Is homosexuality unnatural?

[Larv]

What kind of logic are you using? UNDESIRABLE? That argument hasn't been used in industrialized society since the Third Reich. Even in the homophobic 'fifties, people were discovering just how offensive that term is. Did you pick up a bad Thesaurus? Did you write something you were going to edit and then forgot to edit?

Whoa! Slow down there, moral cowboy. The Third Reich? Why not Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the KKK? Are you incapable of answering the simple question stated above? Would you desire your children to be naturally heterosexual or naturally homosexual? Can you climb down off your high horse long enough to get real with the rest of us?

 

I'm giving you a chance to pull back from a word that would meet Justice Holmes's standard for "shouting fire in a crowded theater." "Undesirable" is a very offensive term. When aimed at a group granted protection by, it is generally considered a violation of their civil rights. "ESHB 2661 was signed by Governor Chris Gregoire on January 31, 2006. ESHB 2661 adds sexual orientation as a protected class in Washington State." (Washington State Human Rights Commission) I don't think Hypography wants to contribute to what your home state considers criminal behavior.

You mean to say that my opinion on this issue is a matter of criminal behavior? That free speech is outlawed on Hypography? Out here in Washington we give homosexuals all their legal rights, as demonstrated by ESHB 2661. ("Marriage," however, is not one them.)

 

Maybe you'd better think before you write, or maybe you'd better think before you think--and after.

I think that you think that I think you think with your head up your ***. But you think that I think that you think with my head in the same position. Whose thought police should we call for either kind of criminal thinking behavior? Perhaps no one should think at all on these boards. Perhaps, just be be safe and moral, we all should think exactly like you.

[Larv]

it's nothing short of hate-speech that larv and cedars et al continue to spew out here at hypography and i'm apalled that we have allowed it to continue this long. it's hurting people and patently against our rules. stop it, and stop it now!!

Bullshit! Hurting people? Please tell me how a rational discussion hurts anyone on this thread. You need to get over your knee-jerk reaction to opinions that are contrary to your own.

[lemit]

Larv, It seems that you might have some trouble understanding this, but you are the one who's got away from rational discussion. Do you want to try again? It's really up to you now.

 

--lemit

[Larv]

Larv, It seems that you might have some trouble understanding this, but you are the one who's got away from rational discussion. Do you want to try again? It's really up to you now.

As Wittgenstein said once wisely: “What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.” Therefore, as I understand your position, you are saying that we must not ask this question: Would you desire your children to be naturally heterosexual or naturally homosexual?

 

Is asking if homosexuality is unnatural any more offensive to homosexuals than asking if it is undesirable? There is a difference, you know, between saying that homosexuals are undesirable and saying that people do not prefer their children to be homosexual. I think you are running away from the argument when you try to make your Third Reich case.

 

It's such a simple question: Do you want your children to be homosexual or heterosexual? Be honest.

[Buffy]

It's such a simple question: Do you want your children to be homosexual or heterosexual? Be honest.

All other things being equal, I don't care. I love my child no matter what she "is by nature".

 

As a practical matter though, the only reason that I'd want her to be heterosexual is the people who would scream "unnatural" and "abnormal" at her. (crickets)

 

Why do you insist that it's a good idea to call homosexuals unnatural and abnormal?

 

I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way, :rolleyes:

Buffy

[Buffy]

You mean to say that my opinion on this issue is a matter of criminal behavior? That free speech is outlawed on Hypography?

The First Amendment applies to governments, not private groups like Hypography. We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who does not comport themselves in accordance with our rules and norms of behavior.

 

That means you don't have any right to say anything you want to here. Its a free country, but that doesn't mean I have to let you come into my house and call my friends "unnatural."

 

That's what the Red Guards did during the Cultural Revolution.

 

It should be noted of course that claiming persecution and censorship is the first sign that someone is having trouble justifying their claims. The second sign is calling people names:

I think that you think that I think you think with your head up your ***. But you think that I think that you think with my head in the same position.

Do you believe this helps support your argument?

 

I hate women because they always know where things are, :rolleyes:

Buffy

[Larv]

All other things being equal, I don't care. I love my child no matter what she "is by nature".

Of course, who wouldn't?

 

As a practical matter though, the only reason that I'd want her to be heterosexual is the people who would scream "unnatural" and "abnormal" at her. (crickets)

Well, then which is it?

 

Why do you insist that it's a good idea to call homosexuals unnatural and abnormal?

If you're talking to me then you need to show me where I said that, which I didn't.

 

I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way, :)

Buffy

OK.

[Larv]

That means you don't have any right to say anything you want to here. Its a free country, but that doesn't mean I have to let you come into my house and call my friends "unnatural."

But I never said that. I've been arguing the opposition position all along. You obviously haven't read my posts.

