If Homosexuality is Genetic ......

[007]

And if it turns out to be genetic and untreatable?

A hypothetical question, none the less, has that ever stopped science from trying to find a cure?

No.

 

[MissileMan]

LOL! I KNOW you Know better. Give me a break.

I haven't seen the research on this. I have no idea if it's true or not.

 

[nt250]

And I'm also of the opinion that everything that humans do is, by the fact that humans are doing it, natural. Though perhaps I'm looking at 'natural' using a different context.

Picking your nose and eating it is natural.

But most normal people don't do it in public, or brag about how enjoyable it is.


And, no, I don't pick my nose and eat it.

 

[007]

I'll be honest and say that I disagree with that idea that homosexuality is a mental illness (since, alone, it has no direct impact upon a person's social interaction and does not directly cause a person to be self-mutilating.) And I'm also of the opinion that everything that humans do is, by the fact that humans are doing it, natural. Though perhaps I'm looking at 'natural' using a different context.

Well, yes, it was considered a mental illness until quite recently. Then under intense pressure from the homo/lesbo community, the APA changed it's tune. Now it seems that most Psychiatric doctors are willing to stand up to the homo/lesbo's and say once again that it is.

And to say that acting out homosexuality is "not self mutilating" is not accurate. Homosexuals have a far greater mortality rate than hetero's, due to disease, suicide and drug abuse just to name a few reasons.

I'm not quite sure what "context" you could be using to determine "natural". I always thought there was just one "nature". Is there another world you're thinking of that I'm not aware of?

 

[Reneer]

Well, yes, it was considered a mental illness until quite recently. Then under intense pressure from the homo/lesbo community, the APA changed it's tune. Now it seems that most Psychiatric doctors are willing to stand up to the homo/lesbo's and say once again that it is.

And to say that acting out homosexuality is "not self mutilating" is not accurate. Homosexuals have a far greater mortality rate than hetero's, due to disease, suicide and drug abuse just to name a few reasons.

I'm not quite sure what "context" you could be using to determine "natural". I always thought there was just one "nature". Is there another world you're thinking of that I'm not aware of?

I wasn't referring to 'acting out homosexuality' - I was referring to simply being a homosexual versus a heterosexual. You don't lose years off of your lifespan by simply acknowledging that you may be homosexual - it is your actions that will determine that.

And as to my usage of natural, I was referring to 'nature' without taking religious literature's definition of what is natural/unnatural. Sorry for not clarifying that earlier.

 

[007]

I wasn't referring to 'acting out homosexuality' - I was referring to simply being a homosexual versus a heterosexual. You don't lose years off of your lifespan by simply acknowledging that you may be homosexual - it is your actions that will determine that.

That's... pretty much what I said.

And as to my usage of natural, I was referring to 'nature' without taking religious literature's definition of what is natural/unnatural. Sorry for not clarifying that earlier.

Even though I'm a Christian, I'm not refering to religon either. Nature is nature. A man was designed to have a woman as a sexual mate. There's no mystery about that, or anything that can be miscontrued. That's what "nature" intended. That's all. No religon involved.

Am I missing something about what it is you're really trying to say, or are you being ambagious for a reason?

 

[mattskramer]

... and not behavioral, then how come it is since homosexuals cannot reproduce that the defective gene has not been bred out of humans through natural section?

Is there a point to this question or is it merely to determine to what extent, if any, homosexuality is genetic or a matter of choice? In either case, in answer to the question, I think that homosexuality is strongly influenced by the environment and choices one makes, as well as conditions from within the womb. Very early circumstances may have been beyond one’s control, but as an adult, we are faced with choices. In addition I think that a homosexual can become a heterosexual and that a heterosexual can become a homosexual with enough mental and physical conditioning. Yet, I think that the question is irrelevant.

