Homosexuality is only a cry for attention sent out by some people, is morally wrong and should not be allowed. This is my “opinion” of homosexuality, but it is not firmly rooted. With the recent California Supreme Court ruling that gay people should be allowed to marry, I thought it was time to debate this controversial issue. Whether you believe that the recent decision is going to cause God’s wrath and the end of the world, or whether you believe that every person, gay or straight, has the right to marry, I want your opinion heard.
I promised this blog when I wrote my Comprehensive Sex Ed blog a little while back, and I thought now is the best time to write it. The goal of this blog is not to get others to join my side on the issue, but to debate the issue down to its core, until each side of the argument is exposed for what it is, making a person’s choice on the issue well-informed and correct (at least for their belief system). Please join the debate in the comments and help others in their journey towards sound decision making.
My anti-homosexuality beliefs began because of religion. “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” is probably one of the most used pro-religion arguments against homosexuality. But as I’m growing older (and more intelligent, I hope), I am getting away from religion (I am agnostic as of the current time) and don’t want to use religion as a basis for an argument. This is because I believe that religion is made only because of fear, but this is the topic for another debate.
So my argument against homosexuality goes along the lines of religion, but with deeply rooted scientific beliefs instead of religious ideals. I think that if you come out and say that you are homosexual, you are just crying for attention. It is similar to the idea of somatoform psychological disorder, where you fake an illness so others will pay more attention to you. After all, I go to school with a gay guy and he is a very popular guy in the school. What better way to get people to like you than to show how you are different? This will only work in an accepting environment like a high school, and would not work in earlier stages of development.
I also believe that homosexuality is wrong because it goes against the way we were made. Regardless of whether you believe in creationism or evolution, we were given our sexual tools in order to give birth to the next generation. If we were made to enable homosexuality, there would be some way for two guys or two girls to have a child together, but there is not. All in all, I believe that we are biologically made to not allow homosexuality.
However, as I grow older I see the other standpoint just as clear. We are all humans, and with that we are given certain unalienable rights. If you believe that homosexuality is totally normal, then there is no reason why they should not be allowed to marry. However, the marriage would have to be separate from most churches, because of the religious view on marriage. I don’t know of one religion that allows homosexuality, but I could be wrong. No matter what, you can not force the homosexual population into hiding because you don’t want them to get the same rights as you, unless you don’t believe in homosexuality at all, which is a very real position. I cannot say anything to back up those who say that it is OK for people to be gay together, but not for them to get married. This is the most outrageous argument I have ever heard because you have no back up for your argument. “Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman” is a cliché used for this position, but if you were going to use a highly religious quote like this, then you should be against homosexuality no matter what.
As you can see, I’m pretty torn on this topic. I will join the debate below to further my knowledge on the subject, as well as do my own research and begin a homosexuality series in my blog. Thanks for reading and please rate/comment
Several things that I would like to comment on about your post. First: you seem well-spoken and thoughtful.
Second: when you say you have a scientific basis for your beliefs, what have you read on the subject that is scientific? According to an article from LiveScience.com, "pioneering psychiatrist Harry Stack Sullivan, [was] the first to state that mental illness among homosexuals was a result of societal stigma, not the sexual orientation itself, according to Naoko Wake of Michigan State University in this month's issue of Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences." (1). This would seem to indicate that it's not just a mental illness or a cry for attention. I also laughed at your description of high school as an "accepting environment." It most certainly is for certain people and in certain schools, but definitely not everywhere.
You say the "strategy" for attention wouldn't work in earlier stages of development, but it also has a hard time "working" in later stages, too, where homosexuals are persecuted, beaten, and sometimes killed for what they are.
Third: You say that homosexuality is wrong because it goes against the way we are made, but other animals have homosexual members, too, not just humans. You can read more about that at nationalgeographic.com (2). This seems to indicate that it's a natural occurence and not merely a human creation. It's also not a new thing. As far back as ancient Greece there have been homosexuals.
Finally, the most compelling argument that I can find is that racism and bigotry against any other group is simply not tolerated, except in regards to homosexuals. We've given complete rights to every other minority group in this country, so why are we continuing to deny this minority group the same rights as a heterosexual couple?
Oh, and the episcopalian religion has accepted an openly gay bishop, so it's not true that a homosexual marriage would have to be devoid of religion.
(1) http://www.livescience.com/health/070320_bad_homosexuality.html
(2) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.ht...
-------------------------
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
My PhotoBlog: http://takingpictures.wordpress.com
Thanks for the compliment, but let's get on to the debate.
First of all, my scientific basis to the argument is more biological then scientific. As I said, we evolved distinct sexual tools for a reason, and if we were meant to be gay, then we would have evolved differently. But I guess you could argue that we are in the middle of an evolutionary stage and the mind is the first thing to evolve.
But since we are on the topic of psychology and psychiatry, I have an argument anti-homosexuality that fits this topic. Homosexuality used to be in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as a psychological disorder. This book is written by the American Psychological Associates and the American Psychiatry Association. (I had thought that someone said they would listen to the APA before me before, but they must have taken their comment back because they were wrong.) It was removed from the book for three reasons.
1) In order to be in the book, the disorder has to be seen as a problem that should be done away with by the person who has it. This was true in the past, but as our culture becomes more accepting towards the gay community, the regret is almost gone.
2) If homosexuality was seen as a disorder, then therapy could be covered by insurance policies and a lot of insurance policies threatened to not use the DSM anymore if the condition remained in the book. This was because of their beliefs.
3) This fits in with the last, but the topic was so controversial that those who wrote the book didn't think it was a good idea to have a reference book be used for or against an issue that divides a lot of the country.
But, it could still be considered a disorder for many reasons. It is debilitating in the fact that if you are gay, you are unable to reproduce and spark the next generation (adoption and in-vitro fertilization does not count here). Also, it is seen as socially un-normal by a large fraction of the population. (By this I mean, if you see a person that you know is gay just by looking, you are almost guaranteed to look at them. And you can't argue this as not true. And if you think you can, go to Six Flags on Rainbow Day).
About high school, I think it can be the most accepting environment anywhere. If you go in with a negative attitude that no one will accept you and be your friend, that is what will happen (given the fact that I go to high school with 400 other students). You can be almost any combination of person (drama jock nerd) and there will be people who accept you. The world is what you see it as.
And I know that there are gay animals, and I am going to go into that topic in the future and probably right about it. That could actually be my swaying factor towards pro-homosexuality.
About that racism/bigotry, this depends on your view of homosexuality. If you see it as a choice, then it is similar to these other types of prejudices in no way. These other groups have no control over whether they are black or white, male or female. A gay person is gay because they choose to be. However, you are correct if you see homosexuality as predetermined.
I didn't know about the gay bishop. That is a huge step, but I'm sure that is probably the most difficult position to be in in this country right now, so kudos to him.
