know what really causes homosexuality....

[mattskramer]

"Tolerance" has its birthplace in moral Relitivism:

Practically everything is relative. There are few, if any, absolutes outside of the physical and math sciences. There are general rules but for every alleged absolute, one can usually come up with an exception that would break that absolute. It just comes down to where a large enough portion of the overall population would draw the line – but even then just because something is popular or disliked does not make it right or wrong.

 

[Larkinn]

I live in Nevada... of course. Go as high as you want. Just prove it, to my satisfaction... and I'll run for President and get elected...

Sure...how about $1000? We can have Gunny officiate, be the middleman and hold the cash until I prove my qualifications...completely serious. You willing to put your money where your mouth is PR?

Tolerance" has its birthplace in moral Relitivism:

No, tolerance has roots that are much older than moral relativism. The US government allows you to live despite the fact that you are obviously a complete and utter moron...thats tolerance which has nothing to do with moral relativism.

 

[midcan5]

A few comments on some of the above replies.

My favorite is the choice comments. It is hard to take that answer serious as sex for children is distinct from sex for adults. Assuming most grow up to adulthood. But I love how some decided they were hetero so young. If you had a wayback machine and could return you would probably find the future righty as naive then as now. LOL

Then it gets into words and their meanings. Nietzsche once said don't look too closely at experience or it will cease to have force, what really is normal and natural? Can anyone tell me why a women's ass is so attractive? Is there any word that made me think that, or is it something inside that is more instinctual. And if it is then why not the other.

Nature: Homosexuality exists in all advanced species of animal, just not the conservative American Right and Iran.

And the bible says lots of things no one listens to, why this? You want the really crazy start in Deuteronomy.

The right has spent the last 40 years spreading BS about liberalism that some here obviously believe, but consider it took Reagan and W a very short time to create a society whose infrastructure is falling apart due to a lack of civic conscience.

Tolerance is essential to a civil society, lots of things offend us, it's just some people face life knowing only humans occupy it and others think they are god.

Everything in life is not relative, but even the sciences constantly question their theories.
Hitler's acts were evil: excludes an argument for relativity.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No, tolerance has roots that are much older than moral relativism. The US government allows you to live despite the fact that you are obviously a complete and utter moron...thats tolerance which has nothing to do with moral relativism.

Sorry to say mensa moron but my view is valid...as well as yours...

The most popular definitions of relativism assume it to mean that all points of view are equally valid, as opposed to an absolutism that insists that there is but one true and correct view.

 

[Larkinn]

Sorry to say mensa moron but my view is valid...as well as yours...

We are talking about a reality based fact. Moral Relativism, if you didn't catch it from the name, applies to morals. Don't feel so clever any more, do you?

 

[doniston]

most would interpret what you said that way so....yes

No, I am sure yoiu would, but I doubt if more than one other would. and that/s because he thinks everything I say is wrong.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

We are talking about a reality based fact. Moral Relativism, if you didn't catch it from the name, applies to morals. Don't feel so clever any more, do you?

Oh, a "fact" you say...didn't think you believed in facts....on what "reality" do you base that "belief" of yours?

 

[Larkinn]

Oh, a "fact" you say...didn't think you believed in facts....on what "reality" do you base that "belief" of yours?

*sigh*...why make me school you like this?

1) I never said I subscribed to moral relativism. Nor have I been arguing in favor of such a view...rather RGS asserted that my thinking was relativistic, incorrectly, and me arguing that he is wrong that my arguments are not relativistic somehow seems to have made you think that I ascribe to the theory.

2) Moral relativism applies to morals..nothing else. What came first tolerance or moral relativism is history, not morals.

 

[Gunny]

Incorrect. Your reasoning isn't sound at all.

It's quite sound. You are incorrect.


Please quote where I said I was a genius. No? Thought so.

The usual literalism game. You have said on more than one occasion you think you're smarter than people on this board. You don't like my taking liberal license to it, sue me.


And I was assuming you thought homosexuality was wrong based on prior conversations. Am I incorrect that you think that homosexuality is wrong because its deviant?

