram - can't you see that?
-
Oh trying not to lose my temper here.
I don't think you realise how offensive that is - yes I am gay.
The only comment I am going to restrict myself to is that you seem to be in favour of restricitng diversity.
That to me is a bad thing to do for the future of the human race. This does not only apply to the issue of homosexuality.
Some years ago I read an article about the loss of languages throughout the world and how language affects the way people think. The loss of languages had in the opinion of the author led to a restriction in the way the human race thinks.
The gist of what I am saying is that uniformity is a bland quality to aim for - furthermore it's a bad quality to aim for.
So basically your premise is detrimental to the human race and you are wrong.
-
I have never thought of homosexuality as a big deal either way
I said I was going to restrict myself - but this struck me as an odd assertion to make.
After all two of your recent topics have been concerned with this issue.
Methinks he doth protest too much.
-
I agree with you so much, Trent. It seems to me to be one of the tragedies of our age, this desire to weed out difference and diversity. It's supposed to be progressive, but we lose so much. The richness and diversity of humanity is something we should celebrate.
Wanting to eradicate difference by medical means isn't so very different to attempting to eradicate it with guns, machetes or gas chambers.
-
Yes, the phrase 'normal lives' makes me puke. It's just a cover for bigotry and conformism, actually quite sinister. Also talk of 'cure' is disgusting. Go and cure yourself of your bigotry.
-
Agreed. To talk of a standard to living a 'normal life' or being 'normal' gives the green light to bullying and mockery of the 'abnormal' and legitimises the efforts of science and the state to eradicate difference.
-
As I have said many times before, Jesus might have been gay having a specific disciple whom he loved, and no bad thing if he had been.
Jesus loved all of us. There are different connotations in the word "love." Why must you assume it is used in your example with homosexual connotations? I didn't realise you were so obsessed with sex as well as religion. You just need to develop some interest in politics and you have the set! :(
-
Hi Sriram,
That all sounds very feasible, and I hope it can be proved and put into practice, with the proviso that the choice of sexuality modification is left to the individual concerned.
As a young man I would definitely have sought such help, but social norms are now more flexible, and gay youngsters are not treated so cruelly as they were in my day.
Hear, hear!
-
Does this mean some 'straight' people might have the choice to be 'gay'???
<does not need to be cured! But I tend to disagree>
So Sriram bhai, you feel being gay is akin to being a leper or carrying some disease that will wipe out mankind ??? ::)
Hitler would've loved your attitude !!!!!
Nick
Why leper and wiping out mankind?! That's a bit over the top. :D
I have never thought of homosexuality as a big deal either way. Most Indians don't (you might know). It is not condemned in our scriptures nor are gays sent to hell or anything of that sort.
I think its an abnormality that occurs now and then in some people. No big deal. If it can be cured and people can live normal lives....why not?!
This is fine for people who consider homosexuality to be "abnormal". I do not!
-
Does this mean some 'straight' people might have the choice to be 'gay'???
<does not need to be cured! But I tend to disagree>
So Sriram bhai, you feel being gay is akin to being a leper or carrying some disease that will wipe out mankind ??? ::)
Hitler would've loved your attitude !!!!!
Nick
Why leper and wiping out mankind?! That's a bit over the top. :D
I have never thought of homosexuality as a big deal either way. Most Indians don't (you might know). It is not condemned in our scriptures nor are gays sent to hell or anything of that sort.
I think its an abnormality that occurs now and then in some people. No big deal. If it can be cured and people can live normal lives....why not?!
Hey Sriram, maybe your heterosexuality can be cured.
Interesting thought. If I see a straight guy that I fancy maybe I can get him turned.
-
Does this mean some 'straight' people might have the choice to be 'gay'???
<does not need to be cured! But I tend to disagree>
So Sriram bhai, you feel being gay is akin to being a leper or carrying some disease that will wipe out mankind ??? ::)
Hitler would've loved your attitude !!!!!
Nick
Why leper and wiping out mankind?! That's a bit over the top. :D
I have never thought of homosexuality as a big deal either way. Most Indians don't (you might know). It is not condemned in our scriptures nor are gays sent to hell or anything of that sort.
I think its an abnormality that occurs now and then in some people. No big deal. If it can be cured and people can live normal lives....why not?!
My gay friends would be perfectly able to lead normal lives of it wasn't for people like you stating they are diseased.
Agreed. I have met very few gays/lesbians who are unhappy to be so, and when they are it is usually as a result of the way that they are treated/talked to/talked about by the straight and religious communities.
-
In my opinion homosexuality is every bit as normal as heterosexuality. Why shouldn't people of the same sex fall in love and marry? Only sick bigots see anything wrong in it.
-
Hi everyone,
Ok....the subject of homosexuality is always controversial and lots of people tend to get all charged up. This could be one such...(or maybe not).
Here is my favorite subject of epignetics again. They say that homosexuality could even be cured through epigenetic therapy.
Alright...some people may feel that homosexuality is not...repeat not... a disease and does not need to be cured! But I tend to disagree.
Here is some scientific stuff on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_theories_of_homosexuality
...
This also highlights the fact that lifestyle and environmental factors (that's what epigenetics is all about) could be producing homosexual tendencies.
For information.
Cheers.
Sriram
If you agree that homosexuality occurs due to biological factors - ie not "spiritual", then there is no doubt that we will soon have the ability to control this through genetic engineering or medication. However genetic engineering will not be permitted - for the same reason that it is forbidden for all other human cases - that it is likely to reduce genetic diversity.
If it is possible to develop medication to re-proram gene expression at a point later in life, it will be up to the individual concerned whether to use such or not. Coercing such choices is obviously a violation of human rights. However, considering the growing number of families, in India say, who choose to abort female embryos - leading to a gross imbalance in the sex ratio, it could turn out that many men turn to such medication, choosing homosexuality voluntarily.
In fact, one might expect epigenetic changes to effect such a change entirely naturally.
-
Hi everyone,
Much as I expected really!! I must remind all of you of Eleanor Roosevelt's comment ...."Small minds discuss people, average minds discuss events and great minds discuss ideas."
All of you have been discussing me rather than the science of epigenetics and its ramifications....as I expected.
Some years back people claimed that homosexuality was due to genetic reasons. So the attitude was 'see...its not my choice, its all in the genes'. So...religious people were silenced. Some people even thought genetic engineering could change homosexuals.
Then genes were not found to be responsible and it all went back to wishy-washy stuff.
Now it has been found that epigenetics probably is responsible for homosexuality. So..we are back to 'its not by choice' stuff. So...what exactly is wrong with that? Its just science....and religious people cannot say much on that. Its almost the same as 'genes are responsible'.
I find Leonard's attitude to be the most reasonable and balanced. Thanks for that Len! All others seem to have lost their head completely (in particular Trippymonkey).
Well...the science still stands....as in the OP. Nothing much can be done about that, I am afraid....whoever likes it or not.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
Much as I expected really!! I must remind all of you of Eleanor Roosevelt's comment ...."Small minds discuss people, average minds discuss events and great minds discuss ideas."
All of you have been discussing me rather than the science of epigenetics and its ramifications....as I expected.
Some years back people claimed that homosexuality was due to genetic reasons. So the attitude was 'see...its not my choice, its all in the genes'. So...religious people were silenced. Some people even thought genetic engineering could change homosexuals.
Then genes were not found to be responsible and it all went back to wishy-washy stuff.
Now it has been found that epigenetics probably is responsible for homosexuality. So..we are back to 'its not by choice' stuff. So...what exactly is wrong with that? Its just science....and religious people cannot say much on that. Its almost the same as 'genes are responsible'.
I find Leonard's attitude to be the most reasonable and balanced. Thanks for that Len! All others seem to have lost their head completely (in particular Trippymonkey).
Well...the science still stands....as in the OP. Nothing much can be done about that, I am afraid....whoever likes it or not.
Cheers.
Sriram
And again I ask where dies the science say it is a disease?
-
Sriram's, it's very kind of you to bring your great mind to talk to our little minds. But the science jury is still out.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33773/title/Can-Epigenetics-Explain-Homosexuality-/
And as the article points out, who cares? 'Homosexuality isn't a disease, it's a part of natural human variation'.
-
Hi everyone,
Much as I expected really!! I must remind all of you of Eleanor Roosevelt's comment ...."Small minds discuss people, average minds discuss events and great minds discuss ideas."
All of you have been discussing me rather than the science of epigenetics and its ramifications....as I expected.
Some years back people claimed that homosexuality was due to genetic reasons. So the attitude was 'see...its not my choice, its all in the genes'. So...religious people were silenced. Some people even thought genetic engineering could change homosexuals.
Then genes were not found to be responsible and it all went back to wishy-washy stuff.
Now it has been found that epigenetics probably is responsible for homosexuality. So..we are back to 'its not by choice' stuff. So...what exactly is wrong with that? Its just science....and religious people cannot say much on that. Its almost the same as 'genes are responsible'.
I find Leonard's attitude to be the most reasonable and balanced. Thanks for that Len! All others seem to have lost their head completely (in particular Trippymonkey).
Well...the science still stands....as in the OP. Nothing much can be done about that, I am afraid....whoever likes it or not.
Cheers.
Sriram
I repeat my earlier post - The science is very interesting. The use of the word 'cure' and saying that if cured people could then lead 'normal' lives is your problem here Sriram - can't you see that?
-
Sriram's, it's very kind of you to bring your great mind to talk to our little minds. But the science jury is still out.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33773/title/Can-Epigenetics-Explain-Homosexuality-/
And as the article points out, who cares? 'Homosexuality isn't a disease, it's a part of natural human variation'.
Just like being left-handed which was seen as a personality flaw in the bad old days! As I have mentioned before my mother and her brother were beaten for using their left hands at school in the 20s/30s. >:(
-
Oh, surprise, bigot pops his head up and says, I'm not bigoted, it's just the scientificalistic stuff. Yeah, right.
-
Oh, surprise, bigot pops his head up and says, I'm not bigoted, it's just the scientificalistic stuff. Yeah, right.
And the SMALL MIND pops up again and talks of me rather than the subject!! You guys never will change. LOL!
-
...went back to wishy-washy stuff...
Dam irony meter just can't cope its blown again.
-
I repeat my earlier post - The science is very interesting. The use of the word 'cure' and saying that if cured people could then lead 'normal' lives is your problem here Sriram - can't you see that?
Yes...but that's what the Wiki article says...."some people[who?] have suggested that it might be possible to alter one's sexual orientation with epigenetic therapy,[11] similarly to treatment of diabetes, cancer or schizophrenia."
I agree that the word 'cure' may not have been used, but homosexuality has been treated on par with diabetes, cancer and schizophrenia. So...what's the difference?
-
Hi everyone,
Much as I expected really!! I must remind all of you of Eleanor Roosevelt's comment ...."Small minds discuss people, average minds discuss events and great minds discuss ideas."
All of you have been discussing me rather than the science of epigenetics and its ramifications....as I expected.
Some years back people claimed that homosexuality was due to genetic reasons. So the attitude was 'see...its not my choice, its all in the genes'. So...religious people were silenced. Some people even thought genetic engineering could change homosexuals.
Then genes were not found to be responsible and it all went back to wishy-washy stuff.
Now it has been found that epigenetics probably is responsible for homosexuality. So..we are back to 'its not by choice' stuff. So...what exactly is wrong with that? Its just science....and religious people cannot say much on that. Its almost the same as 'genes are responsible'.
I find Leonard's attitude to be the most reasonable and balanced. Thanks for that Len! All others seem to have lost their head completely (in particular Trippymonkey).
Well...the science still stands....as in the OP. Nothing much can be done about that, I am afraid....whoever likes it or not.
Cheers.
Sriram
I pointed out that I thought it was a detrimental step to move towards conformity. Which is a direct ramification of the proposal.
why are you misrepresenting this thread?
-
Oh, surprise, bigot pops his head up and says, I'm not bigoted, it's just the scientificalistic stuff. Yeah, right.
And the SMALL MIND pops up again and talks of me rather than the subject!! You guys never will change. LOL!
I'm talking about your comments that being gay is abnormal, and could be cured. These ideas indicate bigotry.
-
Oh, surprise, bigot pops his head up and says, I'm not bigoted, it's just the scientificalistic stuff. Yeah, right.
And the SMALL MIND pops up again and talks of me rather than the subject!! You guys never will change. LOL!
I get that response with a lot of my posts. ::)
-
Oh, surprise, bigot pops his head up and says, I'm not bigoted, it's just the scientificalistic stuff. Yeah, right.
And the SMALL MIND pops up again and talks of me rather than the subject!! You guys never will change. LOL!
How can the science possibly tell us what is ethical or not?
-
I agree that the word 'cure' may not have been used, but homosexuality has been treated on par with diabetes, cancer and schizophrenia. So...what's the difference?
Maybe because if I get schizophrenia or diabete or Cancer I need treatment to stay healthy or indeed alive.
This does not apply to homosexuality.
That is why it is no longer classified as a disease. Duh.
-
Oh, surprise, bigot pops his head up and says, I'm not bigoted, it's just the scientificalistic stuff. Yeah, right.
And the SMALL MIND pops up again and talks of me rather than the subject!! You guys never will change. LOL!
You seem to be a silly little bigot if your endless threads are anything to go by, so don't be surprised if you find yourself challenged! ::)
-
Being gay is like cancer, OMG, what's that saying about stop digging, when you're in a hole.
-
Oh, surprise, bigot pops his head up and says, I'm not bigoted, it's just the scientificalistic stuff. Yeah, right.
And the SMALL MIND pops up again and talks of me rather than the subject!! You guys never will change. LOL!
How can the science possibly tell us what is ethical or not?
What is unethical about some homosexual wanting to get epigenetic therapy? Should he necessarily believe that its all about 'diversity' and such other stuff and conform with the fanatics?
-
Fanatics? Oh, look in the mirror.
-
Fanatics? Oh, look in the mirror.
Again Wiggenhall?! LOL! Talk of the subject just once...if you can.
-
Fanatics? Oh, look in the mirror.
Again Wiggenhall?! LOL! Talk of the subject just once...if you can.
Not really any point is there as you aren't responding to my replies and I am addressing the subject.
-
Fanatics? Oh, look in the mirror.
Again Wiggenhall?! LOL! Talk of the subject just once...if you can.
I am talking about the OP, where you seem to say that being gay is a disease. You actually wrote those words, and they indicate bigotry, which is foul.
-
...
What is unethical about some homosexual wanting to get epigenetic therapy? Should he necessarily believe that its all about 'diversity' and such other stuff and conform with the fanatics?
Of-course not, there is nothing unethical about it and anyone would be free to pursue that path were it medically feasible. What would be unethical would be to coerce people by labeling groups as diseased and abnormal just because they don't conform to predominant behaviour or to "cure" them of such before they are able to decide for themselves.
-
Fanatics? Oh, look in the mirror.
Again Wiggenhall?! LOL! Talk of the subject just once...if you can.
I am talking about the OP, where you seem to say that being gay is a disease. You actually wrote those words, and they indicate bigotry, which is foul.
The Wiki article says that it can be treated similar to diabetes and cancer. Can't you read simple english?!
-
I refer you to my previous post:
Quote
I agree that the word 'cure' may not have been used, but homosexuality has been treated on par with diabetes, cancer and schizophrenia. So...what's the difference?
Maybe because if I get schizophrenia or diabete or Cancer I need treatment to stay healthy or indeed alive.
This does not apply to homosexuality.
That is why it is no longer classified as a disease. Duh.
Why are you not answering this?
-
...
What is unethical about some homosexual wanting to get epigenetic therapy? Should he necessarily believe that its all about 'diversity' and such other stuff and conform with the fanatics?
Of-course not, there is nothing unethical about it and anyone would be free to pursue that path were it medically feasible. What would be unethical would be to coerce people by labeling groups as diseased and abnormal just because they don't conform to common behaviours or to "cure" them of such before they are able to decide for themselves.
That's not the issue we are discussing here. Its up to the people concerned. The point is that the biological reason for homosexuality has probably been found. And its possible that a treatment can be given. That's all the OP says....and that's all I am talking about
-
I refer you to my previous post:
Quote
I agree that the word 'cure' may not have been used, but homosexuality has been treated on par with diabetes, cancer and schizophrenia. So...what's the difference?
Maybe because if I get schizophrenia or diabete or Cancer I need treatment to stay healthy or indeed alive.
This does not apply to homosexuality.
That is why it is no longer classified as a disease. Duh.
Why are you not answering this?
Well...yes. But nobody forces you to get treatment. See my above post to Udayana.
-
I refer you to my previous post:
Quote
I agree that the word 'cure' may not have been used, but homosexuality has been treated on par with diabetes, cancer and schizophrenia. So...what's the difference?
Maybe because if I get schizophrenia or diabete or Cancer I need treatment to stay healthy or indeed alive.
This does not apply to homosexuality.
That is why it is no longer classified as a disease. Duh.
Why are you not answering this?
Because he's a bigot, and bigots find their own statements uncomfortable, and try to deny that they said them. But they are in black and white.
-
I refer you to my previous post:
Quote
I agree that the word 'cure' may not have been used, but homosexuality has been treated on par with diabetes, cancer and schizophrenia. So...what's the difference?
Maybe because if I get schizophrenia or diabete or Cancer I need treatment to stay healthy or indeed alive.
This does not apply to homosexuality.
That is why it is no longer classified as a disease. Duh.
Why are you not answering this?
Because he's a bigot, and bigots find their own statements uncomfortable, and try to deny that they said them. But they are in black and white.
Here you go again Wiggenhall! You're discussing me again!! Tut!Tut!
Did you manage to read the OP yet?!
-
...
What is unethical about some homosexual wanting to get epigenetic therapy? Should he necessarily believe that its all about 'diversity' and such other stuff and conform with the fanatics?
Of-course not, there is nothing unethical about it and anyone would be free to pursue that path were it medically feasible. What would be unethical would be to coerce people by labeling groups as diseased and abnormal just because they don't conform to common behaviours or to "cure" them of such before they are able to decide for themselves.
That's not the issue we are discussing here. Its up to the people concerned. The point is that the biological reason for homosexuality has probably been found. And its possible that a treatment can be given. That's all the OP says....and that's all I am talking about
In that case you could have presented it as such instead of trolling it by adding:
Here is my favorite subject of epignetics again. They say that homosexuality could even be cured through epigenetic therapy.
Alright...some people may feel that homosexuality is not...repeat not... a disease and does not need to be cured! But I tend to disagree.
-
Maybe because if I get schizophrenia or diabete or Cancer I need treatment to stay healthy or indeed alive.
This does not apply to homosexuality.
That is why it is no longer classified as a disease. Duh.
Technically wasn't it classed as a mental disorder of some type.
I am not sure I have ever heard of a definition of mental disorder which is divorced from someone's idea of what normal behaviour and mental states is. Some of the symptoms I have seen listed for some personality disorders for instance, seem to have this about them.
I suspect that homosexuality was declassified as a disorder mainly because the Zeitgeist changed and it was no longer seen as "abnormal" behaviour. Nothing to do with new biological or medical knowledge coming to light, as such.
Necrophilia is still a mental disorder I believe, but then that is just weird and disgusting isn't it.
As for whether adults should be allowed to change their sexual orientation. In theory if there was a safe way to do this I would probably say why not.
-
I refer you to my previous post:
Quote
I agree that the word 'cure' may not have been used, but homosexuality has been treated on par with diabetes, cancer and schizophrenia. So...what's the difference?
Maybe because if I get schizophrenia or diabete or Cancer I need treatment to stay healthy or indeed alive.
This does not apply to homosexuality.
That is why it is no longer classified as a disease. Duh.
Why are you not answering this?
Well...yes. But nobody forces you to get treatment. See my above post to Udayana.
Perhaps - except that if words like cure and abnormal are used in connection withg homosexualty don't you think that could affect the way that some vulnerable gay people may react.
It is not that long since we had the aversion therapy used in this country which many gay people were persuaded to undergo because it would cure them of their illness. That didn't work.
It is not an illness.
To put it in the same category as Diabetes and Cancer is both offensive to gay people and I would think pretty fucking annoying to sufferers of those real diseases. The thought that funding could be used for this 'cure' is frankly insane.
Anyway - in words of one syllable - do you think I have a disease?
-
We have to wonder at the agenda of the 'some people' who propose a 'cure' for homosexuality in same breath as any disease, let alone those as serious as diabetes and cancer.
And the science isn't even proven yet.
-
Maybe because if I get schizophrenia or diabete or Cancer I need treatment to stay healthy or indeed alive.
This does not apply to homosexuality.
That is why it is no longer classified as a disease. Duh.
Technically wasn't it classed as a mental disorder of some type.
I am not sure I have ever heard of a definition of mental disorder which is divorced from someone's idea of what normal behaviour and mental states is. Some of the symptoms I have seen listed for some personality disorders for instance, seem to have this about them.
I suspect that homosexuality was declassified as a disorder mainly because the Zeitgeist changed and it was no longer seen as "abnormal" behaviour. Nothing to do with new biological or medical knowledge coming to light, as such.
Necrophilia is still a mental disorder I believe, but then that is just weird and disgusting isn't it.
As for whether adults should be allowed to change their sexual orientation. In theory if there was a safe way to do this I would probably say why not.
It was listed in the ICD (International Classifications of Diseases) listings - but it was listed under Mental Disorders there.
-
In fact, various psychological 'cures' have been banned by UK professional organisations, for one thing, they are highly dangerous, encouraging self-loathing and suicide. I suppose we have to put up with this kind of sick shit in the OP, although it verges on hate speech.
-
Sriram Bhai
Maybe what might have been better & then altered your later reactions to others' opinions was if you'd just said the 'science' bit & then said 'What do you all think'????
But what you DID do was state you unwavering opinions as 'obvious' fact.
NOT good on these boards.
Then complained when others took umbrage at them.???
Methinks a deliberate ploy to be the centre of attention again.
And it worked, for a while but anyway......
There's been way much more said against this idea than pro so there !!!! ;) 8)
-
I suspect that homosexuality was declassified as a disorder mainly because the Zeitgeist changed and it was no longer seen as "abnormal" behaviour.
No I think it was declassified because there was a recognition that this was a regularly occurring variation in human sexuality that did no harm to those involved. Unlike paedophilia.
Zietgesit implies something more temporary than the realisation that has occurred within most medical & psychological professional bodies about the topic of homosexuality.
-
Let us suppose that there was an 'epigenetic process' where one could pick a sexuality that was entirely safe (note I am not actually sure such a process makes even theoretical sense given the complexity of factors). Then I have no objection to people doing that. I do however have an objection to homosexuality being portrayed as a disease and that is from my viewpoint an ethical rather than a medical objection .
Synonym is correct, I think, that the move away from regarding homosexuality is a zeitgeist rather than a change in scientific knowledge but that of course means that Sriram' s position of it being a matter of treatment also falls
Incidentally while not the norm, I have no real objection to necrophilia, if there could be a legal statement from someone prior to dying
-
But (stating the bloody obvious) having sex with someone who is dead means you can't have a relationship with them (even if you did once) and that is mentally unhealthy. Of course there are all sorts of behaviours with living partners that aren't exactly healthy either, but homosexuality in and of itself isn't one of them, any more than heterosexuality is.
-
I repeat my earlier post - The science is very interesting. The use of the word 'cure' and saying that if cured people could then lead 'normal' lives is your problem here Sriram - can't you see that?
Yes...but that's what the Wiki article says...."some people[who?] have suggested that it might be possible to alter one's sexual orientation with epigenetic therapy,[11] similarly to treatment of diabetes, cancer or schizophrenia."
I agree that the word 'cure' may not have been used, but homosexuality has been treated on par with diabetes, cancer and schizophrenia. So...what's the difference?
A big difference Sriram. The article says 'alter', you mentioned 'cure' and 'normal'. Cure suggests restoration of health or correction of something bad or abnormal. You have put a value judgement on being gay by using those words whether you meant to or not.
-
I suspect that homosexuality was declassified as a disorder mainly because the Zeitgeist changed and it was no longer seen as "abnormal" behaviour.
No I think it was declassified because there was a recognition that this was a regularly occurring variation in human sexuality that did no harm to those involved.
They didn't know that before?
There are no intrinsic harms in necrophilia or bestiality (depending on the animal). But since society says they are weird and disgusting and only mentalists and deviants would have such interests...so does the medical profession.
-
That's not the issue we are discussing here. Its up to the people concerned. The point is that the biological reason for homosexuality has probably been found. And its possible that a treatment can be given. That's all the OP says....and that's all I am talking about
That's not all the OP says though is it.
-
But (stating the bloody obvious) having sex with someone who is dead means you can't have a relationship with them (even if you did once) and that is mentally unhealthy. Of course there are all sorts of behaviours with living partners that aren't exactly healthy either, but homosexuality in and of itself isn't one of them, any more than heterosexuality is.
What about people who like one night stands, casual sex, no strings attached sex etc?
I really do find it hard to believe that value judgments are not involved somewhere.
-
I suspect that homosexuality was declassified as a disorder mainly because the Zeitgeist changed and it was no longer seen as "abnormal" behaviour.
No I think it was declassified because there was a recognition that this was a regularly occurring variation in human sexuality that did no harm to those involved.
They didn't know that before?
There are no intrinsic harms in necrophilia or bestiality (depending on the animal). But since society says they are weird and disgusting and only mentalists and deviants would have such interests...so does the medical profession.
Apologies - They might have known it - there was not a recognition that it did no harm to those involved was what I meant. Thus the desire to 'cure' it.
Rather like the original posters intention.
-
I suspect that homosexuality was declassified as a disorder mainly because the Zeitgeist changed and it was no longer seen as "abnormal" behaviour.
No I think it was declassified because there was a recognition that this was a regularly occurring variation in human sexuality that did no harm to those involved.
They didn't know that before?
There are no intrinsic harms in necrophilia or bestiality (depending on the animal). But since society says they are weird and disgusting and only mentalists and deviants would have such interests...so does the medical profession.
Sex is harmful if one party cannot give informed consent. This includes sex with the dead and with animals, as well as sex with children.
The medical profession sees that the harm works both ways. It isn't only harmful to the victim, it is also harmful to the perpetrator as they cannot form a proper relationship with the object of their sexual attraction.
-
I suspect that homosexuality was declassified as a disorder mainly because the Zeitgeist changed and it was no longer seen as "abnormal" behaviour.
No I think it was declassified because there was a recognition that this was a regularly occurring variation in human sexuality that did no harm to those involved.
They didn't know that before?
There are no intrinsic harms in necrophilia or bestiality (depending on the animal). But since society says they are weird and disgusting and only mentalists and deviants would have such interests...so does the medical profession.
I am not sure we can make an assumption that there is no harm in bestiality, I.e. how would it be dependent on the animal.
-
I suspect that homosexuality was declassified as a disorder mainly because the Zeitgeist changed and it was no longer seen as "abnormal" behaviour.
No I think it was declassified because there was a recognition that this was a regularly occurring variation in human sexuality that did no harm to those involved.
They didn't know that before?
There are no intrinsic harms in necrophilia or bestiality (depending on the animal). But since society says they are weird and disgusting and only mentalists and deviants would have such interests...so does the medical profession.
Sex is harmful if one party cannot give informed consent. This includes sex with the dead and with animals, as well as sex with children.
The medical profession sees that the harm works both ways. It isn't only harmful to the victim, it is also harmful to the perpetrator as they cannot form a proper relationship with the object of their sexual attraction.
Which is a value judgement and not a medical one.
-
...
Incidentally while not the norm, I have no real objection to necrophilia, if there could be a legal statement from someone prior to dying
What!? Why would you need this? Surely permission of next of kin should suffice were it to be allowed? What about cannibalism then? Or all sorts of other possible behaviour ... there is nothing absolute about these things, how we assign values and rights is ultimately, surely, a matter of zeitgeist or fashion? Even to the recognition of "harm" vs "no harm".
-
But (stating the bloody obvious) having sex with someone who is dead means you can't have a relationship with them (even if you did once) and that is mentally unhealthy. Of course there are all sorts of behaviours with living partners that aren't exactly healthy either, but homosexuality in and of itself isn't one of them, any more than heterosexuality is.
What about people who like one night stands, casual sex, no strings attached sex etc?
I really do find it hard to believe that value judgments are not involved somewhere.
In one night stands, no strings sex etc., there is still a relationship - a consenting giving and receiving in that moment. There are still two (or more) people relating to each other.
-
However, there is one big pro argument, assuming that the treatment is harmless and reliable.
It would give everybody the opportunity to find out what life is like for both sexualities, and the freedom to choose which they prefer! :)
-
I suspect that homosexuality was declassified as a disorder mainly because the Zeitgeist changed and it was no longer seen as "abnormal" behaviour.
No I think it was declassified because there was a recognition that this was a regularly occurring variation in human sexuality that did no harm to those involved.
They didn't know that before?
There are no intrinsic harms in necrophilia or bestiality (depending on the animal). But since society says they are weird and disgusting and only mentalists and deviants would have such interests...so does the medical profession.
Sex is harmful if one party cannot give informed consent. This includes sex with the dead and with animals, as well as sex with children.
The medical profession sees that the harm works both ways. It isn't only harmful to the victim, it is also harmful to the perpetrator as they cannot form a proper relationship with the object of their sexual attraction.
Which is a value judgement and not a medical one.
Not from a psychiatric point of view.
Or are you saying that psychiatry is about values not medicine?
-
I suspect that homosexuality was declassified as a disorder mainly because the Zeitgeist changed and it was no longer seen as "abnormal" behaviour.
No I think it was declassified because there was a recognition that this was a regularly occurring variation in human sexuality that did no harm to those involved.
They didn't know that before?
There are no intrinsic harms in necrophilia or bestiality (depending on the animal). But since society says they are weird and disgusting and only mentalists and deviants would have such interests...so does the medical profession.
I am not sure we can make an assumption that there is no harm in bestiality, I.e. how would it be dependent on the animal.
The animal cannot give consent. It is the sexual abuse of another living creature.
-
Bit of a circular argument there Rhiannon...
-
How so?
-
no consent => sexual abuse => harm, but sexual abuse => harm by itself. You cant use that to show no consent => harm.
-
Sriram's, it's very kind of you to bring your great mind to talk to our little minds. But the science jury is still out.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33773/title/Can-Epigenetics-Explain-Homosexuality-/
And as the article points out, who cares? 'Homosexuality isn't a disease, it's a part of natural human variation'.
Just like being left-handed which was seen as a personality flaw in the bad old days! As I have mentioned before my mother and her brother were beaten for using their left hands at school in the 20s/30s. >:(
As was my mother. As a result she was not only ambidextrous but could write from left to right and right to left with both hands.
-
no consent => sexual abuse => harm, but sexual abuse => harm by itself. You cant use that to show no consent => harm.
We generally take the view that if a living creature can't consent then having sex with it is harmful, don't we?
-
Fanatics? Oh, look in the mirror.
Again Wiggenhall?! LOL! Talk of the subject just once...if you can.
I am talking about the OP, where you seem to say that being gay is a disease. You actually wrote those words, and they indicate bigotry, which is foul.
The Wiki article says that it can be treated similar to diabetes and cancer. Can't you read simple english?!
What the bright blue f**k are you talking about - Quote - can be treated similar to diabetes and cancer - Unquote.
You mean that homosexuality (presumably both male and female varieties) can be treated by injections of insulin and by radio/chemotherapy.
Personally I think you have, at some time in the past, had your arse groped and now want to rid the world of any chance of it happening aagoin, regardless of the fact that a lot of people, of both sexes, have never groped anyone withoutr their permission.
Talking about the SCIENCE and NOT about YOU the science, if it works is fine as long as the homosexuals are given the choice and nbot having it forced on them.
Now, if science can find a way to turn all heterosexuals and homosexuals/lesbians into bisexuals it will solve the matter entirely!
-
no consent => sexual abuse => harm, but sexual abuse => harm by itself. You cant use that to show no consent => harm.
We generally take the view that if a living creature can't consent then having sex with it is harmful, don't we?
I think we more specifically argue that informed consent is needed. This isn't primarily about harm but about rights. Animals in terms of how we currently communicate cannot give informed consent so we rule out bestiality. Necrophilia though we could have pre mortem consent given and post mortem the only question is that others could object to the usus, abusus in terms of property
-
no consent => sexual abuse => harm, but sexual abuse => harm by itself. You cant use that to show no consent => harm.
We generally take the view that if a living creature can't consent then having sex with it is harmful, don't we?
We do .. but that is a matter of definition or fashion then, we are not showing that "no consent" sex is always harmful and, similarly, is also always abuse.
-
Sriram's, it's very kind of you to bring your great mind to talk to our little minds. But the science jury is still out.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33773/title/Can-Epigenetics-Explain-Homosexuality-/
And as the article points out, who cares? 'Homosexuality isn't a disease, it's a part of natural human variation'.
Just like being left-handed which was seen as a personality flaw in the bad old days! As I have mentioned before my mother and her brother were beaten for using their left hands at school in the 20s/30s. >:(
As was my mother. As a result she was not only ambidextrous but could write from left to right and right to left with both hands.
You mean .. there might be an advantage to being able to go either way :)
-
However, there is one big pro argument, assuming that the treatment is harmless and reliable.
It would give everybody the opportunity to find out what life is like for both sexualities, and the freedom to choose which they prefer! :)
Ah! Thanks Len. Its nice to see your balanced view on this.
They say some people can be more American than the Americans themselves ....similarly I think perhaps.... some people can be more homosexual than the homosexuals themselves!! :D
Many people here are getting offended by proxy apparently! Even Trent has been relatively more balanced than the rest of the crowd.
All this hollering and name calling about something as simple as the biological reason for homosexuality and its possible treatment. I can't believe it! ::)
Anyway...I am off for the day. Maybe tomorrow again! :D
-
Sriram's, it's very kind of you to bring your great mind to talk to our little minds. But the science jury is still out.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33773/title/Can-Epigenetics-Explain-Homosexuality-/
And as the article points out, who cares? 'Homosexuality isn't a disease, it's a part of natural human variation'.
Just like being left-handed which was seen as a personality flaw in the bad old days! As I have mentioned before my mother and her brother were beaten for using their left hands at school in the 20s/30s. >:(
As was my mother. As a result she was not only ambidextrous but could write from left to right and right to left with both hands.
You mean .. there might be an advantage to being able to go either way :)
There might!
-
no consent => sexual abuse => harm, but sexual abuse => harm by itself. You cant use that to show no consent => harm.
We generally take the view that if a living creature can't consent then having sex with it is harmful, don't we?
We do .. but that is a matter of definition or fashion then, we are not showing that "no consent" sex is always harmful and, similarly, is also always abuse.
We're in very dangerous territory if we step outside of that.
-
Sriram's, it's very kind of you to bring your great mind to talk to our little minds. But the science jury is still out.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33773/title/Can-Epigenetics-Explain-Homosexuality-/
And as the article points out, who cares? 'Homosexuality isn't a disease, it's a part of natural human variation'.
Just like being left-handed which was seen as a personality flaw in the bad old days! As I have mentioned before my mother and her brother were beaten for using their left hands at school in the 20s/30s. >:(
As was my mother. As a result she was not only ambidextrous but could write from left to right and right to left with both hands.
I write with my left hand but do everything else with my right.
-
Sriram's, it's very kind of you to bring your great mind to talk to our little minds. But the science jury is still out.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33773/title/Can-Epigenetics-Explain-Homosexuality-/
And as the article points out, who cares? 'Homosexuality isn't a disease, it's a part of natural human variation'.
Just like being left-handed which was seen as a personality flaw in the bad old days! As I have mentioned before my mother and her brother were beaten for using their left hands at school in the 20s/30s. >:(
As was my mother. As a result she was not only ambidextrous but could write from left to right and right to left with both hands.
You mean .. there might be an advantage to being able to go either way :)
It's not uncommon for women to have affairs with other women. There are famous examples (Mary Portas, Alison Goldfrapp for example) - they don't suddenly self-identify as gay and reject their past heterosexuality, just accept they were with a man, they are now with a woman. I don't know how much more common this is for women than for men but in terms of what I see and hear personally, more women appear to be more fluid in their sexuality than men.
-
You're a strange bloke Sriram, you go sensible one moment and it looks like there might be some kind of improvement then we get another skidding off of the rails at speed thread like this one?
I've no wish to be on your planet Sriram.
ippy
-
<does not need to be cured! But I tend to disagree>
So Sriram bhai, you feel being gay is akin to being a leper or carrying some disease that will wipe out mankind ??? ::)
Hitler would've loved your attitude !!!!!
Nick
Nick, you seem to have a rather weird understanding of ill-health. By no means is all disease a threat to the survival of humanity; most are unpleasant but by no means life-threatening.
That doesn't mean that a cure for such diseases oughtn't to be sought.
-
<does not need to be cured! But I tend to disagree>
So Sriram bhai, you feel being gay is akin to being a leper or carrying some disease that will wipe out mankind ??? ::)
Hitler would've loved your attitude !!!!!
Nick
Nick, you seem to have a rather weird understanding of ill-health. By no means is all disease a threat to the survival of humanity; most are unpleasant but by no means life-threatening.
That doesn't mean that a cure for such diseases oughtn't to be sought.
But do you put homosexuality into that category?
-
Why leper and wiping out mankind?! That's a bit over the top. :D
Sriram, supporters of the liberalisation of attitudes to homosexual practice have always used hyperpole in order to make their view appear to be more moderate and therefore acceptable than that of those who disagree with them. Ironically, the suggestions for why people disagree are often so far from reality as to make one wonder what they really think behind the facade of liberalisation-speak.
-
In one night stands, no strings sex etc., there is still a relationship - a consenting giving and receiving in that moment. There are still two (or more) people relating to each other.
How about necrophilia, blow up dolls, blow up sheep, v*brators, washing machines during spin cycle? Engaging in these evidence of a disordered mind?
-
We generally take the view that if a living creature can't consent then having sex with it is harmful, don't we?
We do? If a horse genuinely is not bothered, what harm can be identified?
-
In one night stands, no strings sex etc., there is still a relationship - a consenting giving and receiving in that moment. There are still two (or more) people relating to each other.
How about necrophilia, blow up dolls, blow up sheep, v*brators, washing machines during spin cycle? Engaging in these evidence of a disordered mind?
If you imagine that there is a mutual consensual giving and receiving between you and your washing machine, yes.
-
We generally take the view that if a living creature can't consent then having sex with it is harmful, don't we?
We do? If a horse genuinely is not bothered, what harm can be identified?
You could say the same about a person in a coma - they arent 'bothered'. We don't know the level to which a horse is conscious of itself, hence we have boundaries.
-
In one night stands, no strings sex etc., there is still a relationship - a consenting giving and receiving in that moment. There are still two (or more) people relating to each other.
How about necrophilia, blow up dolls, blow up sheep, v*brators, washing machines during spin cycle? Engaging in these evidence of a disordered mind?
If you imagine that there is a mutual consensual giving and receiving between you and your washing machine, yes.
So if someone believes that they did not imagine such a relationship, then they are not harming themselves and so are not mentally ill?
edited for clarity.
-
In one night stands, no strings sex etc., there is still a relationship - a consenting giving and receiving in that moment. There are still two (or more) people relating to each other.
How about necrophilia, blow up dolls, blow up sheep, v*brators, washing machines during spin cycle? Engaging in these evidence of a disordered mind?
If you imagine that there is a mutual consensual giving and receiving between you and your washing machine, yes.
What setting?
ippy
-
<does not need to be cured! But I tend to disagree>
So Sriram bhai, you feel being gay is akin to being a leper or carrying some disease that will wipe out mankind ??? ::)
Hitler would've loved your attitude !!!!!
Nick
Nick, you seem to have a rather weird understanding of ill-health. By no means is all disease a threat to the survival of humanity; most are unpleasant but by no means life-threatening.
That doesn't mean that a cure for such diseases oughtn't to be sought.
No but Sriram more than suggests being gay CAN be cured like a disease can !
Did you actually READ my answer?
-
No but Sriram more than suggests being gay CAN be cured like a disease can !
Did you actually READ my answer?
I did, and quoted almost all of it; all the stuff about "carrying some disease that will wipe out mankind". Hyperbole of the first degree.
-
We generally take the view that if a living creature can't consent then having sex with it is harmful, don't we?
We do? If a horse genuinely is not bothered, what harm can be identified?
You could say the same about a person in a coma - they arent 'bothered'. We don't know the level to which a horse is conscious of itself, hence we have boundaries.
If the horse isn't kicking the person away or otherwise exhibiting any sign of fear or stress, then it might be a reasonable inference that they are unbothered. People in comas are not in the same position of being able to react.
But I think this is a separate matter. OK we can makes laws against certain activities in case they cause harm that cannot be communicated, but we were talking about what qualifies a person as having a mental disorder and whether it involves value judgments.
If you believe that the medical profession classifies on a notion of 'non-consent/non-relationship harms the indulger', well that does not explain why necrophilia is a disorder but a blow up doll isn't.
-
Why leper and wiping out mankind?! That's a bit over the top. :D
Sriram, supporters of the liberalisation of attitudes to homosexual practice have always used hyperpole in order to make their view appear to be more moderate and therefore acceptable than that of those who disagree with them. Ironically, the suggestions for why people disagree are often so far from reality as to make one wonder what they really think behind the facade of liberalisation-speak.
This from someone who has regularly used murder as a comparitor for homosexuality.
-
In one night stands, no strings sex etc., there is still a relationship - a consenting giving and receiving in that moment. There are still two (or more) people relating to each other.
How about necrophilia, blow up dolls, blow up sheep, v*brators, washing machines during spin cycle? Engaging in these evidence of a disordered mind?
#100 and #101
Trust you to go from the sublime to the bloody ridiculous!
-
In one night stands, no strings sex etc., there is still a relationship - a consenting giving and receiving in that moment. There are still two (or more) people relating to each other.
How about necrophilia, blow up dolls, blow up sheep, v*brators, washing machines during spin cycle? Engaging in these evidence of a disordered mind?
Necrophilia is SICK! :o, As for the rest that is apparently normal for some people, and why not?
-
Sriram, supporters of the liberalisation of attitudes to homosexual practice have always used hyperpole in order to make their view appear to be more moderate and therefore acceptable than that of those who disagree with them.
This makes homosexuality seem like some sort of cause - and it needn't be. All that is required is to accept that the private sex lives of consenting adults is exactly that: private, and that the sexuality of these consenting adults is entirely their own affair.
Ironically, the suggestions for why people disagree are often so far from reality as to make one wonder what they really think behind the facade of liberalisation-speak.
It seems to me that prejudice is very real indeed, as is discrimination that flows from it, and that some are concerned about this is not, as you suggest, 'the facade of liberisation-speak' but is an expression of their concern - a concern that you seem eager to trivialise.
As regards the sexuality of consenting adults - what bit of 'private' do you think is problematic?
-
...
Incidentally while not the norm, I have no real objection to necrophilia, if there could be a legal statement from someone prior to dying
What!? Why would you need this? Surely permission of next of kin should suffice were it to be allowed? What about cannibalism then? Or all sorts of other possible behaviour ... there is nothing absolute about these things, how we assign values and rights is ultimately, surely, a matter of zeitgeist or fashion? Even to the recognition of "harm" vs "no harm".
Because it is essentially about ownership, if the next of giving permission were the person seeking it then you end up with a conflict
If I put in my will that I wish to be cremated, it might (seen as voiding anything else.
-
I suspect that homosexuality was declassified as a disorder mainly because the Zeitgeist changed and it was no longer seen as "abnormal" behaviour.
No I think it was declassified because there was a recognition that this was a regularly occurring variation in human sexuality that did no harm to those involved.
They didn't know that before?
There are no intrinsic harms in necrophilia or bestiality (depending on the animal). But since society says they are weird and disgusting and only mentalists and deviants would have such interests...so does the medical profession.
Sex is harmful if one party cannot give informed consent. This includes sex with the dead and with animals, as well as sex with children.
The medical profession sees that the harm works both ways. It isn't only harmful to the victim, it is also harmful to the perpetrator as they cannot form a proper relationship with the object of their sexual attraction.
Which is a value judgement and not a medical one.
Not from a psychiatric point of view.
Or are you saying that psychiatry is about values not medicine?
That part is. Psychiatry is a wide field and the bit that says take this pill to achieve this outcome is science based. The bit that says this is a good outcome is a value judgement.
-
No but Sriram more than suggests being gay CAN be cured like a disease can !
Did you actually READ my answer?
I did, and quoted almost all of it; all the stuff about "carrying some disease that will wipe out mankind". Hyperbole of the first degree.
Those were HIS words, remember, not mine.
-
In one night stands, no strings sex etc., there is still a relationship - a consenting giving and receiving in that moment. There are still two (or more) people relating to each other.
How about necrophilia, blow up dolls, blow up sheep, v*brators, washing machines during spin cycle? Engaging in these evidence of a disordered mind?
If you imagine that there is a mutual consensual giving and receiving between you and your washing machine, yes.
So if someone believes that they did not imagine such a relationship, then they are not harming themselves and so are not mentally ill?
edited for clarity.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but there's a bit of a difference between using sex toys and having sex with a dead person.
-
I suspect that homosexuality was declassified as a disorder mainly because the Zeitgeist changed and it was no longer seen as "abnormal" behaviour.
No I think it was declassified because there was a recognition that this was a regularly occurring variation in human sexuality that did no harm to those involved.
They didn't know that before?
There are no intrinsic harms in necrophilia or bestiality (depending on the animal). But since society says they are weird and disgusting and only mentalists and deviants would have such interests...so does the medical profession.
Sex is harmful if one party cannot give informed consent. This includes sex with the dead and with animals, as well as sex with children.
The medical profession sees that the harm works both ways. It isn't only harmful to the victim, it is also harmful to the perpetrator as they cannot form a proper relationship with the object of their sexual attraction.
Which is a value judgement and not a medical one.
Not from a psychiatric point of view.
Or are you saying that psychiatry is about values not medicine?
That part is. Psychiatry is a wide field and the bit that says take this pill to achieve this outcome is science based. The bit that says this is a good outcome is a value judgement.
But there is evidence based psychiatry that has a broad consensus of the kinds of sexual relationships that make for good mental health and those that don't. In fact many psychs would argue that is more certain than the effects of taking certain meds.
-
I would argue it's circular here with good mental health bring part of the value judgement.
-
I think we can agree there's a consensus that it's healthier to shag the living than shag the dead.
-
In one night stands, no strings sex etc., there is still a relationship - a consenting giving and receiving in that moment. There are still two (or more) people relating to each other.
How about necrophilia, blow up dolls, blow up sheep, v*brators, washing machines during spin cycle? Engaging in these evidence of a disordered mind?
If you imagine that there is a mutual consensual giving and receiving between you and your washing machine, yes.
So if someone believes that they did not imagine such a relationship, then they are not harming themselves and so are not mentally ill?
edited for clarity.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but there's a bit of a difference between using sex toys and having sex with a dead person.
Or maybe not
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10201.0
-
In one night stands, no strings sex etc., there is still a relationship - a consenting giving and receiving in that moment. There are still two (or more) people relating to each other.
How about necrophilia, blow up dolls, blow up sheep, v*brators, washing machines during spin cycle? Engaging in these evidence of a disordered mind?
If you imagine that there is a mutual consensual giving and receiving between you and your washing machine, yes.
So if someone believes that they did not imagine such a relationship, then they are not harming themselves and so are not mentally ill?
edited for clarity.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but there's a bit of a difference between using sex toys and having sex with a dead person.
What about a washer dryer Rhi?
Ippy
-
In one night stands, no strings sex etc., there is still a relationship - a consenting giving and receiving in that moment. There are still two (or more) people relating to each other.
How about necrophilia, blow up dolls, blow up sheep, v*brators, washing machines during spin cycle? Engaging in these evidence of a disordered mind?
If you imagine that there is a mutual consensual giving and receiving between you and your washing machine, yes.
So if someone believes that they did not imagine such a relationship, then they are not harming themselves and so are not mentally ill?
edited for clarity.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but there's a bit of a difference between using sex toys and having sex with a dead person.
What about a washer dryer Rhi?
Ippy
So long as you still respect it in the morning. Maybe get some flowers, some good coffee...
-
In one night stands, no strings sex etc., there is still a relationship - a consenting giving and receiving in that moment. There are still two (or more) people relating to each other.
How about necrophilia, blow up dolls, blow up sheep, v*brators, washing machines during spin cycle? Engaging in these evidence of a disordered mind?
If you imagine that there is a mutual consensual giving and receiving between you and your washing machine, yes.
So if someone believes that they did not imagine such a relationship, then they are not harming themselves and so are not mentally ill?
edited for clarity.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but there's a bit of a difference between using sex toys and having sex with a dead person.
Or maybe not
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10201.0
Yeah. Like I said.
-
Is anybody noting down the names of those posters who haven't joined this thread?
-
Is anybody noting down the names of those posters who haven't joined this thread?
Just looking through the latest posts, this thread is threadbare!! It's just about the least intelligent few posts even this bereft forum has produced - cheap and tatty!
-
Is anybody noting down the names of those posters who haven't joined this thread?
Just looking through the latest posts, this thread is threadbare!! It's just about the least intelligent few posts even this bereft forum has produced - cheap and tatty!
Are you sure that isn't just your discomfort with some of the topics covered showing?
-
This from someone who has regularly used murder as a comparitor for homosexuality.
Selective memory there NS. I have never used murder as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. In fact, I have never used anything as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. What I have done is say that I believe the 'same-sex' sex to be wrong, in the same way that I believe many other forms of activity to be wrong. That includes lying, theft, fraud, rape, murder, paedophilia, deceit, slavery, etc.
-
::)
[/sup]pic=10205.msg516060#msg516060 date=1430319025]
This from someone who has regularly used murder as a comparitor for homosexuality.
Selective memory there NS. I have never used murder as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. In fact, I have never used anything as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. What I have done is say that I believe the 'same-sex' sex to be wrong, in the same way that I believe many other forms of activity to be wrong. That includes lying, theft, fraud, rape, murder, paedophilia, deceit, slavery, etc.
'Same way ' is a comparison So you have just done it again and proven my memory is not selective. Thank you.
-
'Same way ' is a comparison So you have just done it again and proven my memory is selective. Thank you.
Precisely, you have chosen to select a single, particularly unpleasant form of behaviour as a 'comparitor' (if that's the term you wish to use - it doesn't seem to appear in the Oxford Dictionary) to make me out to be something I am not. That is not only selective memory but selective posting as well. Furthermore, as I said before, I have never compared homosexuality to anything.
-
'Same way ' is a comparison So you have just done it again and proven my memory is selective. Thank you.
Precisely, you have chosen to select a single, particularly unpleasant form of behaviour as a 'comparitor' (if that's the term you wish to use - it doesn't seem to appear in the Oxford Dictionary) to make me out to be something I am not. That is not only selective memory but selective posting as well. Furthermore, as I said before, I have never compared homosexuality to anything.
You are saying you object to it in the SAME WAY. That is a comparison. It's the one you have made in the past and again here's. Further you have stated that all sins are equally bad. So it's both equal and offensive to you in the SAME WAY.
-
This from someone who has regularly used murder as a comparitor for homosexuality.
Selective memory there NS. I have never used murder as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. In fact, I have never used anything as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. What I have done is say that I believe the 'same-sex' sex to be wrong, in the same way that I believe many other forms of activity to be wrong. That includes lying, theft, fraud, rape, murder, paedophilia, deceit, slavery, etc.
You just shot yourself royally in the foot there, pal. ;) ;D ::)
Reread your 3rd sentence on to the end & then say they're not contradictory, I DARES YA !!!
-
This from someone who has regularly used murder as a comparitor for homosexuality.
Selective memory there NS. I have never used murder as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. In fact, I have never used anything as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. What I have done is say that I believe the 'same-sex' sex to be wrong, in the same way that I believe many other forms of activity to be wrong. That includes lying, theft, fraud, rape, murder, paedophilia, deceit, slavery, etc.
You just shot yourself royally in the foot there, pal. ;) ;D ::)
Reread your 3rd sentence on to the end & then say they're not contradictory, I DARES YA !!!
And furthermore as I understand it Sin is Sin - there are no gradations to a Christian, therefore they are equivalent in some peoples minds.
-
I have never used murder as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. In fact, I have never used anything as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. What I have done is say that I believe the 'same-sex' sex to be wrong, in the same way that I believe many other forms of activity to be wrong. That includes lying, theft, fraud, rape, murder, paedophilia, deceit, slavery, etc.
Was there no part of your mind screaming "DO NOT POST THIS"?
-
I have never used murder as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. In fact, I have never used anything as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. What I have done is say that I believe the 'same-sex' sex to be wrong, in the same way that I believe many other forms of activity to be wrong. That includes lying, theft, fraud, rape, murder, paedophilia, deceit, slavery, etc.
Was there no part of your mind screaming "DO NOT POST THIS"?
Unlikely.
-
This from someone who has regularly used murder as a comparitor for homosexuality.
Selective memory there NS. I have never used murder as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. In fact, I have never used anything as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. What I have done is say that I believe the 'same-sex' sex to be wrong, in the same way that I believe many other forms of activity to be wrong. That includes lying, theft, fraud, rape, murder, paedophilia, deceit, slavery, etc.
Well now ... if you ever had any sort of moral compass at some point, it's royally fucked now.
You very often find this with religion, of course.
-
And furthermore as I understand it Sin is Sin - there are no gradations to a Christian, therefore they are equivalent in some peoples minds.
Spot on. This is the, if you'll excuse the lack of a better term, moral system which treats merely thinking about someone lustfully as functionally equivalent to having sex with them. It really is an incredibly childish view of morality.
-
This from someone who has regularly used murder as a comparitor for homosexuality.
Selective memory there NS. I have never used murder as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. In fact, I have never used anything as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. What I have done is say that I believe the 'same-sex' sex to be wrong, in the same way that I believe many other forms of activity to be wrong. That includes lying, theft, fraud, rape, murder, paedophilia, deceit, slavery, etc.
I always thought that, despite my disagreement with many things the you have posted, you were an intelligent individual with an attachement to a religion with which I disagree.
This post, and your reaction to the condemnation that it has attracted, has made me seriously reconsider my vioew of you and your beliefs. You have in this post shown yourself to be an idiot who cannot understand the enormity of truly monstrous nature of what you have said.
-
Wot Matthew said.
-
What I have done is say that I believe the 'same-sex' sex to be wrong, in the same way that I believe many other forms of activity to be wrong. That includes lying, theft, fraud, rape, murder, paedophilia, deceit, slavery, etc.
I'm sure you regret having posted that, Hope, but just to put you right, all the 'other activities' you mention are decidedly antisocial and involve injuring the victim of the activity, and most of us would agree with you in considering them wrong.
However, Homosexual acts between consenting adults harms nobody.
THAT is why you are wrong.
-
Sometimes Homosexuality can harm others.
Usually because people feel the need to try and be someone else, but it doesn't work for them and years later they have to "come out"
I'm not sure if it takes someone that long to come to terms with who they are, or whether they just feel pressured to having a partner of the opposite sex and kids.
I wouldn't say it doesn't hurt anyone, because it can.
But some of that is probably down to people trying to conform to other people's ideals.
It must still hurt their original partners though.
I'm not sure what you mean exactly, Blossom, but obviously homosexual activity can on occasions do the same sort of damage as heterosexual activity can, but it is not wrong in itself.
-
Hi everyone,
I see that the discussion has moved on to necrophilia, bestiality, sex with machines and so on. And most people here don't seem to regard any of this as seriously wrong.
Well...I suppose if one believes that humans are mere accidental products of random gene variation and nothing more...it would seem that everyone is free to do what they want.... as long as it does not harm someone else...(there are courts you know!).
Atheism and such ultra liberal views obviously go hand in hand. (Could epigenetics be responsible for atheism...I wonder? That will be a different thread altogether I guess).
But if someone believes that life has a purpose, self control & discipline are important for spiritual growth and there is an absolute right & wrong....then, certain types of behavior that encourage lust and pleasure seeking for their own sake.....can be considered wrong.
Ok...getting back to my OP, though genes are now not considered responsible for homosexuality, epigenetics is probably the mechanism through which homosexuality gets generated. Homosexuals can claim that its all in the epigenes and they did not choose to be homosexuals.... so its not a sin. Seems reasonable.
However, religious people could also claim that though the homosexual himself did not choose his sexuality...its never the less a factor of the lifestyle of their parents or grandparents. So...something has gone awry somewhere!
The plus in all this is that if homosexuals choose to change their sexuality it probably can be done through epigenetic therapy...though its very early days yet.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/09/13692/
Here is an example, Leonard.
This women felt she was treated unfairly because her "husband" came out.
She felt being gay gave him rights a heterosexual man would not have received in the same circumstances.
Judges give weird decisions all the time; the same (and often more shocking) thing happens when one partner is left by someone who is staying in heterosexual relationships. And there are plenty of step parents who muscle in on the kids and freeze out the birth parents. As for the publicity, I'm afraid tgat speaks volumes about US society.
What hurts is being lied to, being deceived, and people in any kind of relationship do that, sadly.
-
This one has a variety of views including those of gay people in such circumstances.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/feb/20/coming-out-husband-wife
My point is that if your partner runs off with someone of the same sex, there is an extra judgment in society which isn't there, if they ran off with someone of a different sex.
There is an extra hurt there, related to the fact they are homosexual.
Why? I know someone this happened to; she said she felt less hurt than if he'd left for another woman because another woman could be prettier, thinner, younger - but she couldn't even begin to compare herself to a bloke.
The problem there is society's judgement of homosexuality, not homosexuality itself. It isn't gay people's fault if society judges them more harshly.
-
This from someone who has regularly used murder as a comparitor for homosexuality.
Selective memory there NS. I have never used murder as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. In fact, I have never used anything as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. What I have done is say that I believe the 'same-sex' sex to be wrong, in the same way that I believe many other forms of activity to be wrong. That includes lying, theft, fraud, rape, murder, paedophilia, deceit, slavery, etc.
You are comparing the same thing you are free to enjoy with your wife - sex and marriage - to all kinds of harmful, abusive, base behaviours. You seek to deny the right of two men or two women to declare and fulfil their love for one another in the name of the God of love. Do you not think that if this God exists then he is present in their love?
So where is your love? When you are judged (as you believe you one day will be) do you not think it better to stand before your God and say that you allowed gay relationships out of love than criminalised them in your mind out of devotion to some words in a book? The Bible's a book, Hope. It's man-made. And using it to condemn gay relationships is idolatry.
-
I'm not against same sex relationships btw.
I just feel that sometimes people's feelings are ignored if they don't make the right noises when it comes to discussions on it.
We all feel sorry for wronged spouses. It's the lying and deceit and unfaithfulness that is wrong though.