Just so everyone knows, I am not attempting to attack anyone or label anyone as inferior to me in my arguments. To tell you the truth, I could have agreed a lot with what kablock just said, but I argued against to find out the truth. I am sorry if I offend anyone, but that is what you have to do to get down to the truth. If someone would write an anti-sexuality argument down here, I would counter it with a pro-one. I am sorry if you disagree about my method, but that is how I work.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
First of all, my scientific basis to the argument is more biological then scientific. As I said, we evolved distinct sexual tools for a reason, and if we were meant to be gay, then we would have evolved differently. But I guess you could argue that we are in the middle of an evolutionary stage and the mind is the first thing to evolve.
One could easily suggest that all species are in the midst of an on-going evolutionary process, but that would not be necessary in order to counter your "biological" argument. Your opinion in this case seems to be based on several causal fallacies, especially in that your opinion incorrectly addresses the complex causes of both sexual orientation per se as well as the underlying biological factors that drive the evolutionary strategies that species use to survive.
Many human organs have evolved in such a way that they may perform more than one "purpose."
Furthermore, a biological organism cannot really be understood when you view its parts in isolation (The Blind Man and the Elephant). There is a great deal more to human sexuality (a complex entanglement of both biological and psychological factions) than just our "sexual tools." As a species that has sex for pleasure far more often than for procreation, it seems intellectually indefensible to attempt to define our sexuality solely in the context of whether or not we are attempting to conceive with every sexual act. And let's not forget that gay people can and do procreate with some regularity, despite our propensity to prefer our own sex to the other. There also seems to be an assumption in your argument that would suggest that there is no potential benefit to a species that produces individuals that are not as driven to procreate as some others. We can look at many insect species, bees and ants for example, that produce entire casts of individuals that do not procreate, but which still contribute to the survival of the species as a whole.
Homosexuality used to be in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as a psychological disorder.
You're right...homosexuality used to be in the DSM. I do have to take issue with your suggestion that the "three reasons" you offered were the primary motivating forces behind the demedicalization of homosexuality as a disorder per se.
1) In order to be in the book, the disorder has to be seen as a problem that should be done away with by the person who has it. This was true in the past, but as our culture becomes more accepting towards the gay community, the regret is almost gone.
To be accurate and objective, what the American Psychiatric association actually says is that, "homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgement, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities." As that is the case, what justification would there be to classify the condition as a "disorder?" In fact, I would suggest that your comment actually supports the idea that homosexuality is NOT, in and of itself, a disorder. As you said, "This was true in the past, but as our culture becomes more accepting towards the gay community, the regret is almost gone." This indicates that the source of the potential disorder (more on that, below) is NOT homosexuality, but rather the way that the culture acts towards people that are perceived to be gay (and the associated stressors that this treatment creates) that causes the problem.
2) If homosexuality was seen as a disorder, then therapy could be covered by insurance policies and a lot of insurance policies threatened to not use the DSM anymore if the condition remained in the book. This was because of their beliefs.
There are a couple of flaws with this argument. At the time that the DSM was originally changed, very few insurance companies would cover a diagnosis of homosexuality anyway, so it doesn't seem to me that this would be a major consideration in any case. And, your argument makes the common mistake of assuming that the various disorders associated with the old DSM code for "homosexuality" were similarly deleted from consideration. They were not. In fact, the old diagnosis for homosexuality was replaced with a diagnosis called "sexual orientation disturbance," which was later updated with "ego-dystonic homosexuality" and is currently addressed under the daignosis of a "Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified" associated with "...persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation." So...the argument that the diagnosis was removed to satisfy insurance companies really doesn't make a lot of sense. There was still a perfectly valid diagnosis in the DSM that covered those patients who were actually expressing some sort of dysfunction associated with their sexual orientation.
3) This fits in with the last, but the topic was so controversial that those who wrote the book didn't think it was a good idea to have a reference book be used for or against an issue that divides a lot of the country.
And, the response of the medical community was that the political controversy surrounding the issue of homosexuality are not in the least bit relevant to the scientific facts associated with a diagnosis. And, the scientific facts that were emerging in the research of the late fifties through early seventies suggested very strongly that the prior DSM consideration of homosexuality as a "disorder per se," was simply not supportable in light of the evidence.
Now, if the American Psychiatric Association was alone in its decision to demedicalize the general diagnosis of homosexuality as a "disorder," I might be willing to entertain the question of the potential for politics in the APsA's decision. However, the fact is that every single U.S. professional association in the relevant fields (and almost every similar body in the relvant professions world-wide) has taken the same steps to confirm the overwhelmingly accepted medical opinion that homosexuality is not a "disorder" in any usual sense of the word as it is used by medical professionals.
What most doctors say about homosexuality
But, it could still be considered a disorder for many reasons. It is debilitating in the fact that if you are gay, you are unable to reproduce and spark the next generation (adoption and in-vitro fertilization does not count here).
Factually incorrect. Unless effected by some other medical condition, gay people CAN reproduce. I may not enjoy the idea of having sex with a woman, but if I really wanted a biologically conceived child of my own, I could do so (and many gay people do). But, there is another flawed assumption here, since there is no suggestion in your argument that would designate heterosexual people who CAN conceive but choose not to have children as "disordered." The ability to have a child and the decision to have a child are two different things.
Also, it is seen as socially un-normal by a large fraction of the population. (By this I mean, if you see a person that you know is gay just by looking, you are almost guaranteed to look at them. And you can't argue this as not true. And if you think you can, go to Six Flags on Rainbow Day).
Actually, I can argue exactly that. You have already admitted that "as our culture becomes more accepting towards the gay community, the regret is almost gone." The reason you feel compelled to stare is that you have been taught to view gay people as unusual, and being natually curious humans are naturally drawn to unusual things. The tells me that the psychology of the reaction you describe is not taking place within the gay person, but in YOU. Something that happens in YOUR brain cannot be considered a "disorder" in the person to which YOU are reacting.
About that racism/bigotry, this depends on your view of homosexuality. If you see it as a choice, then it is similar to these other types of prejudices in no way. These other groups have no control over whether they are black or white, male or female. A gay person is gay because they choose to be. However, you are correct if you see homosexuality as predetermined.
The problem with your argument is that simply put, there is no credibly standing scientific evidence that would suggest that homosexuality is a "choice" (and honestly, it is frustrating to see people still clinging to a rediculous proposition that is more than 30 years out-of-step with the prevailing scientific opinions on the matter). Human sexuality is certainly complex, and there are numerous factors (both biological and psychological) that play a part in determining how one identifies sexually, but the simple fact is that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." (APA Link)
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
1) First of all, we all know that the sex organs perform both reproductive and psychological purposes, but the primary purpose is for procreation. Although this is true, it is arguable that the sex organs do not "know" that they are being used for pleasurable and not reproductive purposes (I don't know of a better way to say that). After all, there are only two animals that have sex for pleasure (man and dolphins), so this is obviously evolutionary new. This would still back up the anti-homosexuality argument, but one could say that homosexuality is the next evolutionary change, but what is beneficial from homosexuality that would cause it to let those who are survive better in our environment. There is no advantage a gay man (or woman) has over a straight one that would allow it to better adapt to the environment, which is the cause of evolution. Furthermore, genes from gay couples usually aren't passed on to the next generation (maybe 1/2 of them, sometimes), so there is no way that there will be a tendency towards homosexuality in the gene pool.
