Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Harm in Homosexuality?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 241 of 309 (161610)
11-19-2004 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Jon_the_Second
11-19-2004 5:46 PM


In my experience the self hate/self harm aspect for victims is often NOT related to how society views them or treats, but to the feeling of weakness and complicity to what happened to them.
This is due in part to and enlarged to a great degree because of societal expectations regarding sex and selfworth. You are right that it is the person that takes themselves down a notch, but that is not inherent.
For example mixed race children have suffered very similar feelings, same for homosexual children, and these children have not had an experience they could be complicit in.
Sex is viewed negatively by society. It is a loss of innocence. That message is pounded home everywhere. Even where its extolled it is usually as something "nasty" and "dirty". A child has no chance but to see that and feel there is a loss, if revealed that is usually compounded by society repeating that they have been hurt (for all your claiming this does not happen, YOU are).
You say you are reading all of these studies but if you are not running across the ones which show that feelings of guilt are arising because they did like it, and society expects that they should not, you aren't getting to them all. You will also find, just like in homosexuals in the past, the current western psych technique is to tell them it is okay to admit they enjoyed it, but view it as something bad done to them by a bad person doing something wrong. A more confusing message I cannot think of.
I don't subscribe to the historical christian position of evil-sex. I do, however, have serious concerns about younger children being preyed upon by older children/adults to satisfy their own desires.
This is exactly what I am talking about. Indeed the concept of preying on children to satisfy "their" own desires is inconsistently applied. How about bringing kids to church, putting them in sports, taking them to movies (when they are under 5), tickling and blowing on their stomachs. While a child may enjoy those sensations, the activities are also about pleasing the adults, and usually without the child "knowing" what is going on.
It is because sex and sexual contact is considered evil that you have this preying image. In different cultures with different expectations you might find it as harmless and joyful as tickling feet. That has existed without nations falling apart elsewhere.
dutch laws seemed to be reasonable (though they are under going an overhaul)
Yes all nations are being encouraged to adopt a singular US/British model regarding sex. This is ridiculous.
they still had a higher incidence of psychological problems. Makes you wonder.
Well any stat makes you think why... this one doesn't seem surprising given the negative views of sexuality that are pervasive in society.
even porn films, when you see interviews with the stars, who are for the most part seemingly desperate to find love and confused between love and sex
I don't know about for the most part. Most people in general seem confused between love and sex because as you have suggested is important (and society does this): sex is better when tied to emotions. That is why western society (and it is growing) is so unhealthy with regard to sex.
In any case, my gf is in porn. She is not confused between love and sex, and most I have met are not, though some are loopy for other reasons.
This will be my last post tonight and for a while.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-19-2004 5:46 PM Jon_the_Second has not replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 309 (161617)
11-19-2004 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by pink sasquatch
11-14-2004 3:24 AM


Re: More fun with statistics!
Okay. Let's look at data from a recent CDC report on HIV in the US:
Where exactly did youget this chart? I looked up the The HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report Vol 14 online at CDC - Page Not Found and could not find these stats... perhaps I missed them. I DID find these stats however:
Diagnoses of HIV/AIDS and AIDS:
By exposure category, diagnoses of HIV/AIDS increased
each year during 1999—2002 among men
who have sex with men (MSM) and, to a lesser degree,
among heterosexuals. In addition, diagnoses
decreased among injection drug users (IDUs), MSM
who were also IDUs, and among children. In 2002,
MSM (44%) and persons exposed through heterosexual
contact (35%) accounted for 79% of all new
diagnoses of HIV/AIDS.
Notice the 44% for homosexuals as compared to 35% for heterosexual contact.
Persons living with HIV/AIDS:
Of the 298,248 male adults and adolescents (>13
years of age) living with AIDS, 58% were MSM,
23% were IDUs, 10% had been exposed through
heterosexual contact, and 8% were MSM who were
also IDUs.
10% through heterosexual contact... 58% homosexuals.