I figured you would try to drag your prior assumptions into the fray. You are incorrect that I think homosexuality is wrong because it is deviant. Whether or not I think it is wrong is irrelevant to this conversation.

You are trying to use vague terms by NOT using dictionary definitions...I was trying to pin down the terms so I can make you see exactly how stupid your reasoning is.

I'm the one that provided the dictionary definitions, so try again. I surely would not have was I trying to use some ploy you have invented for me.

As far as stupid reasoning goes, I suggest that the person trying to sell the aforementioned pile of shit as bouquet of roses would be the stipid one, and that is exactly what you are trying to do via your usual games of semantics.



From your definition of deviancy:



Care to point out exactly where it says the majority decides what is deviant and whats not? The definition of deviant is NOT "whatever the majoritity thinks is deviant". That makes it a useless self-referencing definition which would have no meaning whatsoever.

LMAO. You just never quit.

deviant:

1. deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant social behavior.
–noun 2. a person or thing that deviates or departs markedly from the accepted norm.

normal:

1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
2. serving to establish a standard.

These definitions most certainly DO place the decision of what is normal and deviant on conforming to a standard. I suppose you are going to tell me Captain Kangaroo and not society dictates what is and is not normal?

Bullshit, plain and simple.

Part of why I made you pin down your terms before you tried to pull this kind of bullshit.

The one trying to pull bullshit here is you, and it's blatantly obvious. Your argument holds NO water, and it's rather obvious.

 

[Larkinn]

The usual literalism game. You have said on more than one occasion you think you're smarter than people on this board. You don't like my taking liberal license to it, sue me.

Actually I've only said I am smarter than SOME people on this board. I have specifically said that I am NOT a genius previously...so you taking "liberal license" is actually you lying. And really...being smarter than RGS and Bern doesn't exactly make me a genius. To beat that fabulous duo I merely need to be barely competent.

I figured you would try to drag your prior assumptions into the fray. You are incorrect that I think homosexuality is wrong because it is deviant. Whether or not I think it is wrong is irrelevant to this conversation.

Ahh, you just bring up that its deviant for fun all the time? Peh...see this is why I was trying to pin you down on definitions. I missed a spot for you to squirm out of, I see.

I'm the one that provided the dictionary definitions, so try again. I surely would not have was I trying to use some ploy you have invented for me.

After I asked numerous times.

As far as stupid reasoning goes, I suggest that the person trying to sell the aforementioned pile of shit as bouquet of roses would be the stipid one, and that is exactly what you are trying to do via your usual games of semantics.

Your charges are as unoriginal and incorrect as ever. Any complicated argument will have definitional problems...thats the nature of our language. Your refusal to recognize that fact points to your intellectual dishonesty.

LMAO. You just never quit.

Nice dodge. But its ok...I'm getting used to it from you whenever we talk about this topic. Its amusing, and a bit sad really, how terrible your logic gets whenever we talk about homosexuality. Its like you have some block about it.

These definitions most certainly DO place the decision of what is normal and deviant on conforming to a standard. I suppose you are going to tell me Captain Kangaroo and not society dictates what is and is not normal?

So Society dictates what is and is not normal?....if thats so then you have no case. Unless you want to tell me where society told you homosexuality wasn't normal?...because I can point to broad swathes of society who think that it is normal.

The one trying to pull bullshit here is you, and it's blatantly obvious. Your argument holds NO water, and it's rather obvious.

Get real. Just admit it. You find them gross and thats why you dislike it. Equality for all...except those that Gunny finds gross...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Accepting something and finding it "normal" are NOT interchangeable.

I agree you will find large swatches of this country that ACCEPT homosexuals as "gasp" existing and having rights and not believing they should be prosecuted for private behavior. That does NOT equate to them thinking the behavior is in anyway NORMAL.

In fact I accept the fact that Homosexuals exist, have rights and are and should be protected in exactly the same manner as every other law abiding citizen. BUT I do NOT think they are NORMAL. And in fact since less than 10 percent of the ENTIRE human population are Homosexual ( and real statistical data indicates only 2 to 3 percent) they are IN FACT NOT Normal.