Also with this quote, I don't think that it is a fair argument to compare homosexuals to worker bees. First of all, we are so much farther along the evolutionary chain, and homosexuals and heterosexuals can perform equally in every aspect of life, so they aren't deemed as inferior like the worker bees (or at least in the same way).
2) Those were the main causes, but the absolute main cause was the controversy behind it. Homosexual activists were infiltrating APA meetings as fake psychiatrists and completely disrupting everything and threatening to hurt anyone who claimed that homosexuality had to be cured.
For my sources (for you and ediblewoman)...I got my information from an article we got in my psychology course (unfortunately, the source is whited out for copyright purposest), and my recent research on the subject of why homosexuality was removed after DSM V2 came from Homosexuality and American Psychiatry by Dr. Ronald Bayer (pro-homosexuality), and Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth by Dr. Charles Socarides. And if you still don't believe me, here is a quote from pro-homosexuality psychiatrist Ronald Bayer: "The effort to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM was the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, not scientific discoveries."
3) Just so it is known to you and all, I do not believe that homosexuality should be seen as a mental disorder. And let's not get off the actual debate here. But I agree that we are poorly treating the homosexuals among us in society. This could be cause for a psychological disorder, but is most definitely not guaranteed.
4) Why would you think that most insurance companies would not pay for it? By law, health insurance companies have to cover anything that is in the DSM unless otherwise stated in their contract, which a homosexual would not sign if they were seeking therapy for it. However, I see your point in that it is not a major argument, which it is not, but it was important nonetheless.
5) Your argument here is almost entirely false. I suggest you at least read a summary of one of the books I labeled as a source.
6) Yes a homosexual can reproduce, but the “disorder” does not allow you to reproduce because you do not want to have sex with a woman (or a man, depending on what gender you are). That is the definition of a mental disorder. It does not physically prevent you from having a child, but it psychologically does because you would not consider having sex with a woman. (Not you personally, you know what I mean).
Also, these people could be considered disordered, but they do not meet the other three criteria to get into the DSM. And they choose not to have children, and if you argue that homosexuality is not a choice, you do not choose to be gay.
7) Are you honestly arguing with the criteria to get disorders into the DSM? I don’t find this a very good debate topic...but that is one of the criteria to get a disorder into the DSM. I don’t know how else to argue this.
But the way I react to a homosexual person does not at all say that something is wrong inside my mind. If I see a person walking down the street with one leg and I look, does that mean something is wrong with me? You are theoretically making the same argument.
8) To be honest, I have not seen evidence either way…But I haven’t looked. I will look very soon. Debate forthcoming on this too?
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
After all, there are only two animals that have sex for pleasure (man and dolphins),
Factually incorrect. Many mammals (and definitely a significant number of primate species, including humans) experience pleasure during sex. To quote a report of the Danish Animal Ethics Council...
so this is obviously evolutionary new.
Define "new." The evidence suggests that this adaptation has been around at least as long as homo sapien, which means that humans have been doing it for pleasure for at least 200,000 years, during which the population of the human species has consistently increased.
This would still back up the anti-homosexuality argument, but one could say that homosexuality is the next evolutionary change, but what is beneficial from homosexuality that would cause it to let those who are survive better in our environment.
Again with the fallacies. First of all, not all adaptations are beneficial. Nor are all adaptations harmful. Many adaptations are neutral, and do not significantly impact survivability one way or the other. Personally, I tend to view it this way. After all, as I have pointed out to you (more than once), gay people are perfectly capable of biological reproduction and do so with some regularity. But, that isn't to say that there is no benefit to the adaptation for the species (more on that, below)...
There is no advantage a gay man (or woman) has over a straight one that would allow it to better adapt to the environment, which is the cause of evolution.
I disagree. In species with a complex social structure (like humans), and who are not overly concerned with basic survival (compared to lower animals, humans have it pretty easy), there emerges an opportunity for more subtle adaptations to occur which enable individuals to better survive in their environments. I think tht my gayness has toughened me quite significantly, and that experience has provided me with the tools to not only survive, but to prosper even in the midst of adversity. ("That which does not kill us makes us stronger." ~ Nietzsche)
Also, I will remind you again that there is a wealth of scientific data that indicates that there are direct benefits to both individuals and communities associated with sex-for-pleasure (I gave you several examples). On an evolutionary level, there are many examples of species that benefit overall from individuals that do not reproduce. There is no reason to think that the same sort of pressures might not be in play when it comes to gay humans.
In any case, I do not however see how the question of whether or not being gay offers an evolutionary benefit to an individual is relevant. In terms of biology, if an adaptation is harmful it will eventually be selected out of the gene pool. There is no evidence that this is occurring, despite the consistent occurrence of the adaptation across disparate human cultures and periods. In terms of psychology, the adaptation of homosexuality per se is not widely held in the relevant literature to represent any barrier to normal function. So, there's no problem there, either.
But even if it were harmful (despite all the evidence to the contrary), so what? I mean, its not like human society requires all individuals to reproduce, and if it did that would most likely be a disadvantage for our species, which is already prone to over-population. There are many species that the literature suggests form same-sex couples as a response to over-population and declining resources, as a form of natural population control.
Furthermore, genes from gay couples usually aren't passed on to the next generation (maybe 1/2 of them, sometimes), so there is no way that there will be a tendency towards homosexuality in the gene pool.
With all due respect, your understanding of biology, and genetics in particular, seems a little limited. Assuming the existence of a genetic marker, the occurrences of homosexuality in the general population would easily fit the model associated with a recessive gene (which could then be passed through individuals who do not themselves express the trait). However, the currently prevailing theories have suggested (and there is a lot of evidence to support this), that homosexuality is the result of a complex interaction of both biological (genetic and environmental) and psychological (cognitive) factors. The need to find a single "gay gene" is a fallacy perpetuated more by the media than by the legitimate scientists who are studying the subject.
The most compelling research that I have read suggests that the primary determining factors are more likely to be caused by hormonal conditions that exist within the mother during pregnancy. These hormones effect the way that the brain develops, which then predisposes the individual towards a particular orientation. This is further supported by the fact that a number of studies have shown that the sexuality of simple animals (such as fruit flies), can be directly manipulated at the biological level.