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-14-2004 3:24 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2004 5:15 AM General Nazort has replied

The Dread Dormammu
Inactive Member


Message 243 of 309 (161624)
11-19-2004 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Lizard Breath
11-19-2004 1:33 PM


Natural and Unnatural
Perhaps Steve would have been a more formidable opponent for the serpent at the tree and we wouldn't be where we are today (speaking from a Biblically historical perspective).
So is it your claim that men are more moraly "formidable" than women?
According to the Bible, God did intend for us to populate so he created the male/female arrangement and he left it at that without creating a third being called Steve, that would have been Adam's lover while Eve was his reproduction factory.
Then why has God started making gay men and women? I think you claimed in a previous post that people are predisposed to be "tempted" by homosexuality. This would seem to suggest that God DOES make "Steves." I assume you are being ironic when you refer to a woman as a "reproduction factory."
If being homosexual is something unnatural then why does it seem that people make no choice to become gay? If being gay is a choice then why do people make that choice?
If the only point of sex is reproduction if that is our "blueprint" then is it permissable for an infertile couple to have sex or is than unnatural? I don't know your stance on contraception but if you are not opposed to contraception then why is it permissable?
You have given me some examples of what kinds of things you think are permissible and natural and what kinds of things you find impermissable and unnatural. But you have not given me your criteria for making these disctinctions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Lizard Breath, posted 11-19-2004 1:33 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 244 of 309 (161738)
11-20-2004 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by General Nazort
11-19-2004 7:34 PM


Re: More fun with statistics!
I thought my post to Jon was my last, but I got time this morning and thought I'd pop in to see if there was anything more. And of course I find more of the same from the General.
I DID find these stats however:... Notice the 44% for homosexuals as compared to 35% for heterosexual contact.
Did you by any chance notice the technical notes which explain the limitations of the stats, which on top of many other issues explicitly showed how transmission calculation method is inherently skewed toward m2m?
10% through heterosexual contact... 58% homosexuals.
How would this not make sense given that HIV first entered/impacted the US in the gay population? That neither indicates it is a gay phenomonon in the US, and especially not worldwide.
General, did you not see my post #23 which was a reply to your post? It is on page 2 of this thread. I totally spanked your assertion that gay is a cause, or that promiscuity is a cause, or that sex in any way shape or form is a cause of HIV.
Indeed you can have as much sex and with as many people (gay or straight) as you like and NEVER catch HIV... 100% guarantee. Its all in how you have sex.
I also had another post in this thread asking about why it is not viewed as a punishment for current medical practices (since transmission is possible through transfusions), or if that's not the case since that is a "side effect", then why is this not God punishing improper food practices (leaving kosher practices).
Remember General, reports indicate that the original source of HIV is transmission from monkeys to humans who were slaughtering them for "bush meat". From there (and still going on with that) it was most likely heterosex and drug use, until eventually a gay or bisexual man was infected and that vector (and I think drug use) happened to reach the US first.
So who was the target again? Consistency?
And if this is true is meningitis a sign that kids shouldn't go to college? The Nile virus a sign that God hates the elderly who don't stay home on summer nights?
Consistency General. Consistency and a bit less ignorance and fearmongering.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by General Nazort, posted 11-19-2004 7:34 PM General Nazort has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by General Nazort, posted 11-22-2004 12:51 PM Silent H has replied

Tusko
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 245 of 309 (161742)
11-20-2004 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Jon_the_Second
11-19-2004 1:55 PM


