Comments by "cchris874" (@cchris874) on "Ben Carson: Being gay is a choice, look at inmates" video.
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
cmyskinsfan
"The biggest issue that I'm having with all of these arguments is that you have made yourself the authority on all things natural and all things moral."
Bingo. Morality, natural, "unacceptable" are either subjective, or open to differing definitions. Whaat I am seeing in MT's posts are illogical connections between that which is natural and that which is moral. For example, "the penis not being made for the anus" is strictly a biological truth -- if that. It tells us nothing about whether the behavior is inherently wrong. If one's guiding principle in life is to only condemn behavior that harms others, anal sex can be harmless, depending on how it's practiced. MT is operating on a lower tier of logic, and failing to see the bigger picture. His idea of "principle" means HIS principles, not necessarily yours, mine, or everyone else's.
cheers
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Cardinalsarelame
"OK, so what about a consenting 60 year old and a consenting 12 year old then? Doesn't hurt anybody, right?"
Well, but that get's to the heart of what consent IS. I am intending the meaning of consent to apply to adults, because it's widely thought that children are harmed even if they give a 12-year-old version of consent. So no, not OK in my book.
The bottom line is really just common sense. Since it is possible for two gay men to practice sex without directly harming anyone, that in itself is a legitimate argument that there is nothing immoral about that particular act: If they each, for example, give each other a blow job, and agree to monogamy, THEN there is no direct harm to society. Could there be indirect harm? Sure. But the same could be said of promiscuous straight males, alcohol, McDonalds, TV, sky diving, and a hundred other things.
cheers
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
jay garrison
"You say, all people don't choose their sexual."
Sorry, I did not say that. If you can't read my posts carefully, another reason we cannot debate. I don't argue with hopped up teenagers, and people who do not know the definition of civility. You are a typical example of the dark side of human nature, using your anonymity to hide behind a typical internet bully. Sorry, it's nothing personal. I just prefer civility to bad manners and poor sportsmanship. BTW are you still a teenager? That would explain a lot.
Now, please, feel free to post 5 more bullying replies. And don't forget the words "moron" and butt hurt, and feel free to take back your offers to repost again too. Other uncivil gestures are also welcome, as I won't be responding to them. I'll just sit back and enjoy the next 5 episodes of "The Juvenile Youtube Network comedy hour" And if i do chime in again, it will only be to throw in a few QEDs.
cheers
1
-
1
-
Metatron Tsebaot
"That's why homosexuality is a choice"
My own two cents here.
Homosexuality is defined primarily as an orientation, or attraction, as can be seen by consulting any dictionary; and 2ndarily as a behavior. In these discussions, there is endless confusion on this point. Thus, a gay man is gay regardless of whether he has sex. And, not all men who sleep with each other are necessarily gay: witness gay sex in prison where some inmates deny they ever changed. It was merely a substitute of convenience when access to the opposite gender is not available ( just like masturbation).
I think by now, the evidence is pretty overwhelming that the feelings of attraction are not a choice, except for bisexuals, who are clearly distinct from straight and gay categories. My final comment would be, why so much fuss over whether it's s choice? It seems to me largely irrelevant in terms of whether being gay is acceptable, moral, immoral, or what have you. Homosexuality's status should be judged not on the basis of whether it's chosen, but on whether it's inherently harmful.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Homophobic Atheist
"You said,
"Marriage, as we know, acts as a strong incentive to keep people monogamous. One would thus think that if one wished to reduce the amount of anonymous promiscuous sex among gays, what better invention than GAY MARRIAGE" "
Yup, and I did not say I had a proof, now did I? It is well known, however, that for marriage in general, "cohabiting relationships are roughly two to three times as likely as marital relationships to dissolve in a given year." See https://files.nyu.edu/sml8/public/cohabitation_022510.pdf Now ask yourself, wouldn't you imagine that married men probably have fewer sex partners than unmarried men?
I'm saying this is common sense, not that it can be proven with actual numbers. That HIV rates have taken an upswing in the last few years may or may not have anything to do with gay marriage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jonathan Barahona
Here's what's really going on. The Bible was written by ancient men who managed to convince the masses that the Bible was written by God. People readily accepted it, as there seemed no more rational explanation at the time. What is the actual origin of morality if not God? Michael Shermer has given an answer that would not have been available in ancient times.
"evolution generated the moral sentiments out of a need for a system to maximize the benefits of living in small bands and tribes. Evolution created and culture honed moral principles out of an additional need to curb the passions of the body and mind. And culture, primarily through organized religion, codified those principles into moral rules and precepts."