Also with this quote, I don't think that it is a fair argument to compare homosexuals to worker bees. First of all, we are so much farther along the evolutionary chain, and homosexuals and heterosexuals can perform equally in every aspect of life, so they aren't deemed as inferior like the worker bees (or at least in the same way).
If you agree that "homosexuals and heterosexuals can perform equally in every aspect of life," there where is your justification for calling homosexuality a "disorder?"
All the example was meant to show was that the argument that an adaptation that does not lead an individual to procreate is automatically a "bad" adaptation. There are examples in the animal kingdom of species that do not require every individual to reproduce, and which have evolved to the point where that actually benefits the species as a whole. That suggests that even if homosexuality disadvantages the individual in terms of reproductive opportunities, it does not disadvantage the species, and as I pointed out before even provides the opportunity for benefit when (for example) a gay couple adopts a child that would otherwise not have parents (such as what occurs in many animal species).
2) Those were the main causes, but the absolute main cause was the controversy behind it. Homosexual activists were infiltrating APA meetings as fake psychiatrists and completely disrupting everything and threatening to hurt anyone who claimed that homosexuality had to be cured.
Your comment leads me to believe that you aren't reading from any truly objective accounts of what actually occurred. What actually happened is that a small handful of activists obtained false credentials and gained access to the exhibit floor of the conference, and encountered a both that was advertising Electro Convulsive Therapy and similarly punishment-based "therapies" as a "cure" for homosexuality. The activists demanded that the display be removed, and during the argument that ensued, physical threats were made on both sides (the accounts vary, with both sides accusing the other). Considering the brutal nature of these treatments, I am not surprised that the activists became agitated. In the same situation, I suspect that I would have been one of the people threatening to kick someone's....well, you get the picture. These treatments are little better than just torturing a patient until they agree to do what you tell them.
For my sources (for you and ediblewoman)...I got my information from an article we got in my psychology course (unfortunately, the source is whited out for copyright purposest),
Well, that's just...vague. I have to say that I am highly skeptical that the article you read came from a credible scientific source. I would also suggest that whiting out the source doesn't make any sense. The way that you avoid getting into trouble over using copywrited materials in a academic setting is to cite the source from which you obtained it. I think it is more likely that the source was obscured because it did not come from a reputable source.
Dr. Ronald Bayer (pro-homosexuality),
Why do you keep calling Dr. Bayer "pro-homosexuality." I doubt that he refers to himself that way in his papers, and your usage leads me to suspect that you are getting quote-mined materials from non-scientific, anti-gay sources.
Dr. Charles Socarides
And this confirms my suspicions. This is the guy who founded the pseudo-scientific group known as N.A.R.T.H. This is not a credible source, and his work was criticized and marginalized due to his tendency to let his personal biases (as a strict catholic, and due to his experience with his own estranged gay son who later because a gay advisor in the Clinton White House) could his judgment.
"The effort to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM was the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, not scientific discoveries."
I'm sure that some people see it that way, and there may even be some validity to that argument regarding the initial change in the DSM. But the fact is that more than thirty years of pretty intensive research has born that decision out, and literally every major group of credible professionals in the relevant fields has supported that decision and followed suit in their own areas. As I indicated previously, the idea that the entire medical community (physicians, psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists) could be intimidated into supporting a move that was utterly unfounded in science is just a little bit too conspiracy-theorish for me to give the argument much credit.
This could be cause for a psychological disorder, but is most definitely not guaranteed.
There is a great deal of credible, current, peer-reviewed literature that suggests this is the case. There is NO credible, currrent, peer-reviewed literature that suggests otherwise.
Why would you think that most insurance companies would not pay for it?
It is a fact. Very few insurance policies in the 1970's included homosexuality in their list of covered procedures.
homosexual would not sign if they were seeking therapy for it.
Very few patients voluntarily sought treatment for their "homosexuality." That treatment was usually forced on them by their families, who used the general diagnosis to have them to committed against their will.
Your argument here is almost entirely false. I suggest you at least read a summary of one of the books I labeled as a source.
Honey...I am very well read on this subject, and am familiar with both the writings of Bayer and Socarides and quite a few others. But, you will have to be more specific about what you think is "false" in my presentation. (Its bit off-topic, but your comments are a little difficult to follow. You might want to be more clear to which points you are responding.) I would suggest that your exposure to the relevant literature seems to have been very one-sided.
Yes a homosexual can reproduce, but the “disorder” does not allow you to reproduce because you do not want to have sex with a woman (or a man, depending on what gender you are).
And you think that's unusual...LOL. I would suggest that if you read a little history, you would find that such arrangements are not at all uncommon. And, I must once again point out the inconsistency in your argument, since it is not uncommon for heterosexual couples to lack attraction for one another, but who get together anyway for the purpose of having children.
That is the definition of a mental disorder.
No, it isn't. The definition of a mental disorder is "a mental or bodily condition marked primarily by sufficient disorganization of personality, mind, and emotions to seriously impair the normal psychological functioning of the individual."
To quote the American Psychological Association...
7) Are you honestly arguing with the criteria to get disorders into the DSM? I don’t find this a very good debate topic...but that is one of the criteria to get a disorder into the DSM. I don’t know how else to argue this.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I am not arguing against the way that the DSM defines a "disorders." I am simply noting that homosexuality per se does not meet the criteria of disorder as that term is used by the medical community.
But the way I react to a homosexual person does not at all say that something is wrong inside my mind.
Sure it does if your reaction prevents you from interacting with the person you see in a "normal" fashion. In fact, I would suggest that would be more likely to meet the actual definition of a "mental disorder" than homosexuality itself.
8) To be honest, I have not seen evidence either way…But I haven’t looked.
To be fair, I think that this is the key problem with your arguments. It would do you credit if you would do the research FIRST (and that means reading a wide variety of sources, with a mind to make sure that they are credible sources), and then come up with an opinion.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Very,.very well argued. I am going to save this thread as a resource for your sources. While I have little trouble rebutting debates against homosexuality as a rule, the specific history and background of the people you are so familiar with is invaluable when dealing with those who love pointing to these long discredited "sources". Well done.
I'm sure that Blackout responded to your post more completely and much more eloquently that I could, but there are a few things I would like to say.
The APA had homosexuality as a disorder back in the day, but that has since been changed based on updated evidence and therefore is outdated. Just like scientists stopped beliving the universe revolved around the Earth, we have since discovered that homosexuality is not a disorder.
I called prejudice to homosexuals "bigotry" for a specific reason. Bigotry is just as reviled as prejudice in our society and "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own." Even if you think that homosexuality is a choice (which I definitely don't), someone who is intolerant of homosexuals is a bigot and therefore prejudiced. Bigotry is just as bad as racism, in my opinion, because it has the same effect: hate.
-------------------------
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
My PhotoBlog: http://takingpictures.wordpress.com
As for your comment about the APA decision, it was changed off of no scientific research or discoveries, but you will get more in depth on that in my response to blackout, which is forthcoming.
