Homosexuality!

[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.

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?

[wigginhall]

Surely, God likes sodomy when a lubricant is used?  I think it's in the Bible.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Sassy]

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. 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....

[Sassy]

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.

[Sassy]

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.

[Sassy]

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!!!

 

Even George Michael wouldn't put his name to that tripe...
You sure you didn't just score a home double whammy?

[Sassy]

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.

[Sassy]

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...

[Leonard James]

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.

[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.

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

[Maeght]

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.

[Sassy]

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

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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/

[Owlswing]

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!

[Owlswing]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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 

[Rhiannon]

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.

[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.

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!

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Maeght]

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.

[Aruntraveller]

I have a valid reason for my view

When you produce this 'valid reason' we can discuss it.

[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.

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?! 

[Shaker]

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.