Homosexuality!

[Leonard James]

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.

[Sriram]

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

[Maeght]

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?

[Gordon]

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.
 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Leonard James]

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! 

[Nearly Sane]

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/

[Aruntraveller]

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.

[Shaker]

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!").

[Sassy]

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?

 

[Shaker]

You don't know.

You believe.

Not the same thing.

[Sassy]

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...

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Sriram]

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?

[Aruntraveller]

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.

[Udayana]

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?

[jeremyp]

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. 

[Owlswing]

This entire thread could be transferred, en block, to the "Something Funny . . . " thread and lose absolutely nothing in translation!

[BashfulAnthony]

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!

[Brownie]

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.

[Shaker]

Don't tell most of us, Brownie; tell Sriram.

[Owlswing]

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!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Shaker]

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.