 

It should be noted of course that claiming persecution and censorship is the first sign that someone is having trouble justifying their claims. The second sign is calling people names:

 

Do you believe this helps support your argument?

Buffy, do you really know what my argument is?

[lemit]

It's such a simple question: Do you want your children to be homosexual or heterosexual? Be honest.

 

You asked me to be honest. I will try.

 

I've thought about your question all day and come to the conclusion that it probably wouldn't matter to me. I think it would have troubled my parents, but they would have accepted it. Since I never married, they probably thought I was gay and really did deal with that question. My parents were always very hospitable toward gay couples, even if they didn't think they would be so. And they passed on to me an attitude of tolerance.

 

I've got myself into trouble with people on all sides of this question by saying I firmly believe in people's right to do things that make me uncomfortable. In other words, I don't think any problem I might have resides in anyone but me.

 

Thank you for your serious question. I hope I've answered it seriously.

 

--lemit

[sman]

It's such a simple question: Do you want your children to be homosexual or heterosexual? Be honest.

 

Of course, no parent wishes ostracism upon their child and in any world where hetero has only slightly easier time than homo, if we had to choose, we’d choose easier. With that out of the way, in a world where it was exactly 50/50, I think evolutionary psychology would predict an additional lean towards hetero. That is, we should have emotions that influence our behavior to maximize our progeny. This isn't a difficult question, but the answer doesn't deliver any instruction either way.

 

I hasten to remind everyone that no finding of science or slice of demographic data will ever change our minds about the moral maxim that it’s not ok to discriminate against an individual because of the group he/she belongs to and that every human being is an exquisite and irreplaceable member of our world with no one any more or less valuable than ourselves - accept, of course, the residence of Massachusetts, who are less than human and should be subjugated.

 

This thread needs to lighten up, IMO.

[HydrogenBond]

Here is another angle. Say for the sake of argument there are natural homosexuals in terms of their inner propensity at birth. How do we classify humans who are not this way at birth, but for reasons such as thrills, experimentation, fad copying, etc., engage in homosexual behavior? Is this natural, unnatural, learned behavior due to cultural and/or psychological potentials?

 

At one time, the natural gays had to live in the closet. Many had to become heterosexual and one could not easily identify which was which because of the cultural wall. They were being unnatural to their innate nature due to cultural parameters. Say a real natural gay married a synthetic or cultural gay is this fully natural or half natural?

[Cedars]

The suicide process in gays and lesbians is generally that they grow up in the culture, learning the jokes, the sneers, the discrimination--and then they come to realize they are part of that group and will be victims the rest of their lives. That's when they become suicidal. It isn't because they are gay; it is because they too often already know what it means to be gay and don't want to live with the intolerance of the outside world.

Source please

It's the same process youths of any group targeted by discrimination go through. The autobiographies of African-Americans tell the same story: they found out they were black and would have killed themselves if someone had not intervened in some way to give them self-worth. Of course, the fact they were able to write autobiographies and have them published says something.

"They give as examples of such variations the elevated rates of suicide among Chinese women, members of native and aboriginal communities, and residents of the former Soviet Union, and lower than expected rates among African Americans. In particular, the low rates of suicide among African Americans raises important questions about suicide prevention efforts, especially when these low rates are more closely examined.

As the authors note, one possible explanation for the lower rate of suicide among African Americans is that the effects are being “masked” by elevated homicide rates. This is certainly possible, but it cannot explain the whole difference in suicide rates between African Americans and White Americans."

 

WHAT CAN SUICIDE RESEARCHERS LEARN FROM AFRICAN AMERICANS?

 

http://www.suicidology.org/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=232&name=DLFE-20.pdf

 

But one sentence of yours baffles me: "I really dont know why homosexuals would want their orientation associated with suicide risk . . . ."

--lemit

 

To clarify:

Homosexuals want to be thought of as "normal". Most people do not think suicide is a normal reaction: example, one of my brothers friends killed himself at 17 over a girl. Suicide is not a normal reaction to a break up. It is an abnormal pathology.

 

Why would homosexuals want the general public associating homosexuality with a higher risk of suicide?

 

Neighbor one standing on across the street from the activity of ambulances and cops: "well, you know he was a homosexual and they tend to kill themselves more often than the rest of us"

 

Neighbor two: "oh yeah. I read that before."

[Larv]

You asked me to be honest. I will try.

 

I've thought about your question all day and come to the conclusion that it probably wouldn't matter to me. I think it would have troubled my parents, but they would have accepted it. Since I never married, they probably thought I was gay and really did deal with that question. My parents were always very hospitable toward gay couples, even if they didn't think they would be so. And they passed on to me an attitude of tolerance.

 

I've got myself into trouble with people on all sides of this question by saying I firmly believe in people's right to do things that make me uncomfortable. In other words, I don't think any problem I might have resides in anyone but me.

 

Thank you for your serious question. I hope I've answered it seriously.