"Social obligations depend on human relationships. Because a band or tribe contains only a few dozen or a few hundred individuals respectively, everyone in the band or tribe knows everyone else and their relationships. One owes different obligations to different blood relatives, to relatives by marriage, and to members of one own's clan, and to fellow villagers belonging to a different clan. Conflicts are directly different from nonmembers on all levels. Should you happen to meet an unfamiliar person in the forest , of course you try to kill him or run away; our modern custom of just saying hello would be suicidal. Populations in the thousands made such formal behavioral control mechanisms ineffectual...In bands and tribes the declaration of love for one's neighbors means something rather different than it does in chiefdoms, states, and empires. In the Paleolithic social environment in which our moral sentiments evolved, one's neighbors were family, extended family, and community members who were well known to all...To Love Thy Neighbor meant only one's immeditate in-group.
"...This evolutionary interpretation also explains the seemingly paradoxical nature of Old Testament morality, where on one page high moral principles of peace, justice, and respect for people and property are promulgated, and on the next page, killing and pillaging people who are not one's "neighbors" are endorsed. In terms of evolutionary group selection, religious violence, genocide, and war are adaptive because they serve to unite in-group members against the enemy out-groups."
The claim that morality predates the Bible is well supported by the evolutionary theory of morality. The Bible, and belief in God arose because of our moral "hardwiring." In an age when the notion of science had yet to be invented, it is little wonder that the traditions of millions of people have become so ingrained in most if not every culture since then. And it is always the case that people in every society see themselves as the "chosen" people. The claim of Christians that the Bible is the absolute word of God and the only authentic word of God is an exact parallel to the absolute conviction among muslim fundamentalists that the Quran, not the Bible, is the literal word of God. The same holds for the Yamomamo tribes of the amazon who "consider themselves to be the ultimate chosen people [just like fundamentalist Christians] - in their language, their name represents humanity , with all other peoples as something less than human." Just like fundamentalist Christians and Muslims, the notion that one's own religion is the only true one is a universal belief that fundamentalists of all religions hold. And like all such beliefs, the proof is lacking.
The information above is orders of magnitude more enlightening than the faith-based nonsense heard over and again on Youtube: "Lord Jesus loves you," provided of course that you aren't a child who cursed his parent, in which case you "shall be put to death." The evident and inherent cruelty of Leviticus is all the evidence one needs that the Old Testament reflects the tribal version of morality that was its source. But some people will justify cruelty as long as they read it in the Bible. What more can one say to such people? They are the ones genuinely lost. Not understanding the nature of evidence, they can damn and dismiss it as it suits them.
If you find inspiration in floods that kill off humanity, children being put to death for cursing, or killing off two men who sleep with one another, it follows that the Bible as the literal word of God will be as inspiring as any other book that's drunk on killing and brutality. To each his own.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Frank Columbo
"Wrongo...EVERYONE has the choice to make."
No, not everyone. I'll give you an BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS example. We have many gays who are miserable\ over the fact they are gay. They can't shake it. Such accounts are ubiquitous and documented as well as any thing else you'll ever read. These accounts typically describe how for their whole lives, they were unable to change their true attraction. YOU"VE NEVER SEEN ANY OF THESE UBIQUITOUS ACCOUNTS? REALLY? If you're so street smart, this should have been in your arsenal all along. EVERYONE knows such people exist. EVERYONE.
So, you are faced with two "choices,"
EITHER you choose to believe all these gay people are liars. OR you choose the more rational conclusion: most of the time, when uncountable numbers of unrelated people give a similar story, more likely then not that they are describing THEIR reality.
OK, let's hear your response, Mr. Know-it-all Big Shot "self important little ass outdoors."
Are they all liars? Or is your view in need of some rethinking?
AND, can you answer like a normal person does - in a civil way?
Choice is yours.
cheers
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Can anyone figure out what just happened here? Another case of bad manners and Big-Shot-Itis, and he leaves in a huff. Go figure
For those interested in a serious debate, kindly read my posts above. There are 7-8 basic points to the argument that gayness is not chosen
1) The self-hating/miserable gay, who desperately wants to change but can't. Does that sound like a choice to you?
2) Ask yourself: if you are a straight man, can you force yourself to become aroused at the sight of a dick? The answer should be self-evident for most of us.
3) So, why would you expect a gay man to be any more capable of this?
4) The definitive study (Mr Big Shot left before I had time to mention it) which showed that A) Gay conversion therapy failed badly; and that after a certain age, if one has never had a heterosexual attraction, none of the participants were ever in a heterosexual relationship as adults, unless they were bisexual to begin with
5) The mounting neurological evidence that identifies differences in gay vs straight brains.
6) The fact that each successive male sibling is much more likely to be gay than the previous one.
7) Homosexuality in the animal kingdom, which shows there doesn't have to be a gay "gene" for its existence.
8) And finally, the very notion of "sexual conversion therapy." If gayness were a choice, a moment's reflection shows that the therapy would not be needed.