If society wasn't so set on what's 'normal' and what isn't we wouldn't have so many gay people denying who they are and entering into straight marriage in the first place.
-
Rhiannon
Leonard said
"However, Homosexual acts between consenting adults harms nobody."
People have different ideas on what constitutes "harm".
Some ex partners may feel it has caused them harm.
IMO Harm is largely subjective.
Therefore I think you can't make a general statement that homosexual acts between consenting adults hurts no one, unless you ignore the views of those who feel they have been "harmed".
Homosexual acts in and of themselves aren't harmful, unless you want to say that straight ones are too. Because any kind of sex, and any kind of relationship, can become damaging and abusive.
In itself, homosexuality is no more harmful than heterosexuality.
-
Fully agree with Rhiannon there and would just add I am not sure why the focus on homosexuals being in previously heterosexual relationships. It is just the same for homosexuals when their partners leave.
Homosexual relationships are just as odd, strange amazing and messy as heterosexual relationships but we don't suggest heterosexual acts in and of themselves are harmful.
-
Rose
Are you 'suggesting' gay relationships are more potentially harming than 'straight' ones?????
-
Rhiannon
Some actions seem to have more potential harm than others
The important words in your comment are "SEEM TO".
-
You are comparing the same thing you are free to enjoy with your wife - sex and marriage - to all kinds of harmful, abusive, base behaviours. You seek to deny the right of two men or two women to declare and fulfil their love for one another in the name of the God of love. Do you not think that if this God exists then he is present in their love?
Rhi (and NS, for that matter), I am not comparing same-sex sex to heterosexual sex at all. As someone who believes that humanity has been created with specific purposes in the mind of the Creator, I believe that same-sex sex runs counter to those purposes, in much the same way that things like illness, wrongdoing and disabilities - especially genetic ones - run counter to those purposes.
NS is determined that I should be seen as comparing behaviour X with behaviour Y by having them in the same list; when I mention you, Susan D, Gonners, NS, Shaker, Alien, Jim, Judder, Johnny Canoe, KO and, say, Humph in a list, am I necessarily comparing you all?
So where is your love? When you are judged (as you believe you one day will be) do you not think it better to stand before your God and say that you allowed gay relationships out of love than criminalised them in your mind out of devotion to some words in a book? The Bible's a book, Hope. It's man-made. And using it to condemn gay relationships is idolatry.
Love also challenges people and their behaviour - its called discipline and is just as much a part of love as the 'warm and cuddly' stuff that you are referring to here.
As for doing anything 'out of devotion to some words in a book', you seem to misunderstand Christianity. 'The book' has its value, in that it gives one guidelines as to how to understand the world, but - as you will be aware - different people interpret it in different ways. You get liberal theology from S. America which highlights the parts that refer to God's love for the poor, to prosperity theology from the States that highlights God's love for the wealthy and a host of 'theologies' in between. My relationship isn't with a set of printed material; it is with the Creator of this world.
-
Why leper and wiping out mankind?! That's a bit over the top. :D
Sriram, supporters of the liberalisation of attitudes to homosexual practice have always used hyperpole in order to make their view appear to be more moderate and therefore acceptable than that of those who disagree with them. Ironically, the suggestions for why people disagree are often so far from reality as to make one wonder what they really think behind the facade of liberalisation-speak.
Hope,
Yeah....I agree. Its their memes reacting to a perceived threat to their survival. They go ballistic!
Why people have a problem with a possible treatment for homosexuality I cant understand! These people probably picture themselves being dragged through the town bound in chains and then administered some injection against their will, as they are kicking and struggling...or some such thing. ::)
This thread is simply about the scientific reasons for homosexuality and a possible treatment. Nothing new about it. Such research has been going on for years. People should get used to it.
Some people claim that 'no one cares' for such treatment or some such rubbish. Thousands of mothers and fathers who see their sons/daughters struggling as homosexuals would surely care. It would be a 'God sent' for them.
And its not just the spiritual angle. Even from a purely evolutionary and survival point of view, every person wants his/her genes to be propagated through their children. Its a natural impulse. So..if they see their progeny merely bedding people for lust and not for children...its bound to be worrying.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
You are comparing the same thing you are free to enjoy with your wife - sex and marriage - to all kinds of harmful, abusive, base behaviours. You seek to deny the right of two men or two women to declare and fulfil their love for one another in the name of the God of love. Do you not think that if this God exists then he is present in their love?
Rhi (and NS, for that matter), I am not comparing same-sex sex to heterosexual sex at all. As someone who believes that humanity has been created with specific purposes in the mind of the Creator, I believe that same-sex sex runs counter to those purposes, in much the same way that things like illness, wrongdoing and disabilities - especially genetic ones - run counter to those purposes.
NS is determined that I should be seen as comparing behaviour X with behaviour Y by having them in the same list; when I mention you, Susan D, Gonners, NS, Shaker, Alien, Jim, Judder, Johnny Canoe, KO and, say, Humph in a list, am I necessarily comparing you all?
So where is your love? When you are judged (as you believe you one day will be) do you not think it better to stand before your God and say that you allowed gay relationships out of love than criminalised them in your mind out of devotion to some words in a book? The Bible's a book, Hope. It's man-made. And using it to condemn gay relationships is idolatry.
Love also challenges people and their behaviour - its called discipline and is just as much a part of love as the 'warm and cuddly' stuff that you are referring to here.
As for doing anything 'out of devotion to some words in a book', you seem to misunderstand Christianity. 'The book' has its value, in that it gives one guidelines as to how to understand the world, but - as you will be aware - different people interpret it in different ways. You get liberal theology from S. America which highlights the parts that refer to God's love for the poor, to prosperity theology from the States that highlights God's love for the wealthy and a host of 'theologies' in between. My relationship isn't with a set of printed material; it is with the Creator of this world.
Providing one is in a consensual adult relationship, gay or straight, and not cheating on a partner that is up to the people involved. If the deity doesn't like that it can stick where the sun don't shine, right up its bottom! ;D
-
Hope, If you just make a list of x, y, z, it is not clear that you are comparing things but when you make a list and say that they are offensive in the SAME WAY, it is clear you are comparing things. Further as when you have stated in the past that all sins, as you see them are equally as bad, given the two statements, then you are stating that homosexual acts are offensive in the same way as murder and equally as bad.
-
Why leper and wiping out mankind?! That's a bit over the top. :D
Sriram, supporters of the liberalisation of attitudes to homosexual practice have always used hyperpole in order to make their view appear to be more moderate and therefore acceptable than that of those who disagree with them. Ironically, the suggestions for why people disagree are often so far from reality as to make one wonder what they really think behind the facade of liberalisation-speak.
Hope,
Yeah....I agree. Its their memes reacting to a perceived threat to their survival. They go ballistic!
Why people have a problem with a possible treatment for homosexuality I cant understand! These people probably picture themselves being dragged through the town bound in chains and then administered some injection against their will, as they are kicking and struggling...or some such thing. ::)
This thread is simply about the scientific reasons for homosexuality and a possible treatment. Nothing new about it. Such research has been going on for years. People should get used to it.
Some people claim that 'no one cares' for such treatment or some such rubbish. Thousands of mothers and fathers who see their sons/daughters struggling as homosexuals would surely care. It would be a 'God sent' for them.
And its not just the spiritual angle. Even from a purely evolutionary and survival point of view, every person wants his/her genes to be propagated through their children. Its a natural impulse. So..if they see their progeny merely bedding people for lust and not for children...its bound to be worrying.
Cheers.
Sriram
Can I just check what you are saying here, are you suggesting that should a minor state they felt same sex attraction, their parents could take the child for 'epigenetic therapy'?
-
Rhiannon
Some actions seem to have more potential harm than others
Of course they do.
But are you saying that homosexual acts are intrinsically more harmful than hetero? On what basis?
-
#157 Hope, you cannot dismiss love as 'warm and cuddly'. Is that your experience of family life? Is that your experience of responding to those in need with love?
What 'plan' does God have for us that puts gay relationships on the same footing as illness and disabilities?
If your God is really telling you that this is how the world is then it seems you have made him in your own image and to suit your own prejudices.
-
Sometimes Homosexuality can harm others.
Usually because people feel the need to try and be someone else, but it doesn't work for them and years later they have to "come out"
I'm not sure if it takes someone that long to come to terms with who they are, or whether they just feel pressured to having a partner of the opposite sex and kids.
I wouldn't say it doesn't hurt anyone, because it can.
But some of that is probably down to people trying to conform to other people's ideals.
It must still hurt their original partners though.
I have heard of cases where it is amicable but it is still considered a reflection of the "other half " if your husband/wife takes off with someone of the same sex.
It implies in some ways you weren't good enough.
That really is not homosexuality hurting other people - it is societal attitudes to homosexuality hurting other people.
-
Hope,
Yeah....I agree. Its their memes reacting to a perceived threat to their survival. They go ballistic!
Why people have a problem with a possible treatment for homosexuality I cant understand! These people probably picture themselves being dragged through the town bound in chains and then administered some injection against their will, as they are kicking and struggling...or some such thing. ::)
This thread is simply about the scientific reasons for homosexuality and a possible treatment. Nothing new about it. Such research has been going on for years. People should get used to it.
Some people claim that 'no one cares' for such treatment or some such rubbish. Thousands of mothers and fathers who see their sons/daughters struggling as homosexuals would surely care. It would be a 'God sent' for them.
And its not just the spiritual angle. Even from a purely evolutionary and survival point of view, every person wants his/her genes to be propagated through their children. Its a natural impulse. So..if they see their progeny merely bedding people for lust and not for children...its bound to be worrying.
Cheers.
Sriram
Can I just check what you are saying here, are you suggesting that should a minor state they felt same sex attraction, their parents could take the child for 'epigenetic therapy'?
If the treatment was safe and effective...yes...of course. If a safe, effective and affordable treatment was readily available...I bet you would get your son/daughter treated, if they showed homosexual tendencies. So would most others.
Most people might get all indignant about it now....but in a real situation they would also opt for it. Where is the doubt?! The instinct for procreation and survival of ones genes is very strong you realize?!
People have no option now so they are making the most of bad situation by telling themselves that its all 'love', diversity etc. That is all.
-
Hope,
Yeah....I agree. Its their memes reacting to a perceived threat to their survival. They go ballistic!
Why people have a problem with a possible treatment for homosexuality I cant understand! These people probably picture themselves being dragged through the town bound in chains and then administered some injection against their will, as they are kicking and struggling...or some such thing. ::)
This thread is simply about the scientific reasons for homosexuality and a possible treatment. Nothing new about it. Such research has been going on for years. People should get used to it.
Some people claim that 'no one cares' for such treatment or some such rubbish. Thousands of mothers and fathers who see their sons/daughters struggling as homosexuals would surely care. It would be a 'God sent' for them.
And its not just the spiritual angle. Even from a purely evolutionary and survival point of view, every person wants his/her genes to be propagated through their children. Its a natural impulse. So..if they see their progeny merely bedding people for lust and not for children...its bound to be worrying.
Cheers.
Sriram
Can I just check what you are saying here, are you suggesting that should a minor state they felt same sex attraction, their parents could take the child for 'epigenetic therapy'?
If the treatment was safe and effective...yes...of course. If a safe, effective and affordable treatment was readily available...I bet you would get your son/daughter treated, if they showed homosexual tendencies. So would most others.
Most people might get all indignant about it now....but in a real situation they would also opt for it. Where is the doubt?! The instinct for procreation and survival of ones genes is very strong you realize?!
People have no option now so they are making the most of bad situation by telling themselves that its all 'love', diversity etc. That is all.
If I wanted my kid treated for heterosexuality and cured, would that be ok?
-
# 165 Sriram,
Er, no. I have three children and their sexuality as they grow up is irrelevant to me. All I want is for them to feel happy in their own skin; seeking 'treatment' for something that doesn't need treating is setting them up for problems that can last a lifetime. It reminds me of the children - often girls- who get dragged off to slimming clubs and who end up with disordered eating.
I hope that as my children grow and form their own relationships that they will be fair, honest and equal in their dealings with others; the gender of those they fall in love with is irrelevant to me.
-
Hi everyone,
I see that the discussion has moved on to necrophilia, bestiality, sex with machines and so on. And most people here don't seem to regard any of this as seriously wrong.
Well...I suppose if one believes that humans are mere accidental products of random gene variation and nothing more...it would seem that everyone is free to do what they want.... as long as it does not harm someone else...(there are courts you know!).
Atheism and such ultra liberal views obviously go hand in hand. (Could epigenetics be responsible for atheism...I wonder? That will be a different thread altogether I guess).
But if someone believes that life has a purpose, self control & discipline are important for spiritual growth and there is an absolute right & wrong....then, certain types of behavior that encourage lust and pleasure seeking for their own sake.....can be considered wrong.
Ok...getting back to my OP, though genes are now not considered responsible for homosexuality, epigenetics is probably the mechanism through which homosexuality gets generated. Homosexuals can claim that its all in the epigenes and they did not choose to be homosexuals.... so its not a sin. Seems reasonable.
However, religious people could also claim that though the homosexual himself did not choose his sexuality...its never the less a factor of the lifestyle of their parents or grandparents. So...something has gone awry somewhere!
The plus in all this is that if homosexuals choose to change their sexuality it probably can be done through epigenetic therapy...though its very early days yet.
Cheers.
Sriram
This is all still BS, results of mixing up different fields in an irrational, subjective way. The cause of "homosexuality" is not related to whether it is morally wrong or right or to any spiritual destination.
Homosexuality itself is not a binary on/off state. No doubt genetics, epigenetics and other environmental factors are involved - but this provides for a wide range of sexual preferences and behaviours including heterosexual ones. The science (facts and rules) that determine sexuality and might help us control it, will remain the same whether we know what they are or not - knowing what they are does not help us in trying to decide whether we can "choose" our sexuality or whether one "choice" is right or not. What if the excessive spiritual obsession of grandparents or parents was the factor that caused set the epigenetic switches that resulted in homosexual behaviours?
You have fixed ideas of what your spiritual destination is, which excludes gay relationships - but who are you to pass judgement on anyone else's spiritual destination or path of growth? Maybe God's plan is to end with the complete human population composed of gay muslims?
-
Good post, Udayana.
-
Hope,
Yeah....I agree. Its their memes reacting to a perceived threat to their survival. They go ballistic!
Why people have a problem with a possible treatment for homosexuality I cant understand! These people probably picture themselves being dragged through the town bound in chains and then administered some injection against their will, as they are kicking and struggling...or some such thing. ::)
This thread is simply about the scientific reasons for homosexuality and a possible treatment. Nothing new about it. Such research has been going on for years. People should get used to it.
Some people claim that 'no one cares' for such treatment or some such rubbish. Thousands of mothers and fathers who see their sons/daughters struggling as homosexuals would surely care. It would be a 'God sent' for them.
And its not just the spiritual angle. Even from a purely evolutionary and survival point of view, every person wants his/her genes to be propagated through their children. Its a natural impulse. So..if they see their progeny merely bedding people for lust and not for children...its bound to be worrying.
Cheers.
Sriram
Can I just check what you are saying here, are you suggesting that should a minor state they felt same sex attraction, their parents could take the child for 'epigenetic therapy'?
If the treatment was safe and effective...yes...of course. If a safe, effective and affordable treatment was readily available...I bet you would get your son/daughter treated, if they showed homosexual tendencies. So would most others.
Most people might get all indignant about it now....but in a real situation they would also opt for it. Where is the doubt?! The instinct for procreation and survival of ones genes is very strong you realize?!
People have no option now so they are making the most of bad situation by telling themselves that its all 'love', diversity etc. That is all.
If I wanted my kid treated for heterosexuality and cured, would that be ok?
That's your problem. Why are you asking me? Please get them converted to homosexuals....by all means. How they would react later...don't ask me again.
-
...
If I wanted my kid treated for heterosexuality and cured, would that be ok?
Indians, as they are going, would mostly choose male children, so with the resulting imbalance choosing to have them be gay would probably be best for their long term mental health.
-
Hope,
Yeah....I agree. Its their memes reacting to a perceived threat to their survival. They go ballistic!
Why people have a problem with a possible treatment for homosexuality I cant understand! These people probably picture themselves being dragged through the town bound in chains and then administered some injection against their will, as they are kicking and struggling...or some such thing. ::)
This thread is simply about the scientific reasons for homosexuality and a possible treatment. Nothing new about it. Such research has been going on for years. People should get used to it.
Some people claim that 'no one cares' for such treatment or some such rubbish. Thousands of mothers and fathers who see their sons/daughters struggling as homosexuals would surely care. It would be a 'God sent' for them.
And its not just the spiritual angle. Even from a purely evolutionary and survival point of view, every person wants his/her genes to be propagated through their children. Its a natural impulse. So..if they see their progeny merely bedding people for lust and not for children...its bound to be worrying.
Cheers.
Sriram
Can I just check what you are saying here, are you suggesting that should a minor state they felt same sex attraction, their parents could take the child for 'epigenetic therapy'?
If the treatment was safe and effective...yes...of course. If a safe, effective and affordable treatment was readily available...I bet you would get your son/daughter treated, if they showed homosexual tendencies. So would most others.
Most people might get all indignant about it now....but in a real situation they would also opt for it. Where is the doubt?! The instinct for procreation and survival of ones genes is very strong you realize?!
People have no option now so they are making the most of bad situation by telling themselves that its all 'love', diversity etc. That is all.
If I wanted my kid treated for heterosexuality and cured, would that be ok?
That's your problem. Why are you asking me? Please get them converted to homosexuals....by all means. How they would react later...don't ask me again.
I am asking you since you spent quite a lot of time stating what I was likely to do. Personally I would let my kids be what they were rather than imposing my idea of what their sexuality would be.
As a follow up if through a form of therapy epigenetic or otherwise, you were the parent of a girl, and you could choose to change her sex to male, would you?
-
LOL! It gets stupider by the minute just to score a point! You (and Udayana) are again digressing as a defense mechanism. It happens every single time with you and Udayana and Jakswan and OB and Prof W (though he is missing). It never fails! :D
Fine.... if you don't want to change your children. Its nobody's problem but yours and them.
But don't speak for the millions of other people around the world who actually wish their child would be normal and marry and have children. If they had an option...they would choose it. You are no one to say that they shouldn't.
-
Hi everyone,
Ok....the subject of homosexuality is always controversial and lots of people tend to get all charged up. This could be one such...(or maybe not).
Here is my favorite subject of epignetics again. They say that homosexuality could even be cured through epigenetic therapy.
Alright...some people may feel that homosexuality is not...repeat not... a disease and does not need to be cured! But I tend to disagree.
Here is some scientific stuff on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_theories_of_homosexuality
************************************************************************************
Epigenetic theories of homosexuality concerns the study of changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence.
One team of researchers examined the effects of epi-marks buffering XX fetuses and XY fetuses from certain androgen exposure and used published data on fetal androgen signaling and gene regulation through non-genetic changes in DNA packaging to develop a new model for homosexuality.[2] The researchers found that stronger than average epi-marks, epigenomes that are wrapped tightly around the DNA sequence, convert sexual preference in individuals without altering genitalia or sexual identity.[3]
This research gives support to the hypothesis that homosexuality stems from the under expression of certain genes on the DNA sequence involved with sexual preferences. This theory as well as other concepts involved with epi-marks, twin studies, and fetal androgen signaling will be explored here.
A "gay" gene does not produce homosexuality, rather, epigenetic modifications act as temporary "switches" that regulate how the genes are expressed[7] Only twenty percent of identical twins are both homosexual which leads to the hypothesis that even though identical twins share the same DNA, homosexuality is created by something else rather than the genes. Epigenetic transformation allows the on and off switch of certain genes, subsequently shaping how cells respond to androgen signaling, which is critical in sexual development.
This demonstrates that gene coding for these epi-marks can spread in the population because they benefit the development and fitness of the parent but only rarely escape erasure, leading to mismatched sexual preference in offspring.
Following a late 2012 publication on possible epigenetic origins of homosexuality,[10] some people[who?] have suggested that it might be possible to alter one's sexual orientation with epigenetic therapy,[11] similarly to treatment of diabetes, cancer or schizophrenia.
************************************************************************************
This also highlights the fact that lifestyle and environmental factors (that's what epigenetics is all about) could be producing homosexual tendencies.
For information.
Cheers.
Sriram
Why on earth would you want to 'cure' sexuality even if it were possible.
This is a bit like to old fashioned and highly damaging view that left handed people should be taught to be right handed.
-
LOL! It gets stupider by the minute just to score a point! You (and Udayana) are again digressing as a defense mechanism. It happens every single time with you and Udayana and Jakswan and OB and Prof W (though he is missing). It never fails! :D
Fine.... if you don't want to change your children. Its nobody's problem but yours and them.
But don't speak for the millions of other people around the world who actually wish their child would be normal and marry and have children. If they had an option...they would choose it. You are no one to say that they shouldn't.
There you go again, Sriram, talking about 'normal'. What is 'normal'? And what right to parents have to impose their view of 'normal' on their children? Anyone would think the only purpose of having kids was to make their parents look good in the eyes of others.
-
But don't speak for the millions of other people around the world who actually wish their child would be normal and marry and have children. If they had an option...they would choose it. You are no one to say that they shouldn't.
Note my emphasis.
Why on earth is being gay not normal. It is perfectly normal as far as I am concerned.
Sure we allow parents a very significant level of freedom in how they bring up their children, but not complete freedom as society has a right (really a duty) to step in if the approach of parents to their children is damaging or abusive. To try to force your child to be a different sexuality than they actually are is, in my view, highly abusive.
-
LOL! It gets stupider by the minute just to score a point! You (and Udayana) are again digressing as a defense mechanism. It happens every single time with you and Udayana and Jakswan and OB and Prof W (though he is missing). It never fails! :D
Fine.... if you don't want to change your children. Its nobody's problem but yours and them.
But don't speak for the millions of other people around the world who actually wish their child would be normal and marry and have children. If they had an option...they would choose it. You are no one to say that they shouldn't.
I am just trying to find out what your ideas are - if you don't want to answer, that's ok.
As to who am I to say what parents should be able to do, only the same person that might have a personal opinion on the rights of the child being equal to the parent in this case. If I could epigentically change my child to being an atheist and a liberal, I don't think I should be allowed to. Same for sexuality.
-
Re treatments for homosexuality/heterosexuality
Probably such treatments, if they become possible, before the age of consent would be illegal as against children's rights - but compare with legislation on choosing genetic characteristics or sex change/modification treatments.
I've little doubt a huge range of genetic engineering, treatments and options will become possible but sad to see that very little has been done to set up safety and ethical frameworks within which they can be handled. This is so even for GM foods which are now becoming widespread.
-
Indeed, Udayana, though part of the issue is that science is a quicker and less predictable discipline than law. It's not possible, I would suggest, to put in place appropriate legislation before we encounter some of the the issues. We try to modulate scientific advancement and I think sometimes are overly worried about unknown unknowns rather than professing on the known unknowns.
-
Wow, epigenetic engineering of children. Completely insane. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
-
Hi everyone,
I see that the discussion has moved on to necrophilia, bestiality, sex with machines and so on. And most people here don't seem to regard any of this as seriously wrong.
Well...I suppose if one believes that humans are mere accidental products of random gene variation and nothing more...it would seem that everyone is free to do what they want.... as long as it does not harm someone else...(there are courts you know!).
Atheism and such ultra liberal views obviously go hand in hand. (Could epigenetics be responsible for atheism...I wonder? That will be a different thread altogether I guess).
But if someone believes that life has a purpose, self control & discipline are important for spiritual growth and there is an absolute right & wrong....then, certain types of behavior that encourage lust and pleasure seeking for their own sake.....can be considered wrong.
Ok...getting back to my OP, though genes are now not considered responsible for homosexuality, epigenetics is probably the mechanism through which homosexuality gets generated. Homosexuals can claim that its all in the epigenes and they did not choose to be homosexuals.... so its not a sin. Seems reasonable.
However, religious people could also claim that though the homosexual himself did not choose his sexuality...its never the less a factor of the lifestyle of their parents or grandparents. So...something has gone awry somewhere!
The plus in all this is that if homosexuals choose to change their sexuality it probably can be done through epigenetic therapy...though its very early days yet.
Cheers.
Sriram
This is all still BS, results of mixing up different fields in an irrational, subjective way. The cause of "homosexuality" is not related to whether it is morally wrong or right or to any spiritual destination.
Homosexuality itself is not a binary on/off state. No doubt genetics, epigenetics and other environmental factors are involved - but this provides for a wide range of sexual preferences and behaviours including heterosexual ones. The science (facts and rules) that determine sexuality and might help us control it, will remain the same whether we know what they are or not - knowing what they are does not help us in trying to decide whether we can "choose" our sexuality or whether one "choice" is right or not. What if the excessive spiritual obsession of grandparents or parents was the factor that caused set the epigenetic switches that resulted in homosexual behaviours?
You have fixed ideas of what your spiritual destination is, which excludes gay relationships - but who are you to pass judgement on anyone else's spiritual destination or path of growth? Maybe God's plan is to end with the complete human population composed of gay muslims?
Damn good post - ESPECIALLY te last paragraph!
-
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/09/13692/
Here is an example, Leonard.
This women felt she was treated unfairly because her "husband" came out.
She felt being gay gave him rights a heterosexual man would not have received in the same circumstances.
I see entirely what you are getting at, but you are talking about a different thing. You are talking about other behaviour, not homosexuality.
Of course the gay man and the judge were in the wrong ... he was the one that was breaking up the marriage, and should not have been awarded anything but a divorce. His own actions sacrificed his right to the children.
I'm sure you can see this difference ... in the sense that it is no different from hetero breakups and squabbles about custody.
-
Len, nothing the man has done takes away the children's right to a relationship with their father. The law has changed in the UK now so that whatever the 'wrong' parent had done, both are entitled to a comparable family home from the proceeds of the house sale, even if it means the resident parent radically having to downsize.
-
In terms of the blog presented by Rose, it is one sides view. I don't have reason to accept it true, and given the writer campaigns against gay marriage, it may be biased.
-
Len, nothing the man has done takes away the children's right to a relationship with their father. The law has changed in the UK now so that whatever the 'wrong' parent had done, both are entitled to a comparable family home from the proceeds of the house sale, even if it means the resident parent radically having to downsize.
I agree with that. If the children want a relationship with their father, it must be allowed ... but they should remain in the custody of the mother, the injured party. If the law says otherwise it is an ass.
-
In terms of the blog presented by Rose, it is one sides view. I don't have reason to accept it true, and given the writer campaigns against gay marriage, it may be biased.
Yes, indeed! We don't know exactly what sort of person she is, or the home she is able to offer.
-
In terms of the blog presented by Rose, it is one sides view. I don't have reason to accept it true, and given the writer campaigns against gay marriage, it may be biased.
Yes, indeed! We don't know exactly what sort of person she is, or the home she is able to offer.
There is and has always been a percentage of people we now refer to as gay, it is normal to have this percentage, therefore it's normal to be a gay person that would be representing a part of this normal occurrence.
The actual percentage whatever it is isn't relevant, the principle remains.
I despair of the discrimination, bigotry and general ignorance that gets rolled out whenever and where ever this subject is discussed.
The sheer stupidity of the religious ideas about homosexuality makes me wonder about the sanity of those of you that go along with them.
ippy
-
I think some Christians like to use the not so good book as an excuse for their bigotry, but they would be bigoted anyway, Bible or no Bible!
-
Hi everyone,
Suddenly its all about defining 'normal'. That's a laugh. Just because some of you keep repeating 'homosexuality is normal'.....'sure its normal'...'of course its normal'....it does not become normal! It is an abnormality and most people around the world think so. And .....before you rush into emotional hyperbole..... that's not the same as condemning homosexuals.
Ok...if their children happen to be gay..people will obviously put up with it and reconcile to the claim that it is 'normal. But if there is a sure way out of it...they would surely prefer to go for it.
Some of you may claim under today's circumstances that you will prefer your children not to change. But if the option is made available....how it will effect peoples preferences cannot be foreseen today. Many homosexuals themselves may prefer to get treated.
Secondly...assuming the option is available....you people are objecting to parents choosing to get their children treated! You actually want the administration to step in and stop the parents! LOL! This is unbelievable.
Ok...I am done for the day.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
Suddenly its all about defining 'normal'. That's a laugh. Just because some of you keep repeating 'homosexuality is normal'.....'sure its normal'...'of course its normal'....it does not become normal! It is an abnormality and most people around the world think so. And .....before you rush into emotional hyperbole..... that's not the same as condemning homosexuals.
Ok...if their children happen to be gay..people will obviously put up with it and reconcile to the claim that it is 'normal. But if there is a sure way out of it...they would surely prefer to go for it.
Some of you may claim under today's circumstances that you will prefer your children not to change. But if the option is made available....how it will effect peoples preferences cannot be foreseen today. Many homosexuals themselves may prefer to get treated.
Secondly...assuming the option is available....you people are objecting to parents choosing to get their children treated! You actually want the administration to step in and stop the parents! LOL! This is unbelievable.
Ok...I am done for the day.
Cheers.
Sriram
BIGOT. Is being left handed abnormal?
-
In HIS opinion & POV, most definately YES ?!!?!?!?!?!
<Ok...if their children happen to be gay..people will obviously put up with it and reconcile to the claim that it is 'normal. But if there is a sure way out of it...they would surely prefer to go for it.>
Put up with it???? Maybe they can find out this 'gay gene' & destroy the foetus before it's born.
Having some PERSONAL problems, are we, Sriram???
-
Hi everyone,
Suddenly its all about defining 'normal'. That's a laugh. Just because some of you keep repeating 'homosexuality is normal'.....'sure its normal'...'of course its normal'....it does not become normal! It is an abnormality and most people around the world think so. And .....before you rush into emotional hyperbole..... that's not the same as condemning homosexuals.
Ok...if their children happen to be gay..people will obviously put up with it and reconcile to the claim that it is 'normal. But if there is a sure way out of it...they would surely prefer to go for it.
Some of you may claim under today's circumstances that you will prefer your children not to change. But if the option is made available....how it will effect peoples preferences cannot be foreseen today. Many homosexuals themselves may prefer to get treated.
Secondly...assuming the option is available....you people are objecting to parents choosing to get their children treated! You actually want the administration to step in and stop the parents! LOL! This is unbelievable.
Ok...I am done for the day.
Cheers.
Sriram
A lady on "COUNTDOWN" came up with an eight letter word that fits you to a T! Another item in common usage also aptly describes you - "Swizzel Stick"!
You are also sounding very much like the late and unlamented Recondite Revenant!
-
<Many homosexuals themselves may prefer to get treated.>
Well do you know why some 'might'??? Cos of people like you treating them like a disease!!
<you people are objecting to parents choosing to get their children treated! You actually want the administration to step in and stop the parents!>
MMM We could well apply this to female infanticide, no??? And why not as THEIR parents might not want a female child !!
-
Len, nothing the man has done takes away the children's right to a relationship with their father. The law has changed in the UK now so that whatever the 'wrong' parent had done, both are entitled to a comparable family home from the proceeds of the house sale, even if it means the resident parent radically having to downsize.
I agree with that. If the children want a relationship with their father, it must be allowed ... but they should remain in the custody of the mother, the injured party. If the law says otherwise it is an ass.
I don't think the law does or should define custody of the children as a kind of consolation prize for being the injured party in a divorce. The law decides on custody in the best interests of the children, not of the parents.
There are countless examples of situations where a woman has been the one who is unfaithful and, therefore, by your definition the man is the injured party, but the woman is granted custody of the children. I can think of three or four examples in my own sphere of friends or family.
Actually what this articles indicates to me is not bias due to sexuality but an assumption of bias in favour of one gender, i.e. a default that the mother always gets custody of the children.
So I wonder whether there would be the same publicity if it was the woman who broke up the marriage by having an affair (whether heterosexual or homosexual) yet was granted custody of the children. I doubt it.
-
Hi everyone,
Suddenly its all about defining 'normal'. That's a laugh. Just because some of you keep repeating 'homosexuality is normal'.....'sure its normal'...'of course its normal'....it does not become normal! It is an abnormality and most people around the world think so. And .....before you rush into emotional hyperbole..... that's not the same as condemning homosexuals.
Ok...if their children happen to be gay..people will obviously put up with it and reconcile to the claim that it is 'normal. But if there is a sure way out of it...they would surely prefer to go for it.
Some of you may claim under today's circumstances that you will prefer your children not to change. But if the option is made available....how it will effect peoples preferences cannot be foreseen today. Many homosexuals themselves may prefer to get treated.
Secondly...assuming the option is available....you people are objecting to parents choosing to get their children treated! You actually want the administration to step in and stop the parents! LOL! This is unbelievable.
Ok...I am done for the day.
Cheers.
Sriram
Well unless you are prepared to define normal in an objective manner that can be held up to scrutiny and tested by other examples (such as handedness, church-going etc, etc) your posts are simply hot air.
So come on then, what is your definition of 'normal' that excludes being gay, but includes being left-handed or church-going or any other attribute, feature or preference that you care to mention.
-
PD, further than that .. even if you consider something to be not normal (abnormal) what on earth is the problem with that? Human society only works because everyone is different and change is ubiquitous.
-
I am struggling with Sriram wanting to discuss people rather than ideas here. As noted would it be right if I could epigenetically chose my child's religion or lack of it? How about their politics? Say I could choose to make my child a necrophiliac Nazi with a predisposition for the musicals of Andrew Lloyd Webber? By Sriram' s position it would appear fine for me to do so.
-
PD, further than that .. even if you consider something to be not normal (abnormal) what on earth is the problem with that? Human society only works because everyone is different and change is ubiquitous.
Agreed, but you still need to define what you mean by normal.
Siriam's problem is that he fails to define it in objective terms, but that makes an assumption that not normal (in his not defined way) wham relating to homosexuality really means 'wrong'.
-
Len, nothing the man has done takes away the children's right to a relationship with their father. The law has changed in the UK now so that whatever the 'wrong' parent had done, both are entitled to a comparable family home from the proceeds of the house sale, even if it means the resident parent radically having to downsize.
I agree with that. If the children want a relationship with their father, it must be allowed ... but they should remain in the custody of the mother, the injured party. If the law says otherwise it is an ass.
I don't think the law does or should define custody of the children as a kind of consolation prize for being the injured party in a divorce. The law decides on custody in the best interests of the children, not of the parents.
There are countless examples of situations where a woman has been the one who is unfaithful and, therefore, by your definition the man is the injured party, but the woman is granted custody of the children. I can think of three or four examples in my own sphere of friends or family.
Actually what this articles indicates to me is not bias due to sexuality but an assumption of bias in favour of one gender, i.e. a default that the mother always gets custody of the children.
So I wonder whether there would be the same publicity if it was the woman who broke up the marriage by having an affair (whether heterosexual or homosexual) yet was granted custody of the children. I doubt it.
Custody of the children should not depend on the financial position of the home they are going to ... with the proviso that they are well-fed and cared for, and the atmosphere in the home is one of love. Simply giving them to better off parent is not, imo, the way to go.
-
Len, nothing the man has done takes away the children's right to a relationship with their father. The law has changed in the UK now so that whatever the 'wrong' parent had done, both are entitled to a comparable family home from the proceeds of the house sale, even if it means the resident parent radically having to downsize.
I agree with that. If the children want a relationship with their father, it must be allowed ... but they should remain in the custody of the mother, the injured party. If the law says otherwise it is an ass.
I don't think the law does or should define custody of the children as a kind of consolation prize for being the injured party in a divorce. The law decides on custody in the best interests of the children, not of the parents.
There are countless examples of situations where a woman has been the one who is unfaithful and, therefore, by your definition the man is the injured party, but the woman is granted custody of the children. I can think of three or four examples in my own sphere of friends or family.
Actually what this articles indicates to me is not bias due to sexuality but an assumption of bias in favour of one gender, i.e. a default that the mother always gets custody of the children.
So I wonder whether there would be the same publicity if it was the woman who broke up the marriage by having an affair (whether heterosexual or homosexual) yet was granted custody of the children. I doubt it.
Custody of the children should not depend on the financial position of the home they are going to ... with the proviso that they are well-fed and cared for, and the atmosphere in the home is one of love. Simply giving them to better off parent is not, imo, the way to go.
I don't think I ever mentioned finance, did I?
I said that the best interests of the children was what should determine who has custody. That in no way implies that they should end up with the parent with the most disposable income. That would also be non-sensical in a world where child maintenance is expected from the parent who may not be the one actively looking after the kids. So both parents are expected to contribute to the children financially after divorce. So the financial situation post divorce should reflect the overall financial position of the couple who have now divorced.
-
Hi everyone,
Suddenly its all about defining 'normal'. That's a laugh. Just because some of you keep repeating 'homosexuality is normal'.....'sure its normal'...'of course its normal'....it does not become normal! It is an abnormality and most people around the world think so. And .....before you rush into emotional hyperbole..... that's not the same as condemning homosexuals.
Ok...if their children happen to be gay..people will obviously put up with it and reconcile to the claim that it is 'normal. But if there is a sure way out of it...they would surely prefer to go for it.
Some of you may claim under today's circumstances that you will prefer your children not to change. But if the option is made available....how it will effect peoples preferences cannot be foreseen today. Many homosexuals themselves may prefer to get treated.
Secondly...assuming the option is available....you people are objecting to parents choosing to get their children treated! You actually want the administration to step in and stop the parents! LOL! This is unbelievable.
Ok...I am done for the day.
Cheers.
Sriram
So there isn't a percentage of homosexual people in every population all over the world?
ippy
-
Why does Sriram think parents have final & TOTAL control over their kids ?????
It's a small step then to child abuse, no?
-
I am struggling with Sriram wanting to discuss people rather than ideas here. As noted would it be right if I could epigenetically chose my child's religion or lack of it? How about their politics? Say I could choose to make my child a necrophiliac Nazi with a predisposition for the musicals of Andrew Lloyd Webber? By Sriram' s position it would appear fine for me to do so.
What a bastard.
ippy
-
Hi everyone,
Suddenly its all about defining 'normal'. That's a laugh. Just because some of you keep repeating 'homosexuality is normal'.....'sure its normal'...'of course its normal'....it does not become normal! It is an abnormality and most people around the world think so. And .....before you rush into emotional hyperbole..... that's not the same as condemning homosexuals.
Ok...if their children happen to be gay..people will obviously put up with it and reconcile to the claim that it is 'normal. But if there is a sure way out of it...they would surely prefer to go for it.
Some of you may claim under today's circumstances that you will prefer your children not to change. But if the option is made available....how it will effect peoples preferences cannot be foreseen today. Many homosexuals themselves may prefer to get treated.
Secondly...assuming the option is available....you people are objecting to parents choosing to get their children treated! You actually want the administration to step in and stop the parents! LOL! This is unbelievable.
Ok...I am done for the day.
Cheers.
Sriram
You still haven't defined 'normal'. If you mean in mathematical terms, then no, homosexuality isn't 'normal'; nor is being left handed, being particularly gifted etc. But they are normal variations in humans - homosexuality is something that has been observed in humans for thousands of years. So this does make being gay a naturally occurring human state and nothing to freak out about. The only reason anyone struggles with being gay is because of the cultural pressures put in them, often from within their own family who are too weak to stand up for their children and instead want them to conform.
Before you so smugly declare that parents who want 'correction' for their children know best, read Naz and Matt's story.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/mar/21/my-boyfriend-killed-himself-because-his-family-couldnt-accept-that-he-was-gay
http://www.nazandmattfoundation.org
-
This from someone who has regularly used murder as a comparitor for homosexuality.
Selective memory there NS. I have never used murder as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. In fact, I have never used anything as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. What I have done is say that I believe the 'same-sex' sex to be wrong, in the same way that I believe many other forms of activity to be wrong. That includes lying, theft, fraud, rape, murder, paedophilia, deceit, slavery, etc.
You just shot yourself royally in the foot there, pal. ;) ;D ::)
Reread your 3rd sentence on to the end & then say they're not contradictory, I DARES YA !!!
And furthermore as I understand it Sin is Sin - there are no gradations to a Christian, therefore they are equivalent in some peoples minds.
Sin Is sin and we have all fallen short.
The judgmental Christian is a much loved antitheist lie.
Todays secular Britain lives on judgment and fault finding,
Gradation of sin is a secular invention designed to make people feel better about themselves.
The result of this is a sniffy attitude to the poor and disabled as evidenced by....well the reality of secular Britain.
-
This from someone who has regularly used murder as a comparitor for homosexuality.
Selective memory there NS. I have never used murder as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. In fact, I have never used anything as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. What I have done is say that I believe the 'same-sex' sex to be wrong, in the same way that I believe many other forms of activity to be wrong. That includes lying, theft, fraud, rape, murder, paedophilia, deceit, slavery, etc.
You just shot yourself royally in the foot there, pal. ;) ;D ::)
Reread your 3rd sentence on to the end & then say they're not contradictory, I DARES YA !!!
And furthermore as I understand it Sin is Sin - there are no gradations to a Christian, therefore they are equivalent in some peoples minds.
Sin Is sin and we have all fallen short.
The judgmental Christian is a much loved antitheist lie.
Todays secular Britain lives on judgment and fault finding,
Gradation of sin is a secular invention designed to make people feel better about themselves.
The result of this is a sniffy attitude to the poor and disabled as evidenced by....well the reality of secular Britain.
So do you put monogamous, respectful, loving, sexually active gay relationships in the 'sin' bracket then? On what basis?
-
This from someone who has regularly used murder as a comparitor for homosexuality.
Selective memory there NS. I have never used murder as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. In fact, I have never used anything as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. What I have done is say that I believe the 'same-sex' sex to be wrong, in the same way that I believe many other forms of activity to be wrong. That includes lying, theft, fraud, rape, murder, paedophilia, deceit, slavery, etc.
You just shot yourself royally in the foot there, pal. ;) ;D ::)
Reread your 3rd sentence on to the end & then say they're not contradictory, I DARES YA !!!
And furthermore as I understand it Sin is Sin - there are no gradations to a Christian, therefore they are equivalent in some peoples minds.
Sin Is sin and we have all fallen short.
The judgmental Christian is a much loved antitheist lie.
Todays secular Britain lives on judgment and fault finding,
Gradation of sin is a secular invention designed to make people feel better about themselves.
The result of this is a sniffy attitude to the poor and disabled as evidenced by....well the reality of secular Britain.
So do you put monogamous, respectful, loving, sexually active gay relationships in the 'sin' bracket then? On what basis?
A dodge. All you are saying here to defend yourself against the charge of being judgmental is .........If you come up with the wrong answer you are worse than me.......shabby and pathetic Rhiannon.
-
This from someone who has regularly used murder as a comparitor for homosexuality.
Selective memory there NS. I have never used murder as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. In fact, I have never used anything as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. What I have done is say that I believe the 'same-sex' sex to be wrong, in the same way that I believe many other forms of activity to be wrong. That includes lying, theft, fraud, rape, murder, paedophilia, deceit, slavery, etc.
You just shot yourself royally in the foot there, pal. ;) ;D ::)
Reread your 3rd sentence on to the end & then say they're not contradictory, I DARES YA !!!
And furthermore as I understand it Sin is Sin - there are no gradations to a Christian, therefore they are equivalent in some peoples minds.
Sin Is sin and we have all fallen short.
The judgmental Christian is a much loved antitheist lie.
Todays secular Britain lives on judgment and fault finding,
Gradation of sin is a secular invention designed to make people feel better about themselves.
The result of this is a sniffy attitude to the poor and disabled as evidenced by....well the reality of secular Britain.
So do you put monogamous, respectful, loving, sexually active gay relationships in the 'sin' bracket then? On what basis?
A dodge. All you are saying here to defend yourself against the charge of being judgmental is .........If you come up with the wrong answer you are worse than me.......shabby and pathetic Rhiannon.
So you won't answer, then. Why? If your beliefs are correct then you have nothing to be afraid of in declaring them.
I don't think anyone is 'worse than me'. At what?
-
This from someone who has regularly used murder as a comparitor for homosexuality.
Selective memory there NS. I have never used murder as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. In fact, I have never used anything as a 'comparitor' for homosexuality. What I have done is say that I believe the 'same-sex' sex to be wrong, in the same way that I believe many other forms of activity to be wrong. That includes lying, theft, fraud, rape, murder, paedophilia, deceit, slavery, etc.
You just shot yourself royally in the foot there, pal. ;) ;D ::)
Reread your 3rd sentence on to the end & then say they're not contradictory, I DARES YA !!!
And furthermore as I understand it Sin is Sin - there are no gradations to a Christian, therefore they are equivalent in some peoples minds.
Sin Is sin and we have all fallen short.
The judgmental Christian is a much loved antitheist lie.
Todays secular Britain lives on judgment and fault finding,
Gradation of sin is a secular invention designed to make people feel better about themselves.
The result of this is a sniffy attitude to the poor and disabled as evidenced by....well the reality of secular Britain.
So do you put monogamous, respectful, loving, sexually active gay relationships in the 'sin' bracket then? On what basis?
A dodge. All you are saying here to defend yourself against the charge of being judgmental is .........If you come up with the wrong answer you are worse than me.......shabby and pathetic Rhiannon.
So you won't answer, then. Why? If your beliefs are correct then you have nothing to be afraid of in declaring them.
I don't think anyone is 'worse than me'. At what?
Why should I encourage you to feel better about yourself at others expense>
I have nothing to be afraid of in any case from people faultfinding to preserve their own self esteem.
-
So you try attacking me instead of answering my question. That's a very weak thing to do.
-
Who are these others at whose expense Rhiannon is, supposedly, making herself feel better?
-
Who are these others at whose expense Rhiannon is, supposedly, making herself feel better?
Anybody who is on the zeitgeist list of people who are ''morally inferior to oneself''.
-
With others Shaker it will be feigning solidarity with any group that helps you stick one of on the church.
I think you catch my drift.
-
<Anybody who is on the zeitgeist list of people who are ''morally inferior to oneself''>
Does that include you ????
-
Sin Is sin and we have all fallen short.
Would you care defining this concept Vladdles? Only I've been having a discussion about this on another thread and your input might be useful for once.
The judgmental Christian is a much loved antitheist lie.
Is it really? Only I can think of lots and lots of judgemental Christians. Names supplied on request, if you have a few hours to spare anyway.
Todays secular Britain lives on judgment and fault finding,
Does it? Not what I see - can you give examples?
Gradation of sin is a secular invention designed to make people feel better about themselves.
Gradation of wrongdoing (a term I'll use since I can define that, whereas you haven't defined 'sin' yet) is basic sanity, since you have to be utterly divorced from reality to find shoplifting morally equivalent to sexual offences against children, for example, or - to use a familiar and utterly mad example - thinking of committing adultery equivalent to actually committing adultery. George Orwell coined a term for that: I'm sure you know what it is, Vlad.
The result of this is a sniffy attitude to the poor and disabled as evidenced by....well the reality of secular Britain.
I don't see a sniffy attitude to the poor and disabled amongst the general populace - quite the opposite. Sniffy attitudes to the poor and disabled certainly do exist in some quarters of the Conservative-dominated coalition government, that's for sure ... most especially in the form of Iain Duncan Smith, who regards himself as a Catholic.
Go, as they say, figure.
-
With others Shaker it will be feigning solidarity with any group that helps you stick one of on the church.
I think you catch my drift.
Erm, no ... not with a sentence like that ... no.
-
<Anybody who is on the zeitgeist list of people who are ''morally inferior to oneself''>
Does that include you ????
Most certainly. Antitheists are obsessed with moral superiority and sometimes spend whole lives justifying yourselves.
-
Who are these others at whose expense Rhiannon is, supposedly, making herself feel better?
Anybody who is on the zeitgeist list of people who are ''morally inferior to oneself''.
Why would I need to do that? Oh hang on, you've divined that I have 'low self esteem' and decided to use that as a way of getting one over on me.
Is it ok in Christian thought to target what you believe to be a person's weakness these days?
-
Most certainly. Antitheists are obsessed with moral superiority and sometimes spend whole lives justifying yourselves.
Examples of an antitheist spending their whole life justifying themselves, please.
-
Who are these others at whose expense Rhiannon is, supposedly, making herself feel better?
Anybody who is on the zeitgeist list of people who are ''morally inferior to oneself''.
Why would I need to do that? Oh hang on, you've divined that I have 'low self esteem' and decided to use that as a way of getting one over on me.
Is it ok in Christian thought to target what you believe to be a person's weakness these days?
No lower moral self esteem than anyone else.
If it had slipped your attention Christianity is the only philosophy world view which doesn't believe in a league table of condemnable people or the phony notion that if ''I'm not as bad as that person'' I am somehow heading for the place of the angels.
-
No lower moral self esteem than anyone else.
If it had slipped your attention Christianity is the only philosophy world view which doesn't believe in a league table of condemnable people or the phony notion that if ''I'm not as bad as that person''
That's one of the several things which makes it so, not only absurd, but obnoxious.
Do you not see yourself as better than someone who tortures and rapes small children, Vlad? If you can answer an honest 'no' to that question that the fact has to be faced that you have utterly vitiated any sane, rational conception of moral behaviour.
I am somehow heading for the place of the angels.
Never wise to assume. You might be surprised, Vlad.
-
Who are these others at whose expense Rhiannon is, supposedly, making herself feel better?
Anybody who is on the zeitgeist list of people who are ''morally inferior to oneself''.
Why would I need to do that? Oh hang on, you've divined that I have 'low self esteem' and decided to use that as a way of getting one over on me.
Is it ok in Christian thought to target what you believe to be a person's weakness these days?
No lower moral self esteem than anyone else.
If it had slipped your attention Christianity is the only philosophy world view which doesn't believe in a league table of condemnable people or the phony notion that if ''I'm not as bad as that person'' I am somehow heading for the place of the angels.
Hmm, I'm pretty comfortable in my own skin, thanks.
What is the pagan philosophy on judgement?
-
No lower moral self esteem than anyone else.
If it had slipped your attention Christianity is the only philosophy world view which doesn't believe in a league table of condemnable people or the phony notion that if ''I'm not as bad as that person''
That's one of the several things which makes it so, not only absurd, but obnoxious.
Do you not see yourself as better than someone who tortures and rapes small children, Vlad? If you can answer an honest 'no' to that question that the fact has to be faced that you have utterly vitiated any sane, rational conception of moral behaviour.
I am somehow heading for the place of the angels.
Never wise to assume. You might be surprised, Vlad.
You are completely wrong to think that since these people exist. You are morally OK.
-
You are completely wrong to think that since these people exist. You are morally OK.
That's not an answer which bears any relation to anything so far said. I didn't state that I was morally OK (though by the most widely, broadly accepted humane and humanistic values of the vast majority of people in my society at this point in time, actually I am). My comment was in response to your post in which you opined that Christianity is the only worldview which doesn't believe in a league table of condemnable people - i.e. it denies, according to you, that some people and their actions are better and worse than some other people and their actions. This in itself seems to indicate that everybody is equally morally bad, which may well be bog-standard Christianity - there is scriptural support for it - but is moral imbecility.
-
Who are these others at whose expense Rhiannon is, supposedly, making herself feel better?
Anybody who is on the zeitgeist list of people who are ''morally inferior to oneself''.
Why would I need to do that? Oh hang on, you've divined that I have 'low self esteem' and decided to use that as a way of getting one over on me.
Is it ok in Christian thought to target what you believe to be a person's weakness these days?
No lower moral self esteem than anyone else.
If it had slipped your attention Christianity is the only philosophy world view which doesn't believe in a league table of condemnable people or the phony notion that if ''I'm not as bad as that person'' I am somehow heading for the place of the angels.
Hmm, I'm pretty comfortable in my own skin, thanks.
What is the pagan philosophy on judgement?
Er,get the Gods to attack your enemies?.....at least that's what a reading of the prayers found at Bath give the impression of.
-
Who are these others at whose expense Rhiannon is, supposedly, making herself feel better?
Anybody who is on the zeitgeist list of people who are ''morally inferior to oneself''.
Why would I need to do that? Oh hang on, you've divined that I have 'low self esteem' and decided to use that as a way of getting one over on me.
Is it ok in Christian thought to target what you believe to be a person's weakness these days?
No lower moral self esteem than anyone else.
If it had slipped your attention Christianity is the only philosophy world view which doesn't believe in a league table of condemnable people or the phony notion that if ''I'm not as bad as that person'' I am somehow heading for the place of the angels.
Hmm, I'm pretty comfortable in my own skin, thanks.
What is the pagan philosophy on judgement?
Er,get the Gods to attack your enemies?.....at least that's what a reading of the prayers found at Bath give the impression of.
So that's what I base my ideas of judgement on? A piece of Romano-British text from sixteen, seventeen hundred years ago?
-
I think some Christians like to use the not so good book as an excuse for their bigotry, but they would be bigoted anyway, Bible or no Bible!
In fact, I think some of the most bigoted people around are those who feel that it is acceptable to ridicule the understanding of others, as to what is best for society. If one thinks for a moment, most people will have shaped their worldview around something they have read and/or heard, either as a child or during their adulthood.
-
BIGOT. Is being left handed abnormal?
Technically, yes, floo. Only about 10% of any population is totally single-handed (probably split 50-50 between right- and left-handedness. A normal (aka average) person is - to some degree of other - ambidexterous. However, it is perfectly natural to be wholly one or the other.
-
I think some of the most bigoted people around are those who feel that it is acceptable to ridicule the understanding of others, as to what is best for society.
But when people's understanding is as warped as the religionist antipathy towards gay people, there's nothing left except ridicule.
-
BIGOT. Is being left handed abnormal?
Technically, yes, floo. Only about 10% of any population is totally single-handed (probably split 50-50 between right- and left-handedness. A normal (aka average) person is - to some degree of other - ambidexterous. However, it is perfectly natural to be wholly one or the other.
As with homosexuality, then.
-
In fact, I think some of the most bigoted people around are those who feel that it is acceptable to ridicule the understanding of others, as to what is best for society.
The members/adherents/acolytes of ISIS have their views as to what constitutes the best for society. I think their ideas are a nightmarish abomination and I attack, mock, belittle, disparage and deride them at every available opportunity.
If this makes me a bigot in your eyes I can only consider that a badge of honour that every decent individual should be proud to own.
-
In fact, I think some of the most bigoted people around are those who feel that it is acceptable to ridicule the understanding of others, as to what is best for society.
The members/adherents/acolytes of ISIS have their views as to what constitutes the best for society. I think their ideas are a nightmarish abomination and I attack, mock, belittle, disparage and deride them at every available opportunity.
If this makes me a bigot in your eyes I can only consider that a badge of honour that every decent individual should be proud to own.
As would any decent human being.
It is worth noting that practically all the wickedness of this regime has its roots in their religion.
-
Hi everyone,
1. First of all....I know people usually tend to take extreme emotional stands rather than a balanced stand. So..the first and immediate argument seems to be to accuse a person of bigotry and hatred of homosexuals. That is wrong. I have no hatred of homosexuals and do not believe that they are sinners or whatever. I believe in letting them live their lives.
2. The comparison of homosexuality with left handedness is moronic at best. Is left handedness abnormal...yes... of course it is! But it is of no consequence and no one gives a damn if someone writes with his left hand instead of the right.
Similarly,is homosexuality abnormal...yes..of course it is! Problem is that it also has serious consequences. Ever heard of survival instinct, procreation instinct and survival of the species?! ::)
If more and more people become left handed nothing will happen. But if more and more people become homosexuals...the human race will be eliminated. So..would the lot of you please stop making such inane comparisons! Thanks!
So...now you know why homosexuality is abnormal. It goes against basic survival and propagation of the species. Should I repeat that?!
3. This is where the research to find reasons for homosexuality becomes relevant. Nobody does any research to find out why a person is heterosexual, by the way!! That is normal and that's the way nature has made us evolve.
If research establishes (as it seems to be doing) that epigenetics is the reason for homosexuality and they do find some treatment...it should be welcomed.....and those who choose to get the treatment should be freely allowed to.
Why the lot of you are hollering on about parents abusing their children is really beyond me!! Shocking! Propagation of the species is a fundamental instinct and parents have a right to expect that their children will procreate and take good care of the offspring.
4. Why all this is such an emotional issue is also beyond me. You people here claim to be very scientific minded (though most of you hardly know any real science, let me add).... but nothing of it is seen here. Everyone is going on and on about it as though it is a battle for dominance. LOL!
Its like some brainwashed or programmed response from most people. Almost the same words, the same examples, the same arguments, the same anger, the same accusations. Like some cult members! Some psychologists really need to do some research on this strange phenomenon.....seriously!
5. I also think perhaps atheism and homosexuality are somehow linked. I know religious people could also be homosexuals and atheists could also be heterosexuals... but someone really needs to check the connection. Maybe its the same genes/epigenes that are responsible for both.
Or maybe given the rigid Christian theology...homosexuals prefer to become atheists. That is also possible.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Brilliant piece of satire there, Sriram, the character you are doing is getting fleshed out really well.
-
Brilliant piece of satire there, Sriram, the character you are doing is getting fleshed out really well.
Hmmm! Which means nothing of what I have said has registered! The psychologists really need to get to work...fast! :D
I am off now...for some time. After lunch (my time).
-
Hi everyone,
1. First of all....I know people usually tend to take extreme emotional stands rather than a balanced stand. So..the first and immediate argument seems to be to accuse a person of bigotry and hatred of homosexuals. That is wrong. I have no hatred of homosexuals and do not believe that they are sinners or whatever. I believe in letting them live their lives.
2. The comparison of homosexuality with left handedness is moronic at best. Is left handedness abnormal...yes... of course it is! But it is of no consequence and no one gives a damn if someone writes with his left hand instead of the right.
Similarly,is homosexuality abnormal...yes..of course it is! Problem is that it also has serious consequences. Ever heard of survival instinct, procreation instinct and survival of the species?! ::)
If more and more people become left handed nothing will happen. But if more and more people become homosexuals...the human race will be eliminated. So..would the lot of you please stop making such inane comparisons! Thanks!
So...now you know why homosexuality is abnormal. It goes against basic survival and propagation of the species. Should I repeat that?!
3. This is where the research to find reasons for homosexuality becomes relevant. Nobody does any research to find out why a person is heterosexual, by the way!! That is normal and that's the way nature has made us evolve.
If research establishes (as it seems to be doing) that epigenetics is the reason for homosexuality and they do find some treatment...it should be welcomed.....and those who choose to get the treatment should be freely allowed to.
Why the lot of you are hollering on about parents abusing their children is really beyond me!! Shocking! Propagation of the species is a fundamental instinct and parents have a right to expect that their children will procreate and take good care of the offspring.
4. Why all this is such an emotional issue is also beyond me. You people here claim to be very scientific minded (though most of you hardly know any real science, let me add).... but nothing of it is seen here. Everyone is going on and on about it as though it is a battle for dominance. LOL!