And then what you said above would work as bigotry, but not as prejudice (if you consider homosexuality a choice)
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
I look forward to your response to Blackout's comment and I'm wondering why a scientific organization would change an official position on a subject without any scientific data to consider.
Also, the definition of a bigot includes the words "prejudice" in it, implying that bigotry is a form of prejudice. Just for your edification, here is a definition of prejudice: preconceived judgment or opinion (2): an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b: an instance of such judgment or opinion c: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristic
This definition clearly includes any group or individual as long as the attitude of hostiility is irrational, which a hatred or persecution (such as is demonstrated by a denial of basic human rights) of homosexuals simply because they are homosexual most certainly IS irrational. Even if you think homosexuality is a choice, persecution or hatred or animosity toward them is prejudice, plain and simple, and should be given no other name.
-------------------------
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
My PhotoBlog: http://takingpictures.wordpress.com
Would you repeal the decision if some institutions would take your manual out of their references if homosexuality stayed in there (for anti-homosexuality reasons), while others are rioting outside your meetings and infilitrating it, threatening to hurt people (for pro-homosexuality reasons)? I might, but that's just me.
I meant racism, not prejudice. I misspoke but thanks.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
I would love to see some links of articles covering the "rioting." There must be some somewhere about it, because I haven't heard anything. I read the sources you quoted in your response to Blackout's post, but as I can't read anything about it myself it's hard to trust such sources.
Furthermore, it seems like the quote you took in that post was a strange thing for a "pro-homosexual" psychiatrist to say...how are you defining "pro-homosexual?"
Finally, regardless of whether it's racism, bigotry, or prejudice, they're all bad and none of them should ever be institutionalized. We've gotten rid of laws discriminating against all sorts of groups, from race based (like African-American) to religious groups, why would we want to add new prejudiced laws?
-------------------------
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
My PhotoBlog: http://takingpictures.wordpress.com
Unfortunately, I have not looked for an article online about it, but here's another quote from that book that describes the role homosexuals played in the process. And by riots, I don't mean like fighting riots, mainly just picketing and trying to infiltrate the processions. "Homosexuals forged APA credentials and gained access to exhibit areas in the conference. They threatened anyone who claimed that homosexuals needed to be cured"
He is a heterosexual, but supports homosexuality (relationships, marriages, etc.)
True for your last paragraph, but sexuality is much more different than any of the other groups you listed, to the general public at least.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
You say that homosexuals are different than African-Americans or religious groups. I'm wondering why you think that? They are only different, in my opinion because prejudice against homosexuals isn't seen as a big deal and because of the very argument that you seem to be putting forward: that prejudice against homosexuals "isn't the same." It IS the same.
Whether you believe that homosexuality is a choice or a genetic inevitability, discriminating against them (ie not allowing them rights afforded to others not belonging to said group) is prejudice and should NOT be placed into law.
-------------------------
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
My PhotoBlog: http://takingpictures.wordpress.com
I TOTALLY disagree that homosexuality is wrong. When I took psychology I learned how the mind works. People either develop a behavior or have it genetically. I believe that gay people are born this way. So to go totally against the bible's theory I always would ask " If being gay is so wrong why would god allow it to happen?" Think about that question for a moment. I believe there is a god, but I question many things and I believe the bible is totally flawed.
The reason being gay is so "wrong" is because the government says it is. Society says it is wrong so many people choose to conform to society and agree for fear of association. I watched a movie for the second time today about a male who felt he was suppose to be born female. I agree that this happens. Gwen was her name and she was strangled and beaten for 5 hours. This was a true story. It sickened me because the 3 men who found out she had male parts did not recieve a sentence for a hate crime. but anyway..
Just like anything else how do you know the bible is accurate? What if someone decided that it would be appropiate to put in some information that was incorrect? I know you were trying to take a scientific stand point from it, but I believe your religious beliefs might have skewed it.
I found the cry for attention offensive for many reasons and I am not even gay. Why would a gay person come out to everyone knowing their family may disown them, their friends may not talk to them, and society might look down on them all for attention? This would actually cause lack of attention if you ask me.
As for marriage yes gay people should be able to be married as well. Marriage to me means a union of love. To be honest gay people should have the option to be as miserable as straight people.
Also if parents who are gay choose to have children many people believe they will turn out to be gay. This is usually not the case. Why should someone's gender preference matter? Love has no color, love has no gender, love is love and it is all the same.
http://www.progressiveu.org/032913-lupus-uncureable-wait-what
Love comments? I do too!
I know that you know my religious beliefs, but wouldn't God not have control over the gay population because they are disobeying him so badly? But you could also argue that God has a lot of control over people that sin, just not in the same way (lying, stealing, etc.) I don't know, and I definitely agree that the Bible is majorly flawed.
I don't know if I agree with you that being gay is wrong because the government says so. How come about 50%, if not more, of the Congress approves at least civil unions between homosexuals? I think that is an easy attack at the government, but I'm always game from some broken government bashing.
That is a terrible story and I'd love to know the name of that movie, or a link to an article or something.
Even though the crying for attention was more a former belief than a current one, and I used it as a good intro, so more people would get involved in the debate (and I think it worked), I think it is at least a little bit of a cry for attention. You would agree to that gay people come out because they want to be accepted for who they are and not who they are pretending to be. But, I agree that that is not what I was saying. But, if a person is seen as weird, coming out as gay will make them the topic of whatever community they get for a period of time, and a lot of people are that desperate for attention that they will do so.
Marriage should be seen as a union of love, and unfortunately heterosexuals do not see it that way as well as people who are against homosexual marriages.
And if the gay parents have kids (legitimately and not through adoption), it is supposed to happen that they will be at risk for homosexuality (poor word choice by me there). Some people believe that homosexuality is biologically predetermined, which means that you can find it in genes because they are the code for everything that makes us who we are. So if you have "gay genes", that means that your offspring will have a higher chance of homosexuality.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
Marriage should be seen as a union of love, and unfortunately heterosexuals do not see it that way as well as people who are against homosexual marriages.
Citizens are not under any obligation at all to justify their "love" to you before entering into a marriage contract. Whether you like the idea of "marriages for convenience" or not, their existence and legal validty are well established in our laws. Different people get married for different reasons, and you really don't owe any explanation at all to the government or anyone else to defend why you want to get married, at least not beyond the assurance that both parties are legal adults who are competent enough to enter into a legal contract.
And if the gay parents have kids (legitimately and not through adoption), it is supposed to happen that they will be at risk for homosexuality (poor word choice by me there). Some people believe that homosexuality is biologically predetermined, which means that you can find it in genes because they are the code for everything that makes us who we are. So if you have "gay genes", that means that your offspring will have a higher chance of homosexuality.