I'm finding this question really difficult to answer; I was thinking about it a lot last night. We are approaching this whole problem from really different standpoints, so it is proving really difficult to find a common frame of reference.
To give an answer to your question last night, I'm going to answer with another question I'm afraid. To paraphrase you, I believe you asked "how do you know whether a child was coerced into a sexual relationship or whether they willing took part without having been manipulated?" My answer is: in the case of an adult with severe learning difficulties, that mean that it is unclear whether they can be considered sufficiently independent-minded to ever give informed consent to sex, how do you determine whether they were coerced or not? I'd imagine that it would take a long, detailed investigation of that individual by professionals - and even then you couldn't be 100% certain either way. But even then, what does this prove?
It may be easier to manipulate a child or an adult with learning difficulties into having sex, but it is also possible, if you are a good enough manipulator, to manipulate an adult into having sex. I don't think that this is necessarily preferable to manipulating a child into sex because I don't think that the mental age of the manipulated person should determine the approbrium with which we treat the manipulator - it should be the degree of harm that is caused to the "victim" (though objectively measuring the level of harm, is of course, difficult). I also think that someone who doesn't know that they have been manipulated (because they haven't or because the manipulation was so clever), is likely to be less damaged than someone who feels used.
I am conjecturing here, and apologies to anyone who might have been sexually abused as a child if I'm wide of the mark. I'd imagine that the lies and threats that could well be used by an adult to instigate a sexual relationship with a child, and then keep its secret, might cause feelings of intense distress and isolation. The sex itself might be confusing, painful and unpleasant. However, I don't think that there is an INHERENT awfulness to sexual abuse of a minor by an adult, that automatically makes it the worst thing that can ever happen. I think it likely that there are other kinds of abuse that can be directed against children that are equally unpleasant, or indeed MORE psychologically and physically damaging - dependant on circumstances and the individuals in question. However, I think that upon discovering that a child is being abused, the reaction by other members of the child's family or social circle will be more extreme if the abuse is sexual in nature than to physical abuse - almost regardless of the degree of the abuse. This is because of our societal attitudes. I think a discussion of our societal attitudes is unavoidable when talking about this kind of behaviour. I think the people around that child will see the child as even more of a victim than if they had been facing plain old beatings - EVEN IF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE FROM BEATINGS MIGHT HAVE BEEN EVEN MORE SEVERE. I think that the severity of the victimhood that an individual is made to feel could be damaging for them, so I think that a child's social circle could end up reinforcing the damage done to the child by the abuser, rather than mitigating it.
I also think that it is very telling that you think that a legal approach is appropriate. A legal proceedings are only going to be brought when somebody percieves that there is a wronged party and a wrongdoer or wrongdoers. Inherent then, in a legal situation, is the sense that someone has been harmed somehow... so regardless of whether there was coersion or not (if we are talking about a case of sex between an adult and a child), a victim has been created, and quite possibly damaged as a result.
Does that help clarify my position?
This message has been edited by Tusko, 11-20-2004 06:28 AM
This message has been edited by Tusko, 11-20-2004 06:32 AM
This message has been edited by Tusko, 11-20-2004 06:34 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-19-2004 1:55 PM Jon_the_Second has not replied

The Dread Dormammu
Inactive Member


Message 246 of 309 (161994)
11-21-2004 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Silent H
11-19-2004 7:41 AM