 

[CorpMediaSux]

In fact I accept the fact that Homosexuals exist, have rights and are and should be protected in exactly the same manner as every other law abiding citizen. BUT I do NOT think they are NORMAL. And in fact since less than 10 percent of the ENTIRE human population are Homosexual ( and real statistical data indicates only 2 to 3 percent) they are IN FACT NOT Normal.

But the same could be said about the blind population, or those who are left handed or any group that is a biological statistical minority. So the question is do you see homosexual as "not normal" in the same way that any mathematical minority is "not normal" is there something else about homosexuality that makes it "not normal" for you. This semantic game is important, but lets get at the REAL issue for you. And I'm not going to assume how you'll respond just going to pose the question.

The fact of the matter is now matter how ANYONE "feels" about homosexuality. The facts are as follows:
1. Homosexuality is not chosen
2. Homosexuality exists in all mammal species and most non-mammal
3. Chosen sexual acts do not define homosexuality, same-sex desire defines homosexuality. It is possible to be an abstinent homosexual, but BEING homosexual is not a choice.

Period.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A practicing homosexual is sinning, choosing to sin. Which is of course their choice. And yes I do see Homosexuals differently then benign abnormalities in humans. BUT I strive to not let that make me act inappropriately within our society and my religion. It is like any other prejuidice, I can not make it go away, but I can work to control it.

However I will never change my opinion on the matter, nor will I ACCEPT homosexual behavior as normal in any sense of the word. I will not sit quietly while others strive to create a false impression that homosexual life styles are normal or should be given special status ( good or bad) nor do I support teaching young children that the life style is somehow normal and acceptable.

Is that CLEAR enough for you?

 

[Doug]

I think the word "normal" gets in the way of understanding this issue.

Wearing clothes is not "normal". No other animal species does it. And our ancestors, at some point back in the generational chain, did not do it either.

They had to invent the idea, along with things like fires and weapons, and choose to depart from the "normality" of their own ancestors.

For that matter, sparing a defeated male enemy, as opposed to killing him and then seizing his females to use as sex-slaves, is not "normal" (not to mention that it also defies a famous Biblical injunction.)

I think what people mean by not "normal" is several different things:

(1) It arouses a sense of revulsion in them (that is, in people who say, "That's not normal".) And male homosexuality, especially the idea of taking the female role, certainly arouses revulsion in most males in most societies, although the expression of this revulsion is mediated via one's culture: only lower-class uneducated males will express it in a frank and unrestrained way in the US today, whereas only liberal ideologues will pretend to find nothing unusual in it. (It is interesting that the Greek upper classes at one period practiced a form of homo-eroticism, showing how variable culture can be.)

(2) It doesn't play a role in the natural order of survival and reproduction. Of course, neither does celibacy, and yet many religions celebrate the celebate. Perhaps this is because the celibate are demonstrating more control over their natural animal desires than the rest of us, while homosexuals seem to demonstrate less. But this is probably more an after-the-fact rationalization than a primal impulse.

(3) If we leave aside the alcohol-fueled rantings of trailer-trash, most people of all social classes and educational levels will normally, in our post-Enlightenment societies, exhibit great tolerance for eccentric behavior, so long as it is confined to the margins of society. "Bachelors" with greatly developed aesthetic tastes, two women living together ... did not really excite the lynch mobs.

I grew up in a conservative white workingclass suburb in Texas in the fifties. There was no worse insult that you could offer someone than to call them a "queer", but no one really believed that, in our school, there were any. As it turned out, we had a gay man living next door to us. Everyone knew about him, but no one said or did anything about it. No one made us "tolerate" him. We just did. On the other hand, he did not demand that the curriculum of our schools be altered to celebrate his "lifestyle".

However, things have changed. There is very definitely a militant homosexual movement that wants to force the rest of us, by force of law, to acknowledge that their sexual practices -- any sexual practices among consenting adults -- are "normal". Toleration is not enough for them. And they want to attack, via public displays, the very idea of sexual taboos and standards.

This has provoked a reaction, which is at least in part driven, I believe, by the following: People have the sense that this represents one more little thread being pulled out of the fabric of the social order. Sex is a powerful Darwinian drive, and its partial taming by social customs and taboos is probably what has allowed us to move forward from the status of clever hairless chimpanzees.