There you have my case. A pity that Mr. Hubris doesn't have the decency to allow an argument to progress in a friendly and rational way. Have I proven my case? No, there's no absolute proofs being offered. Did I indicate a much more common sense grasp of the evidence than Mr. Hubris? Of that, there is no doubt whatsoever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Ryan Shaffer
"it doesn't work to say that they were originally bi"
You might be right. But what one really needs to know is what do people mean when they say they've changed? People often change their behavior, or suppress their natural attraction, and then claim they've changed. This turned out to be the case in the vast majority of people who enrolled in so-called reparative therapy, for instance. On in depth interviews, it turns out almost none of them was able to successfully rid themselves of homosexual attraction. In any case, my main point is that even if it were true that some can change, one is not entitled to say that therefore everyone can change.
"If this is the case, why is there such a low correlation in identical twins, where one is transgender???"
I think it's fair to say the evidence is mixed. I'm not sure about transgender, but several studies have shown that each additional male child a mother has is about 1/3 more likely to be gay as an adult than the previous one. This is part of a broader theory known as the maternal line theory. I addition, there have been many studies indicating differences in the brains of straight vs gay people, and homosexual behavior also exists in the animal world, suggesting an underlying genetic factor. The best studied of these is domestic sheep, where 8-10% of male sheep consistently select other males and refuser to mate with females. See http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486 for more discussion of this topic. cheers
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Ryan Shaffer
Thank you, a good read, though dense in places. I'm always one to distrust studies in general. Nowadays there's a "controlled study" industry that pushes half-baked studies on the public. What these authors claim is thus not at all surprising to me, and upon reflection, they do point out some basic problems with getting a truly random sample. That said, I find their main hypothesis, that the evidence points in a socialization direction, questionable. The key finding for me is on p1196:
"Among male OS twins, the proportion reporting a same-sex romantic
attraction is twice as high among those without older brothers (18.7%)
than among those with older brothers (8.8%)."
While it may be true no specific simple genetic or hormonal theory can explain this difference, how would one be able to begin to test a socialization model? Why would an OS male twin w/o an older brother be more likely to be socialized in a "feminine" way? How would one measure this? Has it been measured? If there's a problem getting bias free twin samples, imagine the difficulty in controlling for all the variables in any attempt to measure the socialization factor. I found scant explanation for this anywhere in the article.
From everything that has been exchanged so far between us, I would probably modify my views to reflect greater appreciation for the bias factor in the samples used for genetic studies. This might well change my confidence level that biology plays a role here. But it does little to change my feeling that the evidence for socialization being more likely is weak. Thus it's still premature to say the weight of evidence is against biology. The mechanisms are still too poorly understood. cheers
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Ryan Shaffer
"Don't forget personal choice!"
There's something very wrong with this model if you think it applies to most people. It may apply to you, but absolutely not to me. Lot's of people are simply unable to choose heterosexuality. That is a reality that you have to contend with.
"I think the issue we are finding is that if there is no real biological link, all we are left with are socialization"
Tell me why there's more evidence for socialization than biology. How has socialization been carefully measured in terns of sexual orientation? Show me a study that demonstrates this.
"the problem is that socialization is much harder to prove"
Without a proof, what is the case based on? Intuition?
"So it seems logical to me that if you can rule out biology"
But it hasn't been rules out!!! The inquiry into this only began in the early 1990s. Today, there's been extremely limited evidence that's been studied so far. The mechanisms may be quite complex. No one is in any position to rule anything out as of 2015.
"next year that I will eventually become a regular eater of bell peppers..."
Maybe, and forgive me if I suggested I don't believe you. Your experience is assumed to be valid in my book. I can tell you I've spent a lifetime trying to rid myself of gay attraction, and at least know what it's like to feel heterosexual attraction. I'm really dying to know what it feels like. After so many years of trying, I have come to accept that it's delusional for me to think I can change. Maybe personal choice works for you and some others. It absolutely does not work for most, as demonstrated by not only me, and uncountable numbers of testimonies from gay people, but by the failure of any study to demonstrate it. The most obvious example are the reparative therapies offered by Christian ministries promising to change desperate gay men. The sample is clearly more motivated than most, given their willing to enroll in such therapy. Yet the results have been a dismal failure. The scandal-ridden industry includes former "ex-gays" who actually ran these programs and have now recanted and stated the entire notion is bordering on fraud. In depth interviews have revealed the vast majority of "ex-gays" who took the therapy merely changed their behavior, and were unable to rid themselves of gay attraction. No other therapies or studies have succeeded in demonstrating most people can change. This is why the majority of therapists disagree that gays can change, and what lead the APA to state "[t]here is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy
cheers
1
-
+Ryan Shaffer
This I found a while ago on another forum, FYI
- - - - - - - - - -
<<Igor, the "ex-gay" movement is discredited by its own history, which is littered with scandals and defections. Many of the "ex-gay" ministries that started up in the 1970s and 1980s are now defunct. Of those still operative, very few are still run by the "ex-gays" who originally founded and ran them. Why is this? In some cases the original founders/directors have admitted that the "ex-gay" quest is futile; in others they have been exposed as living double lives, claiming to be "healed" of their homosexuality and to be helping others to be similarly "healed" while still secretly engaging in homosexual behaviour - sometimes with clients of their ministries.