Dormammu Speaks
Holmes writes:
Find where I said it once, much less many times.
Ok here are three examples:
Okay take a deep breath and repeat to yourself, I might not understand what I am being told. Do it three times. No joke, do it.
This could be an acuusation that I didn't understand what you were saying or that I might not have understood what the fundies were saying.
Your expecting a group to use your criteria, when it is plain that they do not, shows your ignorance of their position, and not their ignorance of what is right and wrong.
"Shows your ignorance of their position" seems to imply that I am ignorant of their position.
The problem is that you are not listening to what these people are saying, and so have constucted a question doomed to failure.
Again you claim I am asking an impossible question becase I don't understand the fudie postion. You did say it and you have said it many times. Please, we are running out of room on this thread. Let's not waste time like this.
On to the rest of the post.
Are you honestly stating that you would judge alcoholism to be wrong? Or even worse, that alcoholic acts are wrong?
I'm not sure what you mean by "alcoholic acts". I would say drinking to the point where you harm yourself or others is wrong. No one decides to become an alcoholic but it is wrong for acloholics to drink becase when they drink they hurt themselves and possibly others.
3) You've seen that civil unions inherently can't be equal? Where did you see that? From singular examples? I am still waiting for an explanation how a contract which has all the same rights and a different name, gives something less than equal.
Wait no more! Others have said it many times but I will say it once again!
If there was no way to change the rights of civil unions without changing the rights of marrage then you would be right.
However, even if a civil union has all the same rights as marrage it is not called marrage in a legal sense. Therefore, one can be changed WITHOUT the other changing. Even if they start off as totaly equal any change to one will make them uneaquil. This is why "civil unions" become uneaqual (if they even ever start off as eaqual). Why don't you understand this?
Philosophy comes screeching to a halt... What the hell are you talking about? Do you know the difference between deontological and teleological systems? Do you not recognize that cultural definitions of "promote benefit" would completely remove an objective criteria of what harm and benefit are?
I do know the difference. One is based on duty (deontological) and one is based on results (teleological). I agree that it may be difficult to define benefit but don't you agree that all moral systems strive for benefit?
When someone in the army asks "Why should I follow orders?" is the more satisfying answer "because you should follow orders!" or "Because if you follow orders, even when you might disagree with them, the army will benefit overall."
PLEASE note: I am not asking what the actual armed forces say in such a situation. I am only asking whitch is the more satisfying response.
Deontological moral systems DO have notions of harm ALL moral systems do. Thats why moral systems exsist, to help us avoid harm and promote benefit!
Many of your posts keep claiming that fundies moral systems are not based on harm. That is, perhaps true, but they obviously have some concept of harm.
So far the only reason given for why God outlaws homosexuality is that he will punish homosexuals. Essentualy they are saying that homosexuality is wrong becase God says homosexuality is wrong and that God says homosexuality is wrong becase homosexuality IS wrong. But no one has given a good reason why!
The first evidence that has come in... trying to show that there is secular harm in pedophilia... actually showed that homosexuality "causes" harm.
No, the evedence suggests that homosexuals are harmed more. If I were to show a study about how women living under the taliban are more depressed than men, that wouldn't show that it is wrong to be a woman. Would it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2004 7:41 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2004 11:55 AM The Dread Dormammu has replied
 Message 252 by Morte, posted 11-22-2004 10:33 PM The Dread Dormammu has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 247 of 309 (162033)
11-21-2004 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by The Dread Dormammu
11-21-2004 4:28 AM