So when people say homosexuality is not normal, perhaps what they really mean is: the current-day homosexual movement is attacking the normative order of society, demanding that we discard the certainties of centuries.

A society that has slowly, gradually improved beyond measure the lives of everyone, is now seen as the enemy, its foundations to be undermined, its traditional culture trashed, its history and heroes debunked. The unspoken accommodations and quiet toleration that had been growing in the past are to be rejected.

So there is a reaction to this. People are defending a society that has seemed to work pretty well, and which has exhibited like no other before it, the capacity for self-criticism and self-improvement. This is the kind of normality that most people want. And it is the kind that gay people should want also.

 

[CorpMediaSux]

However I will never change my opinion on the matter, nor will I ACCEPT homosexual behavior as normal in any sense of the word. I will not sit quietly while others strive to create a false impression that homosexual life styles are normal or should be given special status ( good or bad) nor do I support teaching young children that the life style is somehow normal and acceptable.

You seem to be a person who doesn't enjoy when conservatives are called unfortunate names like closed minded or bigoted, but the first sentence of this post clearly shows your lack of an open mind on the subject and the second suggests you are closer to the bigots than you may be comfortable.

What efforts towards "normalcy" do you see as so threatening to society that you can not "sit quietly." Are you referring to the marriage issue? Because legal marriage and religious marriage are two entirely seperate entitities. Every straight couple gets a legal marriage and then SOME choose to engage in a religious ceremony. They have to work with their congregation to decide which church they even will get married in. None of that is bound by law or citizenship. Do Christians believe that churches who don't approve gay marriage would be forced by law to approve it? Do Christians believe that gays will increase the already sky rocketing heterosexual divorce rate?

What exactly is wrong with teaching children that homosexuality is morally neutral? You seem to object to the school teaching things that dispute your understanding of biblical law. But that happens already in so many other ways. Unless you believe childrend's curriculum should be directed by scripture in all instances, it seems a bit predjudiced that you would demand it be guided by Christianity in THIS instance. Again, remember the facts "same-sex desire = homosexuality." Nothing that is taught in school can create or dissuade human sexual desire, be it hetero or homosexual. Sexual desire is a biological fact and exists in 99.9% of the population. Now why some people's sexual desire guides them toward same-sex attraction/relatioships who knows, but it is a fact. Did anything that happened in your schooling make it more likely for you to be heterosexual? Like, how exactly can school curriculum increase or decrease the amount of homosexuality in the world? More, to the point, is your ideal world one in which the homosexual percentage of the population is abstinent and do you believe this was God's intention as well?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

isnt it caused by the same bug that gives you lyme disease

im sorry i couldnt resist

"You want to know what really causes homosexuality?"

"This question, which arises from an assumption that one is homosexual because “something went wrong,” should be just as interesting as the question, “What causes heterosexuality?” Think about that question for a moment, and ask yourself why nobody ever asks it. In asking this question, are you looking to change someone? To heal someone? Yourself perhaps?"

"The two most common answers one hears today is that sexuality is either a choice, or it’s genetic. Have you considered it might be neither? Perhaps sexuality (homo, hetero and anything in-between) is ‘learned’ as subtely as one’s mother tongue, or perhaps it’s a psychological reaction. It could be a result of parental hormones during conception or pregnancy or breastfeeding. It could be a result of womb-temperature, the vitamin balance in the parents, or their age. It could be a complex combination of these factors. The only honest answer to this question at the moment is that nobody knows."

"Which of these ‘causes’ would justify discrimination?"
Which would make one sexuality inferior to another? Many people believe that if homosexuality were proven to be genetic, then those who discriminate against us would have no reason to discriminate. It’s a seductive argument, but I believe it has more to do with people trying to put their own minds at ease, as they struggle with (self-)acceptance."

"Those who believe a genetic cause would make discrimination unjustifiable, clearly imply that discrimination against homosexuals is justifiable in other circumstances. More importantly, this argument relies on a belief that reason can defeat discrimination, implying that discrimination is based on reason; that discrimination is reasonable."