Its like some brainwashed or programmed response from most people. Almost the same words, the same examples, the same arguments, the same anger, the same accusations. Like some cult members! Some psychologists really need to do some research on this strange phenomenon.....seriously!
5. I also think perhaps atheism and homosexuality are somehow linked. I know religious people could also be homosexuals and atheists could also be heterosexuals... but someone really needs to check the connection. Maybe its the same genes/epigenes that are responsible for both.
Or maybe given the rigid Christian theology...homosexuals prefer to become atheists. That is also possible.
Cheers.
Sriram
Fantastic. I really did LOL when I read this.
-
Who are these others at whose expense Rhiannon is, supposedly, making herself feel better?
Anybody who is on the zeitgeist list of people who are ''morally inferior to oneself''.
Why would I need to do that? Oh hang on, you've divined that I have 'low self esteem' and decided to use that as a way of getting one over on me.
Is it ok in Christian thought to target what you believe to be a person's weakness these days?
No lower moral self esteem than anyone else.
If it had slipped your attention Christianity is the only philosophy world view which doesn't believe in a league table of condemnable people or the phony notion that if ''I'm not as bad as that person'' I am somehow heading for the place of the angels.
(A) Christianity is not a philosophy (b) heaven league hell league
-
Sriram bhai
PLEASE Stop digging yourself into this VERY deep hole. Your voice is getting weaker as we 'speak'!!!
Is 'your' opinion balanced? Obviously not.
Procreation??? Like we 'need' more people on this earth ??!!?? Serious consequences?? Oh, there goes the Gay Plague notion again. There'll be nobody left on earth in a few generations !! Like THAT'S a bad thing LOL
You still seem to believe being gay is entirely a choice.
I'm afraid YOUR 'arguments' can sooo easily be turned back on your good self & YOU don't see that. ::)
The more I read of your posts, the more I feel you're playing some game with us all here. ;) ::)
Homosexuality is a well worn topic so not really anything to be said more.
Fingers in ears.... LALALALALALALALA
-
Hi Sriram,
You are wrong. Homosexuality is perfectly normal, in that the evolutionary process works by constantly producing different organisms to test on the environment, and some of them are gay men or women.
Homosexuality alone would have a negative effect on the reproduction of the species, but it is not alone. It works in conjunction with the desire to raise a family, as you can see is the case. Many, probably the majority, of gay people want children to raise in a family unit, so they arrange for that, one way or another.
Furthermore, they can be more suitable than some heteros for raising healthy, well-balanced children.
Evolution is a natural process which always works towards survival and reproduction.
-
Hi everyone,
1. First of all....I know people usually tend to take extreme emotional stands rather than a balanced stand. So..the first and immediate argument seems to be to accuse a person of bigotry and hatred of homosexuals. That is wrong. I have no hatred of homosexuals and do not believe that they are sinners or whatever. I believe in letting them live their lives.
2. The comparison of homosexuality with left handedness is moronic at best. Is left handedness abnormal...yes... of course it is! But it is of no consequence and no one gives a damn if someone writes with his left hand instead of the right.
Similarly,is homosexuality abnormal...yes..of course it is! Problem is that it also has serious consequences. Ever heard of survival instinct, procreation instinct and survival of the species?! ::)
If more and more people become left handed nothing will happen. But if more and more people become homosexuals...the human race will be eliminated. So..would the lot of you please stop making such inane comparisons! Thanks!
So...now you know why homosexuality is abnormal. It goes against basic survival and propagation of the species. Should I repeat that?!
3. This is where the research to find reasons for homosexuality becomes relevant. Nobody does any research to find out why a person is heterosexual, by the way!! That is normal and that's the way nature has made us evolve.
If research establishes (as it seems to be doing) that epigenetics is the reason for homosexuality and they do find some treatment...it should be welcomed.....and those who choose to get the treatment should be freely allowed to.
Why the lot of you are hollering on about parents abusing their children is really beyond me!! Shocking! Propagation of the species is a fundamental instinct and parents have a right to expect that their children will procreate and take good care of the offspring.
4. Why all this is such an emotional issue is also beyond me. You people here claim to be very scientific minded (though most of you hardly know any real science, let me add).... but nothing of it is seen here. Everyone is going on and on about it as though it is a battle for dominance. LOL!
Its like some brainwashed or programmed response from most people. Almost the same words, the same examples, the same arguments, the same anger, the same accusations. Like some cult members! Some psychologists really need to do some research on this strange phenomenon.....seriously!
5. I also think perhaps atheism and homosexuality are somehow linked. I know religious people could also be homosexuals and atheists could also be heterosexuals... but someone really needs to check the connection. Maybe its the same genes/epigenes that are responsible for both.
Or maybe given the rigid Christian theology...homosexuals prefer to become atheists. That is also possible.
Cheers.
Sriram
QUOTE - If more and more people become left handed nothing will happen. But if more and more people become homosexuals...the human race will be eliminated. - Unquote
If in doing so it eliminated all those people with such unpleasant views as those expressed by you in this thread, that will be a bonus.
Over and over again you make statements that show that you consider homosexuals to be an unpleasant and unwanted lifeform, then when some one challenges you on the point you deny it and then repeat it in either the same poost or a follow-on.
Quite clearly you consider homosexuals to be a life-form that the world could well do without; I consider that those who hold distinctly bigotted views based upon religious belief to be a life-form without which the world would be a far better place.
-
Hi everyone,
1. First of all....I know people usually tend to take extreme emotional stands rather than a balanced stand. So..the first and immediate argument seems to be to accuse a person of bigotry and hatred of homosexuals. That is wrong. I have no hatred of homosexuals and do not believe that they are sinners or whatever. I believe in letting them live their lives.
2. The comparison of homosexuality with left handedness is moronic at best. Is left handedness abnormal...yes... of course it is! But it is of no consequence and no one gives a damn if someone writes with his left hand instead of the right.
Similarly,is homosexuality abnormal...yes..of course it is! Problem is that it also has serious consequences. Ever heard of survival instinct, procreation instinct and survival of the species?! ::)
If more and more people become left handed nothing will happen. But if more and more people become homosexuals...the human race will be eliminated. So..would the lot of you please stop making such inane comparisons! Thanks!
So...now you know why homosexuality is abnormal. It goes against basic survival and propagation of the species. Should I repeat that?!
3. This is where the research to find reasons for homosexuality becomes relevant. Nobody does any research to find out why a person is heterosexual, by the way!! That is normal and that's the way nature has made us evolve.
If research establishes (as it seems to be doing) that epigenetics is the reason for homosexuality and they do find some treatment...it should be welcomed.....and those who choose to get the treatment should be freely allowed to.
Why the lot of you are hollering on about parents abusing their children is really beyond me!! Shocking! Propagation of the species is a fundamental instinct and parents have a right to expect that their children will procreate and take good care of the offspring.
4. Why all this is such an emotional issue is also beyond me. You people here claim to be very scientific minded (though most of you hardly know any real science, let me add).... but nothing of it is seen here. Everyone is going on and on about it as though it is a battle for dominance. LOL!
Its like some brainwashed or programmed response from most people. Almost the same words, the same examples, the same arguments, the same anger, the same accusations. Like some cult members! Some psychologists really need to do some research on this strange phenomenon.....seriously!
5. I also think perhaps atheism and homosexuality are somehow linked. I know religious people could also be homosexuals and atheists could also be heterosexuals... but someone really needs to check the connection. Maybe its the same genes/epigenes that are responsible for both.
Or maybe given the rigid Christian theology...homosexuals prefer to become atheists. That is also possible.
Cheers.
Sriram
Bit of the clueless prat showing up here in this post of yours Sriram, when's your 15th birthday due, you're so worldly for your age.
ippy
-
I can't even begin to reply to Sriram's last post.
We do need a 'banging head on keyboard' emoticon around here.
-
Hi everyone,
1. First of all....I know people usually tend to take extreme emotional stands rather than a balanced stand. So..the first and immediate argument seems to be to accuse a person of bigotry and hatred of homosexuals. That is wrong. I have no hatred of homosexuals and do not believe that they are sinners or whatever. I believe in letting them live their lives.
2. The comparison of homosexuality with left handedness is moronic at best. Is left handedness abnormal...yes... of course it is! But it is of no consequence and no one gives a damn if someone writes with his left hand instead of the right.
Similarly,is homosexuality abnormal...yes..of course it is! Problem is that it also has serious consequences. Ever heard of survival instinct, procreation instinct and survival of the species?! ::)
If more and more people become left handed nothing will happen. But if more and more people become homosexuals...the human race will be eliminated. So..would the lot of you please stop making such inane comparisons! Thanks!
So...now you know why homosexuality is abnormal. It goes against basic survival and propagation of the species. Should I repeat that?!
3. This is where the research to find reasons for homosexuality becomes relevant. Nobody does any research to find out why a person is heterosexual, by the way!! That is normal and that's the way nature has made us evolve.
If research establishes (as it seems to be doing) that epigenetics is the reason for homosexuality and they do find some treatment...it should be welcomed.....and those who choose to get the treatment should be freely allowed to.
Why the lot of you are hollering on about parents abusing their children is really beyond me!! Shocking! Propagation of the species is a fundamental instinct and parents have a right to expect that their children will procreate and take good care of the offspring.
4. Why all this is such an emotional issue is also beyond me. You people here claim to be very scientific minded (though most of you hardly know any real science, let me add).... but nothing of it is seen here. Everyone is going on and on about it as though it is a battle for dominance. LOL!
Its like some brainwashed or programmed response from most people. Almost the same words, the same examples, the same arguments, the same anger, the same accusations. Like some cult members! Some psychologists really need to do some research on this strange phenomenon.....seriously!
5. I also think perhaps atheism and homosexuality are somehow linked. I know religious people could also be homosexuals and atheists could also be heterosexuals... but someone really needs to check the connection. Maybe its the same genes/epigenes that are responsible for both.
Or maybe given the rigid Christian theology...homosexuals prefer to become atheists. That is also possible.
Cheers.
Sriram
Bit of the clueless prat showing up here in this post of yours Sriram, when's your 15th birthday due, you're so worldly for your age.
ippy
His 15th Ippy?
From his comments I thought that he was still pre-pubescent!
-
Deranged ramblings, not worthy of a reply.
-
and parents have a right to expect that their children will procreate and take good care of the offspring.
They have no such right. Once they have children they have a very great responsibility but that's a completely different kettle of mackerel.
If more and more people become left handed nothing will happen. But if more and more people become homosexuals...the human race will be eliminated. So..would the lot of you please stop making such inane comparisons! Thanks!
So...now you know why homosexuality is abnormal. It goes against basic survival and propagation of the species. Should I repeat that?!
As for this complete bucket of excrement - where to begin?
Well - have you got any evidence that homosexuality is on the increase? I doubt it - all the figures I have seen point to it being a stable in % terms variation in human sexuality.
As to the survival and propogation of the species it is the filthy, feckless heterosexuals with there need to breed that is going to cause the downfall of the human race - absolutely fuck all to do with homosexuals. You carry on breeding Sririam so that we can rape the planet of all its resources and leave us on a sterile lump of rock floating through space.
You are a bigoted prick and your every post shows it. If you only realised the harm your hatred causes when espoused by others you would not post this complete pile of shite that lends support to such vicious people.
-
Have they changed the name of Friday to Stupiday?
-
Have piggy backed my. iPad off my phone so can now get through.
I'm still thinking about whether homosexual relationships have a potential for being more damaging.
It's really whether rear end sxx is potentially.more harmful than other sorts of sex.
Of course that would involve heterosexuals as well.
Some medical sources suggest there is a potential for damage to occur with rear end sxx.
Well if the penis is extremely long I suppose there could be damage, but that applies equally to hetero sex. The owner of such a member should have the common sense to use it carefully.
Blossom, I can't believe I'm having this conversation with you! :-[
-
Am having difficulty accessing this site from home.
Hoping it resolves soon as phone is a pain in the butt
Phones are not really meant to be used like that! ;D
-
Hi everyone,
1. First of all....I know people usually tend to take extreme emotional stands rather than a balanced stand. So..the first and immediate argument seems to be to accuse a person of bigotry and hatred of homosexuals. That is wrong. I have no hatred of homosexuals and do not believe that they are sinners or whatever. I believe in letting them live their lives.
2. The comparison of homosexuality with left handedness is moronic at best. Is left handedness abnormal...yes... of course it is! But it is of no consequence and no one gives a damn if someone writes with his left hand instead of the right.
Similarly,is homosexuality abnormal...yes..of course it is! Problem is that it also has serious consequences. Ever heard of survival instinct, procreation instinct and survival of the species?! ::)
If more and more people become left handed nothing will happen. But if more and more people become homosexuals...the human race will be eliminated. So..would the lot of you please stop making such inane comparisons! Thanks!
So...now you know why homosexuality is abnormal. It goes against basic survival and propagation of the species. Should I repeat that?!
3. This is where the research to find reasons for homosexuality becomes relevant. Nobody does any research to find out why a person is heterosexual, by the way!! That is normal and that's the way nature has made us evolve.
If research establishes (as it seems to be doing) that epigenetics is the reason for homosexuality and they do find some treatment...it should be welcomed.....and those who choose to get the treatment should be freely allowed to.
Why the lot of you are hollering on about parents abusing their children is really beyond me!! Shocking! Propagation of the species is a fundamental instinct and parents have a right to expect that their children will procreate and take good care of the offspring.
4. Why all this is such an emotional issue is also beyond me. You people here claim to be very scientific minded (though most of you hardly know any real science, let me add).... but nothing of it is seen here. Everyone is going on and on about it as though it is a battle for dominance. LOL!
Its like some brainwashed or programmed response from most people. Almost the same words, the same examples, the same arguments, the same anger, the same accusations. Like some cult members! Some psychologists really need to do some research on this strange phenomenon.....seriously!
5. I also think perhaps atheism and homosexuality are somehow linked. I know religious people could also be homosexuals and atheists could also be heterosexuals... but someone really needs to check the connection. Maybe its the same genes/epigenes that are responsible for both.
Or maybe given the rigid Christian theology...homosexuals prefer to become atheists. That is also possible.
Cheers.
Sriram
Bit of the clueless prat showing up here in this post of yours Sriram, when's your 15th birthday due, you're so worldly for your age.
ippy
His 15th Ippy?
From his comments I thought that he was still pre-pubescent!
Be fair to me Mat, I have looked into this phenomenon this and you should know that 15 is about the right age
to be when conducting any sort of research work only when we are at this age, we know everything so what could be better, now Sriram_________
ippy
-
Have piggy backed my. iPad off my phone so can now get through.
I'm still thinking about whether homosexual relationships have a potential for being more damaging.
It's really whether rear end sxx is potentially.more harmful than other sorts of sex.
Of course that would involve heterosexuals as well.
Some medical sources suggest there is a potential for damage to occur with rear end sxx.
Well if the penis is extremely long I suppose there could be damage, but that applies equally to hetero sex. The owner of such a member should have the common sense to use it carefully.
Blossom, I can't believe I'm having this conversation with you! :-[
Just read this post of yours Len, I've had to blow my nose several times after reading this lot, it's really made my eyes water. (Still laughing as I sign off).
ippy
-
Have piggy backed my. iPad off my phone so can now get through.
I'm still thinking about whether homosexual relationships have a potential for being more damaging.
Than what?
It's really whether rear end sxx is potentially.more harmful than other sorts of sex.
Is that all human relationships are about to you - which hole you poke your bits into?
Of course that would involve heterosexuals as well.
Yes, which makes the whole thing about gays somewhat irrelevant.
-
Have piggy backed my. iPad off my phone so can now get through.
I'm still thinking about whether homosexual relationships have a potential for being more damaging.
It's really whether rear end sxx is potentially.more harmful than other sorts of sex.
Of course that would involve heterosexuals as well.
Some medical sources suggest there is a potential for damage to occur with rear end sxx.
Well if the penis is extremely long I suppose there could be damage, but that applies equally to hetero sex. The owner of such a member should have the common sense to use it carefully.
Blossom, I can't believe I'm having this conversation with you! :-[
Just read this post of yours Len, I've had to blow my nose several times after reading this lot, it's really made my eyes water. (Still laughing as I sign off).
ippy
Glad to have been of service, Ippy. I hasten to add that I am speaking from conjecture, not experience.
-
I wish I had to be careful!
:'(
-
Have piggy backed my. iPad off my phone so can now get through.
I'm still thinking about whether homosexual relationships have a potential for being more damaging.
It's really whether rear end sxx is potentially.more harmful than other sorts of sex.
Of course that would involve heterosexuals as well.
Some medical sources suggest there is a potential for damage to occur with rear end sxx.
Well if the penis is extremely long I suppose there could be damage, but that applies equally to hetero sex. The owner of such a member should have the common sense to use it carefully.
Blossom, I can't believe I'm having this conversation with you! :-[
Just read this post of yours Len, I've had to blow my nose several times after reading this lot, it's really made my eyes water. (Still laughing as I sign off).
ippy
Glad to have been of service, Ippy. I hasten to add that I am speaking from conjecture, not experience.
Thank goodness for that.
ippy
-
Have piggy backed my. iPad off my phone so can now get through.
I'm still thinking about whether homosexual relationships have a potential for being more damaging.
It's really whether rear end sxx is potentially.more harmful than other sorts of sex.
Of course that would involve heterosexuals as well.
Some medical sources suggest there is a potential for damage to occur with rear end sxx.
If you want to engage in rear end sex then that's up to you, however, can you get back to the point raised in the OP please.
Raise a new thread if you want to talk about this.
-
I wish I had to be careful!
:'(
Why? I imagine such equipment would be a liability rather than an asset.
But let's not pursue it, Splash is rightly calling us to order. :)
-
2. The comparison of homosexuality with left handedness is moronic at best. Is left handedness abnormal...yes... of course it is! But it is of no consequence and no one gives a damn if someone writes with his left hand instead of the right.
Similarly,is homosexuality abnormal...yes..of course it is! Problem is that it also has serious consequences. Ever heard of survival instinct, procreation instinct and survival of the species?! ::)
If more and more people become left handed nothing will happen. But if more and more people become homosexuals...the human race will be eliminated. So..would the lot of you please stop making such inane comparisons! Thanks!
So...now you know why homosexuality is abnormal. It goes against basic survival and propagation of the species. Should I repeat that?!
As ever, large amounts of ill informed non-sense in the overall post, but I'd like to focus on this specific bit.
Sure no-one today gives much of a thought about handedness, but it wasn't always that way. Year ago society considered people who were left handed as dangerous, sinful (do you know the origin of the word sinister?). In this more enlightened age we have come to recognise that being left handed is of no consequence, merely a quirk of development and we are completely comfortable with this as a society.
So effectively this will undoubtedly be the position in relation to sexuality in years to come - it is sadly not the case yet as there are some people in society today who see homosexuality in the way that people centuries ago saw left-handedness. But the reality is that homosexuality is no more harmful than left-handedness.
Your point about survival of the species is completely non-sensical, for the obvious reason that sexuality (including homosexuality) is not an inheritable trait. Guess what most gay people were born to straight parents. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the proportion of people today who are homosexual is any greater (or less) than at any other time in history. Nor is there any likelihood that is will increase or decrease in the future. So in that regard it is just like handedness. Some people are gay, some people are left handed - neither trait is a threat to society. What is a threat to a civilised society is the attitude that believes that people with a particular trait (based on handedness or sexuality) shouldn't not be treated as equals or are somehow a threat.
-
To elaborate on PD's point about left-handedness, we don't simply accept it, we accommodate it, through provision of special equipment (scissors, golf clubs, tin openers). My left handed daughter has the option of using both right handed equipment or left, depending on what suits her needs the most.
Our society now accommodates homosexuality, through marriage equality, cultural freedom and protection in law; it can only be hoped that one day every country will do the same.
-
Given that Sriram (who, lest we forget, considers homosexuality a disease in need of a cure) thinks this about homosexuality on its (quite false) non-procreative basis, when can we expect his thread on heterosexuals who are fertile but choose not to have children as a disease in need of a cure?
How about it Sriram?
-
Who are these others at whose expense Rhiannon is, supposedly, making herself feel better?
Anybody who is on the zeitgeist list of people who are ''morally inferior to oneself''.
Why would I need to do that? Oh hang on, you've divined that I have 'low self esteem' and decided to use that as a way of getting one over on me.
Is it ok in Christian thought to target what you believe to be a person's weakness these days?
No lower moral self esteem than anyone else.
If it had slipped your attention Christianity is the only philosophy world view which doesn't believe in a league table of condemnable people or the phony notion that if ''I'm not as bad as that person'' I am somehow heading for the place of the angels.
(A) Christianity is not a philosophy (b) heaven league hell league
Your right it's philosophy and a whole lot more.
(b) is that code amongst you simpering sniggering types?
-
2. The comparison of homosexuality with left handedness is moronic at best. Is left handedness abnormal...yes... of course it is! But it is of no consequence and no one gives a damn if someone writes with his left hand instead of the right.
Similarly,is homosexuality abnormal...yes..of course it is! Problem is that it also has serious consequences. Ever heard of survival instinct, procreation instinct and survival of the species?! ::)
If more and more people become left handed nothing will happen. But if more and more people become homosexuals...the human race will be eliminated. So..would the lot of you please stop making such inane comparisons! Thanks!
So...now you know why homosexuality is abnormal. It goes against basic survival and propagation of the species. Should I repeat that?!
As ever, large amounts of ill informed non-sense in the overall post, but I'd like to focus on this specific bit.
Sure no-one today gives much of a thought about handedness, but it wasn't always that way. Year ago society considered people who were left handed as dangerous, sinful (do you know the origin of the word sinister?). In this more enlightened age we have come to recognise that being left handed is of no consequence, merely a quirk of development and we are completely comfortable with this as a society.
So effectively this will undoubtedly be the position in relation to sexuality in years to come - it is sadly not the case yet as there are some people in society today who see homosexuality in the way that people centuries ago saw left-handedness. But the reality is that homosexuality is no more harmful than left-handedness.
Your point about survival of the species is completely non-sensical, for the obvious reason that sexuality (including homosexuality) is not an inheritable trait. Guess what most gay people were born to straight parents. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the proportion of people today who are homosexual is any greater (or less) than at any other time in history. Nor is there any likelihood that is will increase or decrease in the future. So in that regard it is just like handedness. Some people are gay, some people are left handed - neither trait is a threat to society. What is a threat to a civilised society is the attitude that believes that people with a particular trait (based on handedness or sexuality) shouldn't not be treated as equals or are somehow a threat.
What exactly are you talking about Prof D? You are making irrelevant statements.
I have never said that homosexuality is a sin....so its acceptability is not the issue. I have never said that homosexuality is not acceptable...or should not be treated like everyone else. Do you get that?! Or should I repeat it?
Most of you seem to be carrying lots of historical Christian baggage and trying to force your own psychological conditioning into every argument....and getting all worked up. That is the real problem here. You people are so edgy ...its unbelievable!
The OP was about epigenetics and the possibility of treating homosexuality. That's it. The research is being carried out by reputed researchers.....not by people who hate homosexuals or any such nonsense.
The fact is that homosexuality is an abnormality no matter how much you deny it. (Its acceptability in society is not the issue because abnormal does not mean 'not acceptable in society'...get it?!). That's why research is being carried out to identify the reasons and possible treatments.
You wanted to know why it is abnormal...and I have told you.
-
So...now you know why homosexuality is abnormal. It goes against basic survival and propagation of the species. Should I repeat that?!
Others have answered this point, Sriram. But I shall add that homosexuals also like to have children and to enjoy family life and - indeed - have children of their own. Preference for an affective relationship with a member of your own sex does not preclude propgation of the species.
I'll tell you what will result in the elimination of the species: the abortion of female foetuses.
It is females who are of greatest importance in the maintenance of a population. They bear the children, men don't. In order to maintain a population very few males are needed. By ensuring that their children are male, the people who abort females are ensuring they are unlikely to have grandchildren.
In some animal species it is quite likely that the majority of males die as virgins. In a culture which prevents the birth of girls, the same outcome is quite possible.
-
I have never said that homosexuality is a sin....
As far as I'm aware you have not.
What you have said is that homosexuality is a disease in need of being cured.
I have never said that homosexuality is not acceptable...or should not be treated like everyone else. Do you get that?! Or should I repeat it?
No need to repeat any of your maunderings: simply stop regarding being gay as something in need of treatment. Diseases, illnesses are things that stand in need of treatment: being gay is not a disease to be cured but a psychosexual component of a small but permanent minority of the human species.
That is the real problem here. You people are so edgy ...its unbelievable!
Any "edginess" you detect is actually rank disgust at your likening of homosexuality to a disease which should be treated and even cured.
It's not being edgy, Sriram: it's people being disgusted and finding you and your views absolutely loathsome.
-
No need to repeat any of your maunderings: simply stop regarding being gay as something in need of treatment. Diseases, illnesses are things that stand in need of treatment: being gay is not a disease to be cured but a psychosexual component of a small but permanent minority of the human species.
That's got to be 800 points.
-
No need to repeat any of your maunderings: simply stop regarding being gay as something in need of treatment. Diseases, illnesses are things that stand in need of treatment: being gay is not a disease to be cured but a psychosexual component of a small but permanent minority of the human species.
That's how it is understood at present, shaker. That doesn't mean that the understanding won't change in time, and 'disease' become a more accepted explanation. After all, many of the reasons given 10+ years ago as to why homosexuality ought to be legalised have been shown to be dubious at best.
-
That's got to be 800 points.
That's a fair amount of time to lose one's licence ;)
-
No need to repeat any of your maunderings: simply stop regarding being gay as something in need of treatment. Diseases, illnesses are things that stand in need of treatment: being gay is not a disease to be cured but a psychosexual component of a small but permanent minority of the human species.
That's how it is understood at present, shaker. That doesn't mean that the understanding won't change in time, and 'disease' become a more accepted explanation. After all, many of the reasons given 10+ years ago as to why homosexuality ought to be legalised have been shown to be dubious at best.
Citations for these please, Hope.
-
Hope is a Christian & probably has a very similar idea to Sriram.
What did we really expect ????? ;) ::)
-
No need to repeat any of your maunderings: simply stop regarding being gay as something in need of treatment. Diseases, illnesses are things that stand in need of treatment: being gay is not a disease to be cured but a psychosexual component of a small but permanent minority of the human species.
That's how it is understood at present, shaker. That doesn't mean that the understanding won't change in time, and 'disease' become a more accepted explanation. After all, many of the reasons given 10+ years ago as to why homosexuality ought to be legalised have been shown to be dubious at best.
Citations for these please, Hope.
Oh he probably means things like being treated equally under the law etc. Nothing very important. ::)
-
After all, many of the reasons given 10+ years ago as to why homosexuality ought to be legalised have been shown to be dubious at best.
Citations for these please, Hope.
One of the key reasonings brought up during the debate in the House of Commons was that homosexuality is genetic. A couple of years later, scientists reported that whilst there may be an element of genetics involved, this was not a large part of the explanations.
http://tinyurl.com/lyc2x73
-
No need to repeat any of your maunderings: simply stop regarding being gay as something in need of treatment. Diseases, illnesses are things that stand in need of treatment: being gay is not a disease to be cured but a psychosexual component of a small but permanent minority of the human species.
That's how it is understood at present, shaker. That doesn't mean that the understanding won't change in time, and 'disease' become a more accepted explanation. After all, many of the reasons given 10+ years ago as to why homosexuality ought to be legalised have been shown to be dubious at best.
The worst thing about your POV is that you probably think you're taking a well reasoned, balanced view about homosexual behaviour.
ippy
-
That's how it is understood at present, shaker. That doesn't mean that the understanding won't change in time, and 'disease' become a more accepted explanation.
And how likely do you consider this fatuously ridiculous scenario to be? In your estimation how probable is this move from our current understanding of homosexuality as an inherently harmless psycho-sexual-emotional component to "disease"?
After all, many of the reasons given 10+ years ago
Where the hell do you live? Homosexuality was decriminalised in the UK in 1967.
as to why homosexuality ought to be legalised have been shown to be dubious at best.
Such as? Dubious to whom?
-
Hope is a Christian & probably has a very similar idea to Sriram.
What did we really expect ????? ;) ::)
True.
Alas.
-
No need to repeat any of your maunderings: simply stop regarding being gay as something in need of treatment. Diseases, illnesses are things that stand in need of treatment: being gay is not a disease to be cured but a psychosexual component of a small but permanent minority of the human species.
That's how it is understood at present, shaker. That doesn't mean that the understanding won't change in time, and 'disease' become a more accepted explanation. After all, many of the reasons given 10+ years ago as to why homosexuality ought to be legalised have been shown to be dubious at best.
I'm interested in what Sam Harris's intended rigourous science based morality will make of this and other issues.
-
Small correction for Shaker, homosexuality was legalised in England and Wales in 67, Scotland 81 and NI 82.
In terms of Hope's 10 year thing, he may be referring to equalisation of age of consent.
-
True enough - I was thinking of England and Wales specifically.
If Hopeless was thinking of the equalisation of the age of consent, it strengthens the point made by trentvoyager earlier - namely that the progressive liberalisation of laws surrounding homosexuality, here and elsewhere over many decades, have nothing to do with the still incompletely understood genesis of same-sex attraction and everything to do with equality in the eyes of the law.
-
After all, many of the reasons given 10+ years ago as to why homosexuality ought to be legalised have been shown to be dubious at best.
Citations for these please, Hope.
One of the key reasonings brought up during the debate in the House of Commons was that homosexuality is genetic. A couple of years later, scientists reported that whilst there may be an element of genetics involved, this was not a large part of the explanations.
http://tinyurl.com/lyc2x73
That's not a citation to back up your assertion that homosexuality being genetic was used as a 'key reasoning' in any debate in the HofC - and it isn't clear whether you are referring to legalisation to legalise homosexual activity or the change in age of consent. Neither does it demonstrate that any shift in understanding makes those changes less desirable.
-
Just to add that I've read through accounts of the 1967 debate and the subsequent ones on lowering the age of consent and nowhere is genetics discussed. Possibly someone may have mentioned it in one of the later debates but if so it isn't recorded and looks unlikely to have been 'key'. The earlier legislation took the view that it was nobody's business what two consenting adults got up to in private; the later focussed on whether there was justification for the difference in treatment of homosexuality in regard to the age of consent.
-
Hi everyone,
Well...there is considerably less of a racket out here now. That's good.
This thread was about epigenetics and a possible treatment for homosexuality. If you people have a problem with that, go and do a sit in or a stand up or something in front of the research office. "We want homosexuality"....'Dump the cure"....and such other banners could help.
But seriously.... there is definitely some very strong meme at work here which is fighting very hard for its own survival. I never thought there would be anything like a 'homosexual fanatic'...but here you people are! The shoe seems to be on the other foot now.
It is like suggesting to Muslim fanatics that Mohammed is an ordinary man. A fatwa would be issued immediately. Your reactions were identical. I wouldn't be surprised if some homosexual fanatics like yourselves start becoming violent. I really do hope that the researchers who are trying to find an epigenetic therapy are not harmed! Poor chaps, they are trying to help society.
For all your talk of rationality....all rationality has been abandoned.
I know all about the persecution of gays in earlier times in the west....but that has apparently created such a strong meme now that you people reject outright all suggestions of a possible treatment and even consider that suggestion as some kind of discrimination! Amazing! Truly amazing!
Anyway....let me finish on this thread by saying that homosexuality is an abnormality because it goes against fundamental evolutionary instincts of procreation and survival of the species. There is no doubt about that. Homosexuality is possibly due to epigenetics... and a therapy may be available sometime in the future for those who might want it.
This therapy is not in any way discriminatory or against homosexuals. Its to make an option available for those who might want it. If parents choose that option for their minor children...you just have to lump it. Even fanatics cannot possibly interfere in everything.
I'll think of some other thread to keep you people energized and yelling!
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Anyway....let me finish on this thread by saying that homosexuality is an abnormality because it goes against fundamental evolutionary instincts of procreation and survival of the species. There is no doubt about that.
Sriram
That is completely false. Here is my post pointing out why, which you seem to have missed.
Homosexuality is perfectly normal, in that the evolutionary process works by constantly producing different organisms to test on the environment, and some of them are gay men or women.
Homosexuality alone would have a negative effect on the reproduction of the species, but it is not alone. It works in conjunction with the desire to raise a family, as you can see is the case. Many, probably the majority, of gay people want children to raise in a family unit, so they arrange for that, one way or another.
Furthermore, they can be more suitable than some heteros for raising healthy, well-balanced children.
Evolution is a natural process which always works towards survival and reproduction.
If you disagree on any point, we can discuss it.
-
Anyway....let me finish on this thread by saying that homosexuality is an abnormality because it goes against fundamental evolutionary instincts of procreation and survival of the species. There is no doubt about that.
Sriram
That is completely false. Here is my post pointing out why, which you seem to have missed.
Homosexuality is perfectly normal, in that the evolutionary process works by constantly producing different organisms to test on the environment, and some of them are gay men or women.
Homosexuality alone would have a negative effect on the reproduction of the species, but it is not alone. It works in conjunction with the desire to raise a family, as you can see is the case. Many, probably the majority, of gay people want children to raise in a family unit, so they arrange for that, one way or another.
Furthermore, they can be more suitable than some heteros for raising healthy, well-balanced children.
Evolution is a natural process which always works towards survival and reproduction.
If you disagree on any point, we can discuss it.
Hi Leonard,
Well...I don't know what you mean by 'testing' on the environment. Looks like Intelligent design to me! ;)
Anyway, I do respect your rational and balanced response on this thread. In spite of being a homosexual you have been more reasonable than those yelling themselves hoarse out here. Thanks for that!
I think we should agree to disagree.... and see how the research on epigenetics pans out. Not likely to happen in a hurry I think!
Cheers. :)
Sriram
-
Anyway....let me finish on this thread by saying that homosexuality is an abnormality because it goes against fundamental evolutionary instincts of procreation and survival of the species. There is no doubt about that....
That's just a blinkered narrow minded value judgement,you need to grow your mind and your understanding of evolutionary processes. The facts that homosexuality persists at a fairly consistent level across cultures and over time, the evidence of genetic components, the fact that it occurs in some form or other in many species, these all indicate that it is a quite natural feature, and the incidence level of around 3% is presumably the optimal level selected in homo sapiens. If we try to alter that there will be unintended consequences for sure.
-
That's just a blinkered narrow minded value judgement,you need to grow your mind and your understanding of evolutionary processes. The facts that homosexuality persists at a fairly consistent level across cultures and over time, the evidence of genetic components, the fact that it occurs in some form or other in many species, these all indicate that it is a quite natural feature, and the incidence level of around 3% is presumably the optimal level selected in homo sapiens. If we try to alter that there will be unintended consequences for sure.
torri (and others, I notice) you seem to change the important word in Sri's comment. He talks about abnormal, you talk about natural. Unfortunately, your concentration on the naturalness of homosexuality doesn't invalidate Sri's reference to abnormality. As you say, only some 3% of the human population are homosexual - that is NOT normal, even though it is natural.
The Oxford Dictionary defines 'normal' thus: Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected
3% of a population doesn't fit this definition.
-
I think the 'real' problem with this thread is the OP. Instead of asking what we all thought of this idea of 'treatment' Sriram made it perfectly clear, being incredibly egotistical. with his 'how dare YOU challenge ME ?!?!?' attitude, that it became a thread about him. Which is precisely what he wanted. ;)
He's one of those that starts off a riot & then stands back saying 'nothing to do with me' when all hell breaks loose. ::) ;)
It IS an important point but it got lost along the way because of a badly thought out premise.
Hope
A very good point, thanks.
-
I think the 'real' problem with this thread is the OP. Instead of asking what we all thought of this idea of 'treatment' Sriram made it perfectly clear, being incredibly egotistical. with his 'how dare YOU challenge ME ?!?!?' attitude, that it became a thread about him. Which is precisely what he wanted. ;)
He's one of those that starts off a riot & then stands back saying 'nothing to do with me' when all hell breaks loose. ::) ;)
It IS an important point but it got lost along the way because of a badly thought out premise.
Hope
A very good point, thanks.
Arrogant, haughty, conceited, self-important, egotistical, full of himself, superior, pompous - who am I describing?
No prizes are being offered for the correct answer.
All the continuation of this thread is achieving is the inflation of the already super-over-sized ego of a homophobe.
-
That's just a blinkered narrow minded value judgement,you need to grow your mind and your understanding of evolutionary processes. The facts that homosexuality persists at a fairly consistent level across cultures and over time, the evidence of genetic components, the fact that it occurs in some form or other in many species, these all indicate that it is a quite natural feature, and the incidence level of around 3% is presumably the optimal level selected in homo sapiens. If we try to alter that there will be unintended consequences for sure.
torri (and others, I notice) you seem to change the important word in Sri's comment. He talks about abnormal, you talk about natural. Unfortunately, your concentration on the naturalness of homosexuality doesn't invalidate Sri's reference to abnormality. As you say, only some 3% of the human population are homosexual - that is NOT normal, even though it is natural.
The Oxford Dictionary defines 'normal' thus: Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected
3% of a population doesn't fit this definition.
So ?
Abnormal, unnatural, no great difference, it is still an expression of prejudice.
By your reasoning we should label British muslims as 'abnormal' as they form just 4% of the population.
-
T
Technically YES !!!
MH
EXACTLY as I feel.
I think we can end this thread now, no????
-
No doubt Sriram will see things from another pov in his/her future incarnations :)
-
Anyway....let me finish on this thread by saying that homosexuality is an abnormality because it goes against fundamental evolutionary instincts of procreation and survival of the species. There is no doubt about that.
Sriram
That is completely false. Here is my post pointing out why, which you seem to have missed.
Homosexuality is perfectly normal, in that the evolutionary process works by constantly producing different organisms to test on the environment, and some of them are gay men or women.
Homosexuality alone would have a negative effect on the reproduction of the species, but it is not alone. It works in conjunction with the desire to raise a family, as you can see is the case. Many, probably the majority, of gay people want children to raise in a family unit, so they arrange for that, one way or another.
Furthermore, they can be more suitable than some heteros for raising healthy, well-balanced children.
Evolution is a natural process which always works towards survival and reproduction.
If you disagree on any point, we can discuss it.
Hi Leonard,
Well...I don't know what you mean by 'testing' on the environment. Looks like Intelligent design to me! ;)
Well, it would, because you think there is an intelligent designer behind it!
Perhaps instead of the concise phrase I used I should have said :-
Reproduction is not always exact, and the minute differences in reproduced organisms makes them either more or less suitable to survive and reproduce in the environment they find themselves in.
However, let us be perfectly clear about this. The inexact reproductive process is in no way designed ... it is random. If it were designed then there would never be any negative differences, because they are wasteful and eventually eliminated. No intelligent designer would waste time and energy producing them.
Can we agree on that?
Anyway, I do respect your rational and balanced response on this thread. In spite of being a homosexual you have been more reasonable than those yelling themselves hoarse out here. Thanks for that!
Thank you! :)
I think we should agree to disagree.... and see how the research on epigenetics pans out. Not likely to happen in a hurry I think!
Well OK, but can you answer that one question first? If you don't agree, tell me why not.
-
The Oxford Dictionary defines 'normal' thus: Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected
3% of a population doesn't fit this definition.
Nor does being a church goer - with perhaps 6% of the population attending church in a typical week.
However I am not entirely sure what your point is.
Many traits and activities are only present in or conducted by a small proportion of the population and therefore not 'normal' by that definition. But that is a world away from defining not normal as equating to wrong, sinful or dangerous. The two issues are entirely unrelated.
-
Anyway....let me finish on this thread by saying that homosexuality is an abnormality because it goes against fundamental evolutionary instincts of procreation and survival of the species. There is no doubt about that....
That's just a blinkered narrow minded value judgement,you need to grow your mind and your understanding of evolutionary processes. The facts that homosexuality persists at a fairly consistent level across cultures and over time, the evidence of genetic components, the fact that it occurs in some form or other in many species, these all indicate that it is a quite natural feature, and the incidence level of around 3% is presumably the optimal level selected in homo sapiens. If we try to alter that there will be unintended consequences for sure.
torridon,
1. Something can be perfectly natural and still be abnormal. There are so many abnormalities thrown up by nature spontaneously everyday. They don't stop being abnormalities just because they are natural.
And just because something is natural we don't stop treating the abnormalities or correcting them. So..there is nothing wrong in seeing some trait as an abnormality and trying to correct it.....however natural it may be.
2. Secondly, you are forgetting that we are talking about epigenetics. This implies lifestyle and behavioral causes. So...its possible that many of the homosexuals are not spontaneous and natural abnormalities but are caused by faulty lifestyle and behavioral patterns of their parents or grandparents. This is the crux of this thread.
In fact, it is very important that research is accelerated and the reasons for the epigenetic changes identified quickly. This could built awareness in the people and bring out the importance of lifestyle, diet, stress and so on.
-
Anyway....let me finish on this thread by saying that homosexuality is an abnormality because it goes against fundamental evolutionary instincts of procreation and survival of the species. There is no doubt about that.
Sriram
That is completely false. Here is my post pointing out why, which you seem to have missed.
Homosexuality is perfectly normal, in that the evolutionary process works by constantly producing different organisms to test on the environment, and some of them are gay men or women.
Homosexuality alone would have a negative effect on the reproduction of the species, but it is not alone. It works in conjunction with the desire to raise a family, as you can see is the case. Many, probably the majority, of gay people want children to raise in a family unit, so they arrange for that, one way or another.
Furthermore, they can be more suitable than some heteros for raising healthy, well-balanced children.
Evolution is a natural process which always works towards survival and reproduction.
If you disagree on any point, we can discuss it.
Hi Leonard,
Well...I don't know what you mean by 'testing' on the environment. Looks like Intelligent design to me! ;)
Well, it would, because you think there is an intelligent designer behind it!
Perhaps instead of the concise phrase I used I should have said :-
Reproduction is not always exact, and the minute differences in reproduced organisms makes them either more or less suitable to survive and reproduce in the environment they find themselves in.
However, let us be perfectly clear about this. The inexact reproductive process is in no way designed ... it is random. If it were designed then there would never be any negative differences, because they are wasteful and eventually eliminated. No intelligent designer would waste time and energy producing them.
Can we agree on that?
Anyway, I do respect your rational and balanced response on this thread. In spite of being a homosexual you have been more reasonable than those yelling themselves hoarse out here. Thanks for that!
Thank you! :)
I think we should agree to disagree.... and see how the research on epigenetics pans out. Not likely to happen in a hurry I think!
Well OK, but can you answer that one question first? If you don't agree, tell me why not.
Hi Leonard,
Please see my above post to torridon.
If epigenetics is responsible... then homosexuality (in many cases) could be linked to lifestyle patterns of the parents/grandparents. It need not all be as natural and spontaneous as we think. It could be a human induced abnormality in many cases.
Anyway...thanks and I think I'll end my posts on this thread here.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Anyway....let me finish on this thread by saying that homosexuality is an abnormality because it goes against fundamental evolutionary instincts of procreation and survival of the species. There is no doubt about that.
Sriram
That is completely false. Here is my post pointing out why, which you seem to have missed.
Homosexuality is perfectly normal, in that the evolutionary process works by constantly producing different organisms to test on the environment, and some of them are gay men or women.
Homosexuality alone would have a negative effect on the reproduction of the species, but it is not alone. It works in conjunction with the desire to raise a family, as you can see is the case. Many, probably the majority, of gay people want children to raise in a family unit, so they arrange for that, one way or another.
Furthermore, they can be more suitable than some heteros for raising healthy, well-balanced children.
Evolution is a natural process which always works towards survival and reproduction.
If you disagree on any point, we can discuss it.
Hi Leonard,
Well...I don't know what you mean by 'testing' on the environment. Looks like Intelligent design to me! ;)
Well, it would, because you think there is an intelligent designer behind it!
Perhaps instead of the concise phrase I used I should have said :-
Reproduction is not always exact, and the minute differences in reproduced organisms makes them either more or less suitable to survive and reproduce in the environment they find themselves in.
However, let us be perfectly clear about this. The inexact reproductive process is in no way designed ... it is random. If it were designed then there would never be any negative differences, because they are wasteful and eventually eliminated. No intelligent designer would waste time and energy producing them.
Can we agree on that?
Anyway, I do respect your rational and balanced response on this thread. In spite of being a homosexual you have been more reasonable than those yelling themselves hoarse out here. Thanks for that!
Thank you! :)
I think we should agree to disagree.... and see how the research on epigenetics pans out. Not likely to happen in a hurry I think!
Well OK, but can you answer that one question first? If you don't agree, tell me why not.
QUOTE -
Hi Leonard,
Well...I don't know what you mean by 'testing' on the environment. Looks like Intelligent design to me! ;) [/quote]
Well, it would, because you think there is an intelligent designer behind it!
- UNQUOTE
How anyone can believe in "intelligent design" and look at a duckbilled platypus just has to be insane!
-
Anyway....let me finish on this thread by saying that homosexuality is an abnormality because it goes against fundamental evolutionary instincts of procreation and survival of the species. There is no doubt about that.
Sriram
Ill second your post Mat, mind you I'm sure he's only about 14 or 15 years old, he might be older than that but his mind isn't.
ippy
ippy
That is completely false. Here is my post pointing out why, which you seem to have missed.
Homosexuality is perfectly normal, in that the evolutionary process works by constantly producing different organisms to test on the environment, and some of them are gay men or women.
Homosexuality alone would have a negative effect on the reproduction of the species, but it is not alone. It works in conjunction with the desire to raise a family, as you can see is the case. Many, probably the majority, of gay people want children to raise in a family unit, so they arrange for that, one way or another.
Furthermore, they can be more suitable than some heteros for raising healthy, well-balanced children.
Evolution is a natural process which always works towards survival and reproduction.
If you disagree on any point, we can discuss it.
Hi Leonard,
Well...I don't know what you mean by 'testing' on the environment. Looks like Intelligent design to me! ;)
Well, it would, because you think there is an intelligent designer behind it!
Perhaps instead of the concise phrase I used I should have said :-
Reproduction is not always exact, and the minute differences in reproduced organisms makes them either more or less suitable to survive and reproduce in the environment they find themselves in.
However, let us be perfectly clear about this. The inexact reproductive process is in no way designed ... it is random. If it were designed then there would never be any negative differences, because they are wasteful and eventually eliminated. No intelligent designer would waste time and energy producing them.
Can we agree on that?
Anyway, I do respect your rational and balanced response on this thread. In spite of being a homosexual you have been more reasonable than those yelling themselves hoarse out here. Thanks for that!
Thank you! :)
I think we should agree to disagree.... and see how the research on epigenetics pans out. Not likely to happen in a hurry I think!
Well OK, but can you answer that one question first? If you don't agree, tell me why not.
QUOTE -
Hi Leonard,
Well...I don't know what you mean by 'testing' on the environment. Looks like Intelligent design to me! ;)
Well, it would, because you think there is an intelligent designer behind it!
- UNQUOTE
How anyone can believe in "intelligent design" and look at a duckbilled platypus just has to be insane!
[/quote]
-
In fact, it is very important that research is accelerated and the reasons for the epigenetic changes identified quickly. This could built awareness in the people and bring out the importance of lifestyle, diet, stress and so on.
Why is it "very important that research is accelerated and the reasons for the epigenetic changes identified quickly," if not to bolster your opinion that homosexuality is a disease which should be cured?
Still haven't heard you say a word on fertile heterosexual people who opt not to have children yet Sriram. Is there an epigenetic reason behind that too?
But of course, since you claim to have ducked out of the discussion in the face of the deservedly hostile response you've received for your witless inanities, we'll never know.
-
In fact, it is very important that research is accelerated and the reasons for the epigenetic changes identified quickly. This could built awareness in the people and bring out the importance of lifestyle, diet, stress and so on.
Why is it "very important that research is accelerated and the reasons for the epigenetic changes identified quickly," if not to bolster your opinion that homosexuality is a disease which should be cured?
Still haven't heard you say a word on fertile heterosexual people who opt not to have children yet Sriram. Is there an epigenetic reason behind that too?
But of course, since you claim to have ducked out of the discussion in the face of the deservedly hostile response you've received for your witless inanities, we'll never know.
LOL! Always rambling....aren't you?! How is your question relevant to this thread? Its the Wiki article on epigenetics & homosexuality that was the starting point of this thread.
Is there a epiigenetic reason behind infertility or not wanting children...you find out! ::)
-
<Anyway...thanks and I think I'll end my posts on this thread here.>
Oh English not our first language here, na??
-
LOL! Always rambling....aren't you?! How is your question relevant to this thread?
Ah, I see you haven't given up on this thread after all. Shaker's Law vindicated yet again.
How it's relevant to this thread is that you have declared homosexuality to be abnormal because it doesn't allow for procreation (even though this is plainly false). Therefore, using what I'm sure you like to think of as your logic, if that is the case (as you believe, even though you're wrong) for homosexuals it is equally true for heterosexuals who could have children should they want to (i.e. they're not infertile) but choose not to.
Is there a epiigenetic reason behind infertility or not wanting children...you find out! ::)
I'm trying to. That's why I'm asking you, Sriram, besotted with epigenetics as you so obviously are.
Now can you answer the question or can you not?
-
Many of the reasons given 10+ years ago as to why homosexuality ought to be legalised have been shown to be dubious at best.
Really? I thought the only reason to legalise homosexuality was that it is an injustice to homosexuals. How has that been shown to be dubious?
-
One point Sriram - regarding a possible 'cure' you talk about parents wanting their children to have offspring. Do you think that parents have a right to try to alter their children's sexuality?
-
Maeght, He has already made it clear that he does.That is the only real issue in this thread, the mechanics of epigenetic influences on sexuality and that they could be manipulated to give a particular result is assumed as a given - making the whole thing hypothetical. I'm assuming he would be happy with gay parents choosing homosexual orientation for their children if they wanted.
-
That's just a blinkered narrow minded value judgement,you need to grow your mind and your understanding of evolutionary processes. The facts that homosexuality persists at a fairly consistent level across cultures and over time, the evidence of genetic components, the fact that it occurs in some form or other in many species, these all indicate that it is a quite natural feature, and the incidence level of around 3% is presumably the optimal level selected in homo sapiens. If we try to alter that there will be unintended consequences for sure.
torri (and others, I notice) you seem to change the important word in Sri's comment. He talks about abnormal, you talk about natural. Unfortunately, your concentration on the naturalness of homosexuality doesn't invalidate Sri's reference to abnormality. As you say, only some 3% of the human population are homosexual - that is NOT normal, even though it is natural.
The Oxford Dictionary defines 'normal' thus: Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected
3% of a population doesn't fit this definition.
You misunderstand, Hope. We know that throughout recorded human history there has always been a percentage of people who are homosexual. Therefore homosexuality is a perfectly normal human variation.
-
Anyway....let me finish on this thread by saying that homosexuality is an abnormality because it goes against fundamental evolutionary instincts of procreation and survival of the species. There is no doubt about that.
Sriram
That is completely false. Here is my post pointing out why, which you seem to have missed.
Homosexuality is perfectly normal, in that the evolutionary process works by constantly producing different organisms to test on the environment, and some of them are gay men or women.
Homosexuality alone would have a negative effect on the reproduction of the species, but it is not alone. It works in conjunction with the desire to raise a family, as you can see is the case. Many, probably the majority, of gay people want children to raise in a family unit, so they arrange for that, one way or another.
Furthermore, they can be more suitable than some heteros for raising healthy, well-balanced children.
Evolution is a natural process which always works towards survival and reproduction.
If you disagree on any point, we can discuss it.
Hi Leonard,
Well...I don't know what you mean by 'testing' on the environment. Looks like Intelligent design to me! ;)
Well, it would, because you think there is an intelligent designer behind it!
Perhaps instead of the concise phrase I used I should have said :-
Reproduction is not always exact, and the minute differences in reproduced organisms makes them either more or less suitable to survive and reproduce in the environment they find themselves in.
However, let us be perfectly clear about this. The inexact reproductive process is in no way designed ... it is random. If it were designed then there would never be any negative differences, because they are wasteful and eventually eliminated. No intelligent designer would waste time and energy producing them.
Can we agree on that?
Anyway, I do respect your rational and balanced response on this thread. In spite of being a homosexual you have been more reasonable than those yelling themselves hoarse out here. Thanks for that!
Thank you! :)
I think we should agree to disagree.... and see how the research on epigenetics pans out. Not likely to happen in a hurry I think!
Well OK, but can you answer that one question first? If you don't agree, tell me why not.
Hi Leonard,
Please see my above post to torridon.
If epigenetics is responsible... then homosexuality (in many cases) could be linked to lifestyle patterns of the parents/grandparents. It need not all be as natural and spontaneous as we think. It could be a human induced abnormality in many cases.
Anyway...thanks and I think I'll end my posts on this thread here.
Cheers.
Sriram
Siriram I'll give you at least you know when you're on a loser, good by you wont be missed.
ippy.
-
Siriram I'll give you at least you know when you're on a loser
Unfortunately not!
-
<Anyway...thanks and I think I'll end my posts on this thread here.>
Oh English not our first language here, na??
That also occurred to me when I read his next post!
-
One point Sriram - regarding a possible 'cure' you talk about parents wanting their children to have offspring. Do you think that parents have a right to try to alter their children's sexuality?
I can't get my head around it being ok to want my children to do anything to please me. I hope they grow up to be decent people but anything else is their call. I have no intention of building my future dreams around them doing what I want them to.
-
Yes, well in India a mothers main duty once her children are married off, is to badger their daughters or daughters-in-law to produce plenty of sons. Otherwise the sky will fall down!
-
Maeght, He has already made it clear that he does.That is the only real issue in this thread, the mechanics of epigenetic influences on sexuality and that they could be manipulated to give a particular result is assumed as a given - making the whole thing hypothetical.
Yes, but by asking I wanted him to think about it and discuss it.
I'm assuming he would be happy with gay parents choosing homosexual orientation for their children if they wanted.
No, I don't think he would - as he would see this as changing the normal child to abnormal and would be against the idea of having children and passing on genes etc.
-
Small point on language for those supporting the idea that homosexuality is abnormal, it is normally defined as being pejorative. I think the word you might be searching for, but perhaps not having the clear understanding of meaning, is unusual.
-
Shaker's Law was vindicated when Shaker came back here from his flounce/snit.
-
Shaker's Law was vindicated when Shaker came back here from his flounce/snit.
There wasn't one, so bzzzzzz, nil points for canoe.
-
You keep claiming that but you did flounce and come back Shaker. You pulled a Shakers Law, the best one I've ever seen man! Don't be shy, own it, talk it out, examine, think, and then change your ways or not. Maybe plan your next great flounce/snit.
-
You keep claiming that but you did flounce and come back Shaker.
No, there was no flounce; you must be confusing me with Floo for some reason known only to yourself.
Now: perhaps you have something to contribute to the subject at hand, or is that to be a triumph of hope over experience yet again?
-
Hey Shaker, you don't want your stupid law mentioned by others, then don't brag about it. I wouldn't have mentioned it if you hadn't. What has your sneering at somebody, crowing about how he has vindicated your law, got to do with the topic of this thread?
-
Nah, didn't think so!
-
Nah, didn't think so!
Shaker
You know as well as I do that a positive response would have been classified as a miracle!
And a bloody great big one at that! A JESUS CHRIST ALMIGHTY magnitude one!
-
True!
-
Anyway....let me finish on this thread by saying that homosexuality is an abnormality because it goes against fundamental evolutionary instincts of procreation and survival of the species. There is no doubt about that....
That's just a blinkered narrow minded value judgement,you need to grow your mind and your understanding of evolutionary processes. The facts that homosexuality persists at a fairly consistent level across cultures and over time, the evidence of genetic components, the fact that it occurs in some form or other in many species, these all indicate that it is a quite natural feature, and the incidence level of around 3% is presumably the optimal level selected in homo sapiens. If we try to alter that there will be unintended consequences for sure.
torridon,
1. Something can be perfectly natural and still be abnormal. There are so many abnormalities thrown up by nature spontaneously everyday. They don't stop being abnormalities just because they are natural.
And just because something is natural we don't stop treating the abnormalities or correcting them. So..there is nothing wrong in seeing some trait as an abnormality and trying to correct it.....however natural it may be.
2. Secondly, you are forgetting that we are talking about epigenetics. This implies lifestyle and behavioral causes. So...its possible that many of the homosexuals are not spontaneous and natural abnormalities but are caused by faulty lifestyle and behavioral patterns of their parents or grandparents. This is the crux of this thread.
In fact, it is very important that research is accelerated and the reasons for the epigenetic changes identified quickly. This could built awareness in the people and bring out the importance of lifestyle, diet, stress and so on.
We can do as much research as you want, it still will not validate your prejuduces. You just use 'epigenetics' as cover for bigotry and the bottom line is that all your talk of 'abnormalities' and 'faulty lifestyles' is just your personal value calls and is nothing to do with evidence or research. The human genome funds all manner of diversity, not just in sexuality, and this diversity is something to be valued, it cuts to the core of the success of our species. If you cannot grasp any of the unique contribution that homosexuality brings to our species then that is a sad loss of a tiny blinkered mind.
-
Anyway....let me finish on this thread by saying that homosexuality is an abnormality because it goes against fundamental evolutionary instincts of procreation and survival of the species. There is no doubt about that....
That's just a blinkered narrow minded value judgement,you need to grow your mind and your understanding of evolutionary processes. The facts that homosexuality persists at a fairly consistent level across cultures and over time, the evidence of genetic components, the fact that it occurs in some form or other in many species, these all indicate that it is a quite natural feature, and the incidence level of around 3% is presumably the optimal level selected in homo sapiens. If we try to alter that there will be unintended consequences for sure.
torridon,
1. Something can be perfectly natural and still be abnormal. There are so many abnormalities thrown up by nature spontaneously everyday. They don't stop being abnormalities just because they are natural.
And just because something is natural we don't stop treating the abnormalities or correcting them. So..there is nothing wrong in seeing some trait as an abnormality and trying to correct it.....however natural it may be.
2. Secondly, you are forgetting that we are talking about epigenetics. This implies lifestyle and behavioral causes. So...its possible that many of the homosexuals are not spontaneous and natural abnormalities but are caused by faulty lifestyle and behavioral patterns of their parents or grandparents. This is the crux of this thread.
In fact, it is very important that research is accelerated and the reasons for the epigenetic changes identified quickly. This could built awareness in the people and bring out the importance of lifestyle, diet, stress and so on.