Similar to what I said above, people don't owe you a justification if they want to have kids. The fact is that the kids of gay parents have been studied and there is no indication that they are more likely to turn out to be gay themselves than the general population. And even if they were, your use of the term "risk" seems to be pre-biased on the same series of flawed assumptions that I have addressed (both above and below) concerning the innacurate categorization of homosexuality as some sort of "disorder." As that position is rationally indefensible, your concerns are unwarranted. In fact, there is a significant body of evidence that suggests that the kids who are raised by gay parents (whether related biologically or though adoption) perform equally well to similarly situated children in all categories (and even do a little better than usual, when their parental caregivers are lesbians). (APA Link)
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
1) Don’t be naïve in your argument about the institution of marriage. Sure, the law does say that any two people can enter a marriage contract for any reason, but our culture sees the marriage institution as a union of love (even though a lot of people don’t know love but think they do). I agree that you should not have to tell the government why you are marrying, but to base an entire argument off of this law is outrageous. It is an utterly rare even, and I’m convinced that it almost never occurs outside of immigration.
2) I am not saying that kids who are raised by homosexual parents are more at risk to become gay, but kids who are conceived by two gay people (one male and one female) instead. And if you say that there is no higher chance that two gay people create a gay child than two heterosexuals, then that there is proof that homosexuality is not biologically predetermined. Choose your response carefully.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
1) Don’t be naïve in your argument about the institution of marriage. Sure, the law does say that any two people can enter a marriage contract for any reason, but our culture sees the marriage institution as a union of love (even though a lot of people don’t know love but think they do).
I think you're the one who is being naive, but that's a lesson that only experience will teach you.
I agree that you should not have to tell the government why you are marrying, but to base an entire argument off of this law is outrageous. It is an utterly rare even, and I’m convinced that it almost never occurs outside of immigration.
The question is common enough that our Supreme Court felt sufficiently compelled to state that
The simple fact is that people get to make up their own mind when it comes to their personal relationships. You can like it or not, but the fact remains that our relationships are not subject to your opinion, thank you very much.
2) I am not saying that kids who are raised by homosexual parents are more at risk to become gay, but kids who are conceived by two gay people (one male and one female) instead. And if you say that there is no higher chance that two gay people create a gay child than two heterosexuals, then that there is proof that homosexuality is not biologically predetermined. Choose your response carefully.
I always choose my responses carefully. The premise of your response seems to be that there is a single genetic marker...and "on/off switch" as it were, that governs the expression of homosexuality. This is simply not the case. As I have previously explained, the extant research suggests that the trait is the result of a complex interraction of both biological and cognitive factors. Since the trait does not appear to be controlled directly by a genetic marker, it does not necessarily follow that the trait would be more likely to be passed on if both parents were "gay." The research (and there is a LOT of it) suggests that homosexuality is a normal permutation of human sexuality that occurs with roughly the same rates regardless of the expressed orientation of the parents.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
How do you know "they" are disobeying him? Seriously throw out all of the bible crap.( I am not attacking your beliefs though sorry about that) I believe that god does not have control over what people do at all. If there is a god I believe he gave us free will. This is the problem. Society. Society has taught us being gay is wrong. The reason? because the bible and only the bible supposedly "says so".
Does the government approve gay marriage for all states? No. If they did then it would be a nationwide event. They won't totally legalize it for fear of going against people's beliefs. You know me I will attack the government on everything because they are the ones that began long ago instilling these rules into our brains. They want control over people.
The name of the movie is A Girl Like me: The Gwen Araujo story. It comes on lifetime, but I suggest you buy the movie if you can't catch it on lifetime. It is worth buying. If you don't like it then resell it. It actually might help you better understand the horriable effects that transgender and gay people face.
I am telling you gay people really don't come out for attention. Some people (not many) but most don't come out for attention. Did you want to know something interesting? back in midevil times only men were allowed to play woman parts in plays. (kissing and everything). I know that is off subject but a good point to bring up.
I hate to say this but if people would stop being so closed minded then it wouldn't be so wrong to get married.
This is not always true, some children will not have the gene that makes the predisposed. I also believe in gay people they can just develop a interest in the same gender with out genes. I guess it all depends. I am not expert on this but I have known gay people who have had kid's and they were straight.
I believe inside any person gay or straight you have genes and your environment, and your own experiences, and social interactions make up who you are. I honestly think you should research this more and actually develop some relationships with gay people and maybe this could open up your mind more.
http://www.progressiveu.org/032913-lupus-uncureable-wait-what
Love comments? I do too!
Here's an example of a blog that presents scientific evidence:
It's called Natural Human Sexuality and it is by Like_A_Hurricane. Here is a link:
http://www.progressiveu.org/021639-natural-human-sexuality
That is what evidence looks like. You should try it.I didn't see a shred of evidence in your post. I saw a whole lot of uninformed opinion.
First of all, you cannot compare homosexuality to a mental disorder, because it is not a mental disorder. The APA does not consider it to be a mental disorder. I consider the APA to be much more of an authority on what is and is not a mental disorder than a teenage boy. The claim that we all want attention is offensive and betrays a level of ignorance that boggles the mind.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
First of all, EASY BIG FELLA! I think I made it pretty clear that this post was mainly a thread to spark debate, but anyways...thanks for ripping on my style. Great debating.
But look at the response I wrote to the first argument as far as your APA discussion goes, I'm glad you did your research there.
Second of all, I will read your blog and write a comment there.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
I think Blackout has said all that needs to be said there. I would like to note that when you present evidence, it is usually good form to produce the source of it. Otherwise, it sounds dubious and made up. Where did you get your "facts" about the APA's decision?
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
It is tempting to simply lambast the ignorance behind your opening statement, but since you seem to be making a good faith effort to engage a deeper understanding of the issue of homosexuality, I will try to restrain myself.
I am more than a little skeptical of your assertion that your opinion is "deeply rooted" in anything that could truly be called "scientific." I will elaborate on that a bit more, below...
What is the scientific basis for this assertion? I am aware of no credible, peer-reviewed study that has suggested this to be the case. Your suggestion that people do this "to get people to like you," is frankly, bizzare. The vast majority of people who come out experience exactly the opposite, though thankfully the ostracization that typically accompanies so many coming out experiences is lessening as our culture becomes more comfortable with the idea.
Well, since you said that you "don’t want to use religion as a basis for an argument," I'm going to hold you to that, here. There is an inherent assumption in your argument that human beings were "made" with a specific goal in mind. This implies the existence of a fundamentally underlying intelligence behind our development, which is just a more scientifically sounding way to assert the same basic premise behind the anti-gay arguments of religion. In reality, however, this assertion is not very scientific at all.