"If skin-colour were a choice, would racism be justified?
Would it then be completely reasonable to say that only if you are a particular colour are you allowed to marry or join organisations or visit a loved-one in hospital? If skin-colour were a choice, would it be reasonable to say that some skin-colours were sinful or evil or immoral, and others not?"

"Skin-colour is genetic, but has this fact ever changed the opinion of even one of those who discriminate against other races?

Hate is not reasonable.

"Hate is not a reasoned argument. Don’t pander to those who hate by trying to prove you ‘couldn’t help it’, or ‘given the choice, you’d be heterosexual’. Beware of the ‘good little boy’ syndrome, where you over-achieve in the hope that people will be willing to ‘overlook’ your supposed imperfection. These things only justify the discrimination.

"The cause of sexuality is really quite irrelevant, except to those who are insecure and want you to conform. There’s no need to look for some cause, as your sexuality is not an imperfection. You’re just fine the way you are, with your own potential, possibilities and set of things you have to offer to the world.

"Be yourself, inasmuch at does not bring physical harm, and know you’re not alone. History is littered with proof of the fact that it is possible for the majority to be wrong.

"And quite frankly, the only ‘reasonable’ answer to unreasonable bigots is, well, none at all."

www.scottowen.org

 

[Gunny]

Actually I've only said I am smarter than SOME people on this board. I have specifically said that I am NOT a genius previously...so you taking "liberal license" is actually you lying. And really...being smarter than RGS and Bern doesn't exactly make me a genius. To beat that fabulous duo I merely need to be barely competent.

Oh horseshit. You take your semantics WAY too far. DO get over yourself.


Ahh, you just bring up that its deviant for fun all the time? Peh...see this is why I was trying to pin you down on definitions. I missed a spot for you to squirm out of, I see.

Again, no squirming. Just your wishful thinking. Are we discussing the morality of homosexuality, or whether or not it is "normal"?


After I asked numerous times.

Not me. You will also note that you have done EXACTLY as I predicted you would. We aren't arguing the merit of discussion ... we're arguing the definition of words. SOS with you.


Your charges are as unoriginal and incorrect as ever. Any complicated argument will have definitional problems...thats the nature of our language. Your refusal to recognize that fact points to your intellectual dishonesty.

The intellectually dishonest argument is yours, period. It's as obvious as day. Your "definitional problems" are mere contrivances to support a dishonest argument.

Nice dodge. But its ok...I'm getting used to it from you whenever we talk about this topic. Its amusing, and a bit sad really, how terrible your logic gets whenever we talk about homosexuality. Its like you have some block about it.

Pure bullshit unworthy of comment.


So Society dictates what is and is not normal?....if thats so then you have no case. Unless you want to tell me where society told you homosexuality wasn't normal?...because I can point to broad swathes of society who think that it is normal.

Right. More of your trying to sell that proverbial pile of shit as a bouquet. Acceptable and normal are not intercahngeable words, Mr Semantics. Try again.

Get real. Just admit it. You find them gross and thats why you dislike it. Equality for all...except those that Gunny finds gross...

You get real, and quite trying to deflect to my personal opinion/moral judgement. Homosexuality is abnormal behavior, and none of your verbal gymnastics have proven otherwise.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You seem to be a person who doesn't enjoy when conservatives are called unfortunate names like closed minded or bigoted, but the first sentence of this post clearly shows your lack of an open mind on the subject and the second suggests you are closer to the bigots than you may be comfortable.

What efforts towards "normalcy" do you see as so threatening to society that you can not "sit quietly." Are you referring to the marriage issue? Because legal marriage and religious marriage are two entirely seperate entitities. Every straight couple gets a legal marriage and then SOME choose to engage in a religious ceremony. They have to work with their congregation to decide which church they even will get married in. None of that is bound by law or citizenship. Do Christians believe that churches who don't approve gay marriage would be forced by law to approve it? Do Christians believe that gays will increase the already sky rocketing heterosexual divorce rate?