You did all right.

 

One thing that makes this issue so compelling is its glandular dynamics. Heterosexual people are naturally hard pressed to appreciate the needs and urges of homosexual people. To me, kissing a man with sexual inclinations is beyond my personal capacity to execute. Most heterosexuals feel that way about having sex with members of their own sexes; it’s quite natural to feel that way. Conversely, we therefore have to make a distinction between how we feel about sex and how homosexuals feel about sex. As you know, it’s a very large, 180-degree kind of distinction.

 

The mistake homosexuals make—the one thing I think that mostly impairs their progress toward social acceptance—is insisting that homosexual behavior should be elevated in everyone’s eyes to the level of heterosexual behavior, so that homosexuals have equally legal rights, including marriage. This is a mistake because homosexuals fail to see that they are forcing on everyone else their revised definition of what marriage should mean. Many heterosexual people who want to see homosexuals get all the legal rights they deserve have to flinch a the concept of “same-sex marriage.” And we flinch naturally.

 

It’s a glandular thing, that all. And it make no sense to tell an average heterosexual that when two men kiss and have sex it is entirely the same thing as when a man and a woman kiss and have sex. Many, many decent heterosexual people would react to that by saying: “It ain’t natural.” What they are really saying is: “It ain’t desirable from a glandular standpoint.” And from there the problem gets sticky.

 

What I think the homosexual community should do to gain a fuller acceptance in American society is to dispel this notion that “It’s ain’t natural” and replace it with “It’s different, but it’s naturally OK.” One way for the homosexual community to move forward with this initiative would be to declare “gay marriage” a misnomer and call it something else. By doing that they could finesse their way to equality. (And, yes, there will be those who yell “Separate-but-equal is no equality!” They are the ones who make his issue so tacky.)

[Moontanman]

Larv, this is a totally off topic post, if you want to revive the gay marriage thread feel free to so if the mods will allow it but to try and take that argument back out of the closet in this thread is an attempt to derail the thread. Just because you personally have a problem with gay marriage doesn't mean every one who is straight does nor does it make you correct.

[Buffy]

All other things being equal, I don't care. I love my child no matter what she "is by nature".

Of course, who wouldn't?

As a practical matter though, the only reason that I'd want her to be heterosexual is the people who would scream "unnatural" and "abnormal" at her. (crickets)

Well, then which is it?

Unfortunately while throughout this thread you've been trying to draw fine distinctions on the term "natural", you've at the same time been demanding a simplistic answer to this question. I'll be polite and say that that is disingenuous.

 

"Who wouldn't?" Well, unfortunately lots of folks. And that's the point of a lot of the foregoing discussion.

 

The false equivalence you've been trying to set up here is the argument that any reason that one might have for judging homosexuality to be "undesirable" is tantamount to justifying the more colloquial belief of a segment of society that it is "unnatural."

 

This is something that you just used to justify "separate but equal" treatment of homosexuals:

It’s a glandular thing, that all. And it make no sense to tell an average heterosexual that when two men kiss and have sex it is entirely the same thing as when a man and a woman kiss and have sex. Many, many decent heterosexual people would react to that by saying: “It ain’t natural.” What they are really saying is: “It ain’t desirable from a glandular standpoint.” And from there the problem gets sticky.

 

What I think the homosexual community should do to gain a fuller acceptance in American society is to dispel this notion that “It’s ain’t natural” and replace it with “It’s different, but it’s naturally OK.” One way for the homosexual community to move forward with this initiative would be to declare “gay marriage” a misnomer and call it something else. By doing that they could finesse their way to equality. (And, yes, there will be those who yell “Separate-but-equal is no equality!” They are the ones who make his issue so tacky.)

You earlier in the thread spent considerable time arguing that there's no conclusive proof of a genetic link to homosexuality, as well as arguing that it's a correctable condition. Both of which are dog-whistle arguments for justifying discrimination against homosexuals.

 

It's the kind of argument that closeted homophobes make: "I don't hate homosexuals! Some of my best friends are gay! But I don't think they should marry because it, well, offends my sensibilities!"

 

Thus, you should not be surprised at the reactions you're getting.

Why do you insist that it's a good idea to call homosexuals unnatural and abnormal?

If you're talking to me then you need to show me where I said that, which I didn't.

In the passage I just quoted, you justified people using the colloquial usage of "unnatural". Your personal support for it is shown by your unwillingness to deal with the *consequences* of perpetuating the notion that it is unnatural, and your insistence on a simplistic and unified definition of "undesirable."

 

To clarify this for you, if I say that I don't "desire" my child to be homosexual specifically because of the blatant discrimination--that you do indeed support with your arguments against gay marriage--that still exists in society today, you have made it quite clear that this is somehow a hypocritical stance and is tantamount to agreeing that it is "undesirable for society and intolerance against it is justified."