Michael Bussee, Gary Cooper, Jim Kaspar, Jeremy Marks, Raphaël Creemers, Jeff Ford, Christine Bakke, and Darlene Bogle - these are just some of those in the former category, who led "ex-gay" ministries for years but later repudiated such ministries as ineffective. John Smid was the director of Exodus member ministry Love in Action, a residential ex-gay program in Memphis, Tennessee, for 22 years before his resignation in 2008, and he was on the board of Exodus International for 11 years. Last year he admitted that in all his years with Exodus he NEVER met a homosexual man who had become heterosexual through an Exodus ministry: "NOT ONE."
In February 2007, Alan Chambers, the current president of Exodus International, told the Los Angeles Times that he wasn't sure he'd ever met an "ex-gay" who ceased to "struggle" with same-sex attractions - and he made it clear at the "ex-gay" conference, held shortly after, that that included himself. He said that he used to get angry with people who say that he is "in denial" but that he now agrees that they are more or less right. He said "I live a life of denial" and "I choose to deny what comes naturally to me," and that he has to pray to God every morning when he gets up to keep him in this state of denial. Do guys who are genuinely heterosexual need to do that? I think not.
If you seriously believe that "therapies" of this kind have even a 20-30% "success" rate, then I can only express my astonishment at your extraordinary credulity.">>
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Ryan Shaffer --
I wrote that it did not go through the usual peer review process, because Spitzer handed it over to his friend, the editor of the Archives, and he agreed to publish it. Proper peer review is not supposed to be giving your work to a friend. Now, if you think I have this account wrong, I am open to correction: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/health/dr-robert-l-spitzer-noted-psychiatrist-apologizes-for-study-on-gay-cure.html?_r=0
"Virtually every psychological study I have seen (whether peer reviewed or not) on this subject revolves around asking people questions and then getting answers..."
Agree in general, but a case can be made homosexuality is more complex than most straightforward questions or surveys: religious motives, an intense desire for many to "fit in" are some reasons for bias potential. There has been strong denial in the past to admit one it gay. So that raises more doubts than other garden variety report surveys. Many simply think that by successfully repressing gay feelings and "acting" straight, they've genuinely changed. Self-report surveys are inconsistent, with some states indicating twice as many gays as other states. And since so many other gays have stated they cannot change, it makes these claims much more subject to uncertainty. That said, I'm not denying some might have changed, but "proof" is putting too strongly IMO.
1
-
+Ryan Shaffer --
"What does it mean? How can someone change without choosing to change? "
Because homosexuality is in the emotion/feelings/attraction category, and in general, we have little say over emotions/attrcations
Examples: You're insulted and loose your temper and are filled with rage. This can happen quite involuntarily, which is why we call it "lose" your temper. " Later, we often wish we could have controlled those feelings.
Another example: you start falling in love: love often comes completely unannounced, hence again the expression "to fall in love." You may not have chosen to have these emotions.
Other examples of not being able to always choose our emotions feelings attractions
-depression
-choosing happiness the day after your child is run down by a truck
-having a bad day
-not being able to like atonal music
-Seeing a really bad movie and choosing to like it anyway
This is why I see the "we choose our feelings/attrcations" argument at violent odds with obvious everyday reality. Desires, feelings, emotions are just there, and while we can take steps to change them (for example drugs for depression), it isn't always easy or possible. So while I would agree I cannot rule out some gays genuinely changing, the basic "gay is choice" argument, as a whole, seems to me based on a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. Feelings and emotions are givens. That is the nature of our world.
1
-
1
-
+Ryan Shaffer --
"we can control whether we focus and act on those urges or not."
Well if that has been your main argument all along, I would agree. But my main point in discussions like these is that sexual orientation is primarily an attraction, not a behavior (though the behavior flows from the attraction, of course.) I can control my behavior, but I don't see how I could change my attraction. I have tried endlessly, mainly because I'd really love to know what heterosexual attraction feels like! So I've spent literally decades looking at and trying to get myself turned on to numerous pictures, videos, thoughts of females/female bodies, and all to virtually no avail.
This is why, on a personal level only, I get annoyed when I hear people that don't know me (or most other gays), say that I am capable of reprogramming my brain. How else am I to go about doing this when I have tried such reprogramming for years and years? So if gay attraction is a choice for everyone, it must be incredibly hard to realize this choice for many. That basically means that in practical terms it makes no sense to say all or even most gays are making a conscious choice.
cheers
1
-
+Ryan Shaffer --
Thanks.