Scientifically speaking, we weren't "given" our "sexual tools." Those tools evolved over time and serve many "purposes" for our species. Not all species reproduce sexually and while humans (and other higher order animals) do, they also have sex to reduce stress, to strengthen family (pack) and community (herd) bonds, to assert dominance, and sometimes ("heaven" forbid) just for the sheer pleasure of the act itself. After all, even most heterosexual sex (the vast majority, in fact) isn't procreative. Do you think that your parents just had sex until they got pregnant, had you, and then stopped having sex altogether? Even if the answer in your particular case is "yes," it certainly is "no" for the vast majority of hetero couples. And if the answer is "no," then there must be something more to sex than just the act of procreating.
There is a realted assumption as well that gay people are unable to procreate. This is obviously untrue, as the many children with gay parents in this country indicate. And, even if we couldn't, many species take advantage of non-procreating same-sex pairs to care for young who would otherwise be deprived of their biological parents and would likely die if they were not cared for. In some species where this practice is most common (such as Black Swans, who often form male-male-female threesomes, driving off the female after the clutch is laid), this actually increases the survivability of the offspring, since having two larger and stronger male parents provides better protection for the young.
There are also a number of related assumptions in this assertion that can be easily countered by examining the way that other (non-human) species express homosexual behaviors.
Well, whether or not to permit same-sex marriage in a church is up that church (thanks to our constitutional right to freedom of religion), but there is a misassumption here as well in the implication that churches have some unique or otherwise special claim to the word "marriage." The simple fact is that they don't. Historically speaking, marriage originated as a civil institution, which even they christian religion stayed out of until roughly the 10th-13th centuries C.E. Marriage has been many things to many people, but what it has always been (at least since the beginning of recorded history) is a contract between the State and two (or more) of its citzens. There are literally dozens of examples of cultures (both ancient and modern) that included legal and social provisions for same-sex relationships in their marital traditons.
You are (wrong). Some good modern examples are the Unitarian Universalist Association, the United Church of Christ, the Reform Judaism movement, and the Lutheran Churches of Sweden and the Netherlands (just to name a few). In fact, there is even an ancient christian (Eastern Orthodox, dating to roughly the 4th century) ritual known as adephopoesis or "brother-making" that closely resembles the modern idea of same-sex marriage.
Well, it is good that you are torn on the subject. That demonstrates to me that you are at least beginning to recognize the irrational basis of religiously-motivated anti-gay sentiments. I hope that this discussion will help you travel farther down that path.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
I am not going to respond to every single one of your quotes and responses, because I already did a lot above, so make sure you read those. But those with which I do, I will number them to make it semi-clear.
2) I didn't mean to say that my basis was deeply rooted in science, but that my belief system is that science is the answer to everything. And I believe that science can never be disputed unless it is with more science. For example, you can't argue creationism against evolution against me because you are putting faith up against science.
4) I said that my argument goes along the lines of religion above, but when I say that it goes against the way we are made, I'm not saying that we were made by a divine power, but we evolved everything in our bodies for a reason. We had eyes in order to help us discern between predator and prey, food and poison, etc. And we have reproductive organs to reproduce with the opposite species, not for merely pleasure's sake.
5) It kind of goes against my #4 argument, but I am not going to respond to that quote/response because I love it. Great argument. I can't even respond against it.
Same thing with the rest, but I could be getting tired...haha. I have worked 13 hours so far today and these comments are my breaks. Maybe I'll take another look later, but we'll see. And you definitely helped me a lot. Try and keep debating those I responded to if possible.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
I didn't mean to say that my basis was deeply rooted in science, but that my belief system is that science is the answer to everything. And I believe that science can never be disputed unless it is with more science.
If this is true, then it would seem to me that the first step you should take in trying to come to a porsonal opinion about this is to actually take a look at the prevailing scientific theories and opinions, and evaluate them accordingly. Unfortunately, what you have expressed thus is rather dramatically inconsistent with what the current bodies of scientific knowledge in the relevant fields has shown.
4) I said that my argument goes along the lines of religion above, but when I say that it goes against the way we are made, I'm not saying that we were made by a divine power, but we evolved everything in our bodies for a reason.
Its the same thing. Based on the context of your comment, you seem to be using the phrase "for a reason" to imply that there is some sort of guiding, intelligent motivation that picks and chooses between various evolutionary strategies. Scientifically speaking, there is no evidence of this. And, you are assuming (inaccurately) that the only effective evolutionary strategy for a species is one that requires every single individual in a species to procreate. Many species express individuals who are not prone to procreate, but who nonetheless contribute to the survival of the species as a whole. Also, it is important to note that humans do not mate ONLY to procreate. Your argument for this is shallowly framed. Even MOST heterosexual sex in humans is not intented by the participans to be procreative. If it were, there would be a LOT more people running around. Unless you are likewise prepared to categorize heterosexual couples who have sex without the intention to procreate, or who specifically choose to interrupt the possibility of pregancy as "disordered," then your argument is not consistent.
We had eyes in order to help us discern between predator and prey, food and poison, etc.
Very few modern humans will ever use their eyes to help them avoid a predator or to capture prey. MOST humans are far more likely to use their eyes to appreciate some form or art or entertainment than they are to use their eyes in an encounter with either a predator or prey. Does that mean that humans who use their eyes to watch television are "disordered?"
And we have reproductive organs to reproduce with the opposite species, not for merely pleasure's sake.
Your argument is based on the flawed assumption that there is no discrete benefit to having sex for pleasure. Scientifically speaking, this is simply not true (and I gave you several examples, above). The easiest and most obvious counter to this argument that I can see lies in the simple fact that homosexuality has been around since at least the beginning of recorded human history (and can be rationally assumed to have existed even prior to that point), and yet the human population has only increased during the span of that rather large period. So, obviously the adaptation of same-sex orientations doesn't pose any serious challenge to the evolutionary survival of humans as a species. If it did, then the trait would be selected OUT of the population. Instead, there appears (within the obvious limits of generating post hoc statistical estimates) to have been a fairly consistent occurrence of homosexuality across virtually all human historical periods, regardless of cultural or geographical divisions.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
1) A lot of scientific data can be manipulated by those who want to. Look at all of the energy documents from the Bush administration. However, I am in the process of reading through scientific papers on the subject, so give me some leeway please.
2) Do you understand evolution at all? If not, I’ll fill you in. We don’t have a divine body guiding evolution, but instead the factors that make us more prone to PROCREATE and succeed in taking us into the next generation become more and more prevalent in society. This is survival of the fittest. That sounds like a guiding force for evolutionary change if you ask me.
3) No, but if you had to discern between predator and prey like our ancestors had to, but instead you watch the TV, then you would be considered disordered. I was talking about the initial evolution of vision, not the modern use anyways.
4) And if homosexuality has been around for that long, the definition of homosexuality as a disorder would definitely fit into it. And this just further proves that homosexuality is not biologically predetermined, because then it would have been selected OUT of our population…but it hasn’t. Does this mean that homosexuality should be seen as a choice, but not biologically predetermined? Maybe.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
A small hint, but providing links with your assertions would be lovely. For example, here is a good article to read on some of the science behind homosexuality: http://www.adherents.com/misc/paradoxEvolution.html. It includes some theoretical reasons as to why homosexuality has been exhibited in animals and its purpose in evolution.
