Homosexuality!

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Shaker]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Leonard James]

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]

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?

[Sriram]

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!

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Shaker]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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'.

[Shaker]

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."

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[floo]

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.

[Aruntraveller]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Aruntraveller]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Udayana]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Sebastian Toe]

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. 

[Leonard James]

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!