By the way, a homosexual can reproduce though he probably would not choose to do so. A lesbian can contribute her egg or, for the sake of having a biological baby, accept sperm.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

By the way, a homosexual can reproduce though he probably would not choose to do so. A lesbian can contribute her egg or, for the sake of having a biological baby, accept sperm.

Technically you are correct, but you are missing the point. Two homsexuals cannot reproduce with another. A lesbian and a queer can have a kid, but only in a heterosexual manner. Gunny makes a very good point about the nature vs. nurture debate around homosexuality.

 

[007]

Technically you are correct, but you are missing the point. Two homsexuals cannot reproduce with another. A lesbian and a queer can have a kid, but only in a heterosexual manner. Gunny makes a very good point about the nature vs. nurture debate around homosexuality.

Matts likes to give the most convoluted answers possible. I call it psychobabble.

But, did matts ever tell you that he thinks it's OK for dad's to break in the daughters? Yup. He thinks it's OK for fathers to screw their daughters.

 

[mattskramer]

Matts likes to give the most convoluted answers possible. I call it psychobabble.

But, did matts ever tell you that he thinks it's OK for dad's to break in the daughters? Yup. He thinks it's OK for fathers to screw their daughters.

Yes, I tool Pale Rider off “Ignore” just to see some of his posts. What a sudden change of subject for this thread, man! It certainly seems as though you have problems. You are still hooked on the fact that I condone incest between informed consenting adults. I’m flattered but please get some help and get over me, pal. Now, if anyone really is curious and wants to really understand my position on Incest, or anything else for that matter, feel free to ask publicly or privately.

My answers are not convoluted. They are quite clear to anyone who really cares to carefully read and think about issues. It is so easy and thoughtless to shout out old tiresome hype and politically rhetorical clichés.

By the way, this might sound convoluted to you, Pale Rider, but there is a difference between incest and child molestation. Be careful and don’t strain your brain. LOL.

 

[Nuc]

You are still hooked on the fact that I condone incest between informed consenting adults.

This is idiotic. Societies all over the world created rules against incest not to stop mom and boy or dad and girl or bro and sis from having fun. They did it because even primitive man was able to observe that the offspring from these unions were defective. At the very least, incest is bad because society has to deal with inbreeds. Duh?:thumbdown:

 

[mattskramer]

This is idiotic. Societies all over the world created rules against incest not to stop mom and boy or dad and girl or bro and sis from having fun. They did it because even primitive man was able to observe that the offspring from these unions were defective. At the very least, incest is bad because society has to deal with inbreeds. Duh?:thumbdown:

(Sigh) I think that incest is not wrong. I think that inbreeding is wrong. Here is a difference. Please use a dictionary and don’t change my words. Sheesh.

Besides, it is all relative. (Pardon the pun) We allow smoking but it is harmful. We allow over-eating though it is harmful. We allow people do all sorts of things that are not good for them and are a cost to society.

 

[Reneer]

That's... pretty much what I said.


Even though I'm a Christian, I'm not refering to religon either. Nature is nature. A man was designed to have a woman as a sexual mate. There's no mystery about that, or anything that can be miscontrued. That's what "nature" intended. That's all. No religon involved.

Am I missing something about what it is you're really trying to say, or are you being ambagious for a reason?

I'm certainly not being ambiguous intentionally - I'm just trying to be tactful since I'm new to the forums and I doubt many would take me seriously if I came across as a blow-hard. I'm also trying to avoid misconstruing others' opinions, which is why I'm seeming to be so wishy-washy at times. I'll get over it eventually, I hope.

 

[007]

I'm certainly not being ambiguous intentionally - I'm just trying to be tactful since I'm new to the forums and I doubt many would take me seriously if I came across as a blow-hard. I'm also trying to avoid misconstruing others' opinions, which is why I'm seeming to be so wishy-washy at times. I'll get over it eventually, I hope.

Well, I said 'ambagious', not ambiguous, even though they have similiar meanings. You still may want to say you were ambiguous which is fine. You were, and seeing your reasons, I can respect that.