We can do as much research as you want, it still will not validate your prejuduces. You just use 'epigenetics' as cover for bigotry and the bottom line is that all your talk of 'abnormalities' and 'faulty lifestyles' is just your personal value calls and is nothing to do with evidence or research. The human genome funds all manner of diversity, not just in sexuality, and this diversity is something to be valued, it cuts to the core of the success of our species. If you cannot grasp any of the unique contribution that homosexuality brings to our species then that is a sad loss of a tiny blinkered mind.
If homosexuals disappeared from this world art and fashion and the entertainment businesses would be sure to suffer a catastrophic loss of talent.
The only homosexual that I, personally, would not miss is my old schoolmate Mr Reginald Dwight!
-
So bitter sounding Matty. Who pooped in your Cheerios this morning? Was it Elton?
-
What exactly is your rectum's function Leo? And don't you dare write, bum fun.
-
Does that mean that blowjobs aren't Christian, JC?
-
Does that mean that blowjobs aren't Christian, JC?
Some churches do teach that oral sex is wrong.
-
What exactly is your rectum's function Leo? And don't you dare write, bum fun.
The same as yours plus the fun, although I admit that passivity is not really my scene.
-
You get some interesting discussions on here of a Sunday afternoon sometimes ...
-
You get some interesting discussions on here of a Sunday afternoon sometimes ...
It's nice to be able to talk about it. When I was young we didn't dare! :)
-
What did I tell you Leo? You're fired. Grab your purse and leave! (smilies)
Rhi, what's a blowjob?
-
What did I tell you Leo? You're fired. Grab your purse and leave! (smilies)
Rhi, what's a blowjob?
Sorry, didn't realise you had different names for them across the pond. Humph got it though - oral sex.
-
Well Rhi, blow jobs are not Christian, they're scientologist!
-
Although blowjob has always confused me.
Suckjob would be much more accurate.
-
Does that mean that blowjobs aren't Christian, JC?
Some churches do teach that oral sex is wrong.
Really? Not come across that. Masturbation, yes.
-
Although blowjob has always confused me.
Suckjob would be much more accurate.
Yes, I can imagine lots of confusion and disappointment with the former.
-
Well Rhi, blow jobs are not Christian, they're scientologist!
Tom Cruise is allowed one then?
-
Rhi, "imagine", really?
-
Rhi,
I suppose you can ask Tom about a BJ.
-
Rhi,
I suppose you can ask Tom about a BJ.
So could you. But I doubt he's either of our types.
-
True, but I wasn't the one bringing up the BJ thingy Rhi. That was you, so if you need to know if Tom would goes for one, you should be the one asking him.
-
No, I was asking for a religious perspective on a particular sexual activity. I know that for some religious people going for alternatives to penetrative sex is a way of preserving virginity outside of marriage.
You are the one personalising this about my own sexual preferences and I find that a form of harassment.
-
You get some interesting discussions on here of a Sunday afternoon sometimes ...
It's nice to be able to talk about it. When I was young we didn't dare! :)
Ain't that an unpleasant truth.
A lot of today's problems with the acceptability of LGBT matters relates directly back to the attitudes at that time - attitudes that were driven, for the most part, by the Christian Church.
My R E teacher in first year at Grammar School was a little Welsh lady of the seriously Chapel persuasion and, in one discussion of various matters relating to the sinfulness of sex, she opined that the reason that the Christian church was so anti-sex and mysogynistic was becuase the highly pious clergy found that when thinking about anything relating to sex and females they got an erection just like every other male and, as they were so pious and holy, it could not be that they were having sexy thoughts so it must have been that the women were exerting an evil influence over them.
Thinking back, it was also Mrs Williams who enetered the classroom for one R E class and announced, in her pronounced Welsh accent, that we were going to have a mass debate. It took a fair while for the laughter to stop and Mrs Williams went the whole class period with a smile on her face.
-
No, I was asking for a religious perspective on a particular sexual activity. I know that for some religious people going for alternatives to penetrative sex is a way of preserving virginity outside of marriage.
You are the one personalising this about my own sexual preferences and I find that a form of harassment.
Give over Lady Rhiannon!
JC is such a pure Christian boy he is probably still virgin in all respects! He ois probably such a good boiy that he has never even seen his own penis erect!
-
You get some interesting discussions on here of a Sunday afternoon sometimes ...
It's nice to be able to talk about it. When I was young we didn't dare! :)
Ain't that an unpleasant truth.
A lot of today's problems with the acceptability of LGBT matters relates directly back to the attitudes at that time - attitudes that were driven, for the most part, by the Christian Church.
My R E teacher in first year at Grammar School was a little Welsh lady of the seriously Chapel persuasion and, in one discussion of various matters relating to the sinfulness of sex, she opined that the reason that the Christian church was so anti-sex and mysogynistic was becuase the highly pious clergy found that when thinking about anything relating to sex and females they got an erection just like every other male and, as they were so pious and holy, it could not be that they were having sexy thoughts so it must have been that the women were exerting an evil influence over them.
Hang on, to accuse women of exerting evil influences is mysogynist, surely it was a succubus?
-
No, I was asking for a religious perspective on a particular sexual activity. I know that for some religious people going for alternatives to penetrative sex is a way of preserving virginity outside of msarriage.
You are the one personalising this about my own sexual preferences and I find that a form of harassment.
Give o=vcer Lady Rhiannon!
JC is such a pure Christian boy he is probably still virgin in all respects! He ois probably such a good boiy that he has never even seen his own penis erect!
Matt, I'm not going to make this personal against anyone here. Even if JC thinks this is acceptable, I don't.
-
I haven't read all this thread but homosexuality is not an illness to be cured. Medics tried all that in times past and the poor patients went through no end of Hell, hormone treatments, lobotomies and the Lord only knows what else.
Being gay is just how someone is, nothing wrong with it. I applaud long term, committed relationships and rejoice that gays are now able to have them openly.
-
I haven't read all this thread but homosexuality is not an illness to be cured. Medics tried all that in times past and the poor patients went through no end of Hell, hormone treatments, lobotomies and the Lord only knows what else.
Being gay is just how someone is, nothing wrong with it. I applaud long term, committed relationships and rejoice that gays are now able to have them openly.
Well said.
-
I haven't read all this thread but homosexuality is not an illness to be cured. Medics tried all that in times past and the poor patients went through no end of Hell, hormone treatments, lobotomies and the Lord only knows what else.
Being gay is just how someone is, nothing wrong with it. I applaud long term, committed relationships and rejoice that gays are now able to have them openly.
Yes, surely what the world needs is more love, the celebration of love, not the fear and suppression of it.
-
What exactly is your rectum's function Leo? And don't you dare write, bum fun.
The same as yours...
I beg to differ. I've never seen you talk out of yours.
-
No, I was asking for a religious perspective on a particular sexual activity. I know that for some religious people going for alternatives to penetrative sex is a way of preserving virginity outside of msarriage.
You are the one personalising this about my own sexual preferences and I find that a form of harassment.
Give o=vcer Lady Rhiannon!
JC is such a pure Christian boy he is probably still virgin in all respects! He ois probably such a good boiy that he has never even seen his own penis erect!
Matt, I'm not going to make this personal against anyone here. Even if JC thinks this is acceptable, I don't.
I don't find bring asked who shit in my breakfast cereal acceptable either!
To you I will apologise - To JC - NEVER!
-
What exactly is your rectum's function Leo? And don't you dare write, bum fun.
The same as yours...
I beg to differ. I've never seen you talk out of yours.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Jeremy, I love you! XXX
-
No, I was asking for a religious perspective on a particular sexual activity. I know that for some religious people going for alternatives to penetrative sex is a way of preserving virginity outside of msarriage.
You are the one personalising this about my own sexual preferences and I find that a form of harassment.
Give o=vcer Lady Rhiannon!
JC is such a pure Christian boy he is probably still virgin in all respects! He ois probably such a good boiy that he has never even seen his own penis erect!
Matt, I'm not going to make this personal against anyone here. Even if JC thinks this is acceptable, I don't.
I don't find bring asked who shit in my breakfast cereal either!
To you I will apologise - To JC - NEVER!
Fair dos, Matt. :)
-
Lovely to see you back btw, Brownie. Hope you are well. :)
-
I want to do a thumbs up smiley for you Rhiannon but can't find one! Thank you. Doubt I will post much though, I'm a great one for forgetting my password etc and don't have that much to say anyway. Nice to know I'm welcome though.
-
Yes, surely what the world needs is more love, the celebration of love, not the fear and suppression of it.
It's funny isn't it - funny and sad - that ordinary, normally-constituted people consider love of all and any kind (romantic-sexual love; parental love; familial love; love amongst friends) to be not just a good thing amongst other good things but arguably the very best of all things without which no life worthy of the name is worth the living, and is therefore something to be applauded, cherished, supported and encouraged in every possible way at every possible turn; and yet along come religions - including or especially the ones which claim to be predicated on love - and on the basis of what they call morality carve up love into "good/right/acceptable" and "bad/wrong/unacceptable" kinds.
Bizarre.
-
We Christians have to learn not to be bogged down by religiosity Shaker. There's the world of difference between having a faith and being religious. Some of us lack grace at times.
-
I want to do a thumbs up smiley for you Rhiannon but can't find one! Thank you. Doubt I will post much though, I'm a great one for forgetting my password etc and don't have that much to say anyway. Nice to know I'm welcome though.
What you do say is always well thought out, interesting and gracious. That's why it's so good to see you back. :)
-
I rejoined (not that I was ever not joined exactly but I had forgotten log in details etc so had to change name and all that), to particularly contact a member I have 'known' on forums since BBC days. Well I found her and sent her a pm so job done - but now I am back I may post a bit more. There are some interesting discussions on here and everyone seems nice.
-
I rejoined (not that I was ever not joined exactly but I had forgotten log in details etc so had to change name and all that), to particularly contact a member I have 'known' on forums since BBC days. Well I found her and sent her a pm so job done - but now I am back I may post a bit more. There are some interesting discussions on here and everyone seems nice.
I am slightly baffled how posting on a thread where homosexuality has been described as a disease and compared to murder, one could get to your last conclusion. Also I am sure there are a few of us on this thread standing up for the rights of homosexuals who might openly admit we are not very nice. Still you seem lovely
-
I am very average :D, had ups and downs on forums in the past and annoyed people - not intentionally but by being a bit mouthy. I wouldn't do that now though, I've mellowed. Encroaching old age ! But, yes, I do believe that homosexuality is perfectly natural to homosexuals, God made them after all, and I'm glad we are living in more enlightened times. At least that's how it is in this country, it's not the same all over the world, gay couples are still persecuted in other places, Uganda being an example.
-
I rejoined (not that I was ever not joined exactly but I had forgotten log in details etc so had to change name and all that), to particularly contact a member I have 'known' on forums since BBC days. Well I found her and sent her a pm so job done - but now I am back I may post a bit more. There are some interesting discussions on here and everyone seems nice.
I am slightly baffled how posting on a thread where homosexuality has been described as a disease and compared to murder, one could get to your last conclusion. Also I am sure there are a few of us on this thread standing up for the rights of homosexuals who might openly admit we are not very nice. Still you seem lovely
Well, there might be some not very nice people hanging round these parts, but you are one of the most decent people on here. If a bit mardy sometimes.
<manly hug>
-
I was only echoing NS' choice of words in referring to the fact that not all liberals are 'nice'. I'm not about to say that just because someone is pro-gay that they are lovely, but neither was I passing judgement on any particular poster; it was merely a turn of phrase based on NS'.
-
In the early hours of Monday morning (5am) we drove past our local transgender venue and their were hundreds of people leaving and cars everywhere all over the pavements etc. People were milling about in the street talking to each other both men and women and probably not all were gay.
Both me and my partner were struck by the sheer number of people there.
Attitudes have changed immensely.
35 years ago my mother and I used to live in Taunton and the local gay club was hidden away behind a shop ( that my mother worked in) and was hidden away and most people didn't even know it existed. It used to have a green door and the only reason my mother knew it was there is because it was so hidden away, that even gay people looking for it couldn't find it, so used to ask her in the shop.
Now in my local club it has large letters Saying exactly what it is, along with rainbow painted walls and a big rainbow double decker bus proclaiming gay transgender and lesbian and has a huge attendance as big as any night club in the area.
The contrast between what it was like in the UK 35years ago and now is enormous.
I think being open about it is better.
Years ago me and mum used to laugh about the green door and that song by shakin Stevens. It was all so hidden then, even gay people were embarrassed about asking where their club was, now even straight people go.
Thank you Rose! I haven't been to England for over 20 years, and that story has made me very happy! ;D
-
Hi everyone,
Ok....the subject of homosexuality is always controversial and lots of people tend to get all charged up. This could be one such...(or maybe not).
Here is my favorite subject of epignetics again. They say that homosexuality could even be cured through epigenetic therapy.
Alright...some people may feel that homosexuality is not...repeat not... a disease and does not need to be cured! But I tend to disagree.
Here is some scientific stuff on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_theories_of_homosexuality
************************************************************************************
Epigenetic theories of homosexuality concerns the study of changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence.
One team of researchers examined the effects of epi-marks buffering XX fetuses and XY fetuses from certain androgen exposure and used published data on fetal androgen signaling and gene regulation through non-genetic changes in DNA packaging to develop a new model for homosexuality.[2] The researchers found that stronger than average epi-marks, epigenomes that are wrapped tightly around the DNA sequence, convert sexual preference in individuals without altering genitalia or sexual identity.[3]
This research gives support to the hypothesis that homosexuality stems from the under expression of certain genes on the DNA sequence involved with sexual preferences. This theory as well as other concepts involved with epi-marks, twin studies, and fetal androgen signaling will be explored here.
A "gay" gene does not produce homosexuality, rather, epigenetic modifications act as temporary "switches" that regulate how the genes are expressed[7] Only twenty percent of identical twins are both homosexual which leads to the hypothesis that even though identical twins share the same DNA, homosexuality is created by something else rather than the genes. Epigenetic transformation allows the on and off switch of certain genes, subsequently shaping how cells respond to androgen signaling, which is critical in sexual development.
This demonstrates that gene coding for these epi-marks can spread in the population because they benefit the development and fitness of the parent but only rarely escape erasure, leading to mismatched sexual preference in offspring.
Following a late 2012 publication on possible epigenetic origins of homosexuality,[10] some people[who?] have suggested that it might be possible to alter one's sexual orientation with epigenetic therapy,[11] similarly to treatment of diabetes, cancer or schizophrenia.
************************************************************************************
This also highlights the fact that lifestyle and environmental factors (that's what epigenetics is all about) could be producing homosexual tendencies.
For information.
Cheers.
Sriram
I would ask the question:-
Is it the mind or the body which chooses?
Surely DNA cannot be responsible when relationships are really more about the mental than than the physical.
As for a disease then how can a disease put people at fault?
No disease and really cannot understand who would use such a term.
Are people gay because of their sexual feelings and prowess or because of their mental outlook in the mind.
I personally, do not believe another woman can provide the companionship or the mental stability a man can for myself personally. I believe a man makes up the other half of myself which a woman could not do. Anything not heterosexual being like Two nuts rather than a bolt and nut...
That is a personal way and feeling and nothing to do with sexual arousal or attraction. Emotionally I feel that a partner has to be a man. So is it our sexuality or emotional needs which decide our sexual preference and orientation?
We are what we are and I am wondering why people are looking for an answer to homosexuality yet heterosexuality is accepted as being the true norm.
Is it nature or nurtured?
-
Does this mean some 'straight' people might have the choice to be 'gay'???
<does not need to be cured! But I tend to disagree>
So Sriram bhai, you feel being gay is akin to being a leper or carrying some disease that will wipe out mankind ??? ::)
Hitler would've loved your attitude !!!!!
Nick
That was a bit quick for Godwin's rule.
Wow. The ability to change ones sexual orientation ! Fantastic ! If I was single and the supply of women was low, I could simply take a pill and hey presto I could chase after the boys !
Making homosexuality a choice and not helping those who are homosexual without the pill. :o
-
Len, growing up around London in the 80's', going out to gay clubs wasn't unusual even then, especially for women - my mum used to go to them more than I did! Now it's so mainstream it barely registers.
-
SOME people???
Do you realise what repercussions such a finding will have ????
The Christian churches will LOVE this kind of thing & jump on it to say how God really DOES hate gays but you CAN CHANGE !!!!
Of course I DO know that Hinduism loves ALL people regardless !!!!!
God doesn't hate gays... He hates the act of sodomy(man with man). The body he created being used for something it was not created for.
If God hated people because they sinned he would not have sent his Son to die for them. He just dislikes his creation being used in a way it was never meant to be used.
We have to live and let God. Because no amount of posts on any threads about homosexuality will change anything... Love has a better affect by treating others as we wish to be treated.
Through history men have sought to alienate people who do things which society believe not to be normal. They hid away single young pregnant girls making them feel ashamed. They made it so homosexuals were frightened of their own feelings. They even treated the children born out of wedlock differently at one time.
Whatever a person does or does not do we need to ensure that when it hurts no other person we support them to help them feel they are not alone and isolated.
-
SOME people???
Do you realise what repercussions such a finding will have ????
The Christian churches will LOVE this kind of thing & jump on it to say how God really DOES hate gays but you CAN CHANGE !!!!
Of course I DO know that Hinduism loves ALL people regardless !!!!!
Ok...so what are you saying?! I don't know what Christians will say. I know what I think and that's what matters to me.
If we know for a fact that homosexuality can be cured through epigenetic therapy...what's the problem? Even Len seems to be ok with it. What's the problem is facing up to it instead of making a big deal about it?
In fact, it would prove to Christians that homosexuality is not a sin at all....and just a abnormality that can be corrected. Good show, I would think!
Says who? How can anything show homosexuality not a sin? Now you are showing you have no idea what a sin is. Will it also prove that adultery or stealing is not a sin... At least try and learn what a sin is, before including it in such a statement.
-
Things are a lot better, but when we still see this idea of homosexuality being a disease or compared to murder, there is a long long way to go. Still let's hope that that Ireland votes for gay marriage this month as a further step.
-
As I have said many times before, Jesus might have been gay having a specific disciple whom he loved, and no bad thing if he had been.
Most likely referring to one of his brothers...
Matthew 13:55-56King James Version (KJV)
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
John 20:2King James Version (KJV)
2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
Was it the other Simon his brother? Because it appears to say he loved Simon Peter and the other disciple (Simon) whom Jesus loved (brother)
I have to wonder if this has been taken out of context over and over again. The 12 being the disciples he loved being closer to them than the others of the 72 sent out.
-
I would just love to see the look on the faces of Christians who are bigots where homosexuality is concerned, if it could be proved Jesus in a physical relationship with another guy. ;D He NEVER condemned homosexuality!
-
Morning floo. Nothing can be proved about Jesus, it's all speculation, but you are right that he never said anything about homosexuality - maybe because he was never asked. I can't imagine him in a sexual relationship, despite all the talk about him possibly loving Mary Magdalene in that way (& she was apparently a lot older than him), and loving a particular disciple - maybe in a brotherly way. There's certainly no evidence he did anything like that.
-
He just dislikes his creation being used in a way it was never meant to be used.
But as God is an all powerful, all seeing, you know omnipotent type of guy/gal - why did he/she let it happen in the first place?
Cue lots of bollocks about free will etc.
Anyway Sass do you cut your hair? God created it to grow - why do you cut it? You dishonour the Lord by doing this.
Do you wear make up to improve your looks - that sounds a little bit like vanity to me - is vanity not a close cousin of pride - and is that not one of the sins?
And as for your toenails.
And what is it with women using sanitary towels? Surely God didn't mean you to do that???
In fact every aspect of your life today is a rebellion against God - so out of tune is it with the way God orginally created you to exist.
You are not a Christian at all - you are a sister of Satan.
-
He just dislikes his creation being used in a way it was never meant to be used.
But as God is an all powerful, all seeing, you know omnipotent type of guy/gal - why did he/she let it happen in the first place?
Cue lots of bollocks about free will etc.
Anyway Sass do you cut your hair? God created it to grow - why do you cut it? You dishonour the Lord by doing this.
Do you wear make up to improve your looks - that sounds a little bit like vanity to me - is vanity not a close cousin of pride - and is that not one of the sins?
And as for your toenails.
And what is it with women using sanitary towels? Surely God didn't mean you to do that???
In fact every aspect of your life today is a rebellion against God - so out of tune is it with the way God orginally created you to exist.
You are not a Christian at all - you are a sister of Satan.
Wham!!!
;D ;D ;D
-
Nope, people are unhappy with the OPs personal opinion that homosexuality is a disease.
-
You know, they have to accept being gay and do the "proper " thing of coming out, like all the other gay people.
Diversity doesn't mean bullying people who think differently, it means accepting differences, even those people who are not happy about coming out as gay, and want what they see as a cure.
But I can see some people haven't noticed that yet.
You might have a point IF (and that's an IF in capitals a mile high) we get to a point in our society where young gay adults aren't laughed at by their peers, aren't thrown out of their homes by their parents, and aren't subjected to the myriad small put downs and discrimination that affect each and every gay person still today. Until that point is reached - you don't have a point.
-
I am happy to accept that some people may not be happy with their sexuality. Until they aren't feeling that because other people describe them as being diseased or wrong in the same way as being murderers, I will concentrate my ire on supporting them and calling out those with the views above.
I think it is a misrepresentation of what has been said on here that people are objecting to the notional possibility of a choice of sexuality, rather than being angry at those who have described posters and friends of posters on here as diseased.
-
You don't think my ridiculing him for saying I was diseased is reasonable.
I thought it was perfectly reasonable considering the other options running through my head.
Carry on defending the indefensible Rose.
-
It;s diversity to think that Jews should be gassed. But I will not tolerate that any more than people describing my friends as diseased because they love each other.
-
You know, they have to accept being gay and do the "proper " thing of coming out, like all the other gay people.
Diversity doesn't mean bullying people who think differently, it means accepting differences, even those people who are not happy about coming out as gay, and want what they see as a cure.
But I can see some people haven't noticed that yet.
You might have a point IF (and that's an IF in capitals a mile high) we get to a point in our society where young gay adults aren't laughed at by their peers, aren't thrown out of their homes by their parents, and aren't subjected to the myriad small put downs and discrimination that affect each and every gay person still today. Until that point is reached - you don't have a point.
I agree entirely! Young people nowadays are being taught that being gay is in no way wrong, but until the whole of society stops saying otherwise, it is very difficult for them not to be influenced.
It is very probable that when that time comes, some will still want to change in order to be able to have a child which is genetically shared with their partner. In that case, providing such treatment has been shown to be non-detrimental, why not?
-
I find the idea that calling someone out for stating on here that some of the posters are diseased is bullying, laughable.
-
That 'vocal and nasty minority' - they are the type of people who would describe homosexuality as a disease
-
That 'vocal and nasty minority' - they are the type of people who would describe homosexuality as a disease
And they should be forced to submit to corrective education. >:(
-
Things are a lot better, but when we still see this idea of homosexuality being a disease or compared to murder, there is a long long way to go. Still let's hope that that Ireland votes for gay marriage this month as a further step.
A quid to a pinch of pig-shit they don't!
-
That 'vocal and nasty minority' - they are the type of people who would describe homosexuality as a disease
I don't think Sriram fits into that.
I disagree with Srirams POV and would explain the reason I did disagree with him is because of the following:
I think the fear is, if it is seen as a cure, like you would cure cancer or diabetes then people who were gay would be expected to seek a cure, whether or not they wanted to or not.
imo it is nothing like cancer or diabeties which can be life threatening illnesses.
This is something which is deeply personal and can only be resolved by the individual concerned as it has to do with how they see themselves.
Therefore the idea of a "cure" being used as an excuse to force gay people to conform to non gay society is not acceptable to me.
However for a very small number of Gay people who may never for whatever reason be able to accept their sexuality it may be just that, a cure. In the way someone is unhappy about a part of their anatomy.
I think some people wonder if the additives hormones and pollution could be causing greater numbers of people to become gay.
I don't know the answer to that one.
-
That 'vocal and nasty minority' - they are the type of people who would describe homosexuality as a disease
I don't think Sriram fits into that.
I disagree with Srirams POV and would explain the reason I did disagree with him is because of the following:
I think the fear is, if it is seen as a cure, like you would cure cancer or diabetes then people who were gay would be expected to seek a cure, whether or not they wanted to or not.
imo it is nothing like cancer or diabeties which can be life threatening illnesses.
This is something which is deeply personal and can only be resolved by the individual concerned as it has to do with how they see themselves.
Therefore the idea of a "cure" being used as an excuse to force gay people to conform to non gay society is not acceptable to me.
However for a very small number of Gay people who may never for whatever reason be able to accept their sexuality it may be just that, a cure. In the way someone is unhappy about a part of their anatomy.
I think some people wonder if the additives hormones and pollution could be causing greater numbers of people to become gay.
I don't know the answer to that one.
Given that he states in the OP that he thinks it is a disease, why not?
-
I think some people wonder if the additives hormones and pollution could be causing greater numbers of people to become gay.
I don't know the answer to that one.
But are greater numbers of people becoming gay in the first place?
-
That 'vocal and nasty minority' - they are the type of people who would describe homosexuality as a disease
I don't think Sriram fits into that.
I disagree with Srirams POV and would explain the reason I did disagree with him is because of the following:
I think the fear is, if it is seen as a cure, like you would cure cancer or diabetes then people who were gay would be expected to seek a cure, whether or not they wanted to or not.
imo it is nothing like cancer or diabeties which can be life threatening illnesses.
This is something which is deeply personal and can only be resolved by the individual concerned as it has to do with how they see themselves.
Therefore the idea of a "cure" being used as an excuse to force gay people to conform to non gay society is not acceptable to me.
However for a very small number of Gay people who may never for whatever reason be able to accept their sexuality it may be just that, a cure. In the way someone is unhappy about a part of their anatomy.
I think some people wonder if the additives hormones and pollution could be causing greater numbers of people to become gay.
I don't know the answer to that one.
Given that he states in the OP that he thinks it is a disease, why not?
Because IMO he isn't saying it to be malicious or vicious.
Some people hold veiws because that's how they have been brought up, they are just saying it because they are speaking from their own experience.
Like a Christian brought up to believe it is wrong because they have been told the bible says so.
Sometimes it is just a POV and no more, and the person expressing it doesn't intend to hurt someone else, they just don't think.
What I call the small and vocal and nasty minority are those who set out to hurt and basically be prejudiced.
They might not even be religious, they are the ones who intend to cause hurt, sometimes physical.
I wouldn't put Sriram in the same group.
But he has been told by trentvoyager on this thread quite how much hurt it causes and he has continued with it' why is that them trentvoyager as bullying when it is sriram continuing to tout the idea that Trent is diseased.
When I go to my friends' house this Friday, how do you think they will feel if I tell them that I was talking to someone on this board who thinks they are diseased but it's ok they don't mean it in a bad way?
-
Nearly Sane
Well perhaps if you explained to your friends that you felt the viewpoint wasn't motivated by hatred so you showed restraint in your answers and explained WHY you didn't hold with it, instead of joining in an attack on Sriram, they might understand.
It's the "why" that matters, surely?
People never seem to bother to explain to the other person, WHY they find such an idea objectionable in a format that the other person is likely to take in.
I think it is more valuable than trying to shame the other person into agreeing with you.
All that happens is hostility all round.
It's better to explain why, even if you think your answers are inevitable, you never know, you might make the other person think.
I have often been given reason to rethink things, usually by people who have restrained their knee jerk reaction.
Julie
It is very difficult for some people to imagine what reactions their remarks are going to cause in others. Sriram clearly is one of them.
-
Nearly Sane
Well perhaps if you explained to your friends that you felt the viewpoint wasn't motivated by hatred so you showed restraint in your answers and explained WHY you didn't hold with it, instead of joining in an attack on Sriram, they might understand.
It's the "why" that matters, surely?
People never seem to bother to explain to the other person, WHY they find such an idea objectionable in a format that the other person is likely to take in.
I think it is more valuable than trying to shame the other person into agreeing with you.
All that happens is hostility all round.
It's better to explain why, even if you think your answers are inevitable, you never know, you might make the other person think.
I have often been given reason to rethink things, usually by people who have restrained their knee jerk reaction.
Julie
And again Trent explained why it was offensive, many people did but serial then accuses them of just talking about him and not the idea.
The problem I have is I don'' t see this difference in the why when it has the same effect, and when the effect is explained, the person continues to do it.
I don't really know what motivates sriram' s position , and neither do you. But in tolerating it, you give validation to those who you think are motivated by hatred. As I have said before I have been to the hospital beds of too many friends beaten up by people because those people disagreed with their sexuality. And of the couple of people who were then prosecuted of it, one said that they didn't hate gays, but they just thought it was wrong to be gay. Was I supposed to say there, there to my friend as he breathed through a tube, it's ok, he didn't beat you up because of hatred. It was the good type of beating?
-
Hi Rose,
Thanks for taking up my defense..... I was thinking of no more posts on this thread since I have said all I have to say. But I will make this the last one here. :)
First of all, the people here indulge in hyperbole and name calling as a matter of routine. It has happened many times before on other subjects and is not really anything to do with the subject of homosexuality.
NS has a history of lies and name calling. For example NS says in Post 374 ...
Things are a lot better, but when we still see this idea of homosexuality being a disease or compared to murder, there is a long long way to go. Still let's hope that that Ireland votes for gay marriage this month as a further step.
'compared to murder'....?? ?? ...Now where the heck did NS get that from...except from his/her vicious imagination...and it was obviously an attempt to stir things up. ::)
At any rate...all this make no difference to me at all. My views on homosexuality have been the same and I have said so for the past 14 years on the BBC boards also. I have said that it is an abnormality....and the new findings on epigenetics only confirm my POV.
I do agree that given the history of persecution and condemnation of homosexuals in the west...people tend to view every comment through the many filters in their own minds. Even simple and objective comments could appear magnified and coloured to them. But, as adults, this is something they should learn to rectify. I am not responsible for their perceptions, fears and prejudices.
I don't have any such historical or cultural baggage about homosexuality. I simply see it as an abnormality nothing more. Period.
About homosexuality being a disease...its not me but the scientists in the link I have provided in the OP who say so. They compare it to diabetes, cancer and schizophrenia. Maybe our friends here don't know what to do about that simple fact...and so find it easier to go on and on about me instead! LOL!
My OP was simply about research findings that epigenetics processes could be responsible for homosexuality and the possibility of an epigenetic therapy. Its there in the article I have linked and many other articles you can google for. If people don't like these findings...that's their problem. I can't change that fact.
If anything, the research on epigenetics brings out the fact that lifestyle, behavior and environment could be largely responsible for homosexuality. We should learn from this piece of information...instead of getting into a defense mode.
Anyway, thanks once again.
Cheers.
Sriram
PS: They will start attacking you next....watch out. As I have said ...the shoe is now on the other foot. Its the homosexuals who seem to be the ones doing the persecution....not the Chritians any more. LOL! New realities...I suppose!
-
Read the rest of the posts, sriram, where it is clear that I was referring to Hope, and indeed Hope's post where he says homosexuality is wrong in the SAME WAY as murder.
After that I will accept your apology about me lying in this case.
As for a history of doing it, since you reprocessing by the posts on the thread, in this instance, I will allow you to either present any further case or withdraw the remark.
-
Hi Rose,
Thanks for taking up my defense..... I was thinking of no more posts on this thread since I have said all I have to say. But I will make this the last one here. :)
First of all, the people here indulge in hyperbole and name calling as a matter of routine. It has happened many times before on other subjects and is not really anything to do with the subject of homosexuality.
NS has a history of lies and name calling. For example NS says in Post 374 ...
Things are a lot better, but when we still see this idea of homosexuality being a disease or compared to murder, there is a long long way to go. Still let's hope that that Ireland votes for gay marriage this month as a further step.
'compared to murder'....?? ?? ...Now where the heck did NS get that from...except from his/her vicious imagination...and it was obviously an attempt to stir things up. ::)
At any rate...all this make no difference to me at all. My views on homosexuality have been the same and I have said so for the past 14 years on the BBC boards also. I have said that it is an abnormality....and the new findings on epigenetics only confirm my POV.
I do agree that given the history of persecution and condemnation of homosexuals in the west...people tend to view every comment through the many filters in their own minds. Even simple and objective comments could appear magnified and coloured to them. But, as adults, this is something they should learn to rectify. I am not responsible for their perceptions, fears and prejudices.
I don't have any such historical or cultural baggage about homosexuality. I simply see it as an abnormality nothing more. Period.
About homosexuality being a disease...its not me but the scientists in the link I have provided in the OP who say so. They compare it to diabetes, cancer and schizophrenia. Maybe our friends here don't know what to do about that simple fact...and so find it easier to go on and on about me instead! LOL!
My OP was simply about research findings that epigenetics processes could be responsible for homosexuality and the possibility of an epigenetic therapy. Its there in the article I have linked and many other articles you can google for. If people don't like these findings...that's their problem. I can't change that fact.
If anything, the research on epigenetics brings out the fact that lifestyle, behavior and environment could be largely responsible for homosexuality. We should learn from this piece of information...instead of getting into a defense mode.
Anyway, thanks once again.
Cheers.
Sriram
PS: They will start attacking you next....watch out. As I have said ...the shoe is now on the other foot. Its the homosexuals who seem to be the ones doing the persecution....not the Chritians any more. LOL! New realities...I suppose!
Quote from sriram' s OP
Alright...some people may feel that homosexuality is not...repeat not... a disease and does not need to be cured! But I tend to disagree.
So when you say you don't say it is a disease, you were missing this bit? Note it has already been pointed out to you a couple of times that you said this.
-
So in comparing being gay to a disease which should be cured you don't think that Sriram (noticeably quiet of late) knows full well how his views are going to be received by decent people?
-
No, I make a big difference between nutters beating people up and those merely expressing opinions similar. One should be prosecuted, the other unless they are actually inciting violence should not. But the opinions of those nutters dies not exist in isolation from the validation of those who state it as being a disease or wrong in the same way as murder, but do it in the 'best possible taste'.
-
So in comparing being gay to a disease which should be cured you don't think that Sriram (noticeably quiet of late) knows full well how his views are going to be received by decent people?
The word "decent people " means lots of different things, to different people.
That's a loaded phase if ever there was one.
My version of 'decent' is: "Doesn't liken homosexuality to a disease in need of cure, doesn't hide behind a load of meaningless waffle about epigenetics and doesn't play the poor-little-me martyr card when criticised for obnoxious opinions."
-
The problem though is that opinion may result in hate and hate filled acts - see Westboro or ISIS for that. If it is ok to think that homosexuality is like murder then it has lead to people being imprisoned and killed for it because people think their religion is right.
-
No, I make a big difference between nutters beating people up and those merely expressing opinions similar. One should be prosecuted, the other unless they are actually inciting violence should not. But the opinions of those nutters dies not exist in isolation from the validation of those who state it as being a disease or wrong in the same way as murder, but do it in the 'best possible taste'.
My suggestion is you moderate your response depending on which group you are dealing with.
And if you find you can't then at least explain to them, why you feel you can't.
But sriram can happily for you tell Trent that Trent is diseased even after being told of the hurt it causes?
-
But their opinion does hurt people because it inherently argues that homosexuals should be treated differently. Thus many of those on this board in their non hateful way promote inequality for homosexuals, and arguing that it is a disease promotes inequality as well.
-
But their opinion does hurt people because it inherently argues that homosexuals should be treated differently. Thus many of those on this board in their non hateful way promote inequality for homosexuals, and arguing that it is a disease promotes inequality as well.
I agree.
-
Rose - you dissappoint me.
You are happy that Sririam saying I have got a disease is acceptable.
You furthermore say that me defending my position is in some way attacking him and ridiculing him. I judt don't get that.
Please think long and hard about this.
As for his opinion not hurting anyone - do you not think that although Thatcher with her Clause 28 wasn't hurting anyone directly, that she was an enabler of hatred through that legislation?
There was a recorded rise in violent crime against homosexuals at that time. Now there may not have been a complete correaltion - but I'd bet good money that there was some crossover involved.
-
Sriram says in the OP he thinks that homosexuality is a disease. Trent explains why that is hurtful. Sriram dies not withdraw remark and continues to write that he regards it as a disease. Ergo Sriram is stating that he regards Trent as diseased.
-
Oh trying not to lose my temper here.
I don't think you realise how offensive that is - yes I am gay.
The only comment I am going to restrict myself to is that you seem to be in favour of restricitng diversity.
That to me is a bad thing to do for the future of the human race. This does not only apply to the issue of homosexuality.
Some years ago I read an article about the loss of languages throughout the world and how language affects the way people think. The loss of languages had in the opinion of the author led to a restriction in the way the human race thinks.
The gist of what I am saying is that uniformity is a bland quality to aim for - furthermore it's a bad quality to aim for.
So basically your premise is detrimental to the human race and you are wrong.
Rose fyi this was my original response to Sririam - which he chose to ignore and then told everyone he was being victimised.
Tell me what was particularly intemperate about my response.
-
Also in terms of people jumping on sriram, in an entirely non sexual manner, some did, some didn't. Trent didn't in his first reply and was very non judgemental, I only asked a question twice. Sriram then represented all replies other than the delightful Leonard as saying the same thing and being combative. Again a variety of responses and sriram reacted the same way, now I actually have no difficulty that that is Sriram' s perception and can understand why he might feel that but surely you, Rose, can see that as a misperception?
-
But their opinion does hurt people because it inherently argues that homosexuals should be treated differently. Thus many of those on this board in their non hateful way promote inequality for homosexuals, and arguing that it is a disease promotes inequality as well.
I don't see it, it doesn't necessarily follow.
If someone thinks being gay is an abnormality why would it necessarily lead them to treat someone who is gay differently?
I think having six toes is an abnormality, but I don't treat someone with six toes any differently to someone with five.
Nor would I support beating them up.
Just because someone sees it as an abnormality doesn't mean they necessarily discriminate.
The above seems a bit of a non sequitur as my post does not mention the word abnormality. First to reiterate the point, many of those on thus board who in your view non hatefully argue that homosexuality is wrong also want homosexuals to be banned from marriage, allowed to be discriminated against and in some cases criminalized.
As for the disease part, sriram wants should such therapy be available, parents to be able to chose the sexuality of their child and argue that it is right to make your child straight because homosexuality is a disease.
As for abnormal, the problem is that the straight definition of it is not just unusual but the pejorative sense of the difference being a worrying thing (sort of like a disease). Normal is not a normative term, but abnormal now is. Homosexuality could easily be described as unusual and not the norm but those using the word abnormal are either not aware of its meaning or are aware and doing so deliberately.
-
Read the rest of the posts, sriram, where it is clear that I was referring to Hope, and indeed Hope's post where he says homosexuality is wrong in the SAME WAY as murder.
After that I will accept your apology about me lying in this case.
As for a history of doing it, since you reprocessing by the posts on the thread, in this instance, I will allow you to either present any further case or withdraw the remark.
Some people see sins in the bible murder, stealing , adultery etc as being on a par with homosexuality.
The strange thing is, they often think they mean well when they say this.
Along the lines of everyone is a sinner.
But I can see why that goes pear shaped.
The view isn't motivated by hatred though.
Some people are trying to accommodate it with their belief system.
The motivation behind a view or line of argument is rather irrelevant; it is the consequences that count and, most importantly, whether the facts presented and logic applied are even correct or not. In this case they are not.
Human sexuality is deviously complicated and it's naive to think that it can be predictably controlled by adjusting the levels of a few proteins here or there. Just look at the number of simple relationships, hetero or homosexual, that fail because of adultery or other psychosexual issues.
In particular Sriram's claim that homosexuality "goes against fundamental evolutionary instincts of procreation and survival of the species" is a nonsense.
If people just focused on the issues I'm sure they could be sorted out amicably but if topics are started in an inconsiderate manner or offence taken at responses then the whole thing is bound to end up as an emotional storm in a tea cup.
-
I don't see it, it doesn't necessarily follow.
If someone thinks being gay is an abnormality why would it necessarily lead them to treat someone who is gay differently?
I can see why your name is Rose - it's the colour of your view of human nature.
As a wise man once said, most human beings are wolves for credulity but sheep for conformity. Historically most people in most places most of the time have had great problems with difference, anything perceived to be 'other' and out of the ordinary - or has the long and woeful history of black people (and racism in general), gay people, forcing left-handed children to write with the "proper" hand slipped your mind. With such a mindset different not only = wrong but also = must be put right.
-
God doesn't hate gays... He hates the act of sodomy(man with man).
Does that mean he is ok with the act of sodomy (man with woman), otherwise why specify I wonder? It looks like you are creating limitations for your god?
oh wait a minute......
He just dislikes his creation being used in a way it was never meant to be used.
..wow - makes for a pretty repetitive and frankly boring sex life I would have thought. :(
-
He just dislikes his creation being used in a way it was never meant to be used.
..wow - makes for a pretty repetitive and frankly boring sex life I would have thought. :(
Not to speak of causing us to be suffocated under a mountain of our own progeny!
-
But their opinion does hurt people because it inherently argues that homosexuals should be treated differently. Thus many of those on this board in their non hateful way promote inequality for homosexuals, and arguing that it is a disease promotes inequality as well.
I don't see it, it doesn't necessarily follow.
If someone thinks being gay is an abnormality why would it necessarily lead them to treat someone who is gay differently?
I think having six toes is an abnormality, but I don't treat someone with six toes any differently to someone with five.
Nor would I support beating them up.
Just because someone sees it as an abnormality doesn't mean they necessarily discriminate.
The above seems a bit of a non sequitur as my post does not mention the word abnormality. First to reiterate the point, many of those on thus board who in your view non hatefully argue that homosexuality is wrong also want homosexuals to be banned from marriage, allowed to be discriminated against and in some cases criminalized.
As for the disease part, sriram wants should such therapy be available, parents to be able to chose the sexuality of their child and argue that it is right to make your child straight because homosexuality is a disease.
As for abnormal, the problem is that the straight definition of it is not just unusual but the pejorative sense of the difference being a worrying thing (sort of like a disease). Normal is not a normative term, but abnormal now is. Homosexuality could easily be described as unusual and not the norm but those using the word abnormal are either not aware of its meaning or are aware and doing so deliberately.
Well firstly the laws we have now are much better than they were, I think it is a small number of people that want to change the law back, even among Christians
I'm a bit worried about anyone choosing anyone's sexuality for them even doctors who are thought to know what they are doing ( at birth when children are a mix)
It's all a bit confusing and I think individuals need to make their own choices. Even chromosomes can be confusing.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16934-girl-with-y-chromosome-sheds-light-on-maleness.html#.VUjNi3CkqK0
Some people think children can be spared confusion by making choices for them.
I used anomaly because it came up further in the thread.
People do get upset by the word "normal"
And implications that someone isn't normal.
I find your post here really confusing, I was picking you up on the use of the term abnormal and now you are talking about justifying the word anomaly?
The point is that many of your non hateful people opposed that equality we now have so why should I not see that as damaging or bad for homosexuals?
-
Surely, God likes sodomy when a lubricant is used? I think it's in the Bible.
-
Have piggy backed my. iPad off my phone so can now get through.
I'm still thinking about whether homosexual relationships have a potential for being more damaging.
It's really whether rear end sxx is potentially.more harmful than other sorts of sex.
Of course that would involve heterosexuals as well.
Some medical sources suggest there is a potential for damage to occur with rear end sxx.
Well if the penis is extremely long I suppose there could be damage, but that applies equally to hetero sex. The owner of such a member should have the common sense to use it carefully.
Blossom, I can't believe I'm having this conversation with you! :-[
I was trying to look at it objectively and yes it would apply to anyone regardless of sexuality.
Rose
Are you referring to the greater risk of transmission of certain diseases - HIV, HPV? There is a 12 month ban on donating blood if you are a man who has had anal or oral sex with another man, with or without a condom. You also can't donate blood for 12 months after having sex if you are a woman who has had sex with a man who has previously had sex with another man. There is also a 12 month ban on donating blood for people engaged in high-risk activities such as prostitution or injecting drugs.
-
I would just love to see the look on the faces of Christians who are bigots where homosexuality is concerned, if it could be proved Jesus in a physical relationship with another guy. ;D He NEVER condemned homosexuality!
The bible is the answer....
Christ would never have engaged in sexual relations with another man. He would not be the Messiah, if he had. No one else would have believed him to be the Messiah if there were homosexuals within his followers.
There are two thing we can be sure about. Christ was not homosexual and he never had sexual relations with a woman.
I can understand atheists not being able to reach that conclusion when they have no knowledge of the bible or God. But believers cannot claim to not know the answer. The answer is clear Christ was the perfect and unblemished sacrifice. He came to save sinners....
-
Morning floo. Nothing can be proved about Jesus, it's all speculation, but you are right that he never said anything about homosexuality - maybe because he was never asked. I can't imagine him in a sexual relationship, despite all the talk about him possibly loving Mary Magdalene in that way (& she was apparently a lot older than him), and loving a particular disciple - maybe in a brotherly way. There's certainly no evidence he did anything like that.
Have you ever been a member here before and left?
It is clear from the bible that homosexuality would not be an acceptable topic of discussion in the times of Christ. It simply was not acceptable and it wasn't the done thing.
-
He just dislikes his creation being used in a way it was never meant to be used.
But as God is an all powerful, all seeing, you know omnipotent type of guy/gal - why did he/she let it happen in the first place?
Cue lots of bollocks about free will etc.
Anyway Sass do you cut your hair? God created it to grow - why do you cut it? You dishonour the Lord by doing this.
Do you wear make up to improve your looks - that sounds a little bit like vanity to me - is vanity not a close cousin of pride - and is that not one of the sins?
And as for your toenails.
And what is it with women using sanitary towels? Surely God didn't mean you to do that???
In fact every aspect of your life today is a rebellion against God - so out of tune is it with the way God orginally created you to exist.
You are not a Christian at all - you are a sister of Satan.
Someone give him his rattle and dummy back will you. :o ???
-
He just dislikes his creation being used in a way it was never meant to be used.
But as God is an all powerful, all seeing, you know omnipotent type of guy/gal - why did he/she let it happen in the first place?
Cue lots of bollocks about free will etc.
Anyway Sass do you cut your hair? God created it to grow - why do you cut it? You dishonour the Lord by doing this.
Do you wear make up to improve your looks - that sounds a little bit like vanity to me - is vanity not a close cousin of pride - and is that not one of the sins?
And as for your toenails.
And what is it with women using sanitary towels? Surely God didn't mean you to do that???
In fact every aspect of your life today is a rebellion against God - so out of tune is it with the way God orginally created you to exist.
You are not a Christian at all - you are a sister of Satan.
Wham!!!
;D ;D ;D
Even George Michael wouldn't put his name to that tripe...
You sure you didn't just score a home double whammy?
-
The OP talks of curing people. Obviously some people find this offensive.
Some people might be very unhappy with they way they are.
Is there anything wrong with people choosing not to accept their sexuality? If they are deeply unhappy about it.
Isn't that also their choice?
And the word "cure"
If you are extremely unhappy because you as a woman have a flat chest, isn't surgery for implants a cure?
A cure for what ever someone is unhappy about, in themselves.
I would have though diversity would have meant accepting some people are very unhappy about themselves and accepting they want to change that and it could be seen in that light as a "cure"
The bullying seems to be going on because some people can't accept that someone could be gay and unhappy with it.
You know, they have to accept being gay and do the "proper " thing of coming out, like all the other gay people.
Diversity doesn't mean bullying people who think differently, it means accepting differences, even those people who are not happy about coming out as gay, and want what they see as a cure.
But I can see some people haven't noticed that yet.
We are not homosexual, Rose.
Ryan Clarke said if he had a choice he would rather be straight than homosexual.
The singer also explained how difficult it was for him to grow up with his sexuality and how if he had a choice he would have chosen to be straight.
He said that if it came down to the push of a straight button or a gay button he would have hit the straight one.
'I'd be banging the f**k out of that button,' he shouted before saying that he is now very happy with his life and knows who he is
It is because of such statements people make assumptions.
When sick you look for a cure. But if something is not a sickness why would it require a cure?
It is all messed up and the people most to blame at the homosexuals themselves for making statements which allow others to even suggest that they have a condition rather than it be viewed as "Normal".
I personally, do not believe it is anyone else's business but their own/
I do not question my own sexuality. We do not ask ourselves is our sexuality wrong.
We are happy with the way we feel. I cannot see any headway being made if no one is happy with their own sexuality.
-
It;s diversity to think that Jews should be gassed. But I will not tolerate that any more than people describing my friends as diseased because they love each other.
How is it the same thing?
I want you to clarify how the Jewish people being gassed (men, women and children) is the same as saying homosexuality could be an illness?
I see absolutely NO justification or reasoning for that statement of comparison so please explain...
-
Even George Michael wouldn't put his name to that tripe...
You sure you didn't just score a home double whammy?
Morning Sass,
The fact that you religious people can trot out arguments to support your own particular view of the Bible, doesn't mean that you are right. It simply means that parts of the Bible are open to interpretation, and that there is no way of proving exactly what they mean.
That is how I interpreted TV's post, and in that, I fully agree with him.
-
Hi everyone,
Well...I happened to see an article from the Richard Dawkins Foundation site that says precisely the same thing that my OP says.
https://richarddawkins.net/2013/01/can-epigenetics-explain-homosexuality/
***********************************************
Researchers looking for a genetic signature of homosexuality have been barking up the wrong tree, according to a trio of researchers in the United States and Sweden. Instead, the scientists posit, epigenetic influences acting on androgen signaling in the brain may underlie sexual orientation.
The model focuses on the role of epigenetics in shaping how cells respond to androgen signaling, an important determinant of gonad development. The researchers suggest that androgens are also important factors in molding sexual orientation, and that various genes involved in mediating androgen signaling are regulated by epigenetic modifications. These epigenetic marks, they argue, can be passed on between generations.
***********************************************
For your information.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
Well...I happened to see an article from the Richard Dawkins Foundation site that says precisely the same thing that my OP says.
No it doesn't though does it Sriram. Where does it mention curing homosexuality or compare it to a disease? It is that, and your description of homosexuals as not being normal, which people are resacting to not the scientific indication of a role for epigenetics.
-
Even George Michael wouldn't put his name to that tripe...
You sure you didn't just score a home double whammy?
Morning Sass,
The fact that you religious people can trot out arguments to support your own particular view of the Bible, doesn't mean that you are right. It simply means that parts of the Bible are open to interpretation, and that there is no way of proving exactly what they mean.
That is how I interpreted TV's post, and in that, I fully agree with him.
What he wrote wasn't about the bible it was merely a tirade of words attacking the person and had absolutely NOTHING to do with the thread.
May be you were just a tad bias and therefore selective in your reading and explanation of his post....
What it does not do is show anything but a lack of belief in his own sexuality. I for one have never treated anyone differently or badly because they are homosexual. My religion tells me to love my neighbour as myself. But plenty of atheists have no time (especially males) for homosexuality and openly and damned right nastily oppose it. But hey wasn't it Sririam expressing the opinion which offended Trent? So why the reply to myself. Sorry... white washing is for the cliffs of Dover not this forum.
I said about God...
He just dislikes his creation being used in a way it was never meant to be used.
Pretty standard and can be applied to every sin that all of us can commit.
Sorry but whatever you say that was totally unacceptable and uncalled for..
Had I been homosexual and he threw a paddy dissing my homosexuality you would have been up in arms.
If he wants to throw a paddy they do it for the right reason not just because he wants to hit out a Christian to get off his chest what Sririam caused him to feel
-
It;s diversity to think that Jews should be gassed. But I will not tolerate that any more than people describing my friends as diseased because they love each other.
How is it the same thing?
I want you to clarify how the Jewish people being gassed (men, women and children) is the same as saying homosexuality could be an illness?
I see absolutely NO justification or reasoning for that statement of comparison so please explain...
I was wondering the same thing. Comparing calling someone to be gassed with calling a behaviour abnormal or curable like a disease trivialises genocide in general and the Holocaust in particular.
Next someone will say something equally nonsensical such as atheists are not allowed to call theists irrational on here because it might lead to violent atheists elsewhere thinking this kind of behaviour is acceptable.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/10/23/how-should-we-react-when-a-militant-atheist-beats-up-a-pastor/
-
Nearly Sane
Well perhaps if you explained to your friends that you felt the viewpoint wasn't motivated by hatred so you showed restraint in your answers and explained WHY you didn't hold with it, instead of joining in an attack on Sriram, they might understand.
It's the "why" that matters, surely?
People never seem to bother to explain to the other person, WHY they find such an idea objectionable in a format that the other person is likely to take in.
I think it is more valuable than trying to shame the other person into agreeing with you.
All that happens is hostility all round.
It's better to explain why, even if you think your answers are inevitable, you never know, you might make the other person think.
I have often been given reason to rethink things, usually by people who have restrained their knee jerk reaction.
Julie
It is very difficult for some people to imagine what reactions their remarks are going to cause in others. Sriram clearly is one of them.
It happens to a lot of people online.
its very easy to give an opinion online, that we wouldn't do in real life.
I've seen it happen with discussions online all the time on all sorts of subjects.
you need to have a rhino hide sometimes online.
A simple discussion on abortion can provoke pain if someone has a history there and someone steps on their sore spot.
Rose
GIVE IT UP!
You are trying to defend the indefensible!
-
God doesn't hate gays... He hates the act of sodomy(man with man).
Does that mean he is ok with the act of sodomy (man with woman), otherwise why specify I wonder? It looks like you are creating limitations for your god?
oh wait a minute......
He just dislikes his creation being used in a way it was never meant to be used.
..wow - makes for a pretty repetitive and frankly boring sex life I would have thought. :(
I have always been of the opinion that any man who sodomises a woman is a closet homosexual.
As an aside I can see Sririam sitting his computer with a huge grin on his face at the fight that he has started, which IMO, was his intent right from the start. He knew exactly what the reaction was goiing to be from the responses to his earlier thread on homosexuality.
And we. like puppets, have danced and are dancing to his string-pulling.
AND he has started another "Homosexuality" thread on the General Topic.
The man is ob
sessed with the subject - probably fighting his closet homosexuality.
-
Nearly Sane
Well perhaps if you explained to your friends that you felt the viewpoint wasn't motivated by hatred so you showed restraint in your answers and explained WHY you didn't hold with it, instead of joining in an attack on Sriram, they might understand.
It's the "why" that matters, surely?
People never seem to bother to explain to the other person, WHY they find such an idea objectionable in a format that the other person is likely to take in.
I think it is more valuable than trying to shame the other person into agreeing with you.
All that happens is hostility all round.
It's better to explain why, even if you think your answers are inevitable, you never know, you might make the other person think.
I have often been given reason to rethink things, usually by people who have restrained their knee jerk reaction.
Julie
It is very difficult for some people to imagine what reactions their remarks are going to cause in others. Sriram clearly is one of them.
It happens to a lot of people online.
its very easy to give an opinion online, that we wouldn't do in real life.
I've seen it happen with discussions online all the time on all sorts of subjects.
you need to have a rhino hide sometimes online.
A simple discussion on abortion can provoke pain if someone has a history there and someone steps on their sore spot.
Rose
GIVE IT UP!
You are trying to defend the indefensible!
Rose - don't give it up - it's nice to see a few voices of sanity trying to keep things in perspective - it wouldn't be much of a discussion if they were silenced by the overblown hysteria. Good thing you have the rhino hide for it :)
-
I think Rose has a point. After all, Matt, it was you who pointed out that some of our posters get all Katie Hopkins on occasion. People can be far more outspoken on forums (fora?) than in real life; I think anyone posting in a place such as this has to expect that to some extent although out of decency we all should be responsible enough to realise when we overstep the mark and wind up in.
-
Hi everyone,
Well...I happened to see an article from the Richard Dawkins Foundation site that says precisely the same thing that my OP says.
No it doesn't though does it Sriram. Where does it mention curing homosexuality or compare it to a disease? It is that, and your description of homosexuals as not being normal, which people are resacting to not the scientific indication of a role for epigenetics.
Well...yes... I think that homosexuality is abnormal and I have already given the reason why I think so. Big deal! You people don't seriously think you can bully me into thinking like you...do you?! I have a valid reason for my view and it will stay.
And that's why people are doing research to find a treatment or cure or whatever. That wouldn't happen if it was considered normal by everyone.
I wonder if there is such a thing as epigenetic memory (maybe that's how Karma works!). Collective social guilt....and all that!
All the ghosts and demons sitting in your minds seem to wake up if homosexuals are even mentioned. All rationality disappears and everyone is very quick to blurt out ...'homosexuals are also people....its the same as left handedness...they are equal to others' etc. etc.
Its a remarkable phenomenon!
-
It;s diversity to think that Jews should be gassed. But I will not tolerate that any more than people describing my friends as diseased because they love each other.
How is it the same thing?
I want you to clarify how the Jewish people being gassed (men, women and children) is the same as saying homosexuality could be an illness?
I see absolutely NO justification or reasoning for that statement of comparison so please explain...
I was wondering the same thing. Comparing calling someone to be gassed with calling a behaviour abnormal or curable like a disease trivialises genocide in general and the Holocaust in particular.
Next someone will say something equally nonsensical such as atheists are not allowed to call theists irrational on here because it might lead to violent atheists elsewhere thinking this kind of behaviour is acceptable.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/10/23/how-should-we-react-when-a-militant-atheist-beats-up-a-pastor/
It a reductio ad absurdum to illustrate that the principle of 'diversity' of views that Rose was touting is not something that is an absolute. Do I think it is the same thing, no.
At some stage you draw a line about what you think is acceptable and you also draw a line either in the same place or possibly different about what you think should be banned in fora or real life. For me and trent, we both find the idea that sriram has stated that trent is diseased as not acceptable and have argued against it. Neither of us though has said the statement should be removed or sriram banned.
I am sure there are things that even if one draws lines in different places that you would both not wish to see on here even could we call it a diversity of opinion.
-
Hi everyone,
Well...I happened to see an article from the Richard Dawkins Foundation site that says precisely the same thing that my OP says.
No it doesn't though does it Sriram. Where does it mention curing homosexuality or compare it to a disease? It is that, and your description of homosexuals as not being normal, which people are resacting to not the scientific indication of a role for epigenetics.
Well...yes...
Excellent. So you admit that the article on the Richard Dawkins site doesn't actually say what you alleged it said (" that says precisely the same thing that my OP says") - excellent: so now you can retract that claim, can't you?
I think that homosexuality is abnormal and I have already given the reason why I think so. Big deal! You people don't seriously think you can bully me into thinking like you...do you?! I have a valid reason for my view and it will stay.
And that's why people are doing research to find a treatment or cure or whatever. That wouldn't happen if it was considered normal by everyone.
I wonder if there is such a thing as epigenetic memory (maybe that's how Karma works!). Collective social guilt....and all that!
