Homosexuality!

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Shaker]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Sriram]

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.

[Harrowby Hall]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[Hope]

That's got to be 800 points.

That's a fair amount of time to lose one's licence 

[Rhiannon]

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.

[trippymonkey]

Hope is a Christian & probably has a very similar idea to Sriram.
What did we really expect ??

[Aruntraveller]

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.

[Hope]

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

[ippy]

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

[Shaker]

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?

[Shaker]

Hope is a Christian & probably has a very similar idea to Sriram.
What did we really expect ??

True.

Alas.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Sriram]

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

[Leonard James]

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.

[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! 

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