I think that's probably a wise point of view - absolute proofs are probably not possible in this debate. What makes it especially hard, for me at least, to assess the success level of people who claim to have changed is illustrated by many follow up interviews: NARTH is a good example: on in-depth interviews with the alleged success cases, it turns out that all but about 4% of the people who had the therapy actually rid themselves of homosexual attraction. The reparative therapy phenomenon is so riddled with scandal, the success stories seem less credible than might otherwise be the case, even if some of them are true. In addition, bisexuality complicates the picture. If we go by the Kinsey 0-6 scale (which I'm not endorsing), it may be many of those who change did so because they are not 0s or 6s, but say 1s or 5s. There's also a myth, I think, that bisexuals are equally bisexual all the time. Maybe only bisexuals of various degrees are the ones who are capable of change. Who knows.
I guess I am more suspicious than you about the claims of so many people changing, aside from my personal experience/bias, is because it seems to me, in essence, that if you can successfully go back and forth so easily, then it kind of eliminates the distinction between gay and straight. Certainly if everyone could accomplish this feat, the terms gay and straight would be robbed of meaning: we'd all essentially be bisexuals. And that seems to me to be far from the case.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Rachel Rogers --
I probably know far less about this than you, but here are my thoughts.
"Absolute proof" Fair enough, but what I meant was, things that aren't seriously debated anymore, such as the earth is round, evolution happened, etc. The level of certainty is over 99%. Can we yet say the same thing for gayness?
The twin studies results seem be all over the map, ranging from 52 down to 7% correlation, and as the wiki entry states, there have been methodological objections that don't appear yet to have been resolved. If wiki seems off base here, please provide another source.
The strongest evidence, which may relate to your "avenue 2" appears to be the birth-order-effect. Maybe that is the clincher, bringing the level of certainty up to "almost certain."
Looks likeI'm being forced to rethink this.
Thanks
1
-
1
-
+The Derk King
I would only be convinced of a compassionate and caring God if anyone could explain why horrific suffering (you know, innocent babies being blown up, being tortured to death very slowly, etc.) is necessary in this universe.
Since God is all-knowing, he knows in advance all this suffering is going to happen. So he has two choices: make the universe free of the worst forms of agony and suffering; or, simply don't create mankind to begin with.
If people cannot logically answer this, it says to me that such a God is logically impossible, as there is no way a caring and decent being would deliberately set in motion that which He knows will be horrific.
This is known as "God and the Problem of Evil." And it doesn't just go away by saying "He works in mysterious ways." The premises of a biblical God, going by strict logic, are at odds with reality. But for the true believer, there can be no such questions. Only superficial answers.
A truly modest and wise person would say "There is no proof of such a God."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Taylor Hunt
"People make a choice to do it or not. That simply cannot be argued against."
Once again, you are simply misdefining what homosexuality is. The primary definition is that it's an attraction, an orientation. Secondarily, it of course flows from this that those who have the attraction are likely to act on it. But you cannot separate the two, as you are doing. They are two sides of the same coin. The attraction part is not chosen, at least according to virtually the entire mental health community in the West. So, speaking of homosexuality as a choice is akin to saying "I, a straight man, can look at dick tomorrow and decide to get an erection." That is nonsense. That is not how the real world of sexual attraction works.YOU do not choose to "like dick." That is a desire that is just there, and the research shows that sexual orientation is quite fixed and difficult to change, if not impossible for most.
cheers
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Taylor Hunt
"One choice is unquestionably more beneficial for society, and should be an accepted normal."
I think it is precisely here were the "anti-gay" agenda often comes into play (not you necessarily.) While I share your dislike of gay activists shoving their views in your face, and queen beds with two people having sex rolling down the street during gay pride marches (I saw this once while visiting California), I think the reaction against homosexuality per se is vastly overstated.
How is society primarily harmed? Probably by that portion of the gay male population that practices anal sex with multiple partners. But being gay doesn't require such behavior, as evidenced by the estimated 20-50% of gay men that do not practice such sex at all, and as well as, presumably, most lesbians. When one does the cost/benefit equation for society, I would consider the welfare of gay people who are affected by the message that there's something wrong with them. I consider, for example, all the the gay people who have tried unsuccessfully to change for years, but cannot. I consider that one in three gay teens attempts suicide. The message of intolerance is also part of the social equation, unless of course one really doesn't care about the welfare of gay people. If you want to crack down on promiscuous sex, go for it. But it's inappropriate to define homosexuality as a disease or social malady per se. If two men love each other, and they agree voluntarily to have a sexual relationship, and they go about it responsibly, once they get into the privacy of their bedroom, it really becomes no ones business what they do in there. There are far too many real issues of importance in this fragile world to be preoccupied about what goes on behind somebody else's bedroom doors. That should really be the end of the discussion, whether its choice or not.
cheers
1
-
1
-
Taylor Hunt
"So saying that not "every" gay person can do this is taking an extreme. How is that valid? Not every person can stop eating sugar if you place it in the same room, because they have no personal control."