All the ghosts and demons sitting in your minds seem to wake up if homosexuals are even mentioned. All rationality disappears and everyone is very quick to blurt out ...'homosexuals are also people....its the same as left handedness...they are equal to others' etc. etc.
Its a remarkable phenomenon!
It's not very remarkable, Sriram - it's called "not being a twat." An attribute not shared by everyone, I'll give you that, but still quite widespread.
-
Hi everyone,
Well...I happened to see an article from the Richard Dawkins Foundation site that says precisely the same thing that my OP says.
No it doesn't though does it Sriram. Where does it mention curing homosexuality or compare it to a disease? It is that, and your description of homosexuals as not being normal, which people are resacting to not the scientific indication of a role for epigenetics.
Well...yes... I think that homosexuality is abnormal and I have already given the reason why I think so. Big deal! You people don't seriously think you can bully me into thinking like you...do you?! I have a valid reason for my view and it will stay.
And that's why people are doing research to find a treatment or cure or whatever. That wouldn't happen if it was considered normal by everyone.
I wonder if there is such a thing as epigenetic memory (maybe that's how Karma works!). Collective social guilt....and all that!
All the ghosts and demons sitting in your minds seem to wake up if homosexuals are even mentioned. All rationality disappears and everyone is very quick to blurt out ...'homosexuals are also people....its the same as left handedness...they are equal to others' etc. etc.
Its a remarkable phenomenon!
Sriram, you have missed the point of my post. You claimed that the link said the same as your OP but it did not since you added the idea of a cure, compared it to a disease etc. So your claim was wrong - which is what I pointed out.
The fact that science is looking to understand the causes does not necessarily lead to the conclusion they are seeking a 'cure' as you suggest - that is your own opinion. Even if a procedure to change sexuality was developed this would be the personal choice of an individual not imposed by parents or by society.
You are entitled to your views and I do think some of the reactions in this thread have been a bit OTT but you need to seperate out your views from the science if you really want a discussion of the science as you claim.
Disregarding people's reactions to your views as being somehow adle to ghosts or demons and suggesting that people are bullying you is no way to conduct a genuine discussion. You often post something, ask for people's views, then look to deride the views of those who don't agree with you and this is not an attractive tendency Sriram. Learn to listen and respect people's views and not automatically consider them beneath consideration which is the impression you give.
-
I have a valid reason for my view
When you produce this 'valid reason' we can discuss it.
-
Hi everyone,
Well...I happened to see an article from the Richard Dawkins Foundation site that says precisely the same thing that my OP says.
No it doesn't though does it Sriram. Where does it mention curing homosexuality or compare it to a disease? It is that, and your description of homosexuals as not being normal, which people are resacting to not the scientific indication of a role for epigenetics.
Well...yes... I think that homosexuality is abnormal and I have already given the reason why I think so. Big deal! You people don't seriously think you can bully me into thinking like you...do you?! I have a valid reason for my view and it will stay.
And that's why people are doing research to find a treatment or cure or whatever. That wouldn't happen if it was considered normal by everyone.
I wonder if there is such a thing as epigenetic memory (maybe that's how Karma works!). Collective social guilt....and all that!
All the ghosts and demons sitting in your minds seem to wake up if homosexuals are even mentioned. All rationality disappears and everyone is very quick to blurt out ...'homosexuals are also people....its the same as left handedness...they are equal to others' etc. etc.
Its a remarkable phenomenon!
Sriram, you have missed the point of my post. You claimed that the link said the same as your OP but it did not since you added the idea of a cure, compared it to a disease etc. So your claim was wrong - which is what I pointed out.
The fact that science is looking to understand the causes does not necessarily lead to the conclusion they are seeking a 'cure' as you suggest - that is your own opinion. Even if a procedure to change sexuality was developed this would be the personal choice of an individual not imposed by parents or by society.
You are entitled to your views and I do think some of the reactions in this thread have been a bit OTT but you need to seperate out your views from the science if you really want a discussion of the science as you claim.
Disregarding people's reactions to your views as being somehow adle to ghosts or demons and suggesting that people are bullying you is no way to conduct a genuine discussion. You often post something, ask for people's views, then look to deride the views of those who don't agree with you and this is not an attractive tendency Sriram. Learn to listen and respect people's views and not automatically consider them beneath consideration which is the impression you give.
I agree that the Dawkins site article did not talk about the whole gamut as the Wiki article did. My intention was to highlight that even your 'patron saint' Dawkins... seems to endorse the view that homosexuality could be epigenetic in origin.
But my opinion was precisely what the Wiki article in the OP said.
"Following a late 2012 publication on possible epigenetic origins of homosexuality,[10] some people[who?] have suggested that it might be possible to alter one's sexual orientation with epigenetic therapy,[11] similarly to treatment of diabetes, cancer or schizophrenia. Prenatal hormone therapy may also be used to reduce the probability of homosexuality in females by compensating the effects of androgen overexposure"
'similarly to treatment of diabetes, cancer, schizophrenia.' Doesn't get any clearer than that. Why don't you and others just face it?!
-
I agree that the Dawkins site article did not talk about the whole gamut as the Wiki article did. My intention was to highlight that even your 'patron saint' Dawkins... seems to endorse the view that homosexuality could be epigenetic in origin.
... with absolutely nothing about homosexuality being akin to a disease in need of cure. Glad you've finally admitted it.
'similarly to treatment of diabetes, cancer, schizophrenia.' Doesn't get any clearer than that. Why don't you and others just face it?!
I notice that the Wiki article doesn't actually specify anybody who thinks that homosexuality should be cured, since the word who? is very telling in "some people [who?] have suggested that it might be possible to alter one's sexual orientation with epigenetic therapy." Exactly - who? Who has stated this? You're all over anything to do with epigenetics like the white on rice so presumably you should be able to tell us who is calling for this.
Anyway: it is unacceptable to regard homosexuality as a disease in need of cure. Diabetes, cancer and schizophrenia are diseases, illnesses because as everyone knows they have deleterious effects both physically and psychologically. People die of them, in large numbers. Diabetes - very common - can have serious and even life-threatening complications; the suicide rate for schizophrenics (about 1% of the population) is appalling, and even without suicidality the condition can cause immense distress for the individual sufferer and their family/friends anyway. These are things that should be cured. Homosexuality does not apply, and the suggestion that it does is ugly, pernicious and extremely offensive.
-
It;s diversity to think that Jews should be gassed. But I will not tolerate that any more than people describing my friends as diseased because they love each other.
How is it the same thing?
I want you to clarify how the Jewish people being gassed (men, women and children) is the same as saying homosexuality could be an illness?
I see absolutely NO justification or reasoning for that statement of comparison so please explain...
I was wondering the same thing. Comparing calling someone to be gassed with calling a behaviour abnormal or curable like a disease trivialises genocide in general and the Holocaust in particular.
Next someone will say something equally nonsensical such as atheists are not allowed to call theists irrational on here because it might lead to violent atheists elsewhere thinking this kind of behaviour is acceptable.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/10/23/how-should-we-react-when-a-militant-atheist-beats-up-a-pastor/
It a reductio ad absurdum to illustrate that the principle of 'diversity' of views that Rose was touting is not something that is an absolute. Do I think it is the same thing, no.
At some stage you draw a line about what you think is acceptable and you also draw a line either in the same place or possibly different about what you think should be banned in fora or real life. For me and trent, we both find the idea that sriram has stated that trent is diseased as not acceptable and have argued against it. Neither of us though has said the statement should be removed or sriram banned.
I am sure there are things that even if one draws lines in different places that you would both not wish to see on here even could we call it a diversity of opinion.
Oh sorry - please ignore my comment - I just read through pages 2 and 3 - Sriram was obviously on a wind-up.
-
It;s diversity to think that Jews should be gassed. But I will not tolerate that any more than people describing my friends as diseased because they love each other.
How is it the same thing?
I want you to clarify how the Jewish people being gassed (men, women and children) is the same as saying homosexuality could be an illness?
I see absolutely NO justification or reasoning for that statement of comparison so please explain...
I was wondering the same thing. Comparing calling someone to be gassed with calling a behaviour abnormal or curable like a disease trivialises genocide in general and the Holocaust in particular.
Next someone will say something equally nonsensical such as atheists are not allowed to call theists irrational on here because it might lead to violent atheists elsewhere thinking this kind of behaviour is acceptable.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/10/23/how-should-we-react-when-a-militant-atheist-beats-up-a-pastor/
It a reductio ad absurdum to illustrate that the principle of 'diversity' of views that Rose was touting is not something that is an absolute. Do I think it is the same thing, no.
At some stage you draw a line about what you think is acceptable and you also draw a line either in the same place or possibly different about what you think should be banned in fora or real life. For me and trent, we both find the idea that sriram has stated that trent is diseased as not acceptable and have argued against it. Neither of us though has said the statement should be removed or sriram banned.
I am sure there are things that even if one draws lines in different places that you would both not wish to see on here even could we call it a diversity of opinion.
Oh sorry - please ignore my comment - I just read through pages 2 and 3 - Sriram was obviously on a wind-up.
NS as usual talks nonsense...and in hyperbole. I have nowhere said that Trent or anyone else has a disease or any such personal comment. I expressed a opinion in the OP in line with the Wiki article that I have linked. Leonard in fact has been very sensible in his reply 1.
-
NS as usual talks nonsense...and in hyperbole. I have nowhere said that Trent or anyone else has a disease or any such personal comment.
You are on record as stating that in your opinion homosexuality is akin to a disease or an illness. That record is your own OP:
... some people may feel that homosexuality is not...repeat not... a disease and does not need to be cured! But I tend to disagree.
So that's point one taken care of - homosexuality, to you, is a disease which should be cured.
Point two is that trent and Len are gay (homosexual, if you prefer), therefore, following on from point one, you are committed to the view that they both have this "disease."
-
Oh sorry - please ignore my comment - I just read through pages 2 and 3 - Sriram was obviously on a wind-up.
Not a problem, while I suspect you are right and Sriram is on a wind up. It just happens to be on a subject that I refuse to tolerate or ignore.
-
Anyway - in words of one syllable - do you think I have a disease?
So Sririam will you answer this question which you failed to answer way up this thread.
A simple Yes or No will do.
-
NS as usual talks nonsense...and in hyperbole. I have nowhere said that Trent or anyone else has a disease or any such personal comment.
You are on record as stating that in your opinion homosexuality is akin to a disease or an illness. That record is your own OP:
Sriram states he thinks homosexuality is a disease, trent is homosexual, ergo sriram regards trent as diseased. Seems a relatively straightforward piece of logic, or am I missing something?
-
I agree that the Dawkins site article did not talk about the whole gamut as the Wiki article did.
Is that a clever way of admitting that you were wrong?
My intention was to highlight that even your 'patron saint' Dawkins...
Don't be silly ..
seems to endorse the view that homosexuality could be epigenetic in origin.
And nobody here has disputed that.
But my opinion was precisely what the Wiki article in the OP said.
"Following a late 2012 publication on possible epigenetic origins of homosexuality,[10] some people[who?] have suggested that it might be possible to alter one's sexual orientation with epigenetic therapy,[11] similarly to treatment of diabetes, cancer or schizophrenia. Prenatal hormone therapy may also be used to reduce the probability of homosexuality in females by compensating the effects of androgen overexposure"
'similarly to treatment of diabetes, cancer, schizophrenia.' Doesn't get any clearer than that. Why don't you and others just face it?!
Again, no one is disputing that but it is your referrence to a cure, homosexuals not having normal lives and that parents could change their childrens sexuality which are the issue - has has been pointed out many times - why don't you just face that.
-
Anyway - in words of one syllable - do you think I have a disease?
So Sririam will you answer this question which you failed to answer way up this thread.
A simple Yes or No will do.
No..I'll not answer that question....because I don't know anything about you personally. I don't make personal comments (unlike most of you). And it makes no difference to me what you are.
And NS is lying (as always) when he says that I made a personal remark about you.
-
It;s diversity to think that Jews should be gassed. But I will not tolerate that any more than people describing my friends as diseased because they love each other.
How is it the same thing?
I want you to clarify how the Jewish people being gassed (men, women and children) is the same as saying homosexuality could be an illness?
I see absolutely NO justification or reasoning for that statement of comparison so please explain...
I was wondering the same thing. Comparing calling someone to be gassed with calling a behaviour abnormal or curable like a disease trivialises genocide in general and the Holocaust in particular.
Next someone will say something equally nonsensical such as atheists are not allowed to call theists irrational on here because it might lead to violent atheists elsewhere thinking this kind of behaviour is acceptable.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/10/23/how-should-we-react-when-a-militant-atheist-beats-up-a-pastor/
It a reductio ad absurdum to illustrate that the principle of 'diversity' of views that Rose was touting is not something that is an absolute. Do I think it is the same thing, no.
At some stage you draw a line about what you think is acceptable and you also draw a line either in the same place or possibly different about what you think should be banned in fora or real life. For me and trent, we both find the idea that sriram has stated that trent is diseased as not acceptable and have argued against it. Neither of us though has said the statement should be removed or sriram banned.
I am sure there are things that even if one draws lines in different places that you would both not wish to see on here even could we call it a diversity of opinion.
Oh sorry - please ignore my comment - I just read through pages 2 and 3 - Sriram was obviously on a wind-up.
NS as usual talks nonsense...and in hyperbole. I have nowhere said that Trent or anyone else has a disease or any such personal comment. I expressed a opinion in the OP in line with the Wiki article that I have linked. Leonard in fact has been very sensible in his reply 1.
Well, I have no problem with you expressing an opinion - I think Trent was right on page 2 or 3 where he said your opinion comparing homosexuality to diseases like diabetes is trivialising diabetes.
For example, my husband has diabetes and curing that is therefore important to me as it is life-threatening, whereas homosexuality isn't. Put it this way, if my husband turned out to be gay we could still be friends and he could still be a good dad, whereas with diabetes he could be very ill and then dead. So bad comparison IMO.
-
I think Rose has a point. After all, Matt, it was you who pointed out that some of our posters get all Katie Hopkins on occasion. People can be far more outspoken on forums (fora?) than in real life; I think anyone posting in a place such as this has to expect that to some extent although out of decency we all should be responsible enough to realise when we overstep the mark and wind up in.
I am sorry but, for once I have to disagree with you.
Sririam has mis-quoted both the article in his OP and also responses from posters on this thread.
He is wriggling like a fisherman's worm and getting the reactions he so obviously seeks.
Well, I for one am fed-up playing his game - he has provided absolutely no proof that his decision to compare homosexuality with diabetes as a disease (as it happens I suffer from the latter and occasionally. a lot more rarely now than when I was younger - the spirit be willing and the flesh weak and getting weaker) enjoy the former) has any validity. - I happily depart this particular thread.
Homosexuality is about as much of a curable disease as Sririam's Wumming and Trolling.
My mother had a expression for what he is doing - Sririam is making the bullets and getting other posters to fire them.
-
No..I'll not answer that question....because I don't know anything about you personally. I don't make personal comments (unlike most of you). And it makes no difference to me what you are.
Sheer cowardice, Sriram.
You have stated that homosexuality is, to you, a disease in need of cure. Trent is homosexual, therefore, logically you are committed to the view that he has this "disease." Yes or no? It's not difficult, just uncomfortable to you, which is exactly as it should be.
-
#469 Matt, you don't seriously think I agree with anything at all that Sriram says, surely? I was just agreeing with Rose that if you turn up on Internet forums you're going to find views that aren't acceptable and ultimately responsibility on how to react to that lies with the individual.
-
I agree that the Dawkins site article did not talk about the whole gamut as the Wiki article did.
Is that a clever way of admitting that you were wrong?
My intention was to highlight that even your 'patron saint' Dawkins...
Don't be silly ..
seems to endorse the view that homosexuality could be epigenetic in origin.
And nobody here has disputed that.
But my opinion was precisely what the Wiki article in the OP said.
"Following a late 2012 publication on possible epigenetic origins of homosexuality,[10] some people[who?] have suggested that it might be possible to alter one's sexual orientation with epigenetic therapy,[11] similarly to treatment of diabetes, cancer or schizophrenia. Prenatal hormone therapy may also be used to reduce the probability of homosexuality in females by compensating the effects of androgen overexposure"
'similarly to treatment of diabetes, cancer, schizophrenia.' Doesn't get any clearer than that. Why don't you and others just face it?!
Again, no one is disputing that but it is your referrence to a cure, homosexuals not having normal lives and that parents could change their childrens sexuality which are the issue - has has been pointed out many times - why don't you just face that.
What?! I talked about a cure..yes. Who said anything about homosexuals not having normal lives...?! You're just lying Maeght.
I am not interested in discussing the role of parents in changing their childrens sexuality. That's not the subject of this thread. You are harping on it again and again. Sort it out with your courts....
-
And NS is lying (as always) when he says that I made a personal remark about you.
And yet you are free to make a personal remark (as well as a completely innaccurate remark) about NS. You are strange. ;D ;D
Just answer the question am I or am I not diseased because of my homosexuality?
That is what you have been positing throughout the whole of this thread - why so shy?
-
What?! I talked about a cure..yes.
Illness/diseases/afflictions are things in need of a cure ... why would homosexuality need a cure, Sriram?
-
Just answer the question am I or am I not diseased because of my homosexuality?
That is what you have been positing throughout the whole of this thread - why so shy?
As has been so excellently put very recently:
It's not difficult, just uncomfortable to you, which is exactly as it should be.
;)
-
It;s diversity to think that Jews should be gassed. But I will not tolerate that any more than people describing my friends as diseased because they love each other.
How is it the same thing?
I want you to clarify how the Jewish people being gassed (men, women and children) is the same as saying homosexuality could be an illness?
I see absolutely NO justification or reasoning for that statement of comparison so please explain...
I was wondering the same thing. Comparing calling someone to be gassed with calling a behaviour abnormal or curable like a disease trivialises genocide in general and the Holocaust in particular.
Next someone will say something equally nonsensical such as atheists are not allowed to call theists irrational on here because it might lead to violent atheists elsewhere thinking this kind of behaviour is acceptable.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/10/23/how-should-we-react-when-a-militant-atheist-beats-up-a-pastor/
It a reductio ad absurdum to illustrate that the principle of 'diversity' of views that Rose was touting is not something that is an absolute. Do I think it is the same thing, no.
At some stage you draw a line about what you think is acceptable and you also draw a line either in the same place or possibly different about what you think should be banned in fora or real life. For me and trent, we both find the idea that sriram has stated that trent is diseased as not acceptable and have argued against it. Neither of us though has said the statement should be removed or sriram banned.
I am sure there are things that even if one draws lines in different places that you would both not wish to see on here even could we call it a diversity of opinion.
Oh sorry - please ignore my comment - I just read through pages 2 and 3 - Sriram was obviously on a wind-up.
NS as usual talks nonsense...and in hyperbole. I have nowhere said that Trent or anyone else has a disease or any such personal comment. I expressed a opinion in the OP in line with the Wiki article that I have linked. Leonard in fact has been very sensible in his reply 1.
Well, I have no problem with you expressing an opinion - I think Trent was right on page 2 or 3 where he said your opinion comparing homosexuality to diseases like diabetes is trivialising diabetes.
For example, my husband has diabetes and curing that is therefore important to me as it is life-threatening, whereas homosexuality isn't. Put it this way, if my husband turned out to be gay we could still be friends and he could still be a good dad, whereas with diabetes he could be very ill and then dead. So bad comparison IMO.
Maybe...but that's the opinion expressed by scientists in the link I provided. So..people have to take it up with the researchers. They even compared it to cancer and schizophrenia.
-
Maybe...but that's the opinion expressed by scientists in the link I provided. So..people have to take it up with the researchers. They even compared it to cancer and schizophrenia.
What are the names of these scientists? I notice that the Wiki article doesn't actually specify anybody who thinks that homosexuality should be cured, since the word who? is very telling in "some people [who?] have suggested that it might be possible to alter one's sexual orientation with epigenetic therapy." Exactly - who? Who has stated this? You're all over anything to do with epigenetics like the white on rice so presumably you should be able to tell us who is calling for this.
-
Maybe...but that's the opinion expressed by scientists in the link I provided. So..people have to take it up with the researchers. They even compared it to cancer and schizophrenia.
What are the names of these scientists? I notice that the Wiki article doesn't actually specify anybody who thinks that homosexuality should be cured, since the word who? is very telling in "some people [who?] have suggested that it might be possible to alter one's sexual orientation with epigenetic therapy." Exactly - who? Who has stated this? You're all over anything to do with epigenetics like the white on rice so presumably you should be able to tell us who is calling for this.
No...find out for yourself. I am not interested. The article is enough authority for me.
-
But you'd be wrong not to do so, Sriram. There's no citation for the 'some people', and the citation 11 actually links to an article that makes it clear that human variations are so great that epigenetics cannot 'cure' homosexuality.
-
No...find out for yourself. I am not interested. The article is enough authority for me.
What a craven coward. Stir pot and run away when challenged ... vile.
-
What?! I talked about a cure..yes. Who said anything about homosexuals not having normal lives...?! You're just lying Maeght.
From: General Discussion / Re: Homosexuality!
« Message by Sriram on April 29, 2015, 08:33:38 AM »
I think its an abnormality that occurs now and then in some people. No big deal. If it can be cured and people can live normal lives....why not?!
So from this - people with the abnormality are not living normal lives. Was I lying?
I am not interested in discussing the role of parents in changing their childrens sexuality. That's not the subject of this thread. You are harping on it again and again. Sort it out with your courts....
You first mentioned the possibility and seemed to suggest it was fine. The fact you don't want to discuss it when this is picked up is very telling Sriram.
-
Anyway - in words of one syllable - do you think I have a disease?
So Sririam will you answer this question which you failed to answer way up this thread.
A simple Yes or No will do.
No..I'll not answer that question....because I don't know anything about you personally. I don't make personal comments (unlike most of you). And it makes no difference to me what you are.
And NS is lying (as always) when he says that I made a personal remark about you.
where am I lgoing in the statement: Sriram has stated he thinks homosexuality is a disease, Trent is homosexual, ergo Sriram thinks Trent is diseased?
Your inability to have discussions without personalizing it is most revealing
-
What?! I talked about a cure..yes. Who said anything about homosexuals not having normal lives...?! You're just lying Maeght.
From: General Discussion / Re: Homosexuality!
« Message by Sriram on April 29, 2015, 08:33:38 AM »
I think its an abnormality that occurs now and then in some people. No big deal. If it can be cured and people can live normal lives....why not?!
So from this - people with the abnormality are not living normal lives. Was I lying?
I am not interested in discussing the role of parents in changing their childrens sexuality. That's not the subject of this thread. You are harping on it again and again. Sort it out with your courts....
You first mentioned the possibility and seemed to suggest it was fine. The fact you don't want to discuss it when this is picked up is very telling Sriram.
... like his unwillingness to discuss the scientists who think that homosexuality can be/should be "cured" when that's picked up too. He's not interested, apparently.
-
Answer came there none.
All together now: brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin ... :D
-
And NS is lying (as always) when he says that I made a personal remark about you.
And yet you are free to make a personal remark (as well as a completely innaccurate remark) about NS. You are strange. ;D ;D
Just answer the question am I or am I not diseased because of my homosexuality?
That is what you have been positing throughout the whole of this thread - why so shy?
Is the word "diseased" being interpreted here as being worse than saying you have a disease or is it considered the same thing?
So if I said to someone that my husband is diseased - is that considered worse than saying he has the disease of diabetes?
Sriram said many people do not consider homosexuality a disease but he tends to disagree. So if having a disease is considered the same as being diseased then you can take it personally if you want that Sriram presumably tends to agree that you have a disease / are diseased.
But when people start talking negatively about Islam or Muslims or Christians on here, are those of us who are Muslim or Christian supposed to take it as a personal attack on us? That would mean no one could have a sensible discussion on those topics on here, so I think if theists can manage to treat the discussions in a detached way, it seems logical that your credibility as a poster is improved if you treat a discussion on homosexuality the same way. I think it's lazy debating and a cop out to make it personal by asking Sriram if he thinks you are diseased, especially as you made some really good points without resorting to that tactic. I disagree with NS on the whole offensive thing and agree with Rhiannon.
-
And NS is lying (as always) when he says that I made a personal remark about you.
And yet you are free to make a personal remark (as well as a completely innaccurate remark) about NS. You are strange. ;D ;D
Just answer the question am I or am I not diseased because of my homosexuality?
That is what you have been positing throughout the whole of this thread - why so shy?
Is the word "diseased" being interpreted here as being worse than saying you have a disease or is it considered the same thing?
So if I said to someone that my husband is diseased - is that considered worse than saying he has the disease of diabetes?
Sriram said many people do not consider homosexuality a disease but he tends to disagree. So if having a disease is considered the same as being diseased then you can take it personally if you want that Sriram presumably tends to agree that you have a disease / are diseased.
But when people start talking negatively about Islam or Muslims or Christians on here, are those of us who are Muslim or Christian supposed to take it as a personal attack on us? That would mean no one could have a sensible discussion on those topics on here, so I think if theists can manage to treat the discussions in a detached way, it seems logical that your credibility as a poster is improved if you treat a discussion on homosexuality the same way. I think it's lazy debating and a cop out to make it personal by asking Sriram if he thinks you are diseased, especially as you made some really good points without resorting to that tactic. I disagree with NS on the whole offensive thing and agree with Rhiannon.
In what way do you disagree with me? Given that you accept there are certain things that would be beyond the pale and given I am not calling for any censorship of Sriram here, the only disagreement is about what we each find offensive which is entirely subjective.
As for people being insulting to theists, I have oft objected on here to the lazy use of terms like deluded in reference to theists. I find it very odd that people who object to lazy and emotive terms are the ones being picked up for not being detached since surely the use of such terms is precisely indicative of not being detached.
Further I think the whole idea of detachment is a polite fiction and I think it simplistic to consider someone arguing with 'detachment' to be acting reasonably in the light of what might be seen as deeply insulting and dangerous. If we were detached we wouldn't really have any real opinions, see Hume on reason.
On the question of 'is diseased', I think it does somehow read as harsher than has a disease, but that that harshness is being used to underline the position that sriram is taking and is a logical conclusion
-
Oh I find it offensive. I just think if we post here was have to expect to get offended from time to time.
-
Gabriella
I don't really care. I know I am not diseased.
I am interested/bemused/slightly disgusted by the ducking and weaving Sririam has been doing throughout this thread. He stated at the beginning of this thread that he thought homosexuality was a disease or rather implied it as he was mean and slippery with his words. I am simply asking for clarification.
If you note my first reply I gave my reasons clearly and without rancour as to why I thought he was wrong. HE chose not to engage with that and then play the "they are all attacking me and not discussing the topic"card. When in actuality it was completely the other way around initially.
As to the issues of Islam & Christianity I'm not sure it is comparable in that sense. You can choose your religion (chorus of all sorts of objections - but you really can) you cannot choose your sexuality as even Sririam has appeared to agree (although I expect another of his obsessive posts around that subject will be along in a few minutes).
I really just want him to be clear on what he is saying - and my question was another way of trying to elicit a response from him.
-
Oh I find it offensive. I just think if we post here was have to expect to get offended from time to time.
I wouldn't post here if I wasn't offended from time to time. But I am baffled why expressing that offense is then somehow supposed to be bad as has been suggested on this thread.
-
Oh I find it offensive. I just think if we post here was have to expect to get offended from time to time.
I wouldn't post here if I wasn't offended from time to time. But I am baffled why expressing that offense is then somehow supposed to be bad as has been suggested on this thread.
Indeed.
-
I don't really care. I know I am not diseased.
I am interested/bemused/slightly disgusted by the ducking and weaving Sririam has been doing throughout this thread. He stated at the beginning of this thread that he thought homosexuality was a disease or rather implied it as he was mean and slippery with his words. I am simply asking for clarification.
That's very gracious of you, trent - perhaps too much so. I took it as abundantly clear from the off: even in the OP Sriram referred to people who don't think that homosexuality is a disease and don't think that it stands in need of a cure, and went on to say "I tend to disagree." Meaning that in his opinion it is and does. Further use of terms such as "abnormality," "cure" and "normal lives" further compounds this.
If there is some other option, some other interpretation of his words I should very much like to hear it. For me, it was crystal clear.
-
Basic summation of the posts on the last two or three pages of this thread:
Sririam is a shit-stirring homophobic arse who is seriously offended when people get offended by him and objects to people who treat him as he treats them!
-
You do have a way of cutting to the chase, Matt :D
-
In what way do you disagree with me? Given that you accept there are certain things that would be beyond the pale and given I am not calling for any censorship of Sriram here, the only disagreement is about what we each find offensive which is entirely subjective.
As for people being insulting to theists, I have oft objected on here to the lazy use of terms like deluded in reference to theists. I find it very odd that people who object to lazy and emotive terms are the ones being picked up for not being detached since surely the use of such terms is precisely indicative of not being detached.
Further I think the whole idea of detachment is a polite fiction and I think it simplistic to consider someone arguing with 'detachment' to be acting reasonably in the light of what might be seen as deeply insulting and dangerous. If we were detached we wouldn't really have any real opinions, see Hume on reason.
On the question of 'is diseased', I think it does somehow read as harsher than has a disease, but that that harshness is being used to underline the position that sriram is taking and is a logical conclusion
There is lots of stuff I do agree with you on but not in relation to the discussion between you and Rose on page 17. You said that Sriram had been told that his views or terminology were offensive to Trent and should therefore have withdrawn his remarks.
You also seemed to suggest that Sriram's views on this forum, or posters supporting on this forum what you considered legal inequality against gay people, created the conditions for or enabled violence against your gay friends. I disagree.
I think it is impossible to have a discussion if we tell people they should not state their opinions because it might lead to violence or offend particular posters with a personal stake in the issue. I think there is a huge difference between holding an opinion about an issue related to gay people and supporting violence against gay people. I think feeling bad because you have a personal stake in issues under discussion goes with the territory of being on an internet forum.
Please note, I am not saying that posters should stop giving Sriram or anyone else (including me) grief for opinions expressed on here - most of us are pretty good at being offensive to each other and it seems to be part of the "charm" of this particular forum. Besides, Sriram's posts indicate he was expecting a lot of flak for his views and knew that some people would find them offensive, and he seems to be coping just fine with the responses.
Regarding detachment - yes it is a polite fiction - but IMO on an Internet forum it's more effective in influencing views than making an issue personal and telling people how upset you are by it. Or maybe it's just me - in real life making things personal would influence me because I would be dealing with an individual rather than an abstract concept, plus the person's voice, facial expressions, body language, story, would have an impact, but not on an Internet forum that IMO is meant to facilitate discussion.
-
Sriram's posts indicate he was expecting a lot of flak for his views and knew that some people would find them offensive, and he seems to be coping just fine with the responses.
Hm - by running away.
-
In what way do you disagree with me? Given that you accept there are certain things that would be beyond the pale and given I am not calling for any censorship of Sriram here, the only disagreement is about what we each find offensive which is entirely subjective.
As for people being insulting to theists, I have oft objected on here to the lazy use of terms like deluded in reference to theists. I find it very odd that people who object to lazy and emotive terms are the ones being picked up for not being detached since surely the use of such terms is precisely indicative of not being detached.
Further I think the whole idea of detachment is a polite fiction and I think it simplistic to consider someone arguing with 'detachment' to be acting reasonably in the light of what might be seen as deeply insulting and dangerous. If we were detached we wouldn't really have any real opinions, see Hume on reason.
On the question of 'is diseased', I think it does somehow read as harsher than has a disease, but that that harshness is being used to underline the position that sriram is taking and is a logical conclusion
There is lots of stuff I do agree with you on but not in relation to the discussion between you and Rose on page 17. You said that Sriram had been told that his views or terminology were offensive to Trent and should therefore have withdrawn his remarks.
You also seemed to suggest that Sriram's views on this forum, or posters supporting on this forum what you considered legal inequality against gay people, created the conditions for or enabled violence against your gay friends. I disagree.
I think it is impossible to have a discussion if we tell people they should not state their opinions because it might lead to violence or offend particular posters with a personal stake in the issue. I think there is a huge difference between holding an opinion about an issue related to gay people and supporting violence against gay people. I think feeling bad because you have a personal stake in issues under discussion goes with the territory of being on an internet forum.
Please note, I am not saying that posters should stop giving Sriram or anyone else (including me) grief for opinions expressed on here - most of us are pretty good at being offensive to each other and it seems to be part of the "charm" of this particular forum. Besides, Sriram's posts indicate he was expecting a lot of flak for his views and knew that some people would find them offensive, and he seems to be coping just fine with the responses.
Regarding detachment - yes it is a polite fiction - but IMO on an Internet forum it's more effective in influencing views than making an issue personal and telling people how upset you are by it. Or maybe it's just me - in real life making things personal would influence me because I would be dealing with an individual rather than an abstract concept, plus the person's voice, facial expressions, body language, story, would have an impact, but not on an Internet forum that IMO is meant to facilitate discussion.
I suggest you reread page 17, I don't make any comment that Sriram should necessarily have withdrawn his remarks but that given that he did not withdraw it meant that he was still implying that Trent had a disease.
-
Gabriella
I don't really care. I know I am not diseased.
I am interested/bemused/slightly disgusted by the ducking and weaving Sririam has been doing throughout this thread. He stated at the beginning of this thread that he thought homosexuality was a disease or rather implied it as he was mean and slippery with his words. I am simply asking for clarification.
OK - it was a tactic - fair enough.
If you note my first reply I gave my reasons clearly and without rancour as to why I thought he was wrong. HE chose not to engage with that and then play the "they are all attacking me and not discussing the topic"card. When in actuality it was completely the other way around initially.
Yes I did note that and thought your responses were very good.
As to the issues of Islam & Christianity I'm not sure it is comparable in that sense. You can choose your religion (chorus of all sorts of objections - but you really can) you cannot choose your sexuality as even Sririam has appeared to agree (although I expect another of his obsessive posts around that subject will be along in a few minutes).
How likely does it seem to you that anything said on here is going to cause anyone to change their religion or become a theist or atheist?
Even if you can choose your beliefs or religion or politics or nationality people can still be offended by negative generalisations about them, such as all theists are weak-minded or all atheists are immoral, or all adherents of Islam or Christianity support slavery or rape, and I just think it is usually more effective to stick to debating the issue.
I really just want him to be clear on what he is saying - and my question was another way of trying to elicit a response from him.
Ok - yes I get that now, and this can be an effective tactic too.
-
In what way do you disagree with me? Given that you accept there are certain things that would be beyond the pale and given I am not calling for any censorship of Sriram here, the only disagreement is about what we each find offensive which is entirely subjective.
As for people being insulting to theists, I have oft objected on here to the lazy use of terms like deluded in reference to theists. I find it very odd that people who object to lazy and emotive terms are the ones being picked up for not being detached since surely the use of such terms is precisely indicative of not being detached.
Further I think the whole idea of detachment is a polite fiction and I think it simplistic to consider someone arguing with 'detachment' to be acting reasonably in the light of what might be seen as deeply insulting and dangerous. If we were detached we wouldn't really have any real opinions, see Hume on reason.
On the question of 'is diseased', I think it does somehow read as harsher than has a disease, but that that harshness is being used to underline the position that sriram is taking and is a logical conclusion
There is lots of stuff I do agree with you on but not in relation to the discussion between you and Rose on page 17. You said that Sriram had been told that his views or terminology were offensive to Trent and should therefore have withdrawn his remarks.
You also seemed to suggest that Sriram's views on this forum, or posters supporting on this forum what you considered legal inequality against gay people, created the conditions for or enabled violence against your gay friends. I disagree.
I think it is impossible to have a discussion if we tell people they should not state their opinions because it might lead to violence or offend particular posters with a personal stake in the issue. I think there is a huge difference between holding an opinion about an issue related to gay people and supporting violence against gay people. I think feeling bad because you have a personal stake in issues under discussion goes with the territory of being on an internet forum.
Please note, I am not saying that posters should stop giving Sriram or anyone else (including me) grief for opinions expressed on here - most of us are pretty good at being offensive to each other and it seems to be part of the "charm" of this particular forum. Besides, Sriram's posts indicate he was expecting a lot of flak for his views and knew that some people would find them offensive, and he seems to be coping just fine with the responses.
Regarding detachment - yes it is a polite fiction - but IMO on an Internet forum it's more effective in influencing views than making an issue personal and telling people how upset you are by it. Or maybe it's just me - in real life making things personal would influence me because I would be dealing with an individual rather than an abstract concept, plus the person's voice, facial expressions, body language, story, would have an impact, but not on an Internet forum that IMO is meant to facilitate discussion.
I suggest you reread page 17, I don't make any comment that Sriram should necessarily have withdrawn his remarks but that given that he did not withdraw it meant that he was still implying that Trent had a disease.
Ok apologies - you didn't say Sriram should withdraw his remark.
You said:
Sriram says in the OP he thinks that homosexuality is a disease. Trent explains why that is hurtful. Sriram dies not withdraw remark and continues to write that he regards it as a disease. Ergo Sriram is stating that he regards Trent as diseased.
I think it's a huge jump from discussing the abstract of whether homosexuality should be treated like a disease and cured to saying Sriram is saying Trent is diseased , based just on Trent findsing the discussion topic offensive, so I don't agree with your ergo.
-
He does n' t say it should be treated like a disease, he says he thinks it is one. If he thinks it is a disease then he thinks Trent has that disease.
-
Sriram's posts indicate he was expecting a lot of flak for his views and knew that some people would find them offensive, and he seems to be coping just fine with the responses.
Hm - by running away.
Well, I didn't mean he is convincing anyone that gay people are a threat to the continuation of the human race. I meant I don't think he is particularly upset - probably eating his dinner.
-
I think it's a huge jump from discussing the abstract of whether homosexuality should be treated like a disease and cured to saying Sriram is saying Trent is diseased , based just on Trent findsing the discussion topic offensive, so I don't agree with your ergo.
There's no "whether" about it. Sriram considers homosexuality a disease, an abnormality which should be cured so that people can go on to lead normal lives.
Just how much clearer does it have to before you give up this risible, mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy policy of appeasement of his obnoxious views?
-
He does n' t say it should be treated like a disease, he says he thinks it is one.
Not seeing the subtle difference in that in terms of the debate of the issue in the OP - he said he tends to disagree with the view that homosexuality is not a disease and it therefore doesn't need curing - I took that to mean his key point was if there is a potential for a treatment or "cure" that he thinks it should be investigated and developed further. Len's response to the OP indicates he read it the same way?
he thinks it is a disease then he thinks Trent has that disease.
Or he thinks we should discuss whether it is a good thing to develop a treatment for it, though he uses the term " cure" which is like the difference between "having a disease" and "diseased" - IMO the discussion about the ethics of treatment is side-tracked by these subtle differences in the wording used.
-
I think it's a huge jump from discussing the abstract of whether homosexuality should be treated like a disease and cured to saying Sriram is saying Trent is diseased , based just on Trent findsing the discussion topic offensive, so I don't agree with your ergo.
There's no "whether" about it. Sriram considers homosexuality a disease, an abnormality which should be cured so that people can go on to lead normal lives.
Just how much clearer does it have to before you give up this risible, mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy policy of appeasement of his obnoxious views?
Interesting tactic - good use of rhythm in the words - but doesn't work. I will of course be continuing any and all mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy - you fill in the rest. Or add a few more new ones :)
ETA: oops - forgot risible.
-
Not seeing the subtle difference in that in terms of the debate of the issue in the OP - he said he tends to disagree with the view that homosexuality is not a disease and it therefore doesn't need curing - I took that to mean his key point was if there is a potential for a treatment or "cure" that he thinks it should be investigated and developed further.
So his stance that homosexuality is even something in need of "treatment" isn't sufficiently repulsive to you?
Well, I think you've both made it clear exactly where you two stand on the subject of homosexuality.
-
Not seeing the subtle difference in that in terms of the debate of the issue in the OP - he said he tends to disagree with the view that homosexuality is not a disease and it therefore doesn't need curing - I took that to mean his key point was if there is a potential for a treatment or "cure" that he thinks it should be investigated and developed further.
So his stance that homosexuality is even something in need of "treatment" isn't sufficiently repulsive to you?
Well, I think you've both made it clear exactly where you two stand on the subject of homosexuality.
Or I just don't discuss things using the same deranged, emotive terms that you do.
On the plus side, I think you've made it clear you're not very good at logic.
-
Or I just don't discuss things using the same deranged, emotive terms that you do.
Or discuss very much of anything at all outside of the Muslim Topic, fortunately.
On the plus side, I think you've made it clear you're not very good at logic.
You will be pointing out any logical problems with anything I've said, won't you?
-
Not seeing the subtle difference in that in terms of the debate of the issue in the OP - he said he tends to disagree with the view that homosexuality is not a disease and it therefore doesn't need curing - I took that to mean his key point was if there is a potential for a treatment or "cure" that he thinks it should be investigated and developed further.
So his stance that homosexuality is even something in need of "treatment" isn't sufficiently repulsive to you?
Well, I think you've both made it clear exactly where you two stand on the subject of homosexuality.
Or I just don't discuss things using the same deranged, emotive terms that you do.
On the plus side, I think you've made it clear you're not very good at logic.
'Deranged, emotive' hmmm the irony
-
Hi Gabriella,
Yes...I was having my dinner and also watching a little bit of the IPL matches that are going on. Just peeped in for a quick look at what this infantile bunch here are up to. More of the same... as expected.
I think... short of calling for mommy they have been indulging in every other tactic possible. Someone even mentioned his mom actually!
"He said this...he said that....he called him such and such....he called me such and such...I asked him and he didn't answer"...etc.etc. Goodness!
And all these long drawn complaints from a bunch of foul mouthed fellas who can't write two sentences without some sort of a personal offensive remark! Believe that! All they have been doing in this whole thread is talk about me and call me names and so on. ;D
The subject of epigenetics is probably too much for them. There is so much that can be discussed about the research possibilities and the way life could change. But...no! They get all defensive and start baring their fangs at me. LOL!
Anyway, thanks for your mature defense of my posts, Gabriella. I am off now for some more cricket and then... hit the bed.
Goodnight!
Sriram
-
What an utterly pathetic farrago of whining, poor-little-me superiority-complex bullshit.
All they have been doing in this whole thread is talk about me
And that, I strongly suspect, was the intention all along. Attention whoring, essentially.
Your view of "the way life could change" apparently consists of the "treatment" (which actually means eradication) of homosexuality, doesn't it Sriram?
-
Or I just don't discuss things using the same deranged, emotive terms that you do.
Or discuss very much of anything at all outside of the Muslim Topic, fortunately.
Lack of free time but glad you appreciate it. Interesting that you would join a discussion forum but advocate less discussion. Are you just on here to grandstand or to showcase your phraseology then?
On the plus side, I think you've made it clear you're not very good at logic.
You will be pointing out any logical problems with anything I've said, won't you?
Your conclusion that I have made clear my feelings about homosexuality simply because I don't express myself in a way that meets with your approval is an illogical conclusion. I haven't made anything clear but feel free to infer what you like.
I am not repulsed by views expressed by anti theists either. By the way , it would be illogical to conclude From this that I have made clear my views on anti-theists.
-
Not seeing the subtle difference in that in terms of the debate of the issue in the OP - he said he tends to disagree with the view that homosexuality is not a disease and it therefore doesn't need curing - I took that to mean his key point was if there is a potential for a treatment or "cure" that he thinks it should be investigated and developed further.
So his stance that homosexuality is even something in need of "treatment" isn't sufficiently repulsive to you?
Well, I think you've both made it clear exactly where you two stand on the subject of homosexuality.
Or I just don't discuss things using the same deranged, emotive terms that you do.
On the plus side, I think you've made it clear you're not very good at logic.
'Deranged, emotive' hmmm the irony
Shaker and I aren't discussing the issue of whether a treatment for homosexuality is ethical now - we are discussing each other's use of words. My words are risible, mealy-mouthed and washy-washy while his are deranged and emotive, since apparently he expects me to feel too repulsed to discuss whether a treatment is ethical or not.
But if that's somehow ironic for you - ok.
-
Hi Gabriella,
Anyway, thanks for your mature defense of my posts, Gabriella. I am off now for some more cricket and then... hit the bed.
Goodnight!
Sriram
Ha,ha - I am not defending your posts Sriram - you knew you would get a verbal kicking when you chose the words you did, which was pretty infantile of you, but there you go. So enjoy the consequences.
-
Not seeing the subtle difference in that in terms of the debate of the issue in the OP - he said he tends to disagree with the view that homosexuality is not a disease and it therefore doesn't need curing - I took that to mean his key point was if there is a potential for a treatment or "cure" that he thinks it should be investigated and developed further.
So his stance that homosexuality is even something in need of "treatment" isn't sufficiently repulsive to you?
Would you feel better if he used the term "procedure"?
I think it should be up to the individual to decide if they want a procedure to change their sexuality, after assessing any associated health risks - much like the way decisions are made about plastic surgery. Especially as there is a statistically higher risk of certain disease, especially for the person being penetrated. So some men might have a procedure to change their sexuality to reduce their statistical risk of exposure to HIV.
-
What?! I talked about a cure..yes. Who said anything about homosexuals not having normal lives...?! You're just lying Maeght.
From: General Discussion / Re: Homosexuality!
« Message by Sriram on April 29, 2015, 08:33:38 AM »
I think its an abnormality that occurs now and then in some people. No big deal. If it can be cured and people can live normal lives....why not?!
So from this - people with the abnormality are not living normal lives. Was I lying?
Sriram, you have been posting on this site a number of times since this post of mine but have not responded. So, was I lying?
-
Would you feel better if he used the term "procedure"?
No, I would not.
I think it should be up to the individual to decide if they want a procedure to change their sexuality, after assessing any associated health risks - much like the way decisions are made about plastic surgery. Especially as there is a statistically higher risk of certain disease, especially for the person being penetrated. So some men might have a procedure to change their sexuality to reduce their statistical risk of exposure to HIV.
This makes the assumption, common amongst the prurient, that gay men inevitably and inherently practice penetration. This is mistaken. Some do, some don't.
If, as you claim, you are concerned about the alleged risks thereof, your concerns would be better directed at the millions upon millions of heterosexual couples who practice it (many of them regularly, I'm sure), given their vastly greater numbers as compared to gay men.
Instead of simply giving in to a person's desire to change their sexual orientation (assuming that such a thing is even possible in the first place), all that time and all that effort would be better expended in supportive counselling (a) to find out exactly why they feel the need to make such a change and on what basis and (b) to encourage them to affirm their sexuality as positive, healthy and natural.
There is a psychological condition called Body Identity Integrity Disorder in which people have a persistent and overwhelming desire to have perfectly healthy and fully-functional limbs - especially legs - amputated. They view their own limb as an alien object, a foreign thing, only the removal of which - due to the disorder - will make them feel whole and complete. People have been known to self-amputate a leg by allowing a train to run over it or otherwise mangle their limb so badly that amputation becomes a medical necessity, so enduring and all-pervasive is the disorder.
The point here is that this is an obviously serious psychological issue to be treated by psychotherapy and medication, not by simply saying "Sure, fine, no problem, we'll remove that perfectly healthy leg for you." Likewise, people who feel alienated from their own sexual orientation need supportive psychotherapeutic help to determine why they feel that way and how the purely emotional issues can be addressed to make their homosexuality ego-syntonic, in the professional lingo. The medical profession should not be giving in to some half-arsed attempt at "corrective" "therapy" should such a thing even exist. Only things which are wrong can be corrected, and homosexuality isn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorder
-
But if a person wants to change their sexuality and some claim to have done so, what's it to you Shaker? It's their life not yours. Has your little libertarian gone into hiding or died?
-
But if a person wants to change their sexuality and some claim to have done so, what's it to you Shaker? It's their life not yours. Has your little libertarian gone into hiding or died?
It seems self-evident to me that somebody would only wish to change their sexuality because they believe - which is to say, have been led to believe, because such ideas come from external influences (in this case principally religious ones) - that there is something wrong with their sexuality as it is. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality as it is: to believe so you must pick up on the idea that somebody else thinks it is.
It is better that people are counselled how to see these pernicious influences and to see them for what they are rather than embark on what is almost certain to be a damaging and ultimately pointless attempt to alter a fundamental part of their nature when there's no need to do so.
The evidence of the carnage caused by so-called "reparative therapies," in the US especially - psychological and emotional damage to the person themselves and to those close to them - is easily found. No reputable professional body or association - you know, those organisations that rely on evidenced-based thinking - supports it. The state of Oregon announced only a few days ago that it is to be banned there. Illinois is doing the same. California, New Jersey and Washington D.C. have already done so. A bill to ban it in Ontario passed its second reading a few weeks back. And so on and do forth - the same story is being repeated in all the civilised parts of the world.
As for those who have claimed to have changed their sexuality ... yeah, right ;D Ever heard of Haggard's Law?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Haggard%27s_Law
Just for shits and giggles, as they say - though with a deadly serious purpose at the back of it - this site is also well worth a careful look:
http://gayhomophobe.com/
-
It seems self-evident to me that somebody would only wish to change their sexuality because they believe - which is to say, have been led to believe, because such ideas come from external influences (in this case principally religious ones) - that there is something wrong with their sexuality as it is.
I think that goes without saying. They believe that the acting upon of their sexuality would in some way be wrong or undesirable, and so wish to change it. For some sexual orientations, the acting upon it would even be illegal, as well as considered immoral. Another incentive for a "sexuality reassignment".
But I can't image anyone wishing to change theirs if they judged what they wanted to do to be not wrong.
-
I think that goes without saying. They believe that the acting upon of their sexuality would in some way be wrong or undesirable, and so wish to change it.
So far so good. What should happen at this point is that the individual is helped to recognise where such feelings come from, what influences she is subject to and so forth.
For some sexual orientations, the acting upon it would even be illegal, as well as considered immoral. Another incentive for a "sexuality reassignment".
I assume you're referring a sexual orientation such as paedophilia? Well, there's a rather large and obvious difference between homosexuality and paedophilia: I'm sure I needn't spell it out.
-
Would you feel better if he used the term "procedure"?
No, I would not.
How irrational of you.
I think it should be up to the individual to decide if they want a procedure to change their sexuality, after assessing any associated health risks - much like the way decisions are made about plastic surgery. Especially as there is a statistically higher risk of certain disease, especially for the person being penetrated. So some men might have a procedure to change their sexuality to reduce their statistical risk of exposure to HIV.
This makes the assumption, common amongst the prurient, that gay men inevitably and inherently practice penetration. This is mistaken. Some do, some don't.
No it doesn't - but we already established that logic is not your strong point.
If a man does happen to enjoy penetration and would prefer that he didn't enjoy this impulse, he can choose to control his sexual impulses by having treatment to alter his sexual preferences - that's his business. Given it has been established that gay men are statistically at a higher risk of getting HIV through this type of sex, which is why the NHS ask men who have sex with men to not donate blood for 12 months after sex, I think it is perfectly reasonable to want to control this impulse. If that means changing your sexuality - that's for the individual to weigh the risks of treatment and decide accordingly. Last time I checked, being gay didn't suddenly turn you into a weak and feeble individual, incapable of making competent decisions related to your health.
If, as you claim, you are concerned about the alleged risks thereof, your concerns would be better directed at the millions upon millions of heterosexual couples who practice it (many of them regularly, I'm sure), given their vastly greater numbers as compared to gay men.
No thanks - probably better to rely on the stats rather than your unevidenced emotion for the focus of my concern.
Instead of simply giving in to a person's desire to change their sexual orientation (assuming that such a thing is even possible in the first place), all that time and all that effort would be better expended in supportive counselling (a) to find out exactly why they feel the need to make such a change and on what basis and (b) to encourage them to affirm their sexuality as positive, healthy and natural.
What a load of patronising condescending nonsense. You seem to be assuming that all gay people need you to save them from themsleves - now who does that remind me of? Oh yes, the religious lot.
Except you have no evidence that a gene-based treatment will involve a lot of time and effort. It could be relatively simple - or at least as simple as plastic surgery or an abortion - which people have the freedom to choose without you worrying about the extent of their psychological problems. If people can relatively freely choose to change their physical appearance, including lightening or darkening their skin colour, there is no logical reason to stop them altering their sexuality.
It's their sexuality, it should be up to them to decide if they want to be gay or straight or bi or somewhere in between, rather than have people like you moralising and dictating to them what they do with their bodies.
There is a psychological condition called Body Identity Integrity Disorder in which people have a persistent and overwhelming desire to have perfectly healthy and fully-functional limbs - especially legs - amputated. They view their own limb as an alien object, a foreign thing, only the removal of which - due to the disorder - will make them feel whole and complete. People have been known to self-amputate a leg by allowing a train to run over it or otherwise mangle their limb so badly that amputation becomes a medical necessity, so enduring and all-pervasive is the disorder.
The point here is that this is an obviously serious psychological issue to be treated by psychotherapy and medication, not by simply saying "Sure, fine, no problem, we'll remove that perfectly healthy leg for you." Likewise, people who feel alienated from their own sexual orientation need supportive psychotherapeutic help to determine why they feel that way and how the purely emotional issues can be addressed to make their homosexuality ego-syntonic, in the professional lingo. The medical profession should not be giving in to some half-arsed attempt at "corrective" "therapy" should such a thing even exist. Only things which are wrong can be corrected, and homosexuality isn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorder
Or they just need you to mind your own business and let them have the freedom to choose their sexuality as easily as they might choose to "correct" a perfectly nice nose or breasts, simply because it pleases them to do it.
-
Would you feel better if he used the term "procedure"?
No, I would not.
How irrational of you.
I think it should be up to the individual to decide if they want a procedure to change their sexuality, after assessing any associated health risks - much like the way decisions are made about plastic surgery. Especially as there is a statistically higher risk of certain disease, especially for the person being penetrated. So some men might have a procedure to change their sexuality to reduce their statistical risk of exposure to HIV.
This makes the assumption, common amongst the prurient, that gay men inevitably and inherently practice penetration. This is mistaken. Some do, some don't.
No it doesn't - but we already established that logic is not your strong point.
If a man does happen to enjoy penetration and would prefer that he didn't enjoy this impulse, he can choose to control his sexual impulses by having treatment to alter his sexual preferences - that's his business. Given it has been established that gay men are statistically at a higher risk of getting HIV through this type of sex, which is why the NHS ask men who have sex with men to not donate blood for 12 months after sex, I think it is perfectly reasonable to want to control this impulse. If that means changing your sexuality - that's for the individual to weigh the risks of treatment and decide accordingly. Last time I checked, being gay didn't suddenly turn you into a weak and feeble individual, incapable of making competent decisions related to your health.
If, as you claim, you are concerned about the alleged risks thereof, your concerns would be better directed at the millions upon millions of heterosexual couples who practice it (many of them regularly, I'm sure), given their vastly greater numbers as compared to gay men.
No thanks - probably better to rely on the stats rather than your unevidenced emotion for the focus of my concern.
Instead of simply giving in to a person's desire to change their sexual orientation (assuming that such a thing is even possible in the first place), all that time and all that effort would be better expended in supportive counselling (a) to find out exactly why they feel the need to make such a change and on what basis and (b) to encourage them to affirm their sexuality as positive, healthy and natural.
What a load of patronising condescending nonsense. You seem to be assuming that all gay people need you to save them from themsleves - now who does that remind me of? Oh yes, the religious lot.
Except you have no evidence that a gene-based treatment will involve a lot of time and effort. It could be relatively simple - or at least as simple as plastic surgery or an abortion - which people have the freedom to choose without you worrying about the extent of their psychological problems. If people can relatively freely choose to change their physical appearance, including lightening or darkening their skin colour, there is no logical reason to stop them altering their sexuality.
It's their sexuality, it should be up to them to decide if they want to be gay or straight or bi or somewhere in between, rather than have people like you moralising and dictating to them what they do with their bodies.
There is a psychological condition called Body Identity Integrity Disorder in which people have a persistent and overwhelming desire to have perfectly healthy and fully-functional limbs - especially legs - amputated. They view their own limb as an alien object, a foreign thing, only the removal of which - due to the disorder - will make them feel whole and complete. People have been known to self-amputate a leg by allowing a train to run over it or otherwise mangle their limb so badly that amputation becomes a medical necessity, so enduring and all-pervasive is the disorder.
The point here is that this is an obviously serious psychological issue to be treated by psychotherapy and medication, not by simply saying "Sure, fine, no problem, we'll remove that perfectly healthy leg for you." Likewise, people who feel alienated from their own sexual orientation need supportive psychotherapeutic help to determine why they feel that way and how the purely emotional issues can be addressed to make their homosexuality ego-syntonic, in the professional lingo. The medical profession should not be giving in to some half-arsed attempt at "corrective" "therapy" should such a thing even exist. Only things which are wrong can be corrected, and homosexuality isn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorder
Or they just need you to mind your own business and let them have the freedom to choose their sexuality as easily as they might choose to "correct" a perfectly nice nose or breasts, simply because it pleases them to do it.
That, of course, is the trouble with this forum (one of them, anyway!), people cannot mind their own business over what are essentially personal matters.
-
No it doesn't - but we already established that logic is not your strong point.
No,"we" didn't establish it, you merely asserted it.
If a man does happen to enjoy penetration and would prefer that he didn't enjoy this impulse, he can choose to control his sexual impulses by having treatment to alter his sexual preferences - that's his business.
Or he can presumably simply alter his choices from the menu of sexual expression, can he not?
Given it has been established that gay men are statistically at a higher risk of getting HIV through this type of sex, which is why the NHS ask men who have sex with men to not donate blood for 12 months after sex
... a ban which I assume you may know has been and is widely criticised and faces constant calls for its overturn ...
Moreover, you don't seem to be too clear about exactly what it is you're trying to say here, flip-flopping as you are back and forth between A man might prefer that he didn't enjoy penetration and Gay men are statistically higher risk of HIV blah blah blah.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to want to control this impulse.
Doubtless; but I've seen examples of what you consider to be "perfectly reasonable" so I'll not be setting great store by this.
If that means changing your sexuality - that's for the individual to weigh the risks of treatment and decide accordingly. Last time I checked, being gay didn't suddenly turn you into a weak and feeble individual, incapable of making competent decisions related to your health.
No, but it some cases it can make you prey to manipulative and unscrupulous individuals and groups who seek to persuade you that you should be other than you are on the basis of their (the individuals' and groups') ideologies, frequently though not exclusively religious ones.
Except you have no evidence that a gene-based treatment will involve a lot of time and effort. It could be relatively simple - or at least as simple as plastic surgery or an abortion - which people have the freedom to choose without you worrying about the extent of their psychological problems. If people can relatively freely choose to change their physical appearance, including lightening or darkening their skin colour, there is no logical reason to stop them altering their sexuality.