 

[mattskramer]

Nature is nature. A man was designed to have a woman as a sexual mate. There's no mystery about that, or anything that can be miscontrued. That's what "nature" intended.

The Appeal to Nature is a common fallacy in political arguments. One version consists of drawing an analogy between a particular conclusion, and some aspect of the natural world -- and then stating that the conclusion is inevitable, because the natural world is similar:

"The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources. Capitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership of capital, is simply an inevitable part of human nature. It's how the natural world works."

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Nature, appeal to

This is the fallacy of assuming that whatever is "natural" or consistent with "nature" (somehow defined) is good, or that whatever conflicts with nature is bad. For example, "Sodomy is unnatural; anal sex is not the evolutionary function of a penis or an anus. Therefore sodomy is wrong." But aside from the difficulty of defining what "natural" even means, there is no particular reason to suppose that unnatural and wrong are the same thing. After all, wearing clothes, tilling the soil, and using fire might be considered unnatural since no other animals do so, but humans do these things all the time and to great benefit.

The appeal to nature appears occasionally in debate, often in the form of naive environmentalist arguments for preserving pristine wilderness or resources. The argument is very weak and should always be shot down. It can, however, be made stronger by showing why at least in specific cases, there may be a (possibly unspecifiable) benefit to preserving nature as it is. A typical ecological argument along these lines is that human beings are part of a complex biological system that is highly sensitive to shocks, and therefore it is dangerous for humans to engage in activities that might damage the system in ways we cannot predict. Note, however, that this approach no longer appeals to nature itself, but to the value of human survival.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#natural

However, let us set aside such doubts about the category of 'the natural' for the moment and just ask, even if we can agree that some things are natural and some are not, what follows from this? The answer is: nothing. There is no factual reason to suppose that what is natural is good (or at least better) and what is unnatural is bad (or at least worse).

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnature.html

Nature merely shows us what is. It does not show us what should be. Cancer is a natural part of aging. Chemotherapy and radiation therapy is an unnatural but relatively successful treatment. It is not natural for an encyclopedia to be used as a booster seat at a dinner table. It was never “intended” to be a booster seat, but it helps.

By the way, no one is calling for replacing heterosexuality with homosexuality.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

(Sigh) I think that incest is not wrong.

Please explain this to me. I am sincerely interested and cannot even begin to fathom how you are going to defend this.

 

[007]

The Appeal to Nature is a common fallacy...

So now you call nature a fallacy. Holy shit matts, I think I'll put YOU on ignore. You're the biggest, daughter fucking, wierdo, moron this board has.

You post the most incoherent bullshit there is on this board. You must live in some kind of personal moral vacuum, because you really should be too ashamed to show your face in society.

 

[007]

Please explain this to me. I am sincerely interested and cannot even begin to fathom how you are going to defend this.

Oh he will! It'll go something like this... :blah2:

If you can understand any of it, then you're a better man than I am.

 

[mattskramer]

So now you call nature a fallacy. Holy shit matts, I think I'll put YOU on ignore. You're the biggest, daughter fucking, wierdo, moron this board has.

You post the most incoherent bullshit there is on this board. You must live in some kind of personal moral vacuum, because you really should be too ashamed to show your face in society.

Oh good God! I’m sorry but, learn to read and reason, will you!?! Damn. Nature is not a fallacy. The appeal to nature is a fallacy. It is as if I’m trying to communicate with a child.

 

[nt250]

(Sigh) I think that incest is not wrong. I think that inbreeding is wrong. Here is a difference. Please use a dictionary and don’t change my words. Sheesh.

Besides, it is all relative. (Pardon the pun) We allow smoking but it is harmful. We allow over-eating though it is harmful. We allow people do all sorts of things that are not good for them and are a cost to society.

I'd like to know, too.

In 200 words or less.

By the way, I don't know what planet you live on, but on my planet they don't allow smoking.