There are many reasons why a person might not be able to change. It may have nothing to do with "self control."
Here are some other possibilities
1- There may be different causes of homosexuality, which might give some people an advantage in their ability to change.
2- It may be there are no such people. Unless you interview them carefully, you cannot be sure their actual orientation changed, or whether it was merely that they were successful at repressing the urge, not actually getting rid of it.
3- It may that there are degrees of bisexuallity: the more bisexuality you have, the more likely you may be able to convince yourself you have changed
The bottom line for me is, you have this vast body of evidence - some of it biological - that indicates changing one's orientation has little evidence in its support. If that orientation works for you, and doesn't harm anyone else, why torment yourself by trying to change it? Sometimes its better to let some things be. For me, better to focus on ISIS, nuclear terrorism, global warming, and a host of far more important things that could lead to a breakdown of society than an obsession over the fact that 3-5% of men prefer men over women.
cheers
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Taylor Hunt
"against all common sense?"
YOUR edition of common sense perhaps.Not mine or everyone else's necessarily. To me it goes profoundly against reality that people choose their sexual orientation. Kindly answer this, if you feel you can. Could you wake up tomorrow and simply make a decision that you will look at pictures of dick and force yourself to become aroused? That to me flies in the face of common sense. I cannot imagine myself being able to accomplish such a feet. I think if you ask most straight men if they could do this, they would find it about as uncommon sense as any other bizarre notion they've come across. That is not how the reality of sexual attraction works. You cannot just say, "tomorrow morning at 11:05 am I will become homosexual.
Now, I will put myself on the line. I don't like to discuss this terribly often, but I will give you my trust, as you seem to be openminded relative to most others who debate this.I am one of those people whom you would claim has the bad addiction under discussion. I can assure you that I don't like it one bit. I have been this way since my very first memories. I have consulted therapists. I have done everything in my power to try and change this. It has failed 100%. I can tell you from my own inner knowledge of self that is about as fixed as the nose on my face. I have also no real attraction to the opposite gender, so it's not as if I rejected it and wandered off to experiment with the so-called addiction. It is total speculation and presumption, and am insult to my intelligence for some third party who has a totally unproved theory to tell me I can change this. I'm not trying to say by any means that you are trying to insult me. I know you are not. But when you have the most intimate knowledge of yourself, and have had this intimate knowledge for decades, if you don't have solid data or experience to prove that absolutely any and every gay person can change, it is totally wrong to say this to me. It is presumption. It is personal speculation. It is hubris. It is belief. It is an act of faith.What it is not is proof.
When someone is told they don't understand their true nature, that is the most anti-common sense thing I can think of. Obviously, my story is hardly unique. But I will not allow anyone to pretend they are more qualified than me to know what goes on in my mind and my emotions. That is simply out of bounds.
OK, those are my two cents. Any responses welcome
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MrWar2244
"Also god killed 2 million or billion"
The way I look at it is, God (allegedly)created all of us knowing (he's omniscient) we would all die. If so, he designed us to die. One good estimate is about 80 billion homo sapiens have existed, of which about 73 billion have died. That would make God the biggest mass murderer in history (and pre-history). Not even Hitler or Stalin could hope to hold a candle to God's record of sheer brutality. Apparently God slept through the holocaust; and sleeps through earthquakes, starvation, disease, you name it. If God, in the biblical sense, really exists, why didn't he just create 80 billion perfect beings like himself? God and the problem of evil has never been given a satisfactory explanation, I think it's fair to say.
cheers
1
-
Taylor Hunt
"So by that logic if you breed puppies you are a murderer, or if you have a child you are a murderer."
Last I heard, murder refers to people, not puppies.
In any case, the analogy with parents having children is not a good one IMO because God had the option (unlike parents) of creating a universe without death and suffering. He (allegedly) chose death and suffering instead. The better analogy would be if a couple gave birth to a sick child, but, knowing that medical treatment would mean the difference between living for 5 years vs a normal life expectancy, they would choose against the medicine. THAT is God for you. He is the couple who withheld the medicine from humanity. And all that suffering we brought on ourselves, and therefore we deserve it, right? He didn't have to do it that way, being omnipotent. Maybe isn't omnipotent then? The contradictions, paradoxes and refutations of a Biblical God are all around us if we choose to step back for a moment and see things without the filter of the religious lens.
OK, as we can see, you and I should stick to homosexuality, as you and I are unlikely to resolve our religious differences on Youtube. :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Taylor Hunt
Below is a very long post where I have tried to the best of my ability to answer all of your questions. I think it better to put in one post for ease of reference. Hence very long!
“Do biological factors (as was heavily sold by media) say that someone cannot
choose differently?”