Save that there are abundant cases where the pursuit of plastic surgery is clearly indicative of psychological issues which merit supportive psychotherapy, not yet another two hours under the knife. There is a continuous spectrum between wanting to do something about your sticky-outy ears because you're embarrassed by them and feeling that your leg is so alien to you that you'll drape it across a railway line while the 1832 to Stamford is approaching. The former is deemed to be innocuous and in fact is widespread; the latter is deemed to be indicative of serious mental disturbance which merits intervention, even if that intervention consists of psychotherapy and medication. But there is a continuum between the two and we draw the line at different stages, that's all.
It's their sexuality, it should be up to them to decide if they want to be gay or straight or bi or somewhere in between, rather than have people like you moralising and dictating to them what they do with their bodies.
On the contrary, moralising and dictating is the very opposite of what I'm about. That's what the religios are for, if they're "for" anything that is.
Or they just need you to mind your own business and let them have the freedom to choose their sexuality as easily as they might choose to "correct" a perfectly nice nose or breasts, simply because it pleases them to do it.
Clearly what passes in what you think of as your mind for your branch of libertarianism extends to allowing absolutely anybody to do absolutely anything to themselves without any kind of let or hindrance or even questioning.
Well, says much.
-
I think that goes without saying. They believe that the acting upon of their sexuality would in some way be wrong or undesirable, and so wish to change it.
So far so good. What should happen at this point is that the individual is helped to recognise where such feelings come from, what influences she is subject to and so forth.
For some sexual orientations, the acting upon it would even be illegal, as well as considered immoral. Another incentive for a "sexuality reassignment".
I assume you're referring a sexual orientation such as paedophilia? Well, there's a rather large and obvious difference between homosexuality and paedophilia: I'm sure I needn't spell it out.
That would be one example yes. Yes there are many factual differences between them. Not sure what point you are making.
Some people believe some actions are wrong or immoral. Unless if you are going to start saying to one person "but what you want to do IS wrong" and to the next "but what you want to do ISN'T wrong", then ultimately that's up to the individual. And if there was some theoretical pill they could take, that's up to them.
Though of course you would be free to say to them first that in your opinion whatever it is isn't wrong and so you think they shouldn't.
-
Some people believe some actions are wrong or immoral. Unless if you are going to start saying to one person "but what you want to do IS wrong" and to the next "but what you want to do ISN'T wrong", then ultimately that's up to the individual. And if there was some theoretical pill they could take, that's up to them.
Though of course you would be free to say to them first that in your opinion whatever it is isn't wrong and so you think they shouldn't.
This is essentially my thesis here. I find it extremely hard to believe that anybody comes to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong on their own; there must be some external influence which implants that seed. Typically it would be a religious influence, though not always. My point is that it's better for the individual to examine such influences, to identify them and to see them for what they are than submit to what is to me never anything other than a deeply sinister, poisonously ideologically driven, agenda-laden attempt to "cure" what some perceive to be a "disease."
Simple question: if, by some magical wand-waving miracle, all and any anti-gay sentiment in society could be eradicated in toto overnight, do you think there would be more, less or about the same number of gay people unhappy with their sexuality and seeking to change it?
Attempts to change the course of one's sexuality are not only generally useless, they not only cause untold misery and heartache; they tend to be propped up on some exceptionally unsavoury agenda-led ideas. As I said earlier, every reputable professional body/organisation condemns such "reparative therapies." There are good reasons for that state of affairs.
-
No it doesn't - but we already established that logic is not your strong point.
No,"we" didn't establish it, you merely asserted it.
Pretty much like your assertions running through this thread.
If a man does happen to enjoy penetration and would prefer that he didn't enjoy this impulse, he can choose to control his sexual impulses by having treatment to alter his sexual preferences - that's his business.
Or he can presumably simply alter his choices from the menu of sexual expression, can he not?
Glad you think it's that simple. Well, you might be right - let's see - out of the two of us, who has the greater experience of the pleasure of being penetrated by a penis and how hard it would be to give that up, despite all the other available avenues of sexual expression?
Given it has been established that gay men are statistically at a higher risk of getting HIV through this type of sex, which is why the NHS ask men who have sex with men to not donate blood for 12 months after sex
... a ban which I assume you may know has been and is widely criticised and faces constant calls for its overturn ...
Well, I'm sure when the statistical evidence changes or testing blood becomes more accurate and instantaneous, the ban of 12 months for all categories will be lifted. Until then, the trust in the safety of donated blood for millions of sick people is a more important policy consideration than a few people feeling offended or singled out.
Moreover, you don't seem to be too clear about exactly what it is you're trying to say here, flip-slopping as you are back and forth between A man might prefer that he didn't enjoy penetration and Gay men are statistically higher risk of HIV blah blah blah.
You don't seem to be too clear about what exactly it is you're trying to say here. Suggest you try again.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to want to control this impulse.
Doubtless; but I've seen examples of what you consider to be "perfectly reasonable" so I'll not be setting great store by this.
Nobody asked you to. I certainly don't set great store by your opinions either, for the same reason.
If that means changing your sexuality - that's for the individual to weigh the risks of treatment and decide accordingly. Last time I checked, being gay didn't suddenly turn you into a weak and feeble individual, incapable of making competent decisions related to your health.
No, but it some cases it can make you prey to manipulative and unscrupulous individuals and groups who seek to persuade them that they should be other than they are on the basis of their (the individuals' and groups') ideologies, frequently though not exclusiviely religious ones.
Or they could fall prey to your ideology that anyone who wants to change their sexuality is psychologically more disturbed than someone who wants to change some other aspect of themselves.
Except you have no evidence that a gene-based treatment will involve a lot of time and effort. It could be relatively simple - or at least as simple as plastic surgery or an abortion - which people have the freedom to choose without you worrying about the extent of their psychological problems. If people can relatively freely choose to change their physical appearance, including lightening or darkening their skin colour, there is no logical reason to stop them altering their sexuality.
Save that there are abundant cases where the pursuit of plastic surgery is clearly indicative of psychological issues which merit supportive psychotherapy, not yet another two hours under the knife.
And I am sure that the medical profession ad the legislators can take the same approach as they currently take to plastic surgery to deal with cases where exceptionally vulnerable people might be exploited. They haven't completely banned all plastic surgery have they, simply because some people might have psychological issues.
It's their sexuality, it should be up to them to decide if they want to be gay or straight or bi or somewhere in between, rather than have people like you moralising and dictating to them what they do with their bodies.
On the contrary, moralising and dictating is the very opposite of what I'm about.
Or you are just very deluded about yourself and your motivations.
Or they just need you to mind your own business and let them have the freedom to choose their sexuality as easily as they might choose to "correct" a perfectly nice nose or breasts, simply because it pleases them to do it.
Clearly what passes in what you think of as your mind for your branch of libertarianism extends to allowing absolutely anybody to do absolutely anything to themselves without any kind of let or hindrance or even questioning.
Actually it doesn't but don't let that stop you from pretending it does. We could have the usual safeguards - e.g. such as those that currently exist for abortion or plastic surgery.
-
Some people believe some actions are wrong or immoral. Unless if you are going to start saying to one person "but what you want to do IS wrong" and to the next "but what you want to do ISN'T wrong", then ultimately that's up to the individual. And if there was some theoretical pill they could take, that's up to them.
Though of course you would be free to say to them first that in your opinion whatever it is isn't wrong and so you think they shouldn't.
This is essentially my thesis here. I find it extremely hard to believe that anybody comes to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong on their own; there must be some external influence which implants that seed. Typically it would be a religious influence, though not always.
Just like with anything else. Someone might feel that the death penalty is wrong or not wrong because they've thought about it a lot and came to that conclusion. Or it may just be because this is the predominant feeling of the bubble of society they have been immersed in, and they have not thought about it too much. Or you could swap the death penalty for sheep-shagging there.
Certainly worth asking people why they want the change before giving it, and if it turns out to be "because of the anti-feeling I get in my society" then you might ask them to think of some other reasons, but if they already have or do, well as I say that's ultimately up to them in my view.
Simple question: if, by some magical wand-waving miracle, all and any anti-gay sentiment in society could be eradicated in toto overnight, do you think there would be more, less or about the same number of gay people unhappy with their sexuality and seeking to change it?
There would be fewer unhappy homosexuals. Same goes for anything really. Eradicate all anti-sheep shagging sentiment or anti-adultery sentiment, and there will be fewer guilty aduterers and sheep shaggers. Well actually there would be none, by definition.
-
There would be fewer unhappy homosexuals.
... which indicates to me that the fundamental problem at work in all this, the real issue, is that it's the anti-gay sentiment abroad in sections of society which is the issue that really needs to be addressed, not effecting some sort of "reparative therapy" which is predicated entirely on the idea of somebody who has nothing wrong with them being made to think that they have something wrong with them, typically on the basis of very, very, very silly ideas indeed.
Every snake oil salesman, woo merchant, con artist and religious proselytiser there has ever been knows full well that you can't literally or figuratively flog somebody a cure (imaginary) until and unless you can really convince the gullible that they have the very disease the cure is designed to remove (also imaginary).
-
It's things like this that show how horrible prejudice can be.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2937217/Killed-gay-Man-blindfolded-thrown-tower-block-Syria-stoned-death-SURVIVED-fall.html
That is just horrible!
Some parts of the world are just so horrible, and what is worse children are encouraged to watch it.
:(
Yes, Rose, and the civilised world just stands by and watches instead of getting in there and obliterating this foul regime.
-
Trouble is, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't :(
Better to be damned by the wicked, than stand by and let innocent people be murdered.
-
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/05/09/isis-using-honeytraps-to-find-gay-men-and-execute-them/
-
There would be fewer unhappy homosexuals.
... which indicates to me that the fundamental problem at work in all this, the real issue, is that it's the anti-gay sentiment abroad in sections of society which is the issue that really needs to be addressed, not effecting some sort of "reparative therapy" which is predicated entirely on the idea of somebody who has nothing wrong with them being made to think that they have something wrong with them, typically on the basis of very, very, very silly ideas indeed.
Every snake oil salesman, woo merchant, con artist and religious proselytiser there has ever been knows full well that you can't literally or figuratively flog somebody a cure (imaginary) until and unless you can really convince the gullible that they have the very disease the cure is designed to remove (also imaginary).
Sure. So what else is new. That's the consumer world we live in.
I went to an interesting talk held at my daughters' school about how to nurture the self-esteem of girls and that's exactly what the talk was about. Except of course boys as well as girls are targeted by advertisers trying to convince them they have a need that they do not have, in order to sell them something to supposedly "fix" that need. And if it doesn't work as promised in the advert, then the problem is clearly you and by the way, here's another product we can sell you to "help" you.
The person who gave the talk writes for Cosmo and went undercover to a clinic in Harley Street pretending she was interested in liposuction on her stomach. She was told by the surgeon that she didn't need lipo on her stomach (he paid her a compliment to reel her in) but he then attempted to sell her a more expensive treatment and threw in a BOGOF offer.
She then played a Lynx advert featuring the 6 top super models in the world dropping from heaven as angels and throwing away their halos because some ordinary Joe had sprayed himself with Lynx body spray. The 6 top super-models had been digitally enhanced in the video to appear longer, leaner and more beautiful than they really were - a gap between their thighs appeared while they walked by the use digital trickery - even though this was anatomically impossible to achieve while walking in the manner that they were walking.
The take home message for us was that even the 6 top super-models in the world were not pretty enough for the advertisers of Lynx and needed to be digitally altered - and this is the standard that ordinary women are pressured to live up to from the time they are little girls being bombarded with these images through the media, bill-boards, magazines etc as they go about their daily lives.
As I said - that's the world we live in. Good luck addressing all of these "silly sentiments".
-
There would be fewer unhappy homosexuals.
... which indicates to me that the fundamental problem at work in all this, the real issue, is that it's the anti-gay sentiment abroad in sections of society which is the issue that really needs to be addressed, not effecting some sort of "reparative therapy" which is predicated entirely on the idea of somebody who has nothing wrong with them being made to think that they have something wrong with them, typically on the basis of very, very, very silly ideas indeed.
Ultimately it all comes down to a value judgment.
If you think X is not wrong/undesirable then you will see nothing wrong with wanting to do it. You will then see the "problem" as being with other people censuring/disapproving of it, and with the use of medical treatments to eliminate the wanting.
If you agree X is wrong/undesirable then the "problem" is with the wanting to do it, and the people censuring/disapproving are correct, and/or you may also now be more open to the idea of medical treatments to eliminate the wanting.
As I have agreed, it is worth asking people to examine whether they really think a specific desire X they want to be rid of is something they would also judge as wrong/undesirable, or whether they are just going with the flow of other people's negativity, but if they would according to their morality consider it wrong/undesirable then I think that is ultimately up to them.
Your comments that for a specific X the "problem" is with other people's negative attitudes towards X, and it is them that need sorting out, not the person who wants rid of it, is of course based on your own moral judgment of X. As is your belief that alternative moralitys that say different are "silly".
But you will meet people who really have thought out what they believe and really do see X as wrong/undesirable and want rid. Should they be prevented?
-
Yes, they should.
No question.
No discussion.
No "debate."
There isn't one.
Yes, they should.
-
You cannot make something said to be wrong and you cannot make something right to be wrong because you want it to be so.
People can choose what they believe to be right or wrong.
Everyone has that right. What no one has the right to do is force the belief of one onto another...
If you cannot treat a person right regardless of their opinions then the truth is ignored that the sexuality, colour or creed is not the problem
but not living and let live...is.
-
You cannot make something said to be wrong and you cannot make something right to be wrong because you want it to be so.
People can choose what they believe to be right or wrong.
Sassy, I have told you this many times, but it doesn't seem to sink into your brain, so I will repeat it.
We all have a sense of perception which allows us to weigh up evidence and see whether it is convincing or not. If that ability comes to a conclusion of yes or no, we cannot then "choose" to believe the opposite, because we would be lying to ourselves.
Can you see that?
If not, then I hope that somebody else will be able to explain it to you more clearly than I can.
-
Hi everyone,
I think Shaker and others are over reacting as usual.
I can almost picture Shaker standing at the gates of the therapy centre, waving frantically and stopping homosexuals from entering (with them wondering - 'what's with this guy'!).
I think we need to chill somewhat. There was a time when homosexuality needed to be defended against homophobic fanatics....but that time is past (and never mind ISIS!). Most Christians are now not the same as they were centuries ago.
People now should be able to discuss homosexuality dispassionately. There is no need to panic and pull out the pitch forks any more
You can't stop science...and if and when some sort of a therapy is available, people should be free to decide what they want. (I can imagine Trent, Mathew and many others secretly flipping coins...'heads I take the treatment.....tails I flip again'.....or something like that). ;)
So.....lighten up! The situation is not as bad as some people like to pretend.
Some people are so fanatical that they even want to stop all research on homosexuality....because they think homosexuals are 'normal'. Homosexuals as individuals being a normal part of society with all rights and duties is very different from saying that homosexuality is normal. They are two different things entirely. This change in thinking needs to come in without raising the hackles on both sides of the argument.
Homophilia is as bad as homophobia. All this anger, fear and insecurity connected with homosexuality needs to go sometime. I mean to say...people cannot possibly continue indefinitely treating homosexuality as a some sort of a 'holy cow' that should not be touched or spoken about! People should be able to discuss it freely without raising passions on both sides.
In other words, the thinking needs to evolve beyond its current position.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
What?! I talked about a cure..yes. Who said anything about homosexuals not having normal lives...?! You're just lying Maeght.
From: General Discussion / Re: Homosexuality!
« Message by Sriram on April 29, 2015, 08:33:38 AM »
I think its an abnormality that occurs now and then in some people. No big deal. If it can be cured and people can live normal lives....why not?!
So from this - people with the abnormality are not living normal lives. Was I lying?
Sriram, you have been posting on this site a number of times since this post of mine but have not responded. So, was I lying?
-
Hi everyone,
I think Shaker and others are over reacting as usual.
Then you'd be wrong.
I can almost picture Shaker standing at the gates of the therapy centre, waving frantically and stopping homosexuals from entering (with them wondering - 'what's with this guy'!).
I'd hope that such places were never established.
I think we need to chill somewhat. There was a time when homosexuality needed to be defended against homophobic fanatics....but that time is past (and never mind ISIS!). Most Christians are now not the same as they were centuries ago.
Given what some people still say, and what some organised religions still preach, then we should remain alert to the resultant overt homophobia - surprised you can't see this yourself.
People now should be able to discuss homosexuality dispassionately. There is no need to panic and pull out the pitch forks any more
I'm quite passionate about the problems surrounding prejudice of any sort, as are most reasonable people.
You can't stop science...and if and when some sort of a therapy is available, people should be free to decide what they want. (I can imagine Trent, Mathew and many others secretly flipping coins...'heads I take the treatment.....tails I flip again'.....or something like that). ;)
Indeed not - but science isn't the problem here: people are the problem here!
So.....lighten up! The situation is not as bad as some people like to pretend.
It can be if you are on the receiving end!
Some people are so fanatical that they even want to stop all research on homosexuality....because they think homosexuals are 'normal'. Homosexuals as individuals being a normal part of society with all rights and duties is very different from saying that homosexuality is normal. They are two different things entirely. This change in thinking needs to come in without raising the hackles on both sides of the argument.
Got some news for you Sriram: recognising fanaticism in others is not in itself fanatical and, by the way, and in case it escaped you attention homosexual people are simply 'people'.
Homophilia is as bad as homophobia. All this anger, fear and insecurity connected with homosexuality needs to go sometime.
Agreed - so stop doing it yourself.
I mean to say...people cannot possibly continue indefinitely treating homosexuality as a some sort of a 'holy cow' that should not be touched or spoken about! People should be able to discuss it freely without raising passions on both sides.
So stop talking about it then, since I reckon the hole you have been digging for yourself must be deep enough by now! But if you do, and what you say merits criticism and can be seen by others as being homophobic, then you should expect to be criticised - and with passion.
-
Some people believe some actions are wrong or immoral. Unless if you are going to start saying to one person "but what you want to do IS wrong" and to the next "but what you want to do ISN'T wrong", then ultimately that's up to the individual. And if there was some theoretical pill they could take, that's up to them.
Though of course you would be free to say to them first that in your opinion whatever it is isn't wrong and so you think they shouldn't.
This is essentially my thesis here. I find it extremely hard to believe that anybody comes to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong on their own; there must be some external influence which implants that seed.
I'm curious - can you demonstrate a situation where someone has come to any conclusion in their life on their own without some external influence that implants a seed?
Attempts to change the course of one's sexuality are not only generally useless, they not only cause untold misery and heartache; they tend to be propped up on some exceptionally unsavoury agenda-led ideas. As I said earlier, every reputable professional body/organisation condemns such "reparative therapies." There are good reasons for that state of affairs.
If a CBT or counselling therapy doesn't work and causes the patient misery it should not be undertaken.
If a gene-based therapy works and therefore doesn't cause the patient misery what's the problem?
-
Yes, they should.
No question.
No discussion.
No "debate."
There isn't one.
Yes, they should.
I see - so you were lying when you said:
On the contrary, moralising and dictating is the very opposite of what I'm about.
Good to know.
I imagine it will be a similar situation to Euthanasia clinics in the UK and abortion clinics in Ireland- if the procedure for changing your sexuality is not available in the UK due to people like you imposing your moral agenda and ideology on people who want to exercise their personal freedom to avail themselves of the procedure, people will travel to wherever it is available.
-
That's assuming people weigh it up in the first place.
They might not if they believe it to be wrong, because the bible says so.
Some people weigh things up in the sense of what they think the bible says, no amount of evidence would count if they only accept one interpretation of the bible.
It sounds as if that is the position Sassy holds.
So in a way she does choose, because she rejects it, no matter what alternative is presented.
Which I think is why she says " you can't make a wrong thing right, no matter how much you want to"
Of course there are many ways to interpret the bible, but not everyone accepts them.
:)
Yes, I shall just have to stop taking the bait! :)
-
Good news, hope Ireland catches up a bit on 22nd
http://m.stv.tv/news/scotland/1320036-scotland-named-best-country-in-europe-for-lgbti-legal-equality/
-
Hi everyone,
I think Shaker and others are over reacting as usual.
I can almost picture Shaker standing at the gates of the therapy centre, waving frantically and stopping homosexuals from entering (with them wondering - 'what's with this guy'!).
I think we need to chill somewhat. There was a time when homosexuality needed to be defended against homophobic fanatics....but that time is past (and never mind ISIS!). Most Christians are now not the same as they were centuries ago.
People now should be able to discuss homosexuality dispassionately. There is no need to panic and pull out the pitch forks any more
You can't stop science...and if and when some sort of a therapy is available, people should be free to decide what they want. (I can imagine Trent, Mathew and many others secretly flipping coins...'heads I take the treatment.....tails I flip again'.....or something like that). ;)
So.....lighten up! The situation is not as bad as some people like to pretend.
Some people are so fanatical that they even want to stop all research on homosexuality....because they think homosexuals are 'normal'. Homosexuals as individuals being a normal part of society with all rights and duties is very different from saying that homosexuality is normal. They are two different things entirely. This change in thinking needs to come in without raising the hackles on both sides of the argument.
Homophilia is as bad as homophobia. All this anger, fear and insecurity connected with homosexuality needs to go sometime. I mean to say...people cannot possibly continue indefinitely treating homosexuality as a some sort of a 'holy cow' that should not be touched or spoken about! People should be able to discuss it freely without raising passions on both sides.
In other words, the thinking needs to evolve beyond its current position.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
I do wonder at the alternate universe you live in. Still as long as you are happy there.
-
Homophilia is as bad as homophobia.
Homophilia is the open, non-judgmental, active acceptance of homosexual people.
Homophobia is the irrational prejudice against homosexual people.
The former is as bad as the latter?
Really?
(I wonder if Sriram will come back to defend this opinion. My money's on "Hell, no!").
-
You cannot make something said to be wrong and you cannot make something right to be wrong because you want it to be so.
People can choose what they believe to be right or wrong.
Sassy, I have told you this many times, but it doesn't seem to sink into your brain, so I will repeat it.
We all have a sense of perception which allows us to weigh up evidence and see whether it is convincing or not. If that ability comes to a conclusion of yes or no, we cannot then "choose" to believe the opposite, because we would be lying to ourselves.
Can you see that?
If not, then I hope that somebody else will be able to explain it to you more clearly than I can.
That's assuming people weigh it up in the first place.
They might not if they believe it to be wrong, because the bible says so.
Some people weigh things up in the sense of what they think the bible says, no amount of evidence would count if they only accept one interpretation of the bible.
It sounds as if that is the position Sassy holds.
So in a way she does choose, because she rejects it, no matter what alternative is presented.
Which I think is why she says " you can't make a wrong thing right, no matter how much you want to"
Of course there are many ways to interpret the bible, but not everyone accepts them.
:)
Hi Rose,
Whilst I believe what the bible says...
It is God which makes me sure of my beliefs. How can anyone who knows God exists actually disbelieve what he says?
:)
-
You don't know.
You believe.
Not the same thing.
-
You don't know.
You believe.
Not the same thing.
NO! I KNOW..y
That is the facts for me... You are the one who holds your opinion but that is all it is...
-
You don't know.
You believe.
Not the same thing.
NO! I KNOW..y
That is the facts for me... You are the one who holds your opinion but that is all it is...
OH NO YOU DON'T..y
-
Something much more basic than homosexuality....Race!
If someone wanted to change his racial phenotype...would anyone here object?! Michael Jackson is one terrible example.
Many people have surgery to change the shape of their nose, their lips and hair. Many people apply ointments to change their skin color to make it lighter. Some people like Jackson even have multiple surgeries to change their racial features.
Racism is rife (and possibly growing in some parts)...but nobody panics with such treatments!
If a more effective, safe and inexpensive treatment was available to change the racial features of a person...would people like Shaker simply panic, dub the doctors as 'racists' and try to frantically dissuade people from changing their color....or would they leave it to the individuals to decide what they want?!
Why should the situation with homosexuals be any different?
-
Something much more basic than homosexuality....Race!
If someone wanted to change his racial phenotype...would anyone here object?! Michael Jackson is one terrible example.
Many people have surgery to change the shape of their nose, their lips and hair. Many people apply ointments to change their skin color to make it lighter. Some people like Jackson even have multiple surgeries to change their racial features.
Racism is rife (and possibly growing in some parts)...but nobody panics with such treatments!
If a more effective, safe and inexpensive treatment was available to change the racial features of a person...would people like Shaker simply panic, dub the doctors as 'racists' and try to frantically dissuade people from changing their color....or would they leave it to the individuals to decide what they want?!
Why should the situation with homosexuals be any different?
Are you quite for real?
You would appease racists by allowing people to change the colour of their skin?
Instead of trying to get rid of racism.
You are a seriously screwed up dude.
-
Obviously, to a large extent people wanting to change skin colour are already victims of racism in one way or another. But the cases are not exactly comparable. If an adult wants to change their own orientation, then they have a right to do so, however parents using genetic (epigenetic) treatments to decide sexual orientation of future offspring is more like people being able to engineer embryos to have particular features. Eventually this will be possible and there will be a demand for it (eg say there was a treatment to select a particular race, boost intelligence of offspring, or be great football or cricket players) - the question is what are the ethics of this, how will we decide what is allowable and what not?
-
Something much more basic than homosexuality....Race!
I'm not entirely sure that race is a real thing. That is, I think it is an invented human construct.
-
This entire thread could be transferred, en block, to the "Something Funny . . . " thread and lose absolutely nothing in translation!
-
This entire thread could be transferred, en block, to the "Something Funny . . . " thread and lose absolutely nothing in translation!
Or "Just For Christians" - anything is allowed there!
-
Why can we not just accept that people, just as they vary in how they look, their interests and talents etc, will vary in sexual orientation? Homosexuals are quite 'normal' people though their sexual orientation is a minority one. We live in more enlightened times than our predecessors, I for one am glad about that. I never felt comfortable in the past about homosexual people being marginalised.
-
Don't tell most of us, Brownie; tell Sriram.
-
Don't tell most of us, Brownie; tell Sriram.
Why bother?
Sririam has made it abundantly clear on just about every thtread that he has either started or commented upon that he is not interested in listening to anyone except himself!
-
Obviously, to a large extent people wanting to change skin colour are already victims of racism in one way or another. But the cases are not exactly comparable. If an adult wants to change their own orientation, then they have a right to do so, however parents using genetic (epigenetic) treatments to decide sexual orientation of future offspring is more like people being able to engineer embryos to have particular features. Eventually this will be possible and there will be a demand for it (eg say there was a treatment to select a particular race, boost intelligence of offspring, or be great football or cricket players) - the question is what are the ethics of this, how will we decide what is allowable and what not?
I don't think you can generalise and say people wanting to change skin colour are victims of racism in any meaningful way that should be taken into consideration. I've been a victim of racism in the past - I've been called a Paki on various occasions and once had a couple of kids spit in my face and called me a Paki.
Regardless of these experiences, some days I like getting tanned, other days I prefer not to. So I don't think you can say everyone who uses tanning salons needs to be closely questioned about the seed that was planted in their minds about why they like tans, nor the other way around if people use a product to lighten their skin. At some point in the future a genetics based treatment might be a relatively simple procedure. I don't think people are linking skin colour to status - it's just a personal preference based on their idea of beauty. For me, beauty is mainly dependent on a person's smile and the way their face and eyes light up when they try to engage with you in a positive way to make you feel good, but other people can have a different priority.
I think the issue is acceptance of identity - and as my physical and mental identity belongs to me, I can play around with it and mould it however I please, so long as I am not unduly risking my physical or mental health through high-risk, invasive treatments or procedures or endangering anyone else. If statistics show that a genetic-based procedure that actually works in changing a person's sexuality often results in a deterioration in mental or physical health compared to not having the treatment, then it can be argued that more safeguards need to be put in place before allowing the treatment.
I think the world can do without Shaker's arrogant moralising about whether people should be allowed to change their identity. I prefer basing the decision on post-treatment studies on mental and physical health. If a person changes their sexuality and is not disadvantaged developmentally or in terms of how they are doing in life compared to their peers, the treatment should be considered a viable option for people to choose.
-
Yes, we know you agree with people who have nothing wrong with them being allowed to think and to persist in thinking that they have something wrong with them such that they need "treatment" for it, we get the message by now.
-
Why can we not just accept that people, just as they vary in how they look, their interests and talents etc, will vary in sexual orientation? Homosexuals are quite 'normal' people though their sexual orientation is a minority one. We live in more enlightened times than our predecessors, I for one am glad about that. I never felt comfortable in the past about homosexual people being marginalised.
Why not have places where people like Sriram can be sent to be cured of their delusional beliefs, the beliefs that they supposedly chose for themselves.
As far as I know, not having been there, at least homosexual people don't choose their sexual orientation.
ippy
-
Yes, we know you agree with people who have nothing wrong with them being allowed to think and to persist in thinking that they have something wrong with them such that they need "treatment" for it, we get the message by now.
But who is the arbitrator on whether someone has something 'wrong' with them?
-
But who is the arbitrator on whether someone has something 'wrong' with them?
Medical science - psychology/psychiatry included - has a great deal of authority in this regard. If you have a cancerous bowel, you have something wrong with you. If you have angina, you have something wrong with you. If you have such a phobia of contamination that you wash your hands so many times a day that you start to bleed, you have something wrong with you. And so forth. This much is uncontroversial, I trust.
To return to an earlier example of mine: if someone genuinely feels that their right leg is an abnormality, an obscene and unwanted aberration that they have to dispense with, something odd that simply shouldn't be there, there are basically two ways of dealing with such a belief. On the one hand a surgeon can say, "Yes, fine. The leg can come off. We'll book you in" or a psychiatrist can say "You do realise, don't you, that such a belief is deeply abnormal - as aberrant as you feel your perfectly normal and healthy limb to be, in fact. Why do you hold such a belief? What has led you to this point? I suggest we look long, hard and deep at what your beliefs are about your own body, how you've come to hold those beliefs and how we can challenge them to make you feel better." Those who support sexuality-changing "therapy" are, as far as I'm concerned, in the position of the irresponsible surgeon in the first example: they simply take it as read that the customer is always right and that anybody who is unhappy with their homosexuality should get the "treatment" they want. This may on its face sound admirably liberal and tolerant and right-on but in my view it capitulates to those - not exclusively but usually religious - types who see homosexuality as a disease in need of a cure. It's actually the other way around: people who tout this sort of twaddle are actually peddling a "cure" in search of a "disease."
-
Yes and we know you are prone to moralising and dictating to people about what they can and can't do with their own bodies.
Based on your use of the word "treatment", do you feel all these "misguided", "mentally fragile" women are properly questioned about the seed that was planted in their mind that caused them to seek out a permanent hair removal laser "treatment"? Maybe such "treatments" should be outlawed and anyone offering them should be struck off by their regulatory body because any reputable therapist, based on your premise, would advise the woman that she should accept hair as a natural part of her identity rather than seeking to eliminate it. Or are you just arbitrarily deciding on these matters based on your particular cultural whims? Makes you sound very much like the religious.
Is it just homosexual people that you fixate on in terms of your saviour complex? Actually you seem more fixated on the word "treatment". Maybe you just need to expand your knowledge of the English language.
-
But who is the arbitrator on whether someone has something 'wrong' with them?
Medical science - psychology/psychiatry included - has a great deal of authority in this regard.
To return to an earlier example of mine: if someone genuinely feels that their right leg is an abnormality, an obscene and unwanted aberration that they have to dispense with, there are basically two ways of dealing with such a belief. On the one hand a surgeon can say, "Yes, fine. The leg can come off. We'll book you in" or a psychiatrist can say "You do realise, don't you, that such a belief is deeply abnormal - as aberrant as you feel your perfectly normal and healthy limb to be, in fact. Why do you hold such a belief? What has led you to this point? I suggest we look long, hard and deep at what your beliefs are about your own body." Those who support sexuality-changing "therapy" are, as far as I'm concerned, in the position of the irresponsible surgeon in the first example.
Two legs is the normal state. Two is the usual distribution vis-a-vis legs. People have legs amputated for valid medical reasons, of course (gangrene, etc.), but that's life-saving medical necessity, not an expression of deluded beliefs about the nature of reality.
Logic still not your strong point. Losing a leg can have a detrimental effect on a person's mobility. How does that compare to changing sexuality if they still get to have sex? If changing sexuality works ,and doesn't cause mental health issues or other detrimental effects for the individual where is the comparison with losing a leg?
-
Is it just homosexual people that you fixate on in terms of your saviour complex?
This thread is about homosexuality. It started as such and has remained as such. Miraculous as it may seem to you I'm staying on-topic by discussing that very subject, not laser-based depilation or whatever footling and fatuous irrelevances you want to drag into it.
Actually you seem more fixated on the word "treatment". Maybe you just need to expand your knowledge of the English language.
No, my knowledge and use of the English language are pretty damned excellent already, thanks. My "fixation" (which isn't) is with the likes of Sriram who thinks that homosexuality is something in need of "treatment." It's his attitudes I'm attacking, mocking, belittling and deriding because that's precisely what such opinions need.
-
I can see there is still a big push for a monchrome and uniform world on this thread - and in more ways than one.
-
Losing a leg can have a detrimental effect on a person's mobility.
People with BIID know this; not only do they not care, it's positively embraced because that's an inherent feature of the disorder itself. Wikipedia states:
Some people suffer from the desire to become paralyzed, blind, deaf, use orthopedic appliances such as leg-braces, etc. Some people spend time pretending they are an amputee by using crutches and wheelchairs at home or in public
*
How does that compare to changing sexuality if they still get to have sex? If changing sexuality works ,and doesn't cause mental health issues or other detrimental effects for the individual where is the comparison with losing a leg?
I can explain it for you (indeed, I've done so several times now); I can't understand it for you.
-
Yes, we know you agree with people who have nothing wrong with them being allowed to think and to persist in thinking that they have something wrong with them such that they need "treatment" for it, we get the message by now.
There was nothing wrong with Michael Jackson either. In fact, he looked quite nice in his younger days. Yet, he chose to undergo surgery. That's his business.
Would you want to ban his treatments as 'racist'? Would you say that further research on such treatments are unnecessary... and uncalled for?
What exactly is your vested interest in wanting to keep homosexuals as homosexuals even against their own wishes? What is this if not homophilia gone mad?
This thread was about science...about epigenetics and a possible therapy for homosexuals. Leonard's reply no 1 at the beginning of the thread addresses the issue almost completely and in the most balanced way. This thread could very well have stopped there.....but for the unbalanced homophilia of you and your coterie.
-
I can see there is still a big push for a monchrome and uniform world on this thread - and in more ways than one.
There certainly seems to be a push from some quarters to limit individual autonomy even if the individual's choice has no detrimental impact on the individual concerned.
You make it seem as though individuals have some duty to a higher purpose such as diversity and technicolor, and individuals should therefore have their freedom of choice restricted as an act of worship and submission to this higher purpose. Starting to sound like a religion - we could call it Shakerism.
-
Is it just homosexual people that you fixate on in terms of your saviour complex?
This thread is about homosexuality. It started as such and has remained as such. Miraculous as it may seem to you I'm staying on-topic by discussing that very subject, not laser-based depilation or whatever footling and fatuous irrelevances you want to drag into it.
OIC - so you can drag in racism and leg amputations into this discussion to support your opinions and somehow miraculously be on topic but it only becomes a problem when other people introduce comparisons in support of their own differing opinions. Trent was right - you seem to be pushing for uniformity of thought.
Actually you seem more fixated on the word "treatment". Maybe you just need to expand your knowledge of the English language.
No, my knowledge and use of the English language are pretty damned excellent already, thanks. My "fixation" (which isn't) is with the likes of Sriram who thinks that homosexuality is something in need of "treatment." It's his attitudes I'm attacking, mocking, belittling and deriding because that's precisely what such opinions need.
Ok. But now that you've done that, why don't we discuss the more interesting question of autonomy of choice and personal identity.
-
How does that compare to changing sexuality if they still get to have sex? If changing sexuality works ,and doesn't cause mental health issues or other detrimental effects for the individual where is the comparison with losing a leg?
I can explain it for you (indeed, I've done so several times now); I can't understand it for you.
How can you explain the detrimental effect of changing sexuality through a gene- based therapy if these effects have not yet been observed? You're just guessing.
-
To return to an earlier example of mine: if someone genuinely feels that their right leg is an abnormality, an obscene and unwanted aberration that they have to dispense with, something odd that simply shouldn't be there, there are basically two ways of dealing with such a belief. On the one hand a surgeon can say, "Yes, fine. The leg can come off. We'll book you in" or a psychiatrist can say "You do realise, don't you, that such a belief is deeply abnormal - as aberrant as you feel your perfectly normal and healthy limb to be, in fact. Why do you hold such a belief? What has led you to this point? I suggest we look long, hard and deep at what your beliefs are about your own body, how you've come to hold those beliefs and how we can challenge them to make you feel better." Those who support sexuality-changing "therapy" are, as far as I'm concerned, in the position of the irresponsible surgeon in the first example
So what if a person is sexually orientated towards animals, minors, the dead, fridge magnets, but doesn't want to be? What is the correct response?
It is reasonably straightforward to say that there is a problem when something in the body isn't working physically as it should, or is causing physical detriment, and possibly also when a person believes untrue facts (as far as the rest of us can tell). But this is different.
-
I can see there is still a big push for a monchrome and uniform world on this thread - and in more ways than one.
There certainly seems to be a push from some quarters to limit individual autonomy even if the individual's choice has no detrimental impact on the individual concerned.
You make it seem as though individuals have some duty to a higher purpose such as diversity and technicolor, and individuals should therefore have their freedom of choice restricted as an act of worship and submission to this higher purpose. Starting to sound like a religion - we could call it Shakerism.
Call it what you fucking like - its a better alternative than the need to make people conform which is all this is about. New science maybe - but old, nasty thinking.
You might want to read this:
http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/gay-bullying-statistics.html
Then wonder about how someone in that position is going to be able to make a sensible "choice" about their sexuality. A fair and balanced choice. OF course they would choose heterosexuality. But you let the bullies win. In fact you become allied with the bullies.
As I said - old, nasty thinking. Nothing new here.
-
I can see there is still a big push for a monchrome and uniform world on this thread - and in more ways than one.
There certainly seems to be a push from some quarters to limit individual autonomy even if the individual's choice has no detrimental impact on the individual concerned.
You make it seem as though individuals have some duty to a higher purpose such as diversity and technicolor, and individuals should therefore have their freedom of choice restricted as an act of worship and submission to this higher purpose. Starting to sound like a religion - we could call it Shakerism.
Call it what you fucking like - its a better alternative than the need to make people conform which is all this is about. New science maybe - but old, nasty thinking.
Yes - I agree - it' is better to give individuals an alternative to your need and Shaker's need to make them conform to your restricted agenda.
-
I can see there is still a big push for a monchrome and uniform world on this thread - and in more ways than one.
There certainly seems to be a push from some quarters to limit individual autonomy even if the individual's choice has no detrimental impact on the individual concerned.
You make it seem as though individuals have some duty to a higher purpose such as diversity and technicolor, and individuals should therefore have their freedom of choice restricted as an act of worship and submission to this higher purpose. Starting to sound like a religion - we could call it Shakerism.
Call it what you fucking like - its a better alternative than the need to make people conform which is all this is about. New science maybe - but old, nasty thinking.
Yes - I agree - it' is better to give individuals an alternative to your need and Shaker's need to make them conform to your restricted agenda.
Restricted - Jesus H fucking Christ. I have been restricted, one way and another, all my life by background homophobia. The need to hold hands occasionally in public with my partner subdued by the fact - FACT - that we risk being beaten up. You talk of conformity - you appear not to know the meaning of the word.
-
I can see there is still a big push for a monchrome and uniform world on this thread - and in more ways than one.
There certainly seems to be a push from some quarters to limit individual autonomy even if the individual's choice has no detrimental impact on the individual concerned.
You make it seem as though individuals have some duty to a higher purpose such as diversity and technicolor, and individuals should therefore have their freedom of choice restricted as an act of worship and submission to this higher purpose. Starting to sound like a religion - we could call it Shakerism.
Call it what you fucking like - its a better alternative than the need to make people conform which is all this is about. New science maybe - but old, nasty thinking.
Yes - I agree - it' is better to give individuals an alternative to your need and Shaker's need to make them conform to your restricted agenda.
Restricted - Jesus H fucking Christ. I have been restricted, one way and another, all my life by background homophobia. The need to hold hands occasionally in public with my partner subdued by the fact - FACT - that we risk being beaten up. You talk of conformity - you appear not to know the meaning of the word.
And I had kids spit in my face and call me a Paki in public. Apart from that there were the usual daily pressures to speak a certain way, to eradicate my accent, to fit in etc. - pressure to conform is part of life - as a woman I am also under pressure to conform to gender stereotypes and risking being assaulted goes with the territory.
I still think individuals should be free to choose their individual personal identity - and not be forced to conform to the pressure to follow someone else's diversity agenda.
-
And I had kids spit in my face and call me a Paki in public. Apart from that there were the usual daily pressures to speak a certain way, to eradicate my accent, to fit in etc. - pressure to conform is part of life - as a woman I am also under pressure to conform to gender stereotypes and risking being assaulted goes with the territory.
I still think individuals should be free to choose their individual personal identity - and not be forced to conform to the pressure to follow someone else's diversity agenda.
So if there were a process available to change you from your Asian appearance to a White European appearance you would approve of the freedom of choice for others to take that option?
-
I still think individuals should be free to choose their individual personal identity - and not be forced to conform to the pressure to follow someone else's diversity agenda.
Where is the agenda being driven from?
Why is it necessary to think that people should change their sexuality?
I repeat my previous comments:
You might have a point IF (and that's an IF in capitals a mile high) we get to a point in our society where young gay adults aren't laughed at by their peers, aren't thrown out of their homes by their parents, and aren't subjected to the myriad small put downs and discrimination that affect each and every gay person still today. Until that point is reached - you don't have a point.
-
There was nothing wrong with Michael Jackson either. In fact, he looked quite nice in his younger days. Yet, he chose to undergo surgery. That's his business.
Would you want to ban his treatments as 'racist'? Would you say that further research on such treatments are unnecessary... and uncalled for?
Yes.
What exactly is your vested interest in wanting to keep homosexuals as homosexuals even against their own wishes? What is this if not homophilia gone mad?
My vested interest is in seeing that individuals such as yourself don't infect anybody who has nothing wrong with them (i.e. people who happen to be gay) with the belief that there is something wrong with them for which they need to seek "treatment." My vested interest is in stopping the disease-ification, so to speak, of a minority but permanent and perfectly normal variation in human sexuality. There are too many real diseases in the world - real conditions that hurt, damage and kill people - that stand in need of real medication and real cures for us to waste time and effort on non-diseases such as homosexuality.
This thread was about science...about epigenetics and a possible therapy for homosexuals. Leonard's reply no 1 at the beginning of the thread addresses the issue almost completely and in the most balanced way.
No, it was never about science, since science doesn't say what you want it to say. It was only ever about a platform for you to promulgate your view that homosexuality is an "illness" which you think stands in need of a "cure." People seek therapy for a negative, troublesome condition, whether it's for being overweight or for stopping smoking or for schizophrenia or for cancer. Wikipedia defines therapy as "the attempted remediation of a health problem." Homosexuality isn't a health problem, but people can be made to think that it is if the idea is implanted from outside by the likes of you.
This thread could very well have stopped there.....
With an OP that talked of "disease"? "Cure"? No, it was never going to stop there, not while there are decent people on this forum.
but for the unbalanced homophilia of you and your coterie.
I'm astonished that you didn't say "gay coterie" and have done with it, Sriram.
-
Oooh - can I be part of your "gay coterie".
Me and Len together, matching pink shorts, twirling batons to the tune of 9 to 5 by Dolly Parton.
-
With a couple of notable exceptions I don't like musicals ... I'm not allowed >:(
-
With a couple of notable exceptions I don't like musicals ... I'm not allowed >:(
You're not allowed to like musicals?
How does that work then?
Have you been treated with an epigenetic cure for musicals?
-
You're not allowed to like musicals?
No, I'm allowed, but if I don't I can't apply to join the gay coterie :(
-
Oooh - can I be part of your "gay coterie".
Me and Len together, matching pink shorts, twirling batons to the tune of 9 to 5 by Dolly Parton.
I'd pay to see that :) :) :)
-
I'd pay not to Sorry, where were we?
-
And I had kids spit in my face and call me a Paki in public. Apart from that there were the usual daily pressures to speak a certain way, to eradicate my accent, to fit in etc. - pressure to conform is part of life - as a woman I am also under pressure to conform to gender stereotypes and risking being assaulted goes with the territory.
I still think individuals should be free to choose their individual personal identity - and not be forced to conform to the pressure to follow someone else's diversity agenda.
So if there were a process available to change you from your Asian appearance to a White European appearance you would approve of the freedom of choice for others to take that option?
As far as I can tell people change their appearance in line with their personal ideas of beauty - I think other people's preferences in terms of appearance should be their choice so yes, to be consistent about freedom of choice, if there were no major adverse effects or risks to the individual I would support freedom of choice, whether people want to go from Asian to European to Oriental to whatever, and regardless of racism.
I think we have laws to protect people from discrimination and I would use those laws to counter actual racism, not the imagined racism inferred from someone exercising their freedom of choice to change their racial identity.
-
I still think individuals should be free to choose their individual personal identity - and not be forced to conform to the pressure to follow someone else's diversity agenda.
Where is the agenda being driven from?
Why is it necessary to think that people should change their sexuality?
I never said people SHOULD change their sexuality. I am saying people SHOULD have the freedom of choice to change their sexual identity if they want to. I am saying individuals don't owe their peers allegiance or loyalty to not change their sexuality, whether it is from straight to gay or gay to straight or anything in between.
-
I think we have laws to protect people from discrimination ...
Good stuff.
I'm delighted that they work.
Oh, wait ...
I would use those laws to counter actual racism, not the imagined racism
Interesting that you say nothing about actual disease but implicitly support/suck up to Sriram's idea of imaginary disease (aka homosexuality). But so it goes.
-
And I had kids spit in my face and call me a Paki in public. Apart from that there were the usual daily pressures to speak a certain way, to eradicate my accent, to fit in etc. - pressure to conform is part of life - as a woman I am also under pressure to conform to gender stereotypes and risking being assaulted goes with the territory.
I think you should undergo epigenetic therapy to become a white-skinned RP-speaking man.
I feel sure that Sriram would approve.
-
I think we have laws to protect people from discrimination ...
Good stuff.
I'm delighted that they work.
Oh, wait ...
I would use those laws to counter actual racism, not the imagined racism
Interesting that you say nothing about actual disease but implicitly support/suck up to Sriram's idea of imaginary disease (aka homosexuality). But so it goes.
I see you've still got nothing to offer other than your unevidenced guessing Shaker - how's your new religion of forced conformity going by the way?
-
And I had kids spit in my face and call me a Paki in public. Apart from that there were the usual daily pressures to speak a certain way, to eradicate my accent, to fit in etc. - pressure to conform is part of life - as a woman I am also under pressure to conform to gender stereotypes and risking being assaulted goes with the territory.
I think you should undergo epigenetic therapy to become a white-skinned RP-speaking man.
I feel sure that Sriram would approve.
What's an RP- speaking man?
If the treatment is ever developed I will exercise my freedom of choice to decide what I should or shouldn't do for myself.
Unless of course your new religion of conformity actually takes off Shaker in which case I guess you get some kind of special privilege to decide for everyone.
-
Received Pronunciation.
The problem is that as soon as society says it is acceptable for such therapies to be allowed, there are those who will decide it is desirable. Dr Nazeem Mahmood was successful and happy in a relationship, yet he still took his own life after his mother suggested he get therapy to 'cure' his homosexuality. That wasn't a choice he wanted to make, but one his family decided was ok to pressure him into.
And no doubt it would be available privately. What happens then - adverts on the Tube? Promotion by the churches?
-
Received Pronunciation.
The problem is that as soon as society says it is acceptable for such therapies to be allowed, there are those who will decide it is desirable. Dr Nazeem Mahmood was successful and happy in a relationship, yet he still took his own life after his mother suggested he get therapy to 'cure' his homosexuality. That wasn't a choice he wanted to make, but one his family decided was ok to pressure him into.
And no doubt it would be available privately. What happens then - adverts on the Tube? Promotion by the churches?
People take their own life because they are unhappy for all kinds of reasons. It doesn't become a bigger or smaller tragedy because their reason for killing themselves was because they did not perceive enough acceptance about their sexuality. They are depressed so their perceptions are skewed anyway by their depression.
A friend of mine hanged himself by tying a belt round his neck and jumping off his balcony in Australia when he was 22 because he thought he was ugly, which was crazy as not only was he good-looking and a great dancer but he was also a really sweet guy - but when he looked at himself he felt unhappy and unaccepted. Also, society puts lots of pressure on people about their looks. Yet we have whole industries geared towards providing services to allow people to change the way they look. So this whole slippery slope argument is along the same lines as some people gave for opposing gay marriage - it's restricting individual freedom based on guessing.
Restricting advertising is a separate issue - you could treat it the same way as cigarette advertising. Maybe we should also get rid of adverts for cosmetic procedures from the tube?
-
Received Pronunciation.
The problem is that as soon as society says it is acceptable for such therapies to be allowed, there are those who will decide it is desirable. Dr Nazeem Mahmood was successful and happy in a relationship, yet he still took his own life after his mother suggested he get therapy to 'cure' his homosexuality. That wasn't a choice he wanted to make, but one his family decided was ok to pressure him into.
And no doubt it would be available privately. What happens then - adverts on the Tube? Promotion by the churches?
Well, the current gay conversion therapies seem to start from the premise that there is something wrong with being gay, and also offer various bizarre theories, e.g. gays were abused as children. That is why they are banned by professional organizations - they are simply dangerous. Of course, they are not illegal but I would warn anyone against them.
-
Pretty sure there is no peer-reviewed evidence that current gay conversion therapies work - so it would be misleading for them to claim that they do.
Some people have self-reported after therapy that they have less attraction to people of the same sex than they did before, but there is no long term follow up and the process of reducing their attraction seems to be based on telling them they should feel bad about themselves, which presumably isn't how therapy is supposed to work if the end result is that the people having therapy feel negative rather than positive about themselves.
My point is why is homosexuality a special case, compared to everyone else who is allowed to change aspects of themselves based on their freedom of choice.
Also, we currently have safeguards for women who want to be sterilised at a young age - their motivation and reasoning is closely questioned, they are offered counselling and after this they are often refused the procedure as doctors are convinced they might change their mind later. The same process could be applied to people who want to change their sexuality or racial features.
-
I don't think anybody is suggesting that you should not change your sexuality, if you want. The reason that conversion therapy has been banned in the professional organisations is that it has been found in practice to be homophobic, and also often offered bizarre explanations for being gay. In the UK, the Pilkington case caused waves, as Ms Pilkington was offering the idea that being abused as a child made you gay. She was struck off, and all organizations termed it unethical. But it's not illegal, although I think it should be for minors.
But many therapists will help people explore their sexuality, but without a negative view of one particular identity. Most of the conversion people I have heard of are right-wing Christians, who view gay as sinful - not really a helpful therapeutic stance.
-
<I don't think anybody is suggesting that you should not change your sexuality, if you want>
Many here seem to think going from gay to straight, or the other 'way', is much like having your hair dyed a different colour !?!?!?! :o
I hardly think it's as simple as that. ::)
If it IS then you weren't 'gay' to start with or were 'just experimenting'!!!! ;) ::)
-
I don't think anybody is suggesting that you should not change your sexuality, if you want. The reason that conversion therapy has been banned in the professional organisations is that it has been found in practice to be homophobic, and also often offered bizarre explanations for being gay.
Given your first statement, and assuming there are people who would like to change, wouldn't it be better to regulate conversion therapy so as to avoid bizarre forms of it and homophobia?
-
Lovely but very sad piece of writing on the upcoming referendum in Ireland
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/ursula-halligan-referendum-pointed-me-towards-telling-the-truth-about-myself-1.2212960#.VVWE6IMWoeY.twitter
-
I don't think anybody is suggesting that you should not change your sexuality, if you want. The reason that conversion therapy has been banned in the professional organisations is that it has been found in practice to be homophobic, and also often offered bizarre explanations for being gay.
Given your first statement, and assuming there are people who would like to change, wouldn't it be better to regulate conversion therapy so as to avoid bizarre forms of it and homophobia?
Since many therapists and counsellors work with clients who are experiencing sexual confusion, conflict, and so on, there is no need for a specific gay to straight method, no more than a straight to gay one. All the conversion therapies I have come across are homophobic and bizarre. The idea of conversion is itself homophobic, and often practised by right-wing Christians, startlingly ignorant about sexuality, gender, and so on.
-
I don't think anybody is suggesting that you should not change your sexuality, if you want. The reason that conversion therapy has been banned in the professional organisations is that it has been found in practice to be homophobic, and also often offered bizarre explanations for being gay.
Given your first statement, and assuming there are people who would like to change, wouldn't it be better to regulate conversion therapy so as to avoid bizarre forms of it and homophobia?
Since many therapists and counsellors work with clients who are experiencing sexual confusion, conflict, and so on, there is no need for a specific gay to straight method, no more than a straight to gay one. All the conversion therapies I have come across are homophobic and bizarre. The idea of conversion is itself homophobic, and often practised by right-wing Christians, startlingly ignorant about sexuality, gender, and so on.
I suspect anyone wanting to change their sexuality from gay to straight is likely to be under pressure of some kind to do so. It should be illegal for religious nutters, or anyone else for that matter, to put pressure on gays to get 'cured'!
-
Since many therapists and counsellors work with clients who are experiencing sexual confusion, conflict, and so on, there is no need for a specific gay to straight method, no more than a straight to gay one. All the conversion therapies I have come across are homophobic and bizarre. The idea of conversion is itself homophobic, and often practised by right-wing Christians, startlingly ignorant about sexuality, gender, and so on.
I know that this is broadening the topic somewhat, but I came across the following on a website called Sexual Intelligence written by an American sex therapist and sociologist called Marty Klein. These were actually points that he was raising in a talk at a conference on Science and Skepticism. He was talking about religion's attempt to take over public policy - which he says is particularly successful in matters concerning sexuality. It does seem appropriate.
Organized religion has successfully marketed itself as Morality Experts.
Organized religion has persuaded many people that sex is mostly about morality—and therefore, they are society's Sex Experts.
Organized religion has persuaded many people that sexual morality is about limiting choices (as opposed to, say, ethical decision-making or transparency).
Therefore, when organized religion gets political power, it invariably limits everyone's choices concerning sexuality.
Organized religion is aggressive in including a huge number of human enterprises within its supervision of our sexuality.
-
I don't think anybody is suggesting that you should not change your sexuality, if you want. The reason that conversion therapy has been banned in the professional organisations is that it has been found in practice to be homophobic, and also often offered bizarre explanations for being gay.
Given your first statement, and assuming there are people who would like to change, wouldn't it be better to regulate conversion therapy so as to avoid bizarre forms of it and homophobia?
Since many therapists and counsellors work with clients who are experiencing sexual confusion, conflict, and so on, there is no need for a specific gay to straight method, no more than a straight to gay one. All the conversion therapies I have come across are homophobic and bizarre. The idea of conversion is itself homophobic, and often practised by right-wing Christians, startlingly ignorant about sexuality, gender, and so on.
I suspect anyone wanting to change their sexuality from gay to straight is likely to be under pressure of some kind to do so. It should be illegal for religious nutters, or anyone else for that matter, to put pressure on gays to get 'cured'!
I don't think you can make it illegal, but I agree that the whole idea of conversion is sinister, and actually dangerous. It should be illegal for minors, who are particularly susceptible to suicide.
But also, you can't have dodgy sounding religious types setting themselves up as therapists, it's a specialized field, requiring a lot of training. Conversion is now banned in all training bodies, except the dodgy ones.
-
Since many therapists and counsellors work with clients who are experiencing sexual confusion, conflict, and so on, there is no need for a specific gay to straight method, no more than a straight to gay one. All the conversion therapies I have come across are homophobic and bizarre. The idea of conversion is itself homophobic, and often practised by right-wing Christians, startlingly ignorant about sexuality, gender, and so on.
I know that this is broadening the topic somewhat, but I came across the following on a website called Sexual Intelligence written by an American sex therapist and sociologist called Marty Klein. These were actually points that he was raising in a talk at a conference on Science and Skepticism. He was talking about religion's attempt to take over public policy - which he says is particularly successful in matters concerning sexuality. It does seem appropriate.
Organized religion has successfully marketed itself as Morality Experts.
Organized religion has persuaded many people that sex is mostly about morality—and therefore, they are society's Sex Experts.
Organized religion has persuaded many people that sexual morality is about limiting choices (as opposed to, say, ethical decision-making or transparency).
Therefore, when organized religion gets political power, it invariably limits everyone's choices concerning sexuality.
Organized religion is aggressive in including a huge number of human enterprises within its supervision of our sexuality.
Very interesting. Well, conversion therapy showed various Christian groups, especially in the US, claiming some sort of expertise. But a lot of their 'explanations' of gay are lame and antiquated, and you can feel the drive of their prejudice humming away, (gay is sin or disease or pathology). A complete disaster for a confused youth or adult, and very dangerous.
-
The idea of conversion is itself homophobic, and often practised by right-wing Christians, startlingly ignorant about sexuality, gender, and so on.
The Christian view is not that homosexuals should convert to heterosexuality, but that Christians who experience same-sex attraction should abstain from homosexual practices.
-
Exactly but it does seem extremely unfair to expect people, who are a bit "different to us" in one area, to be deprived of a relationship. Surely churches, despite officially frowning on the practice of homosexuality, must be glad that the law has changed and society is more tolerant, thus allowing gay people to have monogamous, long term and open partnerships rather than sneaking about. Besides which there are loads of gay clergy, many of whom have a "friend" who lives or stays with them, everyone knows that.
-
The idea of conversion is itself homophobic, and often practised by right-wing Christians, startlingly ignorant about sexuality, gender, and so on.
The Christian view is not that homosexuals should convert to heterosexuality, but that Christians who experience same-sex attraction should abstain from homosexual practices.
I suppose there isn't any point of view more regressive than this bronze age one.
Haven't you got some sort of educational degree Spud?
ippy
-
I wish someone would create a therapy for old age 💊.
It already exists, it's called death.
-
I wish someone would create a therapy for old age 💊.
It already exists, it's called death.
Spot on j p, couldn't help laughing, there's something about cruelty in humour, like it.
ippy
-
I wish someone would create a therapy for old age 💊.
It already exists, it's called death.