What exactly is wrong with teaching children that homosexuality is morally neutral? You seem to object to the school teaching things that dispute your understanding of biblical law. But that happens already in so many other ways. Unless you believe childrend's curriculum should be directed by scripture in all instances, it seems a bit predjudiced that you would demand it be guided by Christianity in THIS instance. Again, remember the facts "same-sex desire = homosexuality." Nothing that is taught in school can create or dissuade human sexual desire, be it hetero or homosexual. Sexual desire is a biological fact and exists in 99.9% of the population. Now why some people's sexual desire guides them toward same-sex attraction/relatioships who knows, but it is a fact. Did anything that happened in your schooling make it more likely for you to be heterosexual? Like, how exactly can school curriculum increase or decrease the amount of homosexuality in the world? More, to the point, is your ideal world one in which the homosexual percentage of the population is abstinent and do you believe this was God's intention as well?

How many times must I post this....

I support civil unions. I agree with the idea that the Government should get out of the marriage business. It will solve all kind of Constitutional problems we have now regarding the desire of the majority not to allow marriage and the fact some States do allow it.

I notice you completely ignored my first paragraph, I can see why, it wouldn't sit well with your assumptions made in the post.

The reality is that books and teaching tools are created that introduce homosexual couples even in our lowest grades. That is not something I want or support. Here is an example for ya. Polygamy is just as "normal" as this deviant sexual practice, shall we begin introducing polygamist couples to young children? It is after all nothing more than the free choice of the people involved. Why aren't there demands that this sexual choice be allowed? Why is it STILL coded in law to be illegal? What happened to the demands that Government get out of people's bedrooms?

Sex should not come up at all in school until high school, in my opinion. It is a matter for families to talk about and discuss not class rooms.

 

[Larkinn]

Accepting something and finding it "normal" are NOT interchangeable.

I agree you will find large swatches of this country that ACCEPT homosexuals as "gasp" existing and having rights and not believing they should be prosecuted for private behavior. That does NOT equate to them thinking the behavior is in anyway NORMAL.

In fact I accept the fact that Homosexuals exist, have rights and are and should be protected in exactly the same manner as every other law abiding citizen. BUT I do NOT think they are NORMAL. And in fact since less than 10 percent of the ENTIRE human population are Homosexual ( and real statistical data indicates only 2 to 3 percent) they are IN FACT NOT Normal.

Take it up with Gunny then...he has a different definition of normal.

 

[Larkinn]

Oh horseshit. You take your semantics WAY too far. DO get over yourself.

No I just try not to make assumptions from what people say. As I said before, language is important...it is the only tool for communication we have online. There is no facial movements, irony, tone, etc. Even when there are those things people can be misunderstood quite easily. But I've explained all this before...you just throw out the semantics card as a bullshit term that you know has no real meaning here.

Again, no squirming. Just your wishful thinking. Are we discussing the morality of homosexuality, or whether or not it is "normal"?

They are linked. Because when we talk about the normality of something the implication is, generally, that things that are abnormal/deviant/etc are negative/bad/etc. Of course none of your definitions of abnormal/deviant touch on those negative connotations, but thats why you use those dishonest terms...so you can imply that its bad without having to give reasons why its bad. Yes they are uncommon...but to imply that makes them abnormal/deviant is dishonest because you wouldn't call other uncommon groups abnormal/deviant.

Not me. You will also note that you have done EXACTLY as I predicted you would. We aren't arguing the merit of discussion ... we're arguing the definition of words. SOS with you.

Well if you would have committed to the definitions instead of squirming around like a ******* worm, we wouldn't need too.

The intellectually dishonest argument is yours, period. It's as obvious as day. Your "definitional problems" are mere contrivances to support a dishonest argument.

Umm, no. Defining something more accurately makes it harder to have a bad argument, not easier.

Right. More of your trying to sell that proverbial pile of shit as a bouquet. Acceptable and normal are not intercahngeable words, Mr Semantics. Try again.

I didn't say they were...in fact I never said interchangable. I was using your definition of normal. After all you basically said that society "dictates what is normal". Of course you said other incompatible things about the definition of normality before as well. Squirm squirm squirm.

You get real, and quite trying to deflect to my personal opinion/moral judgement. Homosexuality is abnormal behavior, and none of your verbal gymnastics have proven otherwise.

Do you think being a genius is abnormal behavior?