 

Words are amazing things. I make my living with them. You can "not say" all sorts of stuff and still get your point across.

 

If you feel unfairly persecuted, its seems to be because while demanding free speech rights, you don't recognize that free speech comes without any protection against being criticized for your speech, even if you think its "unfair" or a "misrepresentation" because you "didn't say that."

That means you don't have any right to say anything you want to here. Its a free country, but that doesn't mean I have to let you come into my house and call my friends "unnatural."

But I never said that. I've been arguing the opposition position all along. You obviously haven't read my posts.

It doesn't matter what you did or didn't say. What matters is that your claims that we're stifling your or anyone else's freedom of speech because we're thought Nazis or stuck in the conventional wisdom simply makes it look like you're avoiding the issues being presented.

 

Can I play your game too? Why can't you answer a simple question?

...The second sign is calling people names:

I think that you think that I think you think with your head up your ***. But you think that I think that you think with my head in the same position.

Do you believe this helps support your argument?

Buffy, do you really know what my argument is?

I hope my post has demonstrated that I do, although probably much to your chagrin. But that's irrelevant. Stop avoiding the question: do you believe that calling people names advances your argument? Doesn't it make you look just like the "hypocrites" you're trying to create with your false equivalence?

 

The fact of the matter is that the very muddling of these words "unnatural" and "undesirable" are more importantly directed at the societal problem of discrimination, no matter what the "scientific definition of natural" is.

 

Right now we have a case of a Justice of the peace in Louisiana refusing to marry an interracial couple because of his personal belief that it would be "bad for the kids" as a cover for "it's unnatural."

 

As one wag said, "it's probably because the guy was afraid the kids might grow up to be Democratic Presidents."

 

Being a Jew or an African American still gets a lot of hostility in some places today, even if it is "unconscious." But it is all because "unbiased" folks do fall into line with the subtle forms of keeping "those people" in their place, whether it's aggressive "enforcement" of voter laws (see the US Attorney firing scandal in the Bush administration and the crusade against ACORN), to crusades to defend against the "War on Christmas" hidden behind patronizing references to "Judeo-Christian."

 

For Jews--a "treatable condition" I might point out--this sort of "unspoken" discrimination is just a slowly improving condition, but the fact that the subtler forms are hard to call out doesn't mean they shouldn't be, and provides much motivation to be vigilant on the more "acceptable" forms of discrimination against "yuckier" groups like gays or Muslims.

 

Sorry you've gotten so much flack for it, but you know, most of it has to do with hiding behind protestations of "I didn't say that."

 

First learn the meaning of what you say, and then speak, :)

Buffy

[Larv]

You earlier in the thread spent considerable time arguing that there's no conclusive proof of a genetic link to homosexuality, as well as arguing that it's a correctable condition.

Quite wrong. I’ve been arguing that homosexuality is a genetic venue known as kin selection. You haven’t been paying attention, Buffy.

 

It's the kind of argument that closeted homophobes make: "I don't hate homosexuals! Some of my best friends are gay! But I don't think they should marry because it, well, offends my sensibilities!"

“Closeted homophobes”? Wouldn’t that be anyone who disagrees with you?

 

Right now we have a case of a Justice of the peace in Louisiana refusing to marry an interracial couple because of his personal belief that it would be "bad for the kids" as a cover for "it's unnatural."

Do you know this to be true? No, you don’t. Besides, what does this have to do with the natural condition of homosexuality?

 

In the passage I just quoted, you justified people using the colloquial usage of "unnatural". Your personal support for it is shown by your unwillingness to deal with the *consequences* of perpetuating the notion that it is unnatural, and your insistence on a simplistic and unified definition of "undesirable."

How ‘bout “not preferential” instead, as in “I would prefer my children to heterosexual, not homosexual.” Is that what a “closeted homophobe” would say? Or is that simply an honest statement by someone who desires his children to heterosexual rather than homosexual? Desirability is simply a factor in this—personal preference, that’s all—so why should it light up your Christmas tree?

 

It doesn't matter what you did or didn't say

What? Didn’t you already say above that what I do or don’t say matters a lot? You seem to flipping the waffle over and over.

 

Sorry you've gotten so much flack for it, but you know, most of it has to do with hiding behind protestations of "I didn't say that."

Interesting how you claim I said things that I didn’t say and then fail to back them up with actual quotes.

 

First learn the meaning of what you say, and then speak, :D

Buffy

It would help, especially for a Staff Administrator, if you actually knew the meaning of what I actually said.

[HydrogenBond]

I am not exactly clear on the definition of homosexuality? Does it means humans with a natural steady state inclination to be gay, or humans with temporary inclinations to be gay due to any of a number of factors. If it is genetic, the first definition is due to the gay gene which is always on. The second case appears able to switch the gay gene off and on, almost at will.