Spot on j p, couldn't help laughing, there's something about cruelty in humour, like it.
ippy
Oi, do you have to remind me? >:(
-
Can't we just live and let live if consenting adults choose a relationship which we wouldn't choose? It's not our business. I do wonder if people who have objections, on religious grounds (according to religious guidelines), really feel they are right. We must trust our instincts sometimes. God gave them to us after all. God certainly gave me, and others, the instinct that other people's lifestyles are nothing to do with us unless they are causing harm. Gay couples do no harm. Plenty of heterosexual people do harm! Not one of us is perfect.
-
WOW !!!!
Well said Brownie...... ;D
It very often seems to me, unless a person was born INTO a particular religion, that they choose that faith that most fits in with their own ideas & 'prejudices'.
Kind of reinforcing them & they can THEN say, GOD says it too !!!
If Sriram IS a Hindu, IS I suspect, then he knows as well as I do that Hinduism does NOT discriminate against anyone in this awful way. ;D 8)
Nick
-
Another step
http://m.stv.tv/news/east-central/1320696-church-of-scotlands-general-assembly-votes-to-allow-gay-ministers/
-
WOW !!!!
Well said Brownie...... ;D
It very often seems to me, unless a person was born INTO a particular religion, that they choose that faith that most fits in with their own ideas & 'prejudices'.
Kind of reinforcing them & they can THEN say, GOD says it too !!!
If Sriram IS a Hindu, IS I suspect, then he knows as well as I do that Hinduism does NOT discriminate against anyone in this awful way. ;D 8)
Nick
hmm .. "Hinduism" doesn't but that doesn't mean that plenty of "Hindus" don't. Nick, you must have encountered outcast Hijra groups on your travels?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_%28South_Asia%29#Social_status_and_economic_circumstances
-
Ha Ji BUT that. as we BOTH know is NOT Hinduism's fault but humans'.
N
-
Can't we just live and let live if consenting adults choose a relationship which we wouldn't choose? It's not our business. I do wonder if people who have objections, on religious grounds (according to religious guidelines), really feel they are right. We must trust our instincts sometimes. God gave them to us after all. God certainly gave me, and others, the instinct that other people's lifestyles are nothing to do with us unless they are causing harm.
I suspect that is more a Zeitgeist influence of being born into a reasonably tolerant and liberal society, rather than a "natural instinct".
Is it the case that tribes and societies were all OK with it until religion came along and tried to influence them out of this prior instinct?
If you believe that religious morality is made-up by people who were just codifying what they already believed to be right and wrong, then the antipathy must have existed before religion.
And one other point, if you do believe in God then you presumably believe he gave us freewill and that it is not necessarily the case that just because we can think or do X this will be morally OK. So I am not sure you can deduce that much about the rightness or wrongness about something just from the fact that you have been given the ability to think it right or wrong.
-
I suspect that is more a Zeitgeist influence of being born into a reasonably tolerant and liberal society
Thank goodness for secularism.
rather than a "natural instinct".
... which implies you believe that people are more likely to be inherently and innately intolerant to start off with until and unless they absorb tolerant and liberal values from the culture around them.
-
Did most tribes and societies start out all fluffy as "human rights" respecting bodies?
-
I suspect that is more a Zeitgeist influence of being born into a reasonably tolerant and liberal society, rather than a "natural instinct".
Well, obviously we are not impervious to the influence of the society that we are born in, but many of us are still able to work out what is antisocial and what isn't.
Is it the case that tribes and societies were all OK with it until religion came along and tried to influence them out of this prior instinct?
I suspect that before religion 'came along', primitive people would have been biased against any kind of behaviour that was not the norm.
Religion then came along and biased people's thinking in the direction of the wishes of 'gods'.
Then science came along and caused people to think more deeply about how we got here, and with that came the realisation that we evolved from previous existing species, and that morality was a matter of controlling antisocial behaviour.
If you believe that religious morality is made-up by people who were just codifying what they already believed to be right and wrong, then the antipathy must have existed before religion.
Probably, although we shall never know for sure.
-
I believe we were all made in the image of God and He gave us instincts about right or wrong; we should not be hidebound by obscure religious rules which are man made. Jesus never said anything about homosexuality and we should only judge when people do something abusive or anti-social in some way. Other consenting adults' sex lives are not our business.
-
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A very simple 'breath of fresh air' here ?!?!!?!?
-
Jesus never said anything about homosexuality and we should only judge when people do something abusive or anti-social in some way. Other consenting adults' sex lives are not our business.
My sentiments exactly!
-
Is there anyone, 'sane', here that can give sensible & honest reasons why 2 of the same gender, PHYSICAL gender that is, cannot love each other EXACTLY as 2 differently organed can?
-
There is no reason Trippymonkey, it is perfectly natural to want to love someone and to seek a partner. It's good that in our society people are able to openly form relationships, I wish it was the same everywhere. Give it time.
-
We really need to remember we in the UK were once so inhibited at one time ....??!!?!?
-
Can't we just live and let live if consenting adults choose a relationship which we wouldn't choose? It's not our business. I do wonder if people who have objections, on religious grounds (according to religious guidelines), really feel they are right. We must trust our instincts sometimes. God gave them to us after all. God certainly gave me, and others, the instinct that other people's lifestyles are nothing to do with us unless they are causing harm.
I suspect that is more a Zeitgeist influence of being born into a reasonably tolerant and liberal society, rather than a "natural instinct"....
I'm trying to work out if you are arguing for intolerance, as a virtue, or unnaturalness, as a virtue.
-
Neither. Just questioning some people's notions that their sense of morality derives from "instincts".
Most societies and tribes start off not particularly "fluffy", yet someone who happens to have been born into the UK in 19xx and whose sense of morality is "fluffy", is just going by the instincts God gave them? Nothing to do with the Zeitgeist?
-
Is there anyone, 'sane', here that can give sensible & honest reasons why 2 of the same gender, PHYSICAL gender that is, cannot love each other EXACTLY as 2 differently organed can?
Given that any such reasons will automatically be classified as non-sane, non-sensible, and/or non-honest, I find it unlikely.
You may as well ask "Can any sane person explain why they see dragons in their attic" when you have already decided that seeing dragons in one's attic is insane.
-
Neither. Just questioning some people's notions that their sense of morality derives from "instincts".
Most societies and tribes start off not particularly "fluffy", yet someone who happens to have been born into the UK in 19xx and whose sense of morality is "fluffy", is just going by the instincts God gave them? Nothing to do with the Zeitgeist?
Tolerant and fluffy aren't synonyms.
-
Tolerant and fluffy aren't synonyms.
They seem to be for Synonym, otherwise why would he introduce the word. In fact it was his use of the word "fluffy," which I interpreted to mean something along the lines of "compassionate, caring, understanding, non-judgementally tolerant and accepting," which convinced me that he was more interested in sloganeering and less interested in genuine debate and thus not worth responding to further.
-
Neither. Just questioning some people's notions that their sense of morality derives from "instincts".
Most societies and tribes start off not particularly "fluffy", yet someone who happens to have been born into the UK in 19xx and whose sense of morality is "fluffy", is just going by the instincts God gave them? Nothing to do with the Zeitgeist?
Tolerant and fluffy aren't synonyms.
I agree but not sure what point you are making.
If someone says that their morals or tolerance is just natural instincts, the ones given by God, then I still question whether it is just a coincidence that the person who feels this way was born into a Zeitgeist that leans towards this. Considering that such attitudes seem not be the default state of how most tribes and societies start out.
-
If someone says that their morals or tolerance is just natural instincts, the ones given by God
Is that really your definition of "natural instincts"?
-
If someone says that their morals or tolerance is just natural instincts, the ones given by God
Is that really your definition of "natural instincts"?
How's the not responding to me any further going? :)
And I have not suggested a definition of my own. I am responding to another's poster's (Brownie) claims of their own natural instincts as given to them by God. Although on the point I am disagreeing with them on, it doesn't actually matter where these "natural instincts" that coincide suspiciously with those of a particular society in a particular corner of time, are meant to come from.
-
If someone says that their morals or tolerance is just natural instincts, the ones given by God
Is that really your definition of "natural instincts"?
How's the not responding to me any further going? :)
Less well than your manifest refusal to answer the question I asked you a few days ago/earlier/a few pages up-thread, which you certainly chickened out of answering. For myself I prefer not to do the chickening-out thing, so can inevitably become embroiled in discussions with highly distasteful individuals (i.e. and e.g. Sriram) against my better judgement.
-
Less well than your manifest refusal to answer the question I asked you a few days ago/earlier/a few pages up-thread, which you certainly chickened out of answering.
What question was that?
The only unanswered question I am aware of from any discussion between us a few days ago in this thread, is the one I asked you in #579.
-
I understand what you said about zeitgist and of course not one of us is immune to current thought and discussion but isn't that what progress is about; as time goes on, we learn more about ourselves and human nature in general. There was a time when people believed the earth was flat (some still do!), discovery is important so is the ability to admit we got it wrong and change our minds. It wasn't good to be intolerant, cruel even, towards people whose sexuality was different to ours. Certainly not good to give hormones, perform lobotomies and force fellow human beings to undergo horrible conversion therapy (which didn't work), nor to stick people in prison for just being themselves. I'm glad to be growing old in an imperfect but ever improving society.
In any case, what difference does it make to you, or me for that matter, what other people do if they are not harming anyone?
...........
A bit later. I've been thinking about this thread and there's no doubt we do this subject to death on all Christian forums, I can never resist joining in - but am I (& others) making things worse by putting my oar in?
It might be better if we all ignored it when someone starts a thread on the topic, it's their problem if they have a 'thing' about the love lives of others. Perhaps we encourage them by responding. If we didn't their obsession could lessen and they might get a life.
-
If it isn't challenged though, Brownie, it sits in the forum like a piece of excrement smelling bad and messing the place up. I don't want to post in or read a forum where someone can state that they think homosexuality is a disease and every just turns away and hopes that the poster goes away.
-
Very true.
-
Brownie, if you think that Christianity has anything to offer our society then you have to speak up for believers like yourself who are openly tolerant and welcoming towards homosexual relationships. If people like yourself don't speak up then those outside the church have no reason to think that Christianity has anything much to offer because it is contaminated so much by bigotry and intolerance.
-
Neither. Just questioning some people's notions that their sense of morality derives from "instincts".
Most societies and tribes start off not particularly "fluffy", yet someone who happens to have been born into the UK in 19xx and whose sense of morality is "fluffy", is just going by the instincts God gave them? Nothing to do with the Zeitgeist?
Tolerant and fluffy aren't synonyms.
I agree but not sure what point you are making.
If someone says that their morals or tolerance is just natural instincts, the ones given by God, then I still question whether it is just a coincidence that the person who feels this way was born into a Zeitgeist that leans towards this. Considering that such attitudes seem not be the default state of how most tribes and societies start out.
Ok, let's just say that our default setting is violent tribalism and self-protection. Isn't Christianity about getting away from those?
Also, given that we know homosexuality has been around for millennia, and that many gay people describe homosexual attraction and feelings as natural, you appear to be saying that natural homosexual feelings are given by God?
-
Ok, let's just say that our default setting is violent tribalism and self-protection. Isn't Christianity about getting away from those?
Also, given that we know homosexuality has been around for millennia, and that many gay people describe homosexual attraction and feelings as natural, you appear to be saying that natural homosexual feelings are given by God?
That's one for the theologians. I know there are some who say that we started of all innocent and then we got corrupted in the fall and so now you have people wanting to murder and steal and drop litter and commit sexual sins and so on. But I am not really interested in that aspect or making any assertions on it.
Just questioning that a person's morals and attitudes are them just listening to their "natural instincts" as they believe. No more no less.
-
Brownie, if you think that Christianity has anything to offer our society then you have to speak up for believers like yourself who are openly tolerant and welcoming towards homosexual relationships. If people like yourself don't speak up then those outside the church have no reason to think that Christianity has anything much to offer because it is contaminated so much by bigotry and intolerance.
IME if someone thinks something is wrong then they are quite happy for others to not tolerate it. If they think it not wrong but know other's think it wrong, then they will want those others to be tolerant of whatever it is.
But if someone is considering whether to take up a faith by considering whether or not it says things they consider not wrong to be wrong, and if it does then is it at least tolerant towards whatever it is, then this seems an odd approach to me.
Shouldn't it be more about whether you are prepared to believe in God and accept Jesus (in the case of Christianity) and so on?
-
Brownie, if you think that Christianity has anything to offer our society then you have to speak up for believers like yourself who are openly tolerant and welcoming towards homosexual relationships. If people like yourself don't speak up then those outside the church have no reason to think that Christianity has anything much to offer because it is contaminated so much by bigotry and intolerance.
IME if someone thinks something is wrong then they are quite happy for others to not tolerate it. If they think it not wrong but know other's think it wrong, then they will want those others to be tolerant of whatever it is.
But if someone is considering whether to take up a faith by considering whether or not it says things they consider not wrong to be wrong, and if it does then is it at least tolerant towards whatever it is, then this seems an odd approach to me.
Shouldn't it be more about whether you are prepared to believe in God and accept Jesus (in the case of Christianity) and so on?
Someone who finds the church's attitude to Christianity isn't going to engage with Jesus' message or seek further understanding. How can they accept something - or someone - when the public representation of that is intolerance of something harmless and normal?
-
Someone who finds the church's attitude to Christianity isn't going to engage with Jesus' message or seek further understanding. How can they accept something - or someone - when the public representation of that is intolerance of something harmless and normal?
I wonder if you are you using intolerance as a synonym for "says is wrong" here. Most mainstream religions say it is wrong but they are not all populated by fire and brimstone preachers. Some, like Rowan Williams for instance, did seem tolerant sorts.
-
Someone who finds the church's attitude to Christianity isn't going to engage with Jesus' message or seek further understanding. How can they accept something - or someone - when the public representation of that is intolerance of something harmless and normal?
I wonder if you are you using intolerance as a synonym for "says is wrong" here. Most mainstream religions say it is wrong but they are not all populated by fire and brimstone preachers. Some, like Rowan Williams for instance, did seem tolerant sorts.
So racists wbo claim being black is wrong could actually be quite tolerant?
Or would that be bullshit.
-
Someone who finds the church's attitude to Christianity isn't going to engage with Jesus' message or seek further understanding. How can they accept something - or someone - when the public representation of that is intolerance of something harmless and normal?
I wonder if you are you using intolerance as a synonym for "says is wrong" here. Most mainstream religions say it is wrong but they are not all populated by fire and brimstone preachers. Some, like Rowan Williams for instance, did seem tolerant sorts.
Rowan Williams is pro-gay. He toes the church line on gay marriage.
A tolerant view says, this is what I think but I could be wrong so let's allow you to be yourself and leave all to God. An intolerant view says, I know what God wants and if you don't like it, tough.
-
Someone who finds the church's attitude to Christianity isn't going to engage with Jesus' message or seek further understanding. How can they accept something - or someone - when the public representation of that is intolerance of something harmless and normal?
I wonder if you are you using intolerance as a synonym for "says is wrong" here. Most mainstream religions say it is wrong but they are not all populated by fire and brimstone preachers. Some, like Rowan Williams for instance, did seem tolerant sorts.
So racists wbo claim being black is wrong could actually be quite tolerant?
Or would that be bullshit.
Firstly I would be tempted to say that I think they are making a category error by ascribing "right" and "wrong" to skin colour.
But that aside, I think tolerance is about how you treat or deal with the thing you consider wrong, rather than the thinking that it is wrong in itself.
I might think that adultery is wrong but to advocate it becoming illegal and public floggings for the practitioners, would mean I am being less tolerant than if I just express an opinion against it, and/or perhaps refuse to assist someone in carrying one out.
-
Another good piece on Friday's vote in Ireland
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-marriage-was-nothing-to-be-proud-of-in-1983-1.2217299
-
That was a great article, and so is this, by Father Gerard Moloney:
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/i-don-t-care-what-they-call-it-i-m-in-favour-of-marriage-equality-fr-gerard-moloney-1.2216461
As a priest, I subscribe to the Christian understanding of marriage that it is a sacrament celebrated between one man and one woman – a public love commitment before God that each celebrant makes one to the other for life.
But it’s clear that not everybody shares this belief. Not all recognise marriage as a sacrament or give it any religious significance. They see it solely as a legal union between two people that is recognised and solemnised by the State.
The increasing number of non-church weddings points to this fact.
It is also clear that more and more people now believe this contract should be open to same-sex couples who wish to make a life commitment to each other.
While I see it as a sacrament, I believe it’s up to the citizens of the State to decide how they define marriage and who can enter into it.
And that’s how it should be, because we live in a diverse, complex society today.
More religious people should be saying this.
-
Some more brilliant writing
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/colm-tóibín-the-same-sex-marriage-referendum-and-the-embrace-of-love-1.2212702
-
Yep, that was a corker.
-
Firstly I would be tempted to say that I think they are making a category error by ascribing "right" and "wrong" to skin colour.
Why, you do not choose your sexuality or your skin colour.
-
That was a great article, and so is this, by Father Gerard Moloney:
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/i-don-t-care-what-they-call-it-i-m-in-favour-of-marriage-equality-fr-gerard-moloney-1.2216461
As a priest, I subscribe to the Christian understanding of marriage that it is a sacrament celebrated between one man and one woman – a public love commitment before God that each celebrant makes one to the other for life.
But it’s clear that not everybody shares this belief. Not all recognise marriage as a sacrament or give it any religious significance. They see it solely as a legal union between two people that is recognised and solemnised by the State.
The increasing number of non-church weddings points to this fact.
It is also clear that more and more people now believe this contract should be open to same-sex couples who wish to make a life commitment to each other.
While I see it as a sacrament, I believe it’s up to the citizens of the State to decide how they define marriage and who can enter into it.
And that’s how it should be, because we live in a diverse, complex society today.
More religious people should be saying this.
The majority probably do. Believing in a particular form of marriage and even campaigning for it, does not preclude a person from thinking that the laws are up to democracy to set not individuals.
Not sure what exactly in this quote would be controversial to a most religious people.
-
The majority probably do.
Do they? How do we claim to know this?
-
I am taking a punt that most people believe that laws should be set democratically, including most religious people.
And ultimately that this be the case is all the quote says. Nothing about this precludes a person from campaigning and lobbying for the laws they think ought to exist.
-
I am taking a punt
A guess that you can't substantiate, then.
I really wish you'd said.
-
I am taking a punt
A guess that you can't substantiate, then.
I really wish you'd said.
I was responding to your comment that the sentiments you quoted were something more religious people should get behind. I expressed an opinion that they probably would in response to your implication that there was something in the quote that they wouldn't.
Why don't you substantiate your implication that they wouldn't first, and then we can see how spot on my punt that most of them probably already would, was or wasn't.
-
I was responding to your comment that the sentiments you quoted were something more religious people should get behind.
Yes.
I expressed an opinion that they probably would in response to your implication that there was something in the quote that they wouldn't.
So what is your opinion and your estimation of probability based on?
-
So what is your opinion and your estimation of probability based on?
One thing would be my experience of religious people and that most of them agree with democracy and would not agree with theocracy.
-
I wish someone would create a therapy for old age 💊.
At least for the creaky bits.
That would be more useful IMO.
Plenty of laughter and little of what you fancy now and again... ;D
-
Received Pronunciation.
The problem is that as soon as society says it is acceptable for such therapies to be allowed, there are those who will decide it is desirable. Dr Nazeem Mahmood was successful and happy in a relationship, yet he still took his own life after his mother suggested he get therapy to 'cure' his homosexuality. That wasn't a choice he wanted to make, but one his family decided was ok to pressure him into.
And no doubt it would be available privately. What happens then - adverts on the Tube? Promotion by the churches?
People take their own life because they are unhappy for all kinds of reasons. It doesn't become a bigger or smaller tragedy because their reason for killing themselves was because they did not perceive enough acceptance about their sexuality. They are depressed so their perceptions are skewed anyway by their depression.
A friend of mine hanged himself by tying a belt round his neck and jumping off his balcony in Australia when he was 22 because he thought he was ugly, which was crazy as not only was he good-looking and a great dancer but he was also a really sweet guy - but when he looked at himself he felt unhappy and unaccepted. Also, society puts lots of pressure on people about their looks. Yet we have whole industries geared towards providing services to allow people to change the way they look. So this whole slippery slope argument is along the same lines as some people gave for opposing gay marriage - it's restricting individual freedom based on guessing.
Restricting advertising is a separate issue - you could treat it the same way as cigarette advertising. Maybe we should also get rid of adverts for cosmetic procedures from the tube?
Very true points and an excellent Post Gabriella,
Friends have walked out under a Lorry and killed themselves in other ways because of mental illness and the strain of living with it.
Sometimes we fail to find the right answers and even the right treatments.
My ex-husband had tried suicide several times. Lost of two of his friends as teenagers and that was a slippery slope into depression.
But he had his own issues too. So like everything we cannot get it right all the time. But people have to address issues and realities of how people feel about themselves and help them.
-
Received Pronunciation.
The problem is that as soon as society says it is acceptable for such therapies to be allowed, there are those who will decide it is desirable. Dr Nazeem Mahmood was successful and happy in a relationship, yet he still took his own life after his mother suggested he get therapy to 'cure' his homosexuality. That wasn't a choice he wanted to make, but one his family decided was ok to pressure him into.
And no doubt it would be available privately. What happens then - adverts on the Tube? Promotion by the churches?
Well, the current gay conversion therapies seem to start from the premise that there is something wrong with being gay,
Whereas in truth the person themselves feel they cannot cope with being gay themselves. The world is geared to heterosexual teachings about sex and reproductions. A young person does not know how to deal with their feelings or share what they experience.
If people stopped talking about "gay being something wrong" and just listened and offered counseling at the earliest stages there would be more confident young people dealing with their identity sexually.
and also offer various bizarre theories, e.g. gays were abused as children. That is why they are banned by professional organizations - they are simply dangerous. Of course, they are not illegal but I would warn anyone against them.
Just what isn't needed and not called for.
It is necessary for organisations to help in schools and colleges where children/young adults can see guidance and help.
-
Good interview with Colm Toibin on Channel 4
http://www.channel4.com/news/colm-toibin-catholic-church-neutered-on-gay-marriage
-
Lovely letter from Sebatian Barry about today's marriage equality vote in Ireland
http://www.joe.ie/news/pic-writer-sebastian-barry-pens-a-beautiful-letter-to-the-irish-times-about-his-reasons-for-voting-yes/495527
-
Lovely letter from Sebatian Barry about today's marriage equality vote in Ireland
http://www.joe.ie/news/pic-writer-sebastian-barry-pens-a-beautiful-letter-to-the-irish-times-about-his-reasons-for-voting-yes/495527
Let us hope that there are enough enlightened Catholics and Christians in Ireland to vote yes.
-
Lovely letter from Sebatian Barry about today's marriage equality vote in Ireland
http://www.joe.ie/news/pic-writer-sebastian-barry-pens-a-beautiful-letter-to-the-irish-times-about-his-reasons-for-voting-yes/495527
Let us hope that there are enough enlightened Catholics and Christians in Ireland to vote yes.
One hopes so!
-
Lovely letter from Sebatian Barry about today's marriage equality vote in Ireland
http://www.joe.ie/news/pic-writer-sebastian-barry-pens-a-beautiful-letter-to-the-irish-times-about-his-reasons-for-voting-yes/495527
Let us hope that there are enough enlightened Catholics and Christians in Ireland to vote yes.
Let's hope that they become even more enlightened, and cease to be Catholic and Christian.
-
Lovely letter from Sebatian Barry about today's marriage equality vote in Ireland
http://www.joe.ie/news/pic-writer-sebastian-barry-pens-a-beautiful-letter-to-the-irish-times-about-his-reasons-for-voting-yes/495527
Let us hope that there are enough enlightened Catholics and Christians in Ireland to vote yes.
Let's hope that they become even more enlightened, and cease to be Catholic and Christian.
Wishful thinking never hurt anybody! :)
-
Lovely letter from Sebatian Barry about today's marriage equality vote in Ireland
http://www.joe.ie/news/pic-writer-sebastian-barry-pens-a-beautiful-letter-to-the-irish-times-about-his-reasons-for-voting-yes/495527
Let us hope that there are enough enlightened Catholics and Christians in Ireland to vote yes.
Let's hope that they become even more enlightened, and cease to be Catholic and Christian.
My sainted (Catholic) mother is reasonably enlightened, certainly as enlightened as me, and certainly more enlightened that someone who might make arrogant fatuous generalizations while hugging themselves and telling themself how enlightened they are.
-
Following the #voteyes feed, just read 'sure Jesus had two das and he was grand'
-
Some good lines in this
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-would-jesus-vote-gay-5741948
-
Ha Ji BUT that. as we BOTH know is NOT Hinduism's fault but humans'.
N
The gay community in India seem to think it is the fault of Hindu political parties as well as the Hindus who vote for these parties that they are being criminalised.
http://gayasianews.com/2014/05/18/indias-anti-gay-hindu-nationalist-party-voted-to-power/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/indias-gay-community-scrambling-after-court-decision-recriminalises-homosexuality-9146244.html
Are you arguing that there are lots of different interpretations of Hinduism or are you arguing that India is mainly made up of people who are not "real" Hindus according to your definition of a "real" Hindu?
-
I know Hinduism a bit like you say you know Islam.
Not the usual stuff.
-
Is there anyone, 'sane', here that can give sensible & honest reasons why 2 of the same gender, PHYSICAL gender that is, cannot love each other EXACTLY as 2 differently organed can?
If you are talking about penetration, I explained that the blood donor organisations think there is more risk of passing on disease as the tissues in the bum are more likely to tear than the tissues in the vagina and statistics show that sexually active gay men present a higher risk group in terms of being blood donors. People can still physically penetrate either orifice, so it is not a question of why they cannot love, it's more a question of higher risk factors associated with that particular kind of love.
Policy decisions are often made on statistical risk rather than on a case by case basis.
-
Sorry G
I meant about the 'in the head & HEART' stuff not physically.
We must also remember so-called straights can do this way too.
N
-
Sorry G
I meant about the 'in the head & HEART' stuff not physically.
We must also remember so-called straights can do this way too.
N
Head and heart - absolutely no reason why gay people feel any differently to any other sexual orientation.
I suspect the risks of tearing tissue is the same regardless of a person's sexual orientation, though I haven't looked for any stats as to whether there are more incidents of tissue damage between a gay couple compared to a heterosexual couple, because I don't really care. I think there is a higher incidence of it amongst gay men hence the blood donor policy puts gay men in a high risk group but doesn't question whether a heterosexual person has had bum sex in the last 12 months.
-
I feel it's a case of carelessness, being unprepared & not using lube etc with a bit of BIG size also involved.
This applies to all forms of physical intercourse between ANYONE regardless of sexual orientation so cannot be used exclusively here in THIS post.
N
-
Neither. Just questioning some people's notions that their sense of morality derives from "instincts".
Most societies and tribes start off not particularly "fluffy", yet someone who happens to have been born into the UK in 19xx and whose sense of morality is "fluffy", is just going by the instincts God gave them? Nothing to do with the Zeitgeist?
Tolerant and fluffy aren't synonyms.
I agree but not sure what point you are making.
If someone says that their morals or tolerance is just natural instincts, the ones given by God, then I still question whether it is just a coincidence that the person who feels this way was born into a Zeitgeist that leans towards this. Considering that such attitudes seem not be the default state of how most tribes and societies start out.
Ok, let's just say that our default setting is violent tribalism and self-protection. Isn't Christianity about getting away from those?
Also, given that we know homosexuality has been around for millennia, and that many gay people describe homosexual attraction and feelings as natural, you appear to be saying that natural homosexual feelings are given by God?
I don't know about violent tribalism but tribalism certainly seems to be a default setting. Not sure how Christianity can get away from tribalism when the Christians are a "tribe".
In any society people divide themselves using a 'them' and 'us' mentality. Being atheist doesn't protect anyone from this divisive mentality, which is one of the reasons I did not mind accepting Islam after being an atheist - I realised that religion wasn't the bogeyman I had thought it was and that being atheist didn't prevent anyone from adopting irrational beliefs. I did not see what was so bad about religious irrational beliefs compared to any other type of irrational belief - IMO it seems to depend very much on the individual and their susceptibility to peer pressure and group think rather than the religiosity or not of their irrational beliefs.
-
V interesting. May 'we' ask if you felt like this when you became a Muslim?
I presume you did look into Islam's history as well your own interpretation of The Quran?
-
I feel it's a case of carelessness, being unprepared & not using lube etc with a bit of BIG size also involved.
This applies to all forms of physical intercourse between ANYONE regardless of sexual orientation so cannot be used exclusively here in THIS post.
N
Quite possibly - sexually active gay men are barred for 12 months from donating blood regardless of whether they have used a condom or not, as the evidence apparently suggests that condoms are often not used correctly and result in a false sense of security. Policy decisions are based on taking people as they find them rather than idealised scenarios where everything happens the way it is supposed to.
-
V interesting. May 'we' ask if you felt like this when you became a Muslim?
I presume you did look into Islam's history as well your own interpretation of The Quran?
Felt like what specifically? I am describing my thoughts at the moment I decided to accept Islam.
-
Is there anyone, 'sane', here that can give sensible & honest reasons why 2 of the same gender, PHYSICAL gender that is, cannot love each other EXACTLY as 2 differently organed can?
If you are talking about penetration, I explained that the blood donor organisations think there is more risk of passing on disease as the tissues in the bum are more likely to tear than the tissues in the vagina and statistics show that sexually active gay men present a higher risk group in terms of being blood donors. People can still physically penetrate either orifice, so it is not a question of why they cannot love, it's more a question of higher risk factors associated with that particular kind of love.
Policy decisions are often made on statistical risk rather than on a case by case basis.
There is such a thing as safe sex or else two people in love being tested in advance.
-
Quite possibly - sexually active gay men are barred for 12 months from donating blood regardless of whether they have used a condom or not, as the evidence apparently suggests that condoms are often not used correctly and result in a false sense of security. Policy decisions are based on taking people as they find them rather than idealised scenarios where everything happens the way it is supposed to.
But they are conveniently ignoring the fact that many normal couples indulge in anal penetration, and are thus just as likely to be infected.
-
Quite possibly - sexually active gay men are barred for 12 months from donating blood regardless of whether they have used a condom or not, as the evidence apparently suggests that condoms are often not used correctly and result in a false sense of security. Policy decisions are based on taking people as they find them rather than idealised scenarios where everything happens the way it is supposed to.
But they are conveniently ignoring the fact that many normal couples indulge in anal penetration, and are thus just as likely to be infected.
Not all heterosexuals like the idea
Did anybody say they did?
-
The implication is though that it's ok because hetrosexual couples do it.
Nonsense! The implication was that to exclude gay couples because of the dangers of anal penetration is a tad stupid if you are not going to exclude heteros who indulge in it too.
-
Sorry Rose but NO.
The real issue is whether it's ONLY regular & 'normal' for gay couples.
Nick
-
If it might be so bold to suggest it is the fidelity of the partner that matters, not what sex the individuals are.
If you are faithful to one partner, that does a lot to alleviate concerns.
But since there is no way to ascertain fidelity, whether gay or straight, it doesn't work, does it?
-
Is there anyone, 'sane', here that can give sensible & honest reasons why 2 of the same gender, PHYSICAL gender that is, cannot love each other EXACTLY as 2 differently organed can?
If you are talking about penetration, I explained that the blood donor organisations think there is more risk of passing on disease as the tissues in the bum are more likely to tear than the tissues in the vagina and statistics show that sexually active gay men present a higher risk group in terms of being blood donors. People can still physically penetrate either orifice, so it is not a question of why they cannot love, it's more a question of higher risk factors associated with that particular kind of love.
Policy decisions are often made on statistical risk rather than on a case by case basis.
There is such a thing as safe sex or else two people in love being tested in advance.
Apparently policy decisions aren't made on a case by case basis as this would be too time- consuming. It is a decision based on current statistics - when the statistics change so will the policy.
-
Quite possibly - sexually active gay men are barred for 12 months from donating blood regardless of whether they have used a condom or not, as the evidence apparently suggests that condoms are often not used correctly and result in a false sense of security. Policy decisions are based on taking people as they find them rather than idealised scenarios where everything happens the way it is supposed to.
But they are conveniently ignoring the fact that many normal couples indulge in anal penetration, and are thus just as likely to be infected.
They base their policy on statistical risk, which apparently places men engaging in anal penetration with other men as a higher risk group than heterosexuals engaging in anal penetration. When the statistics change or when testing can be done in a few minutes and is sufficiently accurate without requiring a 12 month window, they have stated they will change their policy. They are unable to operate on a case by case basis as that will have a negative impact on availability of blood for transfusions.
-
It does in the sense of accepting responsibilities in relationships, and caring about partners.
Gay people are no different to hetrosexuals in this way.
Well, I know that as well as you do, but Gabriella raised the point of anal penetration, and I was commenting on that.
-
Nonsense! The implication was that to exclude gay couples because of the dangers of anal penetration is a tad stupid if you are not going to exclude heteros who indulge in it too.
Presumably the act is statistically less risky in this group.
-
Nonsense! The implication was that to exclude gay couples because of the dangers of anal penetration is a tad stupid if you are not going to exclude heteros who indulge in it too.
Presumably the act is statistically less risky in this group.
Probably, but still a danger.
-
But not enough to tip the tradeoff off of need-for-safety vs need-for-blood in favour of the former, perhaps.
-
But not enough to tip the tradeoff off of need-for-safety vs need-for-blood in favour of the former, perhaps.
That seems to be the attitude.
-
It seems certain here view being 'male' gay as only involving anal penetration !?!?!!?
How many straights would 'admit' to this act???? Probably a hell of a lot more than one would think.
-
Brilliant story - YES
http://entertainment.ie/life/Irish-guy-live-tweets-his-race-to-make-it-home-from-Edinburgh-after-finding-out-hes-registered-to-vote/365321.htm
-
Brilliant story - YES
http://entertainment.ie/life/Irish-guy-live-tweets-his-race-to-make-it-home-from-Edinburgh-after-finding-out-hes-registered-to-vote/365321.htm
http://entertainment.ie/life/Heres-what-to-say-if-someone-tells-you-theyre-voting-No-because-of-the-Bible/363876.htm?recommendstory=true
-
It seems certain here view being 'male' gay as only involving anal penetration !?!?!!?
How many straights would 'admit' to this act???? Probably a hell of a lot more than one would think.
Quite! It's called 'keeping up appearances'. :)
-
Early reports are that Equal Marriage is a go in Ireland.
-
Yep, looking good
http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum/breaking-ireland-says-yes-by-up-to-21-margin-31246520.html
-
An Irish fella is telling me 61% yes is showing, he'd better not be fibbing.
-
Dublin showing big yes votes, 78%, 74%, 68%, in various areas (Irish Times).
-
If you google thejournal.ie, and go to liveblog, they have photos of some of the tally sheets, with big yes votes, and a few no tallies, probably rural areas.
-
You can watch RTE1.
-
No campaigners conceding in some areas, it's a win for yes, go Ireland!
-
Ireland gets marriage equality and the Eurovision Song Contest all in one day ... I can't stand the excitement :D
-
Ireland gets marriage equality and the Eurovision Song Contest all in one day ... I can't stand the excitement :D
Though Ireland itself got knocked out of Eurovision in the semi final
-
Ireland gets marriage equality and the Eurovision Song Contest all in one day ... I can't stand the excitement :D
The Eurovision Song Contest is in Vienna, just outside Dublin! :D
-
Some results showing that it's not just Dublin voting yes: Waterford 60%; Wicklow 68%; Meath West 60%; Cork South Central 65%; Galway East 53%.
Well done, Ireland.
-
Hurrah
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fintan-o-toole-ireland-has-left-tolerance-far-behind-1.2223838#.VWC5aRAWw6Q.twitter
-
Splendid, splendid, splendid! A win win for the human race. I am so happy! ;D
-
Had something I had to do today, otherwise I was sorely tempted to get across to Dublin today for the party
-
What an excellent result! One commentator was saying that, although the R.C. Church was strongly against, it kept a low profile in this referendum. I wonder why? ;)
-
One to ponder there for sure, enkles :)
-
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And just to prove it we are shown men kissing men and women kissing women on the BBC News,
-
Eh?
-
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And just to prove it we are shown men kissing men and women kissing women on the BBC News,
Your point is what exactly?
-
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And just to prove it we are shown men kissing men and women kissing women on the BBC News,"
How can anybody have an intelligent exchange with somebody whose mind is so addled by this sort of rubbish? :(
-
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And just to prove it we are shown men kissing men and women kissing women on the BBC News,
Prove what?
-
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And just to prove it we are shown men kissing men and women kissing women on the BBC News,
What a bigot you are! :(
I am glad Ireland has seen sense and the Catholic church has had a good kick in the goolies where this issue is concerned!
-
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And just to prove it we are shown men kissing men and women kissing women on the BBC News,
What a bigot you are! :(
I am glad Ireland has seen sense and the Catholic church has had a good kick in the goolies where this issue is concerned!
If you'll forgive me Floo I prefer the much more subtle approach and actually funny approach to ''Kicking Bishop Brennan up the Arse'' than your blokish approach.
-
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And just to prove it we are shown men kissing men and women kissing women on the BBC News,
Strange you didn't mention eating shellfish or someone wearing mixed fibres on the news. Mind you also never mentioned poeple starving either, what some Christians care about is weird.
-
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And just to prove it we are shown men kissing men and women kissing women on the BBC News,
Won't somebody think of the children!!
Oh they have. They helped that they are all now equal and won't be discriminated against
-
Lovely letter from Sebatian Barry about today's marriage equality vote in Ireland
http://www.joe.ie/news/pic-writer-sebastian-barry-pens-a-beautiful-letter-to-the-irish-times-about-his-reasons-for-voting-yes/495527
Let us hope that there are enough enlightened Catholics and Christians in Ireland to vote yes.
Let's hope that they become even more enlightened, and cease to be Catholic and Christian.
Isn't bigotry of any type wrong? It is remarks like yours Shaker which get the backs up of so called Catholics and Christians making them afraid to vote 'yes' because it may allow such bigotry as yours to make their beliefs against laws made by man.
Daniel comes to mind and his three friends in captivity where Daniel is put in Jeopardy because he isn't allowed to pray to his own God for fear of death.
Throughout history men died for what they believed in...
The three friends of Daniel placed in a furnace and he himself in the lions den because people want to control what they believe.
Cease to be Catholic or Christian... that isn't enlightenment.
You need enlightenment that had homosexuals spoke out before and stood up for what they believed as Daniel and his three friends then they might have won this freedom a long time ago.
Let us hope that people see that Christians, Catholics and some other relgiions are probably the only reason that homosexuality has become party of society and people given freedom to live... What we cannot do is make people change their minds about what they believe.
Sometimes 'tolerance' and 'understanding' is preferable than direct bigotry which shows itself in such statements as you have made...
Let's hope that they become even more enlightened, and cease to be Catholic and Christian.
What a wrong statement to make and how much bigotry and prejudice is shown in that one statement and sentence. You call yourself, enlightened... Enlightened to your own prejudices and still in the dark as far as bigotry and prejudice being wrong.
-
Lovely letter from Sebatian Barry about today's marriage equality vote in Ireland
http://www.joe.ie/news/pic-writer-sebastian-barry-pens-a-beautiful-letter-to-the-irish-times-about-his-reasons-for-voting-yes/495527
Let us hope that there are enough enlightened Catholics and Christians in Ireland to vote yes.
Let's hope that they become even more enlightened, and cease to be Catholic and Christian.
Wishful thinking never hurt anybody! :)
No!but swoping one form of bigotry for another did...
You want Christians and Catholics to accept and allow homosexual marriage and yet you want to get rid of Christianity and Catholicism because you belief their beliefs are wrong...
-
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And just to prove it we are shown men kissing men and women kissing women on the BBC News,
Won't somebody think of the children!!
Oh they have. They helped that they are all now equal and won't be discriminated against
That's a good point, and often made in the US, where thousands of children of gay parents are denied being in a married family. I think it's an argument that's been voiced in the Supreme Court (US), if you are keen on the benefits of marriage, then extend them.
-
Won't somebody think of the children!!
Oh they have. They helped that they are all now equal and won't be discriminated against
No, they haven't thought of the children, Quiz. If one looks at a lot of the family-related legislation that has been passed here in the UK over the last 50 years, it has been the children who have suffered most.
Abortion: OK, some will argue that a embryo/foetus/child can't survive by him/herself until they are 24 weeks/39 weeks/perhaps even 2 or 3 years old; but how many adults can realistically survive by themselves - very few if any. As John Donne so famously said, 'no man is an island, entire of itself'.
Divorce: In divorce or separation, a child loses a lot of their natural support systems. Very often, they end up with only one set of grandparents, uncles and aunts with the other parent's own parents and siblings almost always having no right to see their younger relation.
Gay marriage/adoption: As I have previously mentioned, a child's mental and emotional development is most balanced within a family with mixed-gender parents, and even more so when that mix is their own biological parents.
I accept that there are exceptions to all these rules, but exceptions shouldn't set the standard. I also accept that there are a number of additional issues which also have an impact on a child's development, with 'love and concern' being an important one.
I also accept that there are 'natural' forms of the first two - abortion and divorce. However, society's response to such natural forms is very different to that towards the 'manmade' versions, and often the underlying causes of the natural forms are very different to the latter. Comparing the two is therefore generally unrealistic, though convenient. For instance, how often does a natural abortion or miscarriage result from a perfectly normal foetus? Rarely. It is usually nature recognising that the foetus is unviable. In the case of the death of a parent, the child(ren) usually continue to enjoy some contact with their grandparennts, uncles and aunts on that side. Futhermore, the surviving parent often becomes eligible to receive their spouse's pension, etc.
Finally, I would suggest that all the legislation that I have mentioned puts the adults' needs before those of any children they might already have or have in the future - especially in the case of gay marriage/adoption.
-
... if you are keen on the benefits of marriage, then extend them.
With the greatest benefits requiring male and female input throughout a child's life, how does gay marriage help?
-
Lovely letter from Sebatian Barry about today's marriage equality vote in Ireland
http://www.joe.ie/news/pic-writer-sebastian-barry-pens-a-beautiful-letter-to-the-irish-times-about-his-reasons-for-voting-yes/495527
Let us hope that there are enough enlightened Catholics and Christians in Ireland to vote yes.
Let's hope that they become even more enlightened, and cease to be Catholic and Christian.
Isn't bigotry of any type wrong? It is remarks like yours Shaker which get the backs up of so called Catholics and Christians making them afraid to vote 'yes' because it may allow such bigotmry as yours to make their beliefs against laws made by man.
Daniel comes to mind and his three friends in captivity where Daniel is put in Jeopardy because he isn't allowed to pray to his own God for fear of death.
Throughout history men died for what they believed in...
The three friends of Daniel placed in a furnace and he himself in the lions den because people want to control what they believe.
Cease to be Catholic or Christian... that isn't enlightenment.
You need enlightenment that had homosexuals spoke out before and stood up for what they believed as Daniel and his three friends then they might have won this freedom a long time ago.
Let us hope that people see that Christians, Catholics and some other relgiions are probably the only reason that homosexuality has become party of society and people given freedom to live... What we cannot do is make people change their minds about what they believe.
Sometimes 'tolerance' and 'understanding' is preferable than direct bigotry which shows itself in such statements as you have made...
Let's hope that they become even more enlightened, and cease to be Catholic and Christian.
What a wrong statement to make and how much bigotry and prejudice is shown in that one statement and sentence. You call yourself, enlightened... Enlightened to your own prejudices and still in the dark as far as bigotry and prejudice being wrong.
A long post that seems to totally miss the point.
When you say "vote yes" I think you mean vote no
"Had homosexuals spoke out [sic] before they may have got the freedom before"
Eh? Have you not heard of the gay rights movement?
-
Lovely letter from Sebatian Barry about today's marriage equality vote in Ireland
http://www.joe.ie/news/pic-writer-sebastian-barry-pens-a-beautiful-letter-to-the-irish-times-about-his-reasons-for-voting-yes/495527
Let us hope that there are enough enlightened Catholics and Christians in Ireland to vote yes.
Let's hope that they become even more enlightened, and cease to be Catholic and Christian.
Isn't bigotry of any type wrong? It is remarks like yours Shaker which get the backs up of so called Catholics and Christians making them afraid to vote 'yes' because it may allow such bigotmry as yours to make their beliefs against laws made by man.
Daniel comes to mind and his three friends in captivity where Daniel is put in Jeopardy because he isn't allowed to pray to his own God for fear of death.
Throughout history men died for what they believed in...
The three friends of Daniel placed in a furnace and he himself in the lions den because people want to control what they believe.
Cease to be Catholic or Christian... that isn't enlightenment.
You need enlightenment that had homosexuals spoke out before and stood up for what they believed as Daniel and his three friends then they might have won this freedom a long time ago.
Let us hope that people see that Christians, Catholics and some other relgiions are probably the only reason that homosexuality has become party of society and people given freedom to live... What we cannot do is make people change their minds about what they believe.
Sometimes 'tolerance' and 'understanding' is preferable than direct bigotry which shows itself in such statements as you have made...
Let's hope that they become even more enlightened, and cease to be Catholic and Christian.
What a wrong statement to make and how much bigotry and prejudice is shown in that one statement and sentence. You call yourself, enlightened... Enlightened to your own prejudices and still in the dark as far as bigotry and prejudice being wrong.
A long post that seems to totally miss the point.
When you say "vote yes" I think you mean vote no
"Had homosexuals spoke out [sic] before they may have got the freedom before"
Eh? Have you not heard of the gay rights movement?
I thought Gay culture was marked until quite recently by an emphasis on polygamy rather than monogamy.
-
Lovely letter from Sebatian Barry about today's marriage equality vote in Ireland
http://www.joe.ie/news/pic-writer-sebastian-barry-pens-a-beautiful-letter-to-the-irish-times-about-his-reasons-for-voting-yes/495527
Let us hope that there are enough enlightened Catholics and Christians in Ireland to vote yes.
Let's hope that they become even more enlightened, and cease to be Catholic and Christian.
Isn't bigotry of any type wrong? It is remarks like yours Shaker which get the backs up of so called Catholics and Christians making them afraid to vote 'yes' because it may allow such bigotmry as yours to make their beliefs against laws made by man.
Daniel comes to mind and his three friends in captivity where Daniel is put in Jeopardy because he isn't allowed to pray to his own God for fear of death.
Throughout history men died for what they believed in...
The three friends of Daniel placed in a furnace and he himself in the lions den because people want to control what they believe.
Cease to be Catholic or Christian... that isn't enlightenment.
You need enlightenment that had homosexuals spoke out before and stood up for what they believed as Daniel and his three friends then they might have won this freedom a long time ago.
Let us hope that people see that Christians, Catholics and some other relgiions are probably the only reason that homosexuality has become party of society and people given freedom to live... What we cannot do is make people change their minds about what they believe.
Sometimes 'tolerance' and 'understanding' is preferable than direct bigotry which shows itself in such statements as you have made...
Let's hope that they become even more enlightened, and cease to be Catholic and Christian.
What a wrong statement to make and how much bigotry and prejudice is shown in that one statement and sentence. You call yourself, enlightened... Enlightened to your own prejudices and still in the dark as far as bigotry and prejudice being wrong.
A long post that seems to totally miss the point.
When you say "vote yes" I think you mean vote no
"Had homosexuals spoke out [sic] before they may have got the freedom before"
Eh? Have you not heard of the gay rights movement?
I thought Gay culture was marked until quite recently by an emphasis on polygamy rather than monogamy.
What makes you say that?
Is it perhaps anti-gay propaganda that has tried to portray them as promiscuous ?
-
... if you are keen on the benefits of marriage, then extend them.
With the greatest benefits requiring male and female input throughout a child's life, how does gay marriage help?
Well, you carefully sliced off the part of my post which explained that. Quote-mining is alive and well.
-
Lovely letter from Sebatian Barry about today's marriage equality vote in Ireland
http://www.joe.ie/news/pic-writer-sebastian-barry-pens-a-beautiful-letter-to-the-irish-times-about-his-reasons-for-voting-yes/495527
Let us hope that there are enough enlightened Catholics and Christians in Ireland to vote yes.
Let's hope that they become even more enlightened, and cease to be Catholic and Christian.
Isn't bigotry of any type wrong? It is remarks like yours Shaker which get the backs up of so called Catholics and Christians making them afraid to vote 'yes' because it may allow such bigotmry as yours to make their beliefs against laws made by man.
Daniel comes to mind and his three friends in captivity where Daniel is put in Jeopardy because he isn't allowed to pray to his own God for fear of death.
Throughout history men died for what they believed in...
The three friends of Daniel placed in a furnace and he himself in the lions den because people want to control what they believe.
Cease to be Catholic or Christian... that isn't enlightenment.
You need enlightenment that had homosexuals spoke out before and stood up for what they believed as Daniel and his three friends then they might have won this freedom a long time ago.
Let us hope that people see that Christians, Catholics and some other relgiions are probably the only reason that homosexuality has become party of society and people given freedom to live... What we cannot do is make people change their minds about what they believe.
Sometimes 'tolerance' and 'understanding' is preferable than direct bigotry which shows itself in such statements as you have made...
Let's hope that they become even more enlightened, and cease to be Catholic and Christian.
What a wrong statement to make and how much bigotry and prejudice is shown in that one statement and sentence. You call yourself, enlightened... Enlightened to your own prejudices and still in the dark as far as bigotry and prejudice being wrong.
A long post that seems to totally miss the point.
When you say "vote yes" I think you mean vote no
"Had homosexuals spoke out [sic] before they may have got the freedom before"
Eh? Have you not heard of the gay rights movement?
I thought Gay culture was marked until quite recently by an emphasis on polygamy rather than monogamy.
What makes you say that?
Is it perhaps anti-gay propaganda that has tried to portray them as promiscuous ?
Maybe but then what was wrong with promiscuity? and are you not just trying to revise history?
When did the campaign for same sex marriage officially start?
-
Brilliant story - YES
http://entertainment.ie/life/Irish-guy-live-tweets-his-race-to-make-it-home-from-Edinburgh-after-finding-out-hes-registered-to-vote/365321.htm
http://entertainment.ie/life/Heres-what-to-say-if-someone-tells-you-theyre-voting-No-because-of-the-Bible/363876.htm?recommendstory=true
I think we are getting a tad away from the truth.
Marriage in the eyes of God is only a man and a woman.
Whatever happens in the world, in the eyes of God two men or two women will never be married in the eyes of God in any sense of the word.
I am not sure why any believer feels the need to vote or stop anything the world is doing.
I was reading "what would Christ vote for" etc. But in truth Christ made it clear about himself, the kingdom and the World.
King James Bible
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Everyone is so busy fitting Christ and God into this world they forget that the Kingdom of God is not of this world. What happens here does not affect the people in Gods Kingdom for their true lives are hidden with Christ till he comes again.
What happens in this world is really all leading up to the final days...
King James Bible
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
The truth is Christ would obey his Father, God. And the believer does not require to vote for the world cannot affect Gods Kingdom. The Kingdom of God is about truth and life.
It is trying to save people not condemn them. The Christian would not vote for something that changes Gods laws or will kill others not of the Kingdom. But that is too simple and too true for some to understand. That some Christians do things to save men from themselves.
Jesus did not want anyone to perish and neither does God.
Jesus healed all who asked and when feeding thousands there were none who were not fed.
It might be hard to understand for some. But Christians vote against such things when they are trying to save people not because of bigotry. But some abstain too for the same reasons.
The Kingdom of God is not of this world... They would never in all conscience sign a certain death warrant for some....
Sometimes it is love of God, Jesus and others which stops the believer voting or voting against something which would harm another....
-
Just tracked down the Supreme Court (US) decision, which struck down the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA), and in that decision Justice Anthony Kennedy made the now famous comment, that 'tens of thousands of children of gay parents were humiliated by DOMA'. Kennedy reversed a common conservative view, and argued that the sanctity of marriage should not be denied to gay couples. Of course, the argument continues in the US. Well done, Ireland.
-
I think you are well-meaning, Sass, but you are hopelessly misled. :(
-
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And just to prove it we are shown men kissing men and women kissing women on the BBC News,
Strange you didn't mention eating shellfish or someone wearing mixed fibres on the news. Mind you also never mentioned poeple starving either, what some Christians care about is weird.
So if I don't mention starving people it means that I don't care about them?
I knew it was possible to eat shellfish and wear mixed fibres; I didn't know for sure if it was possible for men to kiss men.
-
You should have gone to my school.
-
I was presuming Spud was either joking or channelling the supposed spirit of Queen Victoria
-
Of course it is a defeat for humanity - unlike that sexual assault of children stuff
http://tinyurl.com/q3r3qpg
-
I had to laugh at his comment that more evangelisation is needed. Ireland would not be at the top of any list for that; he might also find it has unforseen consequences, such as even less people at mass.
-
They can't grow potatoes
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/7495784
-
I had to laugh at his comment that more evangelisation is needed. Ireland would not be at the top of any list for that; he might also find it has unforseen consequences, such as even less people at mass.
Baptists evangelise in France. Why not Ireland?
-
Went to a very lovely and loving wedding for two friends yesterday with a Progressive Jewish rabbi officiating.
-
I had to laugh at his comment that more evangelisation is needed. Ireland would not be at the top of any list for that; he might also find it has unforseen consequences, such as even less people at mass.
Baptists evangelise in France. Why not Ireland?
Because it's needed about as much in Ireland as in France.
-
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And just to prove it we are shown men kissing men and women kissing women on the BBC News,
Strange you didn't mention eating shellfish or someone wearing mixed fibres on the news. Mind you also never mentioned poeple starving either, what some Christians care about is weird.
So if I don't mention starving people it means that I don't care about them?
I knew it was possible to eat shellfish and wear mixed fibres; I didn't know for sure if it was possible for men to kiss men.
I kiss my brother and both of my sons when we meet they also return the compliment because we all love each other, what's wrong with that?
ippy
-
Very good but I bet you DON'T stick your tongue down all their throats, eh !?!?!? ;)
-
Very good but I bet you DON'T stick your tongue down all their throats, eh !?!?!? ;)
You don't know one way or the other and I'm not telling.
ippy
-
OOH Stop it NOW.
Just going upstairs for a 'bit' !!!!
-
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And just to prove it we are shown men kissing men and women kissing women on the BBC News,
Strange you didn't mention eating shellfish or someone wearing mixed fibres on the news. Mind you also never mentioned poeple starving either, what some Christians care about is weird.
So if I don't mention starving people it means that I don't care about them?
I knew it was possible to eat shellfish and wear mixed fibres; I didn't know for sure if it was possible for men to kiss men.
I kiss my brother and both of my sons when we meet they also return the compliment because we all love each other, what's wrong with that?
ippy
There was more to it than that... although I'm thinking I must have dreamed it, as it is just not possible.
-
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And just to prove it we are shown men kissing men and women kissing women on the BBC News,
Strange you didn't mention eating shellfish or someone wearing mixed fibres on the news. Mind you also never mentioned poeple starving either, what some Christians care about is weird.
So if I don't mention starving people it means that I don't care about them?
I knew it was possible to eat shellfish and wear mixed fibres; I didn't know for sure if it was possible for men to kiss men.
I kiss my brother and both of my sons when we meet they also return the compliment because we all love each other, what's wrong with that?
ippy
There was more to it than that... although I'm thinking I must have dreamed it, as it is just not possible.
Bit of a rough sketchy post?
ippy
-
I was suggesting that I dreamt what I saw happening in Dublin on the news, because I'd never seen people indulging in passionate kissing with the same sex. Perhaps it was trick photography?
-
I was suggesting that I dreamt what I saw happening in Dublin on the news, because I'd never seen people indulging in passionate kissing with the same sex. Perhaps it was trick photography?
No not my idea of fun either, anymore than seeing men in frocks at almost every memorial occasion, they're not always welcome.
ippy
-
I was suggesting that I dreamt what I saw happening in Dublin on the news, because I'd never seen people indulging in passionate kissing with the same sex. Perhaps it was trick photography?
Grow up twat
-
I was suggesting that I dreamt what I saw happening in Dublin on the news, because I'd never seen people indulging in passionate kissing with the same sex. Perhaps it was trick photography?
Where do you live, on Mars?
-
I was suggesting that I dreamt what I saw happening in Dublin on the news, because I'd never seen people indulging in passionate kissing with the same sex. Perhaps it was trick photography?
Grow up twat
I can't decide if the naive idiot thing is an act or not.
-
I was suggesting that I dreamt what I saw happening in Dublin on the news, because I'd never seen people indulging in passionate kissing with the same sex. Perhaps it was trick photography?
Grow up twat
It is an act. But more end of the pier than RSC.
I can't decide if the naive idiot thing is an act or not.
-
Harrahhttp://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/supreme-court-rules-favor-marriage-equality?cid=sm_fb_msnbc.
-
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/barrierbreaker/but-did-you-die-why-the-opposition-will-lose-to-the-relentless-lgbtq-agenda/
-
I post on two US based forums where this sick bigotry is rife! >:(
-
I post on two US based forums where this sick bigotry is rife! >:(
The glaring rejoinder to that is: why do you post there? Or here, for that matter?
-
I post on two US based forums where this sick bigotry is rife! >:(
The glaring rejoinder to that is: why do you post there? Or here, for that matter?
Because, as are you, Floo is free to post to any forum anywhere.
-
I post on two US based forums where this sick bigotry is rife! >:(
The glaring rejoinder to that is: why do you post there? Or here, for that matter?
Because, as are you, Floo is free to post to any forum anywhere.
I am well aware of that, but it does not answer, why.
-
Presumably because she enjoys it, as I assume the rest of us do.
-
Presumably because she enjoys it, as I assume the rest of us do.
Enjoy reading and posting with American fundamentalists?
-
I'm staggered by how many Christian groups mostly in the USA are taking gay marriage as a sign of the end times and how many Muslims in a variety of places seem to be doing the same thing but using it to validate the Koran and both appear to be using it to justify the said destruction.
Even assuming both sets of writings are complete rubbish isn't it worrying that both groups have so many followers that are using it among other things to justify all sorts of violence and seeing it as a beginning of the end of the world, which they all appear to want.
I think I have read to much extremist crap lately >:(
Time to put it away and have a break, perhaps.?
Clearly a country with 320-odd million people is going to have its greater share of dingbat loony-tunes fruit loops as opposed to Britain's population which is a fifth of that number, but the sheer poisonous bile and swivel-eyed, spittle-flecked nutbaggery on sites such as Fox News and, far, far worse, Wing Nut Daily World Net Daily is something that you just don't see over here. Or I don't, anyway. Comments made by various religious individuals and bodies after Ireland's endorsement of equal marriage the other week were as silly, tiresome and as obnoxious as you'd expect, but they were the very model of mildness, timid tact and diplomacy compared to the vile bigotry spewed on those sorts of sites.