The evidence that I’ve looked at suggests biology may well play a role. We
certainly know that it does in some animal species, as presumably we do not
ascribe choice to animals. Can you or I positively rule out biology as an
important determinant of sexual orientation? How can one begin to formulate an
absolute proof against biology given the present incomplete state of the
evidence? (Here, unlike some, I do not assume we have a proof yet that biology
causes gayness.) As to whether biology can be overridden, that is quite speculative, I would think.
“Once yo open the door to homosexual relationships, how do you draw the line?
Polyamorous couples would say you are outdated and biased against them. What
about marriage to 3 women, polygamy, or even children (all real cases)."]
(already answered)
“Can you provide evidence that is not heavily biased?”
Haven't looked into it. Can you provide proof that it IS biased?
“So who decides who is an adult and can make their own decisions?"
It has ultimately to be answered by each person’s sense of reality. The final legal
decision determines this of course, but it’s the thinking of many individuals
that informs the resulting decision.
“If gays change, then gays do not "choose" to be gay?”
IF they do change, that may well be due to a choice. My position is, until I see clinicalevidence that most gays, including your selected results from the people you
believe have changed, can actually change their true inner orientation, I
remain skeptical.
“How do yo define basic rights?”
(Alreadyanswered)
“Why is some homosexual behavior immoral, and others not?” (already answered two days ago)
“Can a person in an enabling environment make someone more susceptible to being gay
(by your definition of thinking they are gay)?”
I would say the verdict is not out on that, but the short answer is, not likely. No
publically available evidence really supports that, at least what I’ve seen.
Could it be true for some? I can’t rule it out.
“Can individuals do nasty things to children to make them more likely to be gay?”
Same answer as above. Does there exist solid evidence one way or the other?
“Can a person think they are gay, then think they are not gay all in the same month?”
Sure. Lot’s of people worry if they are gay for all sorts of reasons: a paradigm example isthe kid that becomes aroused in the doctors office. Clearly, that can just be a
physical automatic response from being touched, and may have nothing to do with
being gay.
“Can rejection by the opposite sex make someone feel gay?”
I would assume it could cause them to worry about it. But I doubt it could cause themto begin having raw attraction to the same sex.
“Can societal/social reinforcements make someone think they are gay?”
I’m sure it could. Again, whether it really can influence their actually acquiring sexualattraction to the same sex remains an unproven idea. I would once again be
quite skeptical.
“All of these affect someone's conscious independent decision making, do they not?”
They may well affect lots of decisions. The key question remains, however, do theyactually result in the ability of a gay person to “decide” to acquire sexual
attraction towards a person of the same sex? I would say the evidence is poor,
and it goes against the true nature of sexual attraction, as well as common sense. Granted, you have a different notion of what constitutes common sense here.
“You are explaining lust, not love.”
Homosexuality is DEFINED in terms of sex. It’s not just love, it’s sexual love. You cannotspeak about the issue if you leave sex out of the equation.
“Is someone who has thoughts of cheating on his wife an adulterer? . . .Obviously not, then why do we can someone with a "gay thought" gay? The onlypossible reason is for political purposes.”
Again, this reflects a belief you have which IMO is fundamentally mistaken. You make anunproven assumption that “adulterousness” is much the same as a sexual
orientation. It simply is not an established fact as I see it. I would liken sexual
orientation more to powerful and unstoppable emotions such as grief. Does one
“choose” to feel grief? Of course not. It’s a powerful emotion that overcomes us
when we suffer a loss. No one would speak of grief as a “temptation” or a
choice. Of course, the WAY you choose to grieve is open to choice; and that is
the part that maps to homosexual choice: the emotion is involuntary; the behavioral
reaction is open to choice. I think frankly you fail fundamentally to see what homosexuality is really about. It’s
not just a passing temptation; it is as rigorous and as powerful and as basic
as heterosexual attraction. Why would one think that homosexuality is a casual
drive easily overridden by will power, but not heterosexuality? That IMHO is
the single biggest stumbling block to your understanding of this issue.
“Again, do people get addicted to sex?”
In the technical sense, no. But in the metaphorical sense, of course. But once again,the addiction refers to behavior; the sex drive itself is a basic fixed part of
human nature.
“Does it hurt a child if they do not have a mother or a father?”
Good question. I’m willing to speculate that all other things equal, better to havea mommy and a daddy. On the other hand, I would rather place a child in the
hands of a loving gay couple over an abusive straight one.
“Do you believe have temptations? Have you been tempted to do things wrong? Do you feel
it is all internal?”
I do, but I don’t regard homosexuality as a temptation in your sense because I don’t thinkit’s wrong, which seems to be a criterion for your understanding of “temptation.”
On the other hand, one definition of “temptation” is simply “a strong desire or
urge.” In that sense, homosexuality and heterosexuality are equally temptations
depending on who you are.