Homosexuality has been around a long time, but not just in humans. It's also been exhibited for a long time in animals without being selected out. Since we can safely assume that animals wouldn't "choose" homosexuality for the reasons you assume, why do you think that this is?
-------------------------
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
My PhotoBlog: http://takingpictures.wordpress.com
My bad. Let me do your research for you...That seems fair.
And animals do choose homosexuality for other reasons...which is widely evident because humans and dolphins are the only two animals that have sex for pleasure.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
It's not doing research for me, it's simply citing your sources and all those who seek to make a point more valid do so. For example, ediblewoman and Blackout have both cited sources in order make it clear that their statements are backed by something more than opinion.
So, if other animals are homosexual for a reason, what could that reason be? Why could this reason not apply to humans? And if you're going on the idea that sex should only or is only by for procreation from an evolutionary standpoint, then why do you think that wouldn't have been selected out by evolution?
Please, read the article I cited. It brings up some good points and I'd like to hear what you think.
-------------------------
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
My PhotoBlog: http://takingpictures.wordpress.com
I did cite my sources. It is your choice to go and get the book.
I will get back to you on the animal homosexuality thing after research. I think it was Blackout who brought it up before and I said that I would research it and either write a blog or comment on here. I don't have time right now to read through, but I would LOVE to read some more. This really is an interesting debate, don't you think?
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
You might not like some of it, but Evolution's Rainbow, by Joan E. Roughgarden, is an excellent source on homosexuality and gender variance in animals.
T.k.
dude my dog humps his bed and his sister and used to hump my male dog and he doesn't have any balls. I think he humps his bed for pleasure...
http://www.progressiveu.org/032913-lupus-uncureable-wait-what
Love comments? I do too!
:))
If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed...nothing shall be impossible unto you. - Matthew 17:20
...it is always proper for the person who references a source to provide a valid citation. Netiquette dictates that whenever possible, the valid form of a citation is a link to the source. It is not reasonable to assume that the readers of a blog are going to be able to just dash out, purchase and digest some random book that you read. If the source isn't widely known or at least easily accessible, it is of limited usefulness in an online discussion.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
1) A lot of scientific data can be manipulated by those who want to.
True, but that's a sword that cuts both ways. And, that's why the scientific community engages in peer review. Whenever you approach a article that touts itself as "scientific," one of the first things you should ask yourself is, "does this information come from a credible, peer reviewed source?" Peer review is the first line of defense against dishonest science, and when you find a source that hasn't vetted its findings through those sources, its a pretty good bet that what you're reading is a heaping pile of dog squeezins'.
2) Do you understand evolution at all?
I would suggest that based on your presentation thus far, I am confident that my study of the subject far exceeds your own.
If not, I’ll fill you in. We don’t have a divine body guiding evolution, but instead the factors that make us more prone to PROCREATE and succeed in taking us into the next generation become more and more prevalent in society. This is survival of the fittest. That sounds like a guiding force for evolutionary change if you ask me.
I would suggest that your evaluation of the evolutionary process would probably get you through a high-school level course on biology, but not much farther. In fact, many species have evolved in such a way that not all members of the species need to reproduce in order to ensure the next generation. One thing to remember is that humans have evolved to be social animals, and as such any evaluation of "fitness" is by necessity a bit more broad than just counting of the number children a you can produce.
In any case, you are still clinging to the idea that gay people cannot reproduce. This is false. Likewise, you are placing a biased value-judgment on what you think should lead to a greater survivability for the human species. The evidence is pretty clear that homosexuality has no negative impact in that regard, and may even increase the survivability of the species in a number of ways.
3) No, but if you had to discern between predator and prey like our ancestors had to, but instead you watch the TV, then you would be considered disordered. I was talking about the initial evolution of vision, not the modern use anyways.
But, isn't that the whole point of evolution, i.e. to adapt to new and changing environments? If you need to dodge a predator, you're eyes still work for that purpose. But seeing as it is almost a certainty that you will never need to do so, doesn't it make sense to find some other use for your eyes while you pass the time?
In human society, there is no need for every individual to couple up and procreate. In fact, doing so would almost certainly lead to a series of negative consequences, not the least of which would be some serious over-population. Since we already had the "tools" (as you so eloquently called them), it is perfectly within the normal understanding of evolutionary theory that we would respond to a decreasing need to reproduce by finding other ways to use those tools to benefit themselves in other ways.
4) And if homosexuality has been around for that long, the definition of homosexuality as a disorder would definitely fit into it.
How so? Honestly, your definition of "disorder" seems a little off. It certainly doesn't match up with the usual use of that term in any typical medical context.
And this just further proves that homosexuality is not biologically predetermined, because then it would have been selected OUT of our population…but it hasn’t. Does this mean that homosexuality should be seen as a choice, but not biologically predetermined? Maybe.
Or more likely, it indicates that the adaptation has a neutral impact on survivability. Your view of how the evolutionary process works is not very advanced (no judgment, just an observation). Adaptations are only selected "out" if they harm the ability of an individual to reproduce. And, since homosexuality doesn't seem to be controlled by a specific genetic marker, that would not necessarily follow, in any case. Traits may be considered biological, even if they are not "genetic" in the blunt sense of that term. That homosexuality has a biological basis is almost a certainty. The twin data (i.e. identical twins tend to share the same sexuality, fraternal twins are less likely) is very compelling in that regard.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Does anyone know a good book to read on the subject too? Just curious because that is the best way I learn
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
I mentioned one above, but if you tell me exactly what you want to know, I could find more. :)
T.k.
That seems like an awesome starting point. I want to find a reason to support homosexual marriages and everything, but so far I haven't. I've only gotten debates on trivial things and person attacks, but yeah. What can you do?
Thanks a lot. I'll get back to you and let you know what I learned and everything if you want me to.
Thanks again
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
Evolution's Rainbow also has a brief and incomplete overview of historical treatment of homosexuality: Can't think of anything more detailed off the top of my head, unless you're interested in trans history (the two do fuse together from time to time, but it won't have much on marriage besides how Native Americans treated it). For more on animals, there's always this: http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Ston.... I've never read it, but it has four stars on Amazon.
This is all very funny to me, because I spend time trying to think of non-religious reasons for it to be "wrong." Still haven't found one.
T.k.
Then you should enjoy this thread that I started on the same subject although from a decidedly different position. It covered every one of your points and many, many more. I think the fact that no one was able to truly rebut any of my points and eventually gave up is quite telling in itself. Maybe you'll feel the same when you have a look:
http://www.progressiveu.org/035952-when-will-truly-irrational-bigotry-ag...