-
Presumably because she enjoys it, as I assume the rest of us do.
Enjoy reading and posting with American fundamentalists?
Who said anything about fundamentalists? Floo said that she posts on two US-based forums, no more - no indication of what kind of sites they are.
-
Presumably because she enjoys it, as I assume the rest of us do.
Enjoy reading and posting with American fundamentalists?
Who said anything about fundamentalists? Floo said that she posts on two US-based forums, no more - no indication of what kind of sites they are.
She mentioned that "sick bigotry" was rife. I, personally, would avoid such forums, not mix with them.
-
She mentioned that "sick bigotry" was rife.
She did - but that's true, in my own experience, of any American news site.
-
She mentioned that "sick bigotry" was rife.
She did - but that's true, in my own experience, of any American news site.
I avoid those kinds of forums; I don't embrace them.
-
I'm staggered by how many Christian groups mostly in the USA are taking gay marriage as a sign of the end times and how many Muslims in a variety of places seem to be doing the same thing but using it to validate the Koran and both appear to be using it to justify the said destruction.
Even assuming both sets of writings are complete rubbish isn't it worrying that both groups have so many followers that are using it among other things to justify all sorts of violence and seeing it as a beginning of the end of the world, which they all appear to want.
I think I have read to much extremist crap lately >:(
Time to put it away and have a break, perhaps.?
Clearly a country with 320-odd million people is going to have its greater share of dingbat loony-tunes fruit loops as opposed to Britain's population which is a fifth of that number, but the sheer poisonous bile and swivel-eyed, spittle-flecked nutbaggery on sites such as Fox News and, far, far worse, Wing Nut Daily World Net Daily is something that you just don't see over here. Or I don't, anyway. Comments made by various religious individuals and bodies after Ireland's endorsement of equal marriage the other week were as silly, tiresome and as obnoxious as you'd expect, but they were the very model of mildness, timid tact and diplomacy compared to the vile bigotry spewed on those sorts of sites.
Firstly, I'm not sure about describing mental health as ''wing nuttery'' secondly wasn't it Oliver James the psychologist who said that mental health issues were rife in the UK......if you want to know ask a policeman, nurse, doctor or teacher who has dealt with the public.
-
I post on two US based forums where this sick bigotry is rife! >:(
The glaring rejoinder to that is: why do you post there? Or here, for that matter?
Because, as are you, Floo is free to post to any forum anywhere.
I am well aware of that, but it does not answer, why.
WHY?
Why not? Simples!
-
I post on two US based forums where this sick bigotry is rife! >:(
The glaring rejoinder to that is: why do you post there? Or here, for that matter?
Because, as are you, Floo is free to post to any forum anywhere.
I am well aware of that, but it does not answer, why.
WHY?
Why not? Simples!
That's no answer. Unless you are some sort of dumbbell, you should have a reason to purposely use a particular forum, and since in this case it is ones that the poster has no belief in, then it is quite apposite to ask, "why?" Anyway, let the person answer for herself; though it is quite apparent that she never answers awkward questions. We shall see.
-
I post on two US based forums where this sick bigotry is rife! >:(
The glaring rejoinder to that is: why do you post there? Or here, for that matter?
Because, as are you, Floo is free to post to any forum anywhere.
I am well aware of that, but it does not answer, why.
WHY?
Why not? Simples!
That's no answer. Unless you are some sort of dumbbell, you should have a reason to purposely use a particular forum, and since in this case it is ones that the poster has no belief in, then it is quite apposite to ask, "why?" Anyway, let the person answer for herself; though it is quite apparent that she never answers awkward questions. We shall see.
Well, for one reason, these Christian Fundamentalist forums are a really wonderful source of good rich belly laughs.
I find that thgeir pronouncements are frequently hysterically funny in their total stupidity; their acceptance of creationism, their total belief that they are the people chosen to rule the world purley by right of nationality and religion.
To read the writings of the leader of one Chritian sect on the fact the Harry Potter represents the Devil, Hermione Granger the Virgin Mary and Draco Malfoy Jesus Christ has brightened up many a dull or miserable day. The descriptions of candle magic, colour magic, etc show a depth of stupidity and ignorance that is hard to believe in the "leaders of the free world".
You just do not find comedy of this calibre on U K forums.
-
I post on religious forums to challenge the extremist Christian nutters. Most Christians are moderate in their views and don't frighten the horses, I might not see it their way, but I have no problem with them. It is the ones who claimed to be 'saved' (whatever that really means) but behave in a despicable manner, who really annoy me. They try to claim some moral high ground because of their religion, but in reality are crawling around in the gutter where any decency and right thinking is concerned, particularly the one who makes the most noise! >:( They appear to lack the basic intelligence to understand their nastiness drags Christianity into the gutter with them! ::)
-
I'm staggered by how many Christian groups mostly in the USA are taking gay marriage as a sign of the end times and how many Muslims in a variety of places seem to be doing the same thing but using it to validate the Koran and both appear to be using it to justify the said destruction.
Even assuming both sets of writings are complete rubbish isn't it worrying that both groups have so many followers that are using it among other things to justify all sorts of violence and seeing it as a beginning of the end of the world, which they all appear to want.
😳
I think I have read to much extremist crap lately >:(
Time to put it away and have a break, perhaps.?
Which Christian groups as violent and justifying it?
Sorry Rose but you need to put up or apologise. Name the Christian Groups and what violence they are committing.
-
I post on two US based forums where this sick bigotry is rife! >:(
The glaring rejoinder to that is: why do you post there? Or here, for that matter?
Because, as are you, Floo is free to post to any forum anywhere.
There is a rather large US forum where she had not posted for ages last time I looked. So must be a member of more than two. Or came back whilst I was away. She has not twigged who I am ... LOL
-
I post on two US based forums where this sick bigotry is rife! >:(
The glaring rejoinder to that is: why do you post there? Or here, for that matter?
Because, as are you, Floo is free to post to any forum anywhere.
There is a rather large US forum where she had not posted for ages last time I looked. So must be a member of more than two. Or came back whilst I was away. She has not twigged who I am ... LOL
What I actually said was I posted on two US based forums where bigotry is rife. I have posted on loads of US based forums over the years, but haven't bothered with many of them for a good long time. At present I am posting on just two.
-
There is a rather large US forum where she had not posted for ages last time I looked. So must be a member of more than two. Or came back whilst I was away. She has not twigged who I am ... LOL
LOL? What on earth is there to laugh about in concealing your identity from somebody that knows you?
-
I'm staggered by how many Christian groups mostly in the USA are taking gay marriage as a sign of the end times and how many Muslims in a variety of places seem to be doing the same thing but using it to validate the Koran and both appear to be using it to justify the said destruction.
Even assuming both sets of writings are complete rubbish isn't it worrying that both groups have so many followers that are using it among other things to justify all sorts of violence and seeing it as a beginning of the end of the world, which they all appear to want.
😳
I think I have read to much extremist crap lately >:(
Time to put it away and have a break, perhaps.?
Which Christian groups as violent and justifying it?
Sorry Rose but you need to put up or apologise. Name the Christian Groups and what violence they are committing.
The anti-abortion lobbyists who use bombs and guns to put their point over?
-
I post on two US based forums where this sick bigotry is rife! >:(
The glaring rejoinder to that is: why do you post there? Or here, for that matter?
Because, as are you, Floo is free to post to any forum anywhere.
There is a rather large US forum where she had not posted for ages last time I looked. So must be a member of more than two. Or came back whilst I was away. She has not twigged who I am ... LOL
Typical sneaky Christian behaviour - use a different name and then take the piss in your usual one - like the post above!
-
There is a rather large US forum where she had not posted for ages last time I looked. So must be a member of more than two. Or came back whilst I was away. She has not twigged who I am ... LOL
LOL? What on earth is there to laugh about in concealing your identity from somebody that knows you?
There are several members who could be Sass on the two US forums on which I am currently posting. Fruit loops is a good way of describing the vast majority of Christians who post there! ;D
-
There is a rather large US forum where she had not posted for ages last time I looked. So must be a member of more than two. Or came back whilst I was away. She has not twigged who I am ... LOL
LOL? What on earth is there to laugh about in concealing your identity from somebody that knows you?
There are several members who could be Sass on the two US forums on which I am currently posting. Fruit loops is a good way of describing the vast majority of Christians who post there! ;D
A good way or a polite way?
-
There is a rather large US forum where she had not posted for ages last time I looked. So must be a member of more than two. Or came back whilst I was away. She has not twigged who I am ... LOL
LOL? What on earth is there to laugh about in concealing your identity from somebody that knows you?
There are several members who could be Sass on the two US forums on which I am currently posting. Fruit loops is a good way of describing the vast majority of Christians who post there! ;D
I wonder how they'd describe you? ???
-
Won't somebody think of the children!!
Oh they have. They helped that they are all now equal and won't be discriminated against
No, they haven't thought of the children, Quiz. If one looks at a lot of the family-related legislation that has been passed here in the UK over the last 50 years, it has been the children who have suffered most.
Abortion: OK, some will argue that a embryo/foetus/child can't survive by him/herself until they are 24 weeks/39 weeks/perhaps even 2 or 3 years old; but how many adults can realistically survive by themselves - very few if any. As John Donne so famously said, 'no man is an island, entire of itself'.
Divorce: In divorce or separation, a child loses a lot of their natural support systems. Very often, they end up with only one set of grandparents, uncles and aunts with the other parent's own parents and siblings almost always having no right to see their younger relation.
Gay marriage/adoption: As I have previously mentioned, a child's mental and emotional development is most balanced within a family with mixed-gender parents, and even more so when that mix is their own biological parents.
I accept that there are exceptions to all these rules, but exceptions shouldn't set the standard. I also accept that there are a number of additional issues which also have an impact on a child's development, with 'love and concern' being an important one.
I also accept that there are 'natural' forms of the first two - abortion and divorce. However, society's response to such natural forms is very different to that towards the 'manmade' versions, and often the underlying causes of the natural forms are very different to the latter. Comparing the two is therefore generally unrealistic, though convenient. For instance, how often does a natural abortion or miscarriage result from a perfectly normal foetus? Rarely. It is usually nature recognising that the foetus is unviable. In the case of the death of a parent, the child(ren) usually continue to enjoy some contact with their grandparennts, uncles and aunts on that side. Futhermore, the surviving parent often becomes eligible to receive their spouse's pension, etc.
Finally, I would suggest that all the legislation that I have mentioned puts the adults' needs before those of any children they might already have or have in the future - especially in the case of gay marriage/adoption.
My parents were mixed: one man and one woman! Boom, boom. ;D
-
A child standing up for equality
http://happyplace.someecards.com/lgbt/7yearold-girl-silently-stands-up-to-homophobic-street-preacher-wins-the-internets-heart/
The child hadn't a clue what it was all about; and it's unfair on her to use her like that, whatever the cause.
-
The child hadn't a clue what it was all about; and it's unfair on her to use her like that, whatever the cause.
How do you know?
-
The child hadn't a clue what it was all about; and it's unfair on her to use her like that, whatever the cause.
How do you know?
Did you see her face? She looked bewildered; and how old is she? Is it six? That's how I know.
-
A child standing up for equality
http://happyplace.someecards.com/lgbt/7yearold-girl-silently-stands-up-to-homophobic-street-preacher-wins-the-internets-heart/
The child hadn't a clue what it was all about; and it's unfair on her to use her like that, whatever the cause.
A child of that age probably understands that two people can love each other regardless of whether they are the same sex or not, and that the ranters sound hateful.
I knew a couple of homosexual men at about eight , and I understood that much 😀 plus I had been told they went to prison because of their love.
I initially assumed they were brothers but they asked my parents to address that issue.
Children can understand even if it is a bit simplistic.
Perhaps some of that is how you are told about it at that age.
I wasn't told it was wrong although people took the mick a bit, as people do.
I think you have a rather naive idea as to what a six-year-old understands; or perhaps, more germane, what he/she actually cares about. This child was put in a situation of some stress and clearly looked bewildered and at a loss, if not actually frightened, and that's what I object to.
-
A child standing up for equality
http://happyplace.someecards.com/lgbt/7yearold-girl-silently-stands-up-to-homophobic-street-preacher-wins-the-internets-heart/
The child hadn't a clue what it was all about; and it's unfair on her to use her like that, whatever the cause.
A child of that age probably understands that two people can love each other regardless of whether they are the same sex or not, and that the ranters sound hateful.
I knew a couple of homosexual men at about eight , and I understood that much 😀 plus I had been told they went to prison because of their love.
I initially assumed they were brothers but they asked my parents to address that issue.
Children can understand even if it is a bit simplistic.
Perhaps some of that is how you are told about it at that age.
I wasn't told it was wrong although people took the mick a bit, as people do.
I think you have a rather naive idea as to what a six-year-old understands; or perhaps, more germane, what he/she actually cares about. This child was put in a situation of some stress and clearly looked bewildered and at a loss, if not actually frightened, and that's what I object to.
Oh Goddess! I am actually going to agree with BA! Probably for the one and only time but hey!
I watched two children, boy and girl, aged 6 and 7 or thereabouts, as they watched a speaker giving an oration on the peaceful face of Islam in both English and Arabic on the high street where I live (West London with a TW postcode) and giving the man their total and rapt attention.
Mum eventually finished her burger and coffee and fag and called to the children to her; they came but reluctantly and the lady sitting next to the mother expressed her view that thye children seemed very interested in what the man was saying.
Mum laughed. "I doubt it," she said, "We are Polish and the children speak no English yet - they certainly know no Arabic!"
-
A child standing up for equality
http://happyplace.someecards.com/lgbt/7yearold-girl-silently-stands-up-to-homophobic-street-preacher-wins-the-internets-heart/
The child hadn't a clue what it was all about; and it's unfair on her to use her like that, whatever the cause.
A child of that age probably understands that two people can love each other regardless of whether they are the same sex or not, and that the ranters sound hateful.
I knew a couple of homosexual men at about eight , and I understood that much 😀 plus I had been told they went to prison because of their love.
I initially assumed they were brothers but they asked my parents to address that issue.
Children can understand even if it is a bit simplistic.
Perhaps some of that is how you are told about it at that age.
I wasn't told it was wrong although people took the mick a bit, as people do.
I think you have a rather naive idea as to what a six-year-old understands; or perhaps, more germane, what he/she actually cares about. This child was put in a situation of some stress and clearly looked bewildered and at a loss, if not actually frightened, and that's what I object to.
Oh Goddess! I am actually going to agree with BA! Probably for the one and only time but hey!
I watched two children, boy and girl, aged 6 and 7 or thereabouts, as they watched a speaker giving an oration on the peaceful face of Islam in both English and Arabic on the high street where I live (West London with a TW postcode) and giving the man their total and rapt attention.
Mum eventually finished her burger and coffee and fag and called to the children to her; they came but reluctantly and the lady sitting next to the mother expressed her view that thye children seemed very interested in what the man was saying.
Mum laughed. "I doubt it," she said, "We are Polish and the children speak no English yet - they certainly know no Arabic!"
Well, that exactly illustrates what I mean.
And you never know, we might even agree on something else before the end of the decade!! :D
-
A child standing up for equality
http://happyplace.someecards.com/lgbt/7yearold-girl-silently-stands-up-to-homophobic-street-preacher-wins-the-internets-heart/
The child hadn't a clue what it was all about; and it's unfair on her to use her like that, whatever the cause.
A child of that age probably understands that two people can love each other regardless of whether they are the same sex or not, and that the ranters sound hateful.
I knew a couple of homosexual men at about eight , and I understood that much 😀 plus I had been told they went to prison because of their love.
I initially assumed they were brothers but they asked my parents to address that issue.
Children can understand even if it is a bit simplistic.
Perhaps some of that is how you are told about it at that age.
I wasn't told it was wrong although people took the mick a bit, as people do.
I think you have a rather naive idea as to what a six-year-old understands; or perhaps, more germane, what he/she actually cares about. This child was put in a situation of some stress and clearly looked bewildered and at a loss, if not actually frightened, and that's what I object to.
Oh Goddess! I am actually going to agree with BA! Probably for the one and only time but hey!
I watched two children, boy and girl, aged 6 and 7 or thereabouts, as they watched a speaker giving an oration on the peaceful face of Islam in both English and Arabic on the high street where I live (West London with a TW postcode) and giving the man their total and rapt attention.
Mum eventually finished her burger and coffee and fag and called to the children to her; they came but reluctantly and the lady sitting next to the mother expressed her view that thye children seemed very interested in what the man was saying.
Mum laughed. "I doubt it," she said, "We are Polish and the children speak no English yet - they certainly know no Arabic!"
Well, that exactly illustrates what I mean.
And you never know, we might even agree on something else before the end of the decade!! :D
Regretfully, I very much doubt it, but . . .
-
There is a rather large US forum where she had not posted for ages last time I looked. So must be a member of more than two. Or came back whilst I was away. She has not twigged who I am ... LOL
LOL? What on earth is there to laugh about in concealing your identity from somebody that knows you?
It isn't a case of concealment.. It is a case that she cannot recognise me from my posts.
Which shows that people do not see the person by the posts but simply their bias at times..
-
I'm staggered by how many Christian groups mostly in the USA are taking gay marriage as a sign of the end times and how many Muslims in a variety of places seem to be doing the same thing but using it to validate the Koran and both appear to be using it to justify the said destruction.
Even assuming both sets of writings are complete rubbish isn't it worrying that both groups have so many followers that are using it among other things to justify all sorts of violence and seeing it as a beginning of the end of the world, which they all appear to want.
😳
I think I have read to much extremist crap lately >:(
Time to put it away and have a break, perhaps.?
Which Christian groups as violent and justifying it?
Sorry Rose but you need to put up or apologise. Name the Christian Groups and what violence they are committing.
The anti-abortion lobbyists who use bombs and guns to put their point over?
There are atheists too. Do they belong to a particular atheist group?
Why would Christians be lobbying the world?
May be people have to think on.
Abortion, homosexuality and crime might not be for Christians. But what the rest of the world does is not the responsibility of Christians.
Only God can judge and we are not here to judge the world now.
Nor to condemn or harm those who have different beliefs or way of life. We are all answerable for ourselves in the end.. :)
-
I post on two US based forums where this sick bigotry is rife! >:(
The glaring rejoinder to that is: why do you post there? Or here, for that matter?
Because, as are you, Floo is free to post to any forum anywhere.
There is a rather large US forum where she had not posted for ages last time I looked. So must be a member of more than two. Or came back whilst I was away. She has not twigged who I am ... LOL
Typical sneaky Christian behaviour - use a different name and then take the piss in your usual one - like the post above!
Nothing sneaky about it, Richard...
Getting a head of yourself and making two and two make Five.
GROW UP! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
-
There is a rather large US forum where she had not posted for ages last time I looked. So must be a member of more than two. Or came back whilst I was away. She has not twigged who I am ... LOL
LOL? What on earth is there to laugh about in concealing your identity from somebody that knows you?
There are several members who could be Sass on the two US forums on which I am currently posting. Fruit loops is a good way of describing the vast majority of Christians who post there! ;D
What a poor excuse...
As I said: " Whilst I have been away" :o ::)
-
There is a rather large US forum where she had not posted for ages last time I looked. So must be a member of more than two. Or came back whilst I was away. She has not twigged who I am ... LOL
LOL? What on earth is there to laugh about in concealing your identity from somebody that knows you?
There are several members who could be Sass on the two US forums on which I am currently posting. Fruit loops is a good way of describing the vast majority of Christians who post there! ;D
I wonder how they'd describe you? ???
The sites are serious mainly. Good modding. One member joined one of my sites.. It has been good in the past. Hardly post now perhaps the internet forums are dying out slowly...
-
A child standing up for equality
http://happyplace.someecards.com/lgbt/7yearold-girl-silently-stands-up-to-homophobic-street-preacher-wins-the-internets-heart/
A child being used as a pawn in adult games.
For Gods sake what they going to use next?
A child of seven has no understanding of homosexuality...
Why WHY do they use children as pawns...
-
A child standing up for equality
http://happyplace.someecards.com/lgbt/7yearold-girl-silently-stands-up-to-homophobic-street-preacher-wins-the-internets-heart/
The child hadn't a clue what it was all about; and it's unfair on her to use her like that, whatever the cause.
A child of that age probably understands that two people can love each other regardless of whether they are the same sex or not, and that the ranters sound hateful.
What kind of parent would open their children up to the meaning of homosexuality in all definitions?
I knew a couple of homosexual men at about eight , and I understood that much 😀 plus I had been told they went to prison because of their love.
How old are you Rose?
At 8 years of age, I did not even know homosexuality existed..
My parents were not bigots and I was not raised with any prejudice.
I initially assumed they were brothers but they asked my parents to address that issue.
Children can understand even if it is a bit simplistic.
Perhaps some of that is how you are told about it at that age.
You don't tell children at 7 years if age what homosexuality....
I wasn't told it was wrong although people took the mick a bit, as people do.
What age did your parents explain what homosexuality was?
-
I post on two US based forums where this sick bigotry is rife! >:(
The glaring rejoinder to that is: why do you post there? Or here, for that matter?
Because, as are you, Floo is free to post to any forum anywhere.
There is a rather large US forum where she had not posted for ages last time I looked. So must be a member of more than two. Or came back whilst I was away. She has not twigged who I am ... LOL
Typical sneaky Christian behaviour - use a different name and then take the piss in your usual one - like the post above!
Nothing sneaky about it, Richard...
Getting a head of yourself and making two and two make Five.
GROW UP! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Who's Richard?
( two insomniacs at 4am? 😀💐 )
It is ok... he knows who Richard is...
I have been unable to sleep for a while will pay in the morning..LOL...
-
I'm staggered by how many Christian groups mostly in the USA are taking gay marriage as a sign of the end times and how many Muslims in a variety of places seem to be doing the same thing but using it to validate the Koran and both appear to be using it to justify the said destruction.
Even assuming both sets of writings are complete rubbish isn't it worrying that both groups have so many followers that are using it among other things to justify all sorts of violence and seeing it as a beginning of the end of the world, which they all appear to want.
😳
I think I have read to much extremist crap lately >:(
Time to put it away and have a break, perhaps.?
Which Christian groups as violent and justifying it?
Sorry Rose but you need to put up or apologise. Name the Christian Groups and what violence they are committing.
The anti-abortion lobbyists who use bombs and guns to put their point over?
There are atheists too. Do they belong to a particular atheist group?
Why would Christians be lobbying the world?
May be people have to think on.
Abortion, homosexuality and crime might not be for Christians. But what the rest of the world does is not the responsibility of Christians.
Only God can judge and we are not here to judge the world now.
Nor to condemn or harm those who have different beliefs or way of life. We are all answerable for ourselves in the end.. :)
You are, from this post, the most unpleasant hypocrite I have yet seen on here.
I have yet to see any Atheist group bombing abortion centres or killing doctors for performing abortions or standing outside abortion clinics to prevent women getting into them.
But what the rest of the world does is not the responsibility of Christians. . . . Nor to condemn or harm those who have different beliefs or way of life.
You have been judging anyone who disagrees with your Bible ever since I joined this forum. Christians condemn non-believers out of hand, and Christians harm them by preventing them getting treatment they need because your god proscribes abortion.
-
I post on two US based forums where this sick bigotry is rife! >:(
The glaring rejoinder to that is: why do you post there? Or here, for that matter?
Because, as are you, Floo is free to post to any forum anywhere.
There is a rather large US forum where she had not posted for ages last time I looked. So must be a member of more than two. Or came back whilst I was away. She has not twigged who I am ... LOL
Typical sneaky Christian behaviour - use a different name and then take the piss in your usual one - like the post above!
Nothing sneaky about it, Richard...
Getting a head of yourself and making two and two make Five.
GROW UP! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Who's Richard?
( two insomniacs at 4am? 😀💐 )
Richard, Rose, is me!
As in Richard Cranium which is a way of calling me Dick Head without getting modedd.
-
A child standing up for equality
http://happyplace.someecards.com/lgbt/7yearold-girl-silently-stands-up-to-homophobic-street-preacher-wins-the-internets-heart/
A child being used as a pawn in adult games.
For Gods sake what they going to use next?
A child of seven has no understanding of homosexuality...
Why WHY do they use children as pawns...
Whilst not defending this - Christians are not averse to using children in this manner to.
A while ago I posted a link to a clip of a child of 8 (iirc) who was preaching against homosexuality in a very unpleasant fashion. You didn't believe it could happen. I posted proof it could. You went very quiet then.
I have seen you type this before "What's sauce for the goose....".
I don't condone either action as it happens, because I don't think children should be used in this way. But that goes for lots of issues that parents choose to involve their children in - not specifically on the issue of sexuality.
-
I don't condone either action as it happens, because I don't think children should be used in this way. But that goes for lots of issues that parents choose to involve their children in - not specifically on the issue of sexuality.
Indeed! To indoctrinate a child with a religious belief before its power to reason is fully developed is abusing it ... no matter how strong your own belief is.
-
I don't condone either action as it happens, because I don't think children should be used in this way. But that goes for lots of issues that parents choose to involve their children in - not specifically on the issue of sexuality.
Indeed! To indoctrinate a child with a religious belief before its power to reason is fully developed is abusing it ... no matter how strong your own belief is.
By indoctrinate, do you just mean brought up in their religion?
-
I don't condone either action as it happens, because I don't think children should be used in this way. But that goes for lots of issues that parents choose to involve their children in - not specifically on the issue of sexuality.
Indeed! To indoctrinate a child with a religious belief before its power to reason is fully developed is abusing it ... no matter how strong your own belief is.
By indoctrinate, do you just mean brought up in their religion?
If "brought up in" means anything more than nominally, yes.
-
I don't condone either action as it happens, because I don't think children should be used in this way. But that goes for lots of issues that parents choose to involve their children in - not specifically on the issue of sexuality.
Indeed! To indoctrinate a child with a religious belief before its power to reason is fully developed is abusing it ... no matter how strong your own belief is.
By indoctrinate, do you just mean brought up in their religion?
If "brought up in" means anything more than nominally, yes.
Then I find the statement objectionable nonsense, my old sainted mother did not abuse me in my upbringing and that idea is a vacuous insult to her and people who suffer real abuse
-
A child standing up for equality
http://happyplace.someecards.com/lgbt/7yearold-girl-silently-stands-up-to-homophobic-street-preacher-wins-the-internets-heart/
The child hadn't a clue what it was all about; and it's unfair on her to use her like that, whatever the cause.
A child of that age probably understands that two people can love each other regardless of whether they are the same sex or not, and that the ranters sound hateful.
What kind of parent would open their children up to the meaning of homosexuality in all definitions?
I knew a couple of homosexual men at about eight , and I understood that much 😀 plus I had been told they went to prison because of their love.
How old are you Rose?
At 8 years of age, I did not even know homosexuality existed..
My parents were not bigots and I was not raised with any prejudice.
I initially assumed they were brothers but they asked my parents to address that issue.
Children can understand even if it is a bit simplistic.
Perhaps some of that is how you are told about it at that age.
You don't tell children at 7 years if age what homosexuality....
I wasn't told it was wrong although people took the mick a bit, as people do.
What age did your parents explain what homosexuality was?
We moved when I was about 7 and my parents went in for collecting antiques. The antique dealer had a boyfriend who I initially thought was his brother.
I suppose I must have been about 8 or 9 when it was explained to me they weren't brothers but that one of them was a boyfriend and that at least one of them had gone to prison because of it.
I think it is terrible to have sent one of them to prison and I am not sure why one and not both??? It is wrong to have imprisoned anyone for being homosexual. >:(
It really wasn't a big deal at the time, no one went into the sex side of it or over complicated it.
Just that it was two men committed to each other.
What is the commitment thing?
How did they explain that? I am just interested as you were a child...
It's not really a big deal, they were just a part of the small community that I came across at a young age. ( they were also neighbours living close by)
So the whole community were aware but who would report them to the police?
If you thought they were brothers then why did the police get involved? Someone must have blabbed?
No one was trying to explain homosexuality in all its definitions.
You probably didn't have a couple who were homosexuals in your community who you came into contact with on a regular basis, so it was probably never necessary.
I knew nothing about homosexuality to later in life...Probably my teens. Before I went to college I did some part-time work and two men were homosexuals one use to paint his fingernails they were like womens nails... He was always immaculately dressed and I really did not have any feelings one way or the other it was unusual the nails but never gave it another thought...
The guys concerned didn't want me thinking and referring to them as brothers.
It was no big deal, at the time.
I didn't think so, anyway.
I never asked about it... there seemed no reason to. My family and I, never had any issues about the way others chose to live their lives.. We were all human beings and we all needed to be treated right....
It's a bit like having someone at school who has two dads or two mums, children ask why and deserve some sort of answer.
So you just tell them they are a couple, without all the gory details that are important to adults ( like sex).
When we were children it never happened... children never had two mums or two dads..
Today the children have to grow up too soon!
A very young child could ask why another child has two Daddies, you don't have to go into vast detail 😉
Children are more likely to come across same sex relationships now such things are more open, therefore people need ways of explaining to children, different relationships.
How do you explain two dads and two mums cannot have children together?
We are simplifying it... what is there to explain how that only one parent can actually be related if done by surrogate?
I just happened to come across it at a young age, which was rare I suppose in the 1960's.
It's not rare anymore though is it?
In the 60's it was rare and all in the closet.
Men who were homosexual actually married and had relationships with other men.
One of our lay preachers had a daughter who was married with children.
She knew nothing about his homosexuality till Harold Wilson passed a new act which decriminalised homosexual acts 'between consenting adults in private'-.the very same day he walked out and left her with young children to raise alone. His daughter and the children never heard from him again.. A cold and callous action for a man with young children..
We have to remember that his ignoring his children had nothing to do with his sexuality but was more a statement as to his own personality. He walked out on his kids...He was living a lie and he was a selfish man to have married and had kids if he was completely homosexual.. It does those who are homosexual no favours because he clearly lived and chose a life where he was sleeping with a woman.
I know my friends neighbour walked out on her husband and family for another woman.
But the children were so hurt as she did not try to contact them and lived locally with the woman... No matter what happens a parent should NEVER neglect their children...
-
Then I find the statement objectionable nonsense, my old sainted mother did not abuse me in my upbringing and that idea is a vacuous insult to her and people who suffer real abuse
Then substitute the word abuse with "severe disservice". Whichever way you look at it it is teaching children something as fact when it is no more than a personal belief.
-
I'm staggered by how many Christian groups mostly in the USA are taking gay marriage as a sign of the end times and how many Muslims in a variety of places seem to be doing the same thing but using it to validate the Koran and both appear to be using it to justify the said destruction.
Even assuming both sets of writings are complete rubbish isn't it worrying that both groups have so many followers that are using it among other things to justify all sorts of violence and seeing it as a beginning of the end of the world, which they all appear to want.
😳
I think I have read to much extremist crap lately >:(
Time to put it away and have a break, perhaps.?
Which Christian groups as violent and justifying it?
Sorry Rose but you need to put up or apologise. Name the Christian Groups and what violence they are committing.
The anti-abortion lobbyists who use bombs and guns to put their point over?
There are atheists too. Do they belong to a particular atheist group?
Why would Christians be lobbying the world?
May be people have to think on.
Abortion, homosexuality and crime might not be for Christians. But what the rest of the world does is not the responsibility of Christians.
Only God can judge and we are not here to judge the world now.
Nor to condemn or harm those who have different beliefs or way of life. We are all answerable for ourselves in the end.. :)
You are, from this post, the most unpleasant hypocrite I have yet seen on here.
I have yet to see any Atheist group bombing abortion centres or killing doctors for performing abortions or standing outside abortion clinics to prevent women getting into them.
Shut up!
You can come out with the most condescending drivel at times.
Firstly.. there are atheists who agree with those stupid enough to bomb clinics..
There are atheists who are pro-life...
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/03/11/yes-there-are-pro-life-atheists-out-there-heres-why-im-one-of-them/
In fact atheists will kill other people for far less...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2104672/Animal-rights-activist-plotted-kill-stranger-wearing-fur-coat.html
Just because they wear a fur coat...
Grow up and take a look in the real world... People kill others and if they want to kill the cause does not become a real reason.
But what the rest of the world does is not the responsibility of Christians. . . . Nor to condemn or harm those who have different beliefs or way of life.
You have been judging anyone who disagrees with your Bible ever since I joined this forum. Christians condemn non-believers out of hand, and Christians harm them by preventing them getting treatment they need because your god proscribes abortion.
WRONG... wrong and right is the basis for my reasoning..
It is not about my faith or the Holy Book but about the truth and love.
I see the real world that EVERYONE thinks differently about things. But I do NOT BELIEVE IT IS RIGHT TO HURT OTHERS....
True Christians are not the ones outside abortion CLINICS... They disagree with abortion unless on medical grounds...
They let the world do as they will do and live as they best can without hurting others and trying to explain the truth to ignorant and attacking people like yourself who are apparently unable to see the difference between Jesus Christ and those people today who hurt others.
Tell all the lies you want to tell about me.. My life shows that I help others I do not judge them for their heartache decisions... Maybe one day you could try it...
-
A child standing up for equality
http://happyplace.someecards.com/lgbt/7yearold-girl-silently-stands-up-to-homophobic-street-preacher-wins-the-internets-heart/
A child being used as a pawn in adult games.
For Gods sake what they going to use next?
A child of seven has no understanding of homosexuality...
Why WHY do they use children as pawns...
Whilst not defending this - Christians are not averse to using children in this manner to.
Hi Trent,
It is a disgusting trend for any human being to do,
A while ago I posted a link to a clip of a child of 8 (iirc) who was preaching against homosexuality in a very unpleasant fashion. You didn't believe it could happen. I posted proof it could. You went very quiet then.
I have seen you type this before "What's sauce for the goose....".
It could be a genuinely missed the reply Trent. You can re-direct if you want..
I don't condone either action as it happens, because I don't think children should be used in this way. But that goes for lots of issues that parents choose to involve their children in - not specifically on the issue of sexuality.
My children make their own choices... You must lead by example.
My parents had no bias or prejudices so we grew up with none.
My mum had a friend who was homosexual in the early 70's where she worked. My mum knew how difficult life was for him and she was there for him like a second mum. I think we tend to let religion and bias rule the world instead of loving everyone for who they are.... :(
-
I don't condone either action as it happens, because I don't think children should be used in this way. But that goes for lots of issues that parents choose to involve their children in - not specifically on the issue of sexuality.
Indeed! To indoctrinate a child with a religious belief before its power to reason is fully developed is abusing it ... no matter how strong your own belief is.
I never did that... My children chose to be baptised when they were old enough to choose... But I had no worries about it. I trust God and he would guide them. So sometimes faith can work for good and it is good everyone can choose...
-
I never did that... My children chose to be baptised when they were old enough to choose...
Then if you didn't teach them about baptism and what it meant, they must have learnt it outside their home, so you aren't responsible for the deception.
-
I'm staggered by how many Christian groups mostly in the USA are taking gay marriage as a sign of the end times and how many Muslims in a variety of places seem to be doing the same thing but using it to validate the Koran and both appear to be using it to justify the said destruction.
Even assuming both sets of writings are complete rubbish isn't it worrying that both groups have so many followers that are using it among other things to justify all sorts of violence and seeing it as a beginning of the end of the world, which they all appear to want.
😳
I think I have read to much extremist crap lately >:(
Time to put it away and have a break, perhaps.?
Which Christian groups as violent and justifying it?
Sorry Rose but you need to put up or apologise. Name the Christian Groups and what violence they are committing.
The anti-abortion lobbyists who use bombs and guns to put their point over?
There are atheists too. Do they belong to a particular atheist group?
Why would Christians be lobbying the world?
May be people have to think on.
Abortion, homosexuality and crime might not be for Christians. But what the rest of the world does is not the responsibility of Christians.
Only God can judge and we are not here to judge the world now.
Nor to condemn or harm those who have different beliefs or way of life. We are all answerable for ourselves in the end.. :)
You are, from this post, the most unpleasant hypocrite I have yet seen on here.
I have yet to see any Atheist group bombing abortion centres or killing doctors for performing abortions or standing outside abortion clinics to prevent women getting into them.
Shut up!
You can come out with the most condescending drivel at times.
Firstly.. there are atheists who agree with those stupid enough to bomb clinics..
There are atheists who are pro-life...
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/03/11/yes-there-are-pro-life-atheists-out-there-heres-why-im-one-of-them/
In fact atheists will kill other people for far less...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2104672/Animal-rights-activist-plotted-kill-stranger-wearing-fur-coat.html
Just because they wear a fur coat...
Grow up and take a look in the real world... People kill others and if they want to kill the cause does not become a real reason.
But what the rest of the world does is not the responsibility of Christians. . . . Nor to condemn or harm those who have different beliefs or way of life.
You have been judging anyone who disagrees with your Bible ever since I joined this forum. Christians condemn non-believers out of hand, and Christians harm them by preventing them getting treatment they need because your god proscribes abortion.
WRONG... wrong and right is the basis for my reasoning..
It is not about my faith or the Holy Book but about the truth and love.
I see the real world that EVERYONE thinks differently about things. But I do NOT BELIEVE IT IS RIGHT TO HURT OTHERS....
True Christians are not the ones outside abortion CLINICS... They disagree with abortion unless on medical grounds...
They let the world do as they will do and live as they best can without hurting others and trying to explain the truth to ignorant and attacking people like yourself who are apparently unable to see the difference between Jesus Christ and those people today who hurt others.
Tell all the lies you want to tell about me.. My life shows that I help others I do not judge them for their heartache decisions... Maybe one day you could try it...
Your twistiung and turning will get you nowhere.
The people outside the clinics carry posters quoting scripture and no amout of mealy-mouthed denial will change that!
You are trying to defend the indefensible and quoting the Daily Fail on any matter of controversy is like quoting Katie Price on celibacy and the negatives of cosmetic surgery!
-
Then I find the statement objectionable nonsense, my old sainted mother did not abuse me in my upbringing and that idea is a vacuous insult to her and people who suffer real abuse
Then substitute the word abuse with "severe disservice". Whichever way you look at it it is teaching children something as fact when it is no more than a personal belief.
morality is no more than a personal belief, would I be doing my kids a severe disservice if I taught them my morals? You know nothing about my mother but are happy to comment that in bringing me up as Catholic she did me a 'severe disservice', this ignorant pontificating is all the more laughable when it is after all merely your personal belief.
(You know I love you dearly, Len but your charm won't get you any slack, just hat doffing)
-
I never did that... My children chose to be baptised when they were old enough to choose...
Then if you didn't teach them about baptism and what it meant, they must have learnt it outside their home, so you aren't responsible for the deception.
Don't be silly Leonard,
Do you want me to lie to my children about what I believe and why?
As an adult I have never hidden my faith from my children nor my vulnerability to get things wrong in my life.
My children and I, pray together for family and others in need.
We pray because God answers and we have all experienced his presence. When I went to Church was I suppose to leave my children home alone? Church is about going to Gods place once in a while.
But my children know God is everywhere and not contained within a building with us.
I never force my children to do anything. But as God promised my children know him and believe in him.
I guess you were forced were you?
So why pretend it is different anywhere else. NO ONE can force another to believe... You cannot make them choose God.
-
Your twistiung and turning will get you nowhere.
The people outside the clinics carry posters quoting scripture and no amout of mealy-mouthed denial will change that!
The pro-life organisations outside those clinics who carry banners and are not religious must be the mealy-mouthed twats you refer to. As they would deny holding any banners with scriptures on as they are atheists.. But never mind what is the truth to someone like yourself who even tries to twist the obvious...
King James Bible
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
You see... not agreeing with abortion is good. But doing things which hurt others because of that belief is Evil...
You need to understand the difference and stop making out that anyone who believes and are members of pro-life groups all have to be Christian.
You are trying to defend the indefensible and quoting the Daily Fail on any matter of controversy is like quoting Katie Price on celibacy and the negatives of cosmetic surgery!
I thought you had no faith... You sure have faith in your own rubbish. But the EPIC FAIL is your inability to see the truth let alone tell it.
I really do not care what you think of me.. Your own prejudice speaks volumes... What I find the most baffling is how you thought you could affect me by what you write. As I said.. it is drivel and will remain drivel especially when you try to make all pro-life groups Christian and claim the atheists use scriptures... Grow up!
-
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Well some describe the deity as good, when the deeds attributed to it are evil?
-
Then I find the statement objectionable nonsense, my old sainted mother did not abuse me in my upbringing and that idea is a vacuous insult to her and people who suffer real abuse
Then substitute the word abuse with "severe disservice". Whichever way you look at it it is teaching children something as fact when it is no more than a personal belief.
morality is no more than a personal belief, would I be doing my kids a severe disservice if I taught them my morals? You know nothing about my mother but are happy to comment that in bringing me up as Catholic she did me a 'severe disservice', this ignorant pontificating is all the more laughable when it is after all merely your personal belief.
(You know I love you dearly, Len but your charm won't get you any slack, just hat doffing)
You know perfectly well that I wasn't talking about morals. I was talking about god beliefs, and rather than doff your hat, I would prefer you not to misinterpret my posts.
-
I never did that... My children chose to be baptised when they were old enough to choose...
Then if you didn't teach them about baptism and what it meant, they must have learnt it outside their home, so you aren't responsible for the deception.
Don't be silly Leonard,
Do you want me to lie to my children about what I believe and why?
As an adult I have never hidden my faith from my children nor my vulnerability to get things wrong in my life.
My children and I, pray together for family and others in need.
We pray because God answers and we have all experienced his presence. When I went to Church was I suppose to leave my children home alone? Church is about going to Gods place once in a while.
But my children know God is everywhere and not contained within a building with us.
I never force my children to do anything. But as God promised my children know him and believe in him.
I guess you were forced were you?
So why pretend it is different anywhere else. NO ONE can force another to believe... You cannot make them choose God.
My children and I, pray together for family and others in need.
We pray because God answers and we have all experienced his presence. When I went to Church was I suppose to leave my children home alone? Church is about going to Gods place once in a while.
But my children know God is everywhere and not contained within a building with us.
Now YOU shut up!
In the paragraph quoted above you have admitted that your children are daily indoctrinated with your perverse and fundamentalist religious beliefs!
In another household those very same chilfdren could be indoctrinated, by exactly the same means, to fundamentalist Islam instead of fundamentalist Christianity.
You are condemned by your own words!
-
I never did that... My children chose to be baptised when they were old enough to choose...
Then if you didn't teach them about baptism and what it meant, they must have learnt it outside their home, so you aren't responsible for the deception.
Don't be silly Leonard,
Do you want me to lie to my children about what I believe and why?
As an adult I have never hidden my faith from my children nor my vulnerability to get things wrong in my life.
My children and I, pray together for family and others in need.
We pray because God answers and we have all experienced his presence. When I went to Church was I suppose to leave my children home alone? Church is about going to Gods place once in a while.
But my children know God is everywhere and not contained within a building with us.
I never force my children to do anything. But as God promised my children know him and believe in him.
I guess you were forced were you?
So why pretend it is different anywhere else. NO ONE can force another to believe... You cannot make them choose God.
I give up, Sass. It is impossible to have a sensible discussion with somebody who can't see beyond the end of their sanctimonious nose. :(
Nathan has put it all in a nutshell. READ IT.
-
I never did that... My children chose to be baptised when they were old enough to choose...
Then if you didn't teach them about baptism and what it meant, they must have learnt it outside their home, so you aren't responsible for the deception.
Don't be silly Leonard,
Do you want me to lie to my children about what I believe and why?
As an adult I have never hidden my faith from my children nor my vulnerability to get things wrong in my life.
My children and I, pray together for family and others in need.
We pray because God answers and we have all experienced his presence. When I went to Church was I suppose to leave my children home alone? Church is about going to Gods place once in a while.
But my children know God is everywhere and not contained within a building with us.
I never force my children to do anything. But as God promised my children know him and believe in him.
I guess you were forced were you?
So why pretend it is different anywhere else. NO ONE can force another to believe... You cannot make them choose God.
My children and I, pray together for family and others in need.
We pray because God answers and we have all experienced his presence. When I went to Church was I suppose to leave my children home alone? Church is about going to Gods place once in a while.
But my children know God is everywhere and not contained within a building with us.
Now YOU shut up!
In the paragraph quoted above you have admitted that your children are daily indoctrinated with your perverse and fundamentalist religious beliefs!
In another household those very same chilfdren could be indoctrinated, by exactly the same means, to fundamentalist Islam instead of fundamentalist Christianity.
You are condemned by your own words!
Getting Sass to comprehend any of that is well nigh impossible, I should think! ::)
-
I never did that... My children chose to be baptised when they were old enough to choose...
Then if you didn't teach them about baptism and what it meant, they must have learnt it outside their home, so you aren't responsible for the deception.
Don't be silly Leonard,
Do you want me to lie to my children about what I believe and why?
As an adult I have never hidden my faith from my children nor my vulnerability to get things wrong in my life.
My children and I, pray together for family and others in need.
We pray because God answers and we have all experienced his presence. When I went to Church was I suppose to leave my children home alone? Church is about going to Gods place once in a while.
But my children know God is everywhere and not contained within a building with us.
I never force my children to do anything. But as God promised my children know him and believe in him.
I guess you were forced were you?
So why pretend it is different anywhere else. NO ONE can force another to believe... You cannot make them choose God.
My children and I, pray together for family and others in need.
We pray because God answers and we have all experienced his presence. When I went to Church was I suppose to leave my children home alone? Church is about going to Gods place once in a while.
But my children know God is everywhere and not contained within a building with us.
Now YOU shut up!
In the paragraph quoted above you have admitted that your children are daily indoctrinated with your perverse and fundamentalist religious beliefs!
In another household those very same chilfdren could be indoctrinated, by exactly the same means, to fundamentalist Islam instead of fundamentalist Christianity.
You are condemned by your own words!
Getting Sass to comprehend any of that is well nigh impossible, I should think! ::)
YOU should think? It would be a bloody sight more useful if Sassy thought once in a while.
She doesn't have a word in her head that is her own - every last thought is dictated to her by that bloody book!
-
I never did that... My children chose to be baptised when they were old enough to choose...
Then if you didn't teach them about baptism and what it meant, they must have learnt it outside their home, so you aren't responsible for the deception.
Don't be silly Leonard,
Do you want me to lie to my children about what I believe and why?
As an adult I have never hidden my faith from my children nor my vulnerability to get things wrong in my life.
My children and I, pray together for family and others in need.
We pray because God answers and we have all experienced his presence. When I went to Church was I suppose to leave my children home alone? Church is about going to Gods place once in a while.
But my children know God is everywhere and not contained within a building with us.
I never force my children to do anything. But as God promised my children know him and believe in him.
I guess you were forced were you?
So why pretend it is different anywhere else. NO ONE can force another to believe... You cannot make them choose God.
I give up, Sass. It is impossible to have a sensible discussion with somebody who can't see beyond the end of their sanctimonious nose. :(
Nathan has put it all in a nutshell. READ IT.
Thank you, Leonard, I was beginning to think i was in a cast of one!
I also give up trying to get a single sensible word from Sassy and therefore I add her to the list of those I no longer interact with for various reasons, WUMing, trolling or, as in this case, monumental stupidity and serial blindness to the obvious!
-
Thank you, Leonard, I was beginning to think i was in a cast of one!
Far from it, mate! Sass has her fans, of course, but I think most of us here recognise that regurgitating the Bible is her usual approach to all questions. She finds it very difficult to think outside it.
-
I never did that... My children chose to be baptised when they were old enough to choose...
Then if you didn't teach them about baptism and what it meant, they must have learnt it outside their home, so you aren't responsible for the deception.
Don't be silly Leonard,
Do you want me to lie to my children about what I believe and why?
As an adult I have never hidden my faith from my children nor my vulnerability to get things wrong in my life.
My children and I, pray together for family and others in need.
We pray because God answers and we have all experienced his presence. When I went to Church was I suppose to leave my children home alone? Church is about going to Gods place once in a while.
But my children know God is everywhere and not contained within a building with us.
I never force my children to do anything. But as God promised my children know him and believe in him.
I guess you were forced were you?
So why pretend it is different anywhere else. NO ONE can force another to believe... You cannot make them choose God.
My children and I, pray together for family and others in need.
We pray because God answers and we have all experienced his presence. When I went to Church was I suppose to leave my children home alone? Church is about going to Gods place once in a while.
But my children know God is everywhere and not contained within a building with us.
Now YOU shut up!
In the paragraph quoted above you have admitted that your children are daily indoctrinated with your perverse and fundamentalist religious beliefs!
In another household those very same chilfdren could be indoctrinated, by exactly the same means, to fundamentalist Islam instead of fundamentalist Christianity.
You are condemned by your own words!
Getting Sass to comprehend any of that is well nigh impossible, I should think! ::)
YOU should think? It would be a bloody sight more useful if Sassy thought once in a while.
She doesn't have a word in her head that is her own - every last thought is dictated to her by that bloody book!
No need to be disrespectful: I wouldn't dream of disrespecting whatever clap-trap you believe. :D :D
-
No need to be disrespectful: I wouldn't dream of disrespecting whatever clap-trap you believe. :D :D
Oh gawd ... Mona Lott is back!
-
I never did that... My children chose to be baptised when they were old enough to choose...
Then if you didn't teach them about baptism and what it meant, they must have learnt it outside their home, so you aren't responsible for the deception.
Don't be silly Leonard,
Do you want me to lie to my children about what I believe and why?
As an adult I have never hidden my faith from my children nor my vulnerability to get things wrong in my life.
My children and I, pray together for family and others in need.
We pray because God answers and we have all experienced his presence. When I went to Church was I suppose to leave my children home alone? Church is about going to Gods place once in a while.
But my children know God is everywhere and not contained within a building with us.
I never force my children to do anything. But as God promised my children know him and believe in him.
I guess you were forced were you?
So why pretend it is different anywhere else. NO ONE can force another to believe... You cannot make them choose God.
My children and I, pray together for family and others in need.
We pray because God answers and we have all experienced his presence. When I went to Church was I suppose to leave my children home alone? Church is about going to Gods place once in a while.
But my children know God is everywhere and not contained within a building with us.
Now YOU shut up!
In the paragraph quoted above you have admitted that your children are daily indoctrinated with your perverse and fundamentalist religious beliefs!
In another household those very same chilfdren could be indoctrinated, by exactly the same means, to fundamentalist Islam instead of fundamentalist Christianity.
You are condemned by your own words!
Getting Sass to comprehend any of that is well nigh impossible, I should think! ::)
YOU should think? It would be a bloody sight more useful if Sassy thought once in a while.
She doesn't have a word in her head that is her own - every last thought is dictated to her by that bloody book!
No need to be disrespectful: I wouldn't dream of disrespecting whatever clap-trap you believe. :D :D
I cannot believe that you managed to get your tongue that far into your cheek.
You wouldn't dream of it, no, you just do it when it suits your point. Word like drivel and rubbish come to mind. Persil you ain't!
-
I don't condone either action as it happens, because I don't think children should be used in this way. But that goes for lots of issues that parents choose to involve their children in - not specifically on the issue of sexuality.
Indeed! To indoctrinate a child with a religious belief before its power to reason is fully developed is abusing it ... no matter how strong your own belief is.
Oh dear....my comment seems to have triggered off something that I had not foreseen.
What I was really talking about was the use of children by adults as an "emotional tool" to win arguments. I find it distasteful in the extreme - and I think contributes to a loss of the essential wonder of childhood.
And I meant what I said about lots of issues - whether it be gay parents using kids to bolster their arguments, or religionists using them to bolster theirs, or politicians force feeding their daughters beef burgers to quell public anxiety over BSE, or Greens bringing along their children to demos saying "it's their planet (the children) we are destroying".
Enough already - if your argument is strong enough you don't need to resort to the use of emotional blackmail.
For some reason using children in this way puts me in mind of that TV programme that used to have children performing chart hits of the day. Hideously wrong on every level.
-
I don't condone either action as it happens, because I don't think children should be used in this way. But that goes for lots of issues that parents choose to involve their children in - not specifically on the issue of sexuality.
Indeed! To indoctrinate a child with a religious belief before its power to reason is fully developed is abusing it ... no matter how strong your own belief is.
Oh dear....my comment seems to have triggered off something that I had not foreseen.
What I was really talking about was the use of children by adults as an "emotional tool" to win arguments. I find it distasteful in the extreme - and I think contributes to a loss of the essential wonder of childhood.
And I meant what I said about lots of issues - whether it be gay parents using kids to bolster their arguments, or religionists using them to bolster theirs, or politicians force feeding their daughters beef burgers to quell public anxiety over BSE, or Greens bringing along their children to demos saying "it's their planet (the children) we are destroying".
Enough already - if your argument is strong enough you don't need to resort to the use of emotional blackmail.
For some reason using children in this way puts me in mind of that TV programme that used to have children performing chart hits of the day. Hideously wrong on every level.
Fair enough, Trent, but that does not in any way affect my conviction that it is wrong to teach children beliefs as facts.
-
Rose
What a lovely & very honest post.....
Thanks...
Nick
-
There is no God, is a belief.
There are no flower fairies is a belief. So?
-
There is no God, is a belief.
There are no flower fairies is a belief. So?
So teaching your children "there is no God" is teaching them a belief rather than a fact.
One persons fact is another persons opinion.
Belief is just an opinion.
How many parents don't allow their opinions to influence their children?
Part of bringing up children involves passing on important things
No Rose.
Fact is not interchangeable with opinion. That is a misuse of the English language.
It is my opinion that a recent television series called Sun Trap was very, very funny.
It is a fact that it was widely panned and criticised for being a dire half hour of television.
-
There is no God, is a belief.
There are no flower fairies is a belief. So?
So teaching your children "there is no God" is teaching them a belief rather than a fact.
One persons fact is another persons opinion.
Belief is just an opinion.
How many parents don't allow their opinions to influence their children?
Part of bringing up children involves passing on important things
Providing you don't teach them that beliefs are facts. :)
-
There is no God, is a belief.
There are no flower fairies is a belief. So?
So teaching your children "there is no God" is teaching them a belief rather than a fact.
One persons fact is another persons opinion.
Belief is just an opinion.
How many parents don't allow their opinions to influence their children?
Part of bringing up children involves passing on important things
Providing you don't teach them that beliefs are facts. :)
You present them with the alternatives, and they decide. And you do not decry any chosen religion or belief because you don't accept them. Neither do you advocate atheism simply because that is your choice.
-
No need to be disrespectful: I wouldn't dream of disrespecting whatever clap-trap you believe. :D :D
Oh gawd ... Mona Lott is back!
Nice one! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
There is no God, is a belief.
There are no flower fairies is a belief. So?
So teaching your children "there is no God" is teaching them a belief rather than a fact.
One persons fact is another persons opinion.
Belief is just an opinion.
How many parents don't allow their opinions to influence their children?
Part of bringing up children involves passing on important things
Providing you don't teach them that beliefs are facts. :)
You present them with the alternatives, and they decide. And you do not decry any chosen religion or belief because you don't accept them. Neither do you advocate atheism simply because that is your choice.
Atheism again is not a choice!
Also, it is the default position for ALL humans at birth.
-
There is no God, is a belief.
There are no flower fairies is a belief. So?
So teaching your children "there is no God" is teaching them a belief rather than a fact.
One persons fact is another persons opinion.
Belief is just an opinion.
How many parents don't allow their opinions to influence their children?
Part of bringing up children involves passing on important things
Providing you don't teach them that beliefs are facts. :)
You present them with the alternatives, and they decide. And you do not decry any chosen religion or belief because you don't accept them. Neither do you advocate atheism simply because that is your choice.
Atheism again is not a choice!
Also, it is the default position for ALL humans at birth.
Agreed
-
No need to be disrespectful: I wouldn't dream of disrespecting whatever clap-trap you believe. :D :D
Oh gawd ... Mona Lott is back!
Nice one! ;D ;D ;D ;D
One infantile admiring another's infantile comment.
-
No need to be disrespectful: I wouldn't dream of disrespecting whatever clap-trap you believe. :D :D
Oh gawd ... Mona Lott is back!
Nice one! ;D ;D ;D ;D
One infantile admiring another's infantile comment.
An even more infantile reacting to an obvious wind-up. Leonard 1 - BA 0
-
There is no God, is a belief.
There are no flower fairies is a belief. So?
So teaching your children "there is no God" is teaching them a belief rather than a fact.
One persons fact is another persons opinion.
Belief is just an opinion.
How many parents don't allow their opinions to influence their children?
Part of bringing up children involves passing on important things
Providing you don't teach them that beliefs are facts. :)
You present them with the alternatives, and they decide. And you do not decry any chosen religion or belief because you don't accept them. Neither do you advocate atheism simply because that is your choice.
Atheism again is not a choice!
Also, it is the default position for ALL humans at birth.
No it isn't.
A baby is born an agnostic, not an atheist.
No, an agnostic is one someone who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation - I don't really think babies are born with an opinion on that.
-
No the word agnostic means "without knowledge"
It is generally accepted to mean someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, if a god exists: (Cambridge ED)
A baby is not born with any opinion about gods at all, so it can't be agnostic.
-
No the word agnostic means "without knowledge"
It is generally accepted to mean someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, if a god exists: (Cambridge ED)
A baby is not born with any opinion about gods at all, so it can't be agnostic.
Can't be an Athiest either then, because you need to have a concept of God before you can reject it.
Correct.
-
No the word agnostic means "without knowledge"
It is generally accepted to mean someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, if a god exists: (Cambridge ED)
A baby is not born with any opinion about gods at all, so it can't be agnostic.
Can't be an Athiest either then, because you need to have a concept of God before you can reject it.
I accept that. Babies are born with no knowledge of anything, except their prenatal experiences.
-
At birth I didn't believe in the world outside my experience either, but it doesn't mean it didn't exist.
No Rose, you are mistaken. You had no experience of the world outside, so you couldn't possibly have conceived the idea of "believing" or "not believing" in it.
-
No the word agnostic means "without knowledge"
It is generally accepted to mean someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, if a god exists: (Cambridge ED)
A baby is not born with any opinion about gods at all, so it can't be agnostic.
Can't be an Athiest either then, because you need to have a concept of God before you can reject it.
Atheists don't reject God - they have no belief in God.
-
No the word agnostic means "without knowledge"
It is generally accepted to mean someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, if a god exists: (Cambridge ED)
A baby is not born with any opinion about gods at all, so it can't be agnostic.
Can't be an Athiest either then, because you need to have a concept of God before you can reject it.
Atheists don't reject God - they have no belief in God.
You reject the concept of God. You are just playing semantics.
-
No I don't and no I'm not.