I hope I have answered all of your questions. Let me know if I missed any.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+SonofA PreacherMan "why isnt it a perversion"
The term has different meanings, many of which are inherently subjective. If you mean, for example, that homosexuality is unacceptable, the question is, to whom? Given that in many western societies, the vast majority of people indicate homosexuality is now acceptable, there can be no appeal to either an objective standard, or to public consensus. This probably reflects the fact that as more people get to know homosexuals, and think about the issue rationally, they decided that there's really no justification for condemning it. Thus "a few misguided perverts" is no longer an accurate reflection of western society.
Finally, you write that homosexuality is a "lifestyle." Absolutely not. Even if there is some meaning to the term "gay lifestyle," it doesn't follow that all or even most gays live such a lifestyle. More importantly, homosexuality is an attraction, not a behavior. This misdefinition causes endless and needless confusion when discussing the issue. To be gay is to have raw sexual attraction. I'm a gay man, but I don't practice the so-called gay lifestyle. So what does that make me, straight? Such questions indicate the lack of intellectual substance upon which that term is based. cheers
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@realityandnaturepill
Thanks for your replies.
Couple of things. If neither side of this debate has at its disposal a positive verifiable proof, then the scientific method demands a certain degree of agnosticism. We are not entitled to say with complete confidence that homosexuality does or does not have a genetic or biological component.
While I've acknowledged my casual relationship to this debate, I am of the impression it goes way too far to say that the case for a biological component is "nonsense." To me, there's plenty of suggestive evidence, and we are still a good ways away from establishing the precise causes of homosexuality. If we completely rule out biology at any level, then what specific evidence do we have for a completely social/environmental explanation?is there any more rigorous evidence for say, traumatic experience, fatherless kids, bullying, poverty, and on down the list? If we don't have a robust well established non biology explanation, wouldn't that make the nurture/socialization case also scientific nonsense?
I believe we're far away from a definitive understanding of homosexuality, and it would be just as unscientific to discard biology entirely. I might give an analogy: There is so far no gene identified for left-handedness. Yet it seems counter-intuitive to say we socialize 10% of the population to be left-handed. So that's sort of analogous to the gay debate. It's far too early to be coming to hard conclusions when there seems no simple answer, and a lack of direct evidence to date.
cheers
1
-
1
-
1
-
@realityandnaturepill "if they ever were existent, obviously, because homosexual individuals are unable to transfer genes."
That's one issue I did look into last year, and it's a beautiful example how nature can outsmart us. There's a theory known as the maternal line theory. Now let's forget for the moment whether it's true or not. What it postulates is that gay offspring are more likely in certain women, and these gay offspring are a byproduct of a particular evolutionary strategy, not a direct evolutionary strategy in themselves. There's much that's been written on it, and again, whether true or not, it shows that we aren't entitled to make absolute assumptions about the logic of or illogic of gay offspring.
More here: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486
Science is filled with paradoxes, and from a purely theoretical perspective, the scientific method should keep us in check when we make a priori assumptions about how nature should or should not work. So I'm not ready just yet to say "it make no sense." This is why science was invented; because it continually confounds our notions about common sense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stopcensorship7705
And there is no known single gene for being a lefty. I don't think you've adequately studied the subject of genetics. I recommend starting here:
"Multiple genes, not just a single gene, determine most traits in humans such as height, eye color, and skin color. When a trait is controlled by more than one gene it is called polygenic. Traits that are coded for by multiple genes do not have distinct classes and instead exhibit a range, which is why we see a continuum of height and skin color. . . .Genes are typically not the only determinants of traits. Although a few traits, such as blood type, are determined strictly by genetics, most traits are influenced both by genes and the environment in which we live. We do not inherit a disease, instead we inherit susceptibility factors..."
Homosexuality has been found in over 1,000 animal species. No single gene has been identified, but I think you would agree non-human animals do not meaningfully choose to "be gay." All this should be enough to recognize that the "single gene theory" is a misguided approach to explaining homosexuality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@David "All their behaviors fit the criteria for a mental illness."
You're making up stuff again. There's no absolute neat and tidy formula, and it certainly is ridiculous to assert "all their behaviors fit the criteria...." Gays also say hello, do their laundry and brush their teeth. Those are behaviors that are not indicative of illness, any more than they are for straight people. According to the mental health community, the main criteria for a mental disorder or illness is, does the behavior/ mindset necessarily impede normal daily function, or does it cause significant discord or unhappiness. And secondarily, does it cause harm to others. That has always been the base standard for mental illness, though there's no hard and fast criteria.
One of the main reasons homosexuality was taken off the DSM is because there was never much evidence to begin with that gays suffered significant impairment. This was first suggested, and since confirmed, by Evelyn Hooker, who challenged doctors to see if they could distinguish gays from straights on typical mental health surveys. They could not. That remains the case to this day.
If you want to call homosexuality a mental illness, that's OK by me. But don't pretend there's a consensus that agrees with you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1