strange answers
"Shows your ignorance of their position" seems to imply that I am ignorant of their position.
Ahhhh, that was poorly worded. I notice though that you skipped everything around that singular phrase in order to seal one single meaning.
The intention of the sentence as a whole was to convey that if a person actually thinks that a group should use one's own criteria for X, when it is clear that they would not, then that person would seem to be ignorant of what criteria they use... even if you know literally what they are saying.
In this case that was what you appeared to be doing.
Another possibility is that you do not recognize what the relation of their criteria to your criteria means for any comparison. I of course went on to explain that as a separate issue as well.
The first and third statements you quoted are about not actually relevant. In the end, you may very well literally understand that they say God says X, but that is all, not what it actually means with respect to a philosophy and criteria for wrongness which logically stems from that position. Things like ohhh say... you can't judge whether a God's motivees are right or not.
I would say drinking to the point where you harm yourself or others is wrong. No one decides to become an alcoholic but it is wrong for acloholics to drink becase when they drink they hurt themselves and possibly others.
Actually no single drink is in itself harmful, even for an alcoholic. It is about repetitive behaviors, leading to excessive drinking which they are prone to but can address, despite urges. Certainly one cannot say that when an alcoholic drinks they hurt themselves and others.
Therefore, one can be changed WITHOUT the other changing... This is why "civil unions" become uneaqual (if they even ever start off as eaqual). Why don't you understand this?
Its amazing that you noticed everyone saying this, but somehow missed my response. In any case your fear, while a real fear, is not without solution. All one would have to do is introduce with the legal rule for civil unions, that all legal effects which pertain to one will effect the other. That would seal legally that they are equal, only addressing different groups based on definition.
Whoa.
I agree that it may be difficult to define benefit but don't you agree that all moral systems strive for benefit?
It all depends on what you mean by benefit. If you mean physical health, or prosperity then no, not at all.
It could be based on intangible "benefits" such as spiritual growth, purity, or intellectual consistency, three things which might include no measurable qualities of improvement in this world, and indeed include quite the opposite.
But that gets back to what I was talking about, some morals start with a priori values of right and wrong. So a rule will be beneficial because it maximizes right, though in no way is that related to harm/health.
"because you should follow orders!" or "Because if you follow orders, even when you might disagree with them, the army will benefit overall."
I'm not understanding how you miss that the Xian doctrine is the latter position. Not only might you not disagree, you might not even be able to understand why it is beneficial, it is FAITH which helps the soldier and the worshipper to trust the statement of their superior.
Perhaps God is sacrificing homosexual activity in order to benefit the Xian "army" overall. Your lack of figuring out why this would help, is equal to a soldier trying to figure out the reason for orders. From your position you have no way of knowing their validity.
Thats why moral systems exsist, to help us avoid harm and promote benefit!
Again, only if you are so broadening the definition of the term benefit, such that your criticism of Xianity makes no sense.
But no one has given a good reason why!
Snooze. It's an abomination (which means he finds it distasteful) and is not natural. Natural being defined religiously which is the intended or primary function of an act as designed by God, and not scientifically which is what is found in nature.
Your incredulity on these answers is not making you seem any wiser.
You can say that you don't like that's how the world is, or that you do not believe that is how the world is. The one thing you cannot claim is that a sufficient answer to your question has not been given.
Well I guess God could give a more clear reason for why, but it is not necessary for anyone else to do so, and not really necessary for him either.
No, the evedence suggests that homosexuals are harmed more. If I were to show a study about how women living under the taliban are more depressed than men, that wouldn't show that it is wrong to be a woman. Would it?
Hahahahaha... okay and then your position on pedophilia? Whoops! Unless you are saying evidence only counts the way you want it to?
And in any case I am not sure you can claim complete innocence with respect to the evidence (like women being treated poorly under the taliban). This did show higher rates of promiscuity and perhaps more likelihood to commit nonconsensual sex acts. It also showed that people were more likely to be upset by homosexual acts commited on them (child or adult)... that is they had more adverse affects.
(Keep in mind I ain't saying this study really meant anything. Just that if you judge wrong by harm, and this is the harm you want to use against pedophilic acts, the worse it is for homosexuals.)
This message has been edited by holmes, 11-21-2004 12:02 PM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by The Dread Dormammu, posted 11-21-2004 4:28 AM The Dread Dormammu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by The Dread Dormammu, posted 11-22-2004 5:39 AM Silent H has replied

The Dread Dormammu
Inactive Member


Message 248 of 309 (162241)
11-22-2004 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Silent H
11-21-2004 11:55 AM


Re: strange answers (is that a pun?)
Certainly one cannot say that when an alcoholic drinks they hurt themselves and others.
We certainly can say that, and do! It's called an intervention. When people drink to excess they hurt themselves, (liver damage etc.) and others, (those who care about them and don't want to see them hurt, at the very least).
All one would have to do is introduce with the legal rule for civil unions, that all legal effects which pertain to one will effect the other. That would seal legally that they are equal, only addressing different groups based on definition.
Fine, go ahead, try to get that law passed. Is there any legal precedent for this? Has this ever happened in history? Has it EVER worked? I honestly don't know.
But so far I have never heard of any example where civil unions have had all the same rights as marrage.
Perhaps God is sacrificing homosexual activity in order to benefit the Xian "army" overall. Your lack of figuring out why this would help, is equal to a soldier trying to figure out the reason for orders. From your position you have no way of knowing their validity.
This statement doesn't seem to jive with this one:
Snooze. It's an abomination (which means he finds it distasteful) and is not natural. Natural being defined religiously which is the intended or primary function of an act as designed by God, and not scientifically which is what is found in nature.
Well which is it? Is it some mysterious unknown reason that we, with our puny human knowledge, cannot fathom, or is it the straight up reason that God is a homophobe? If it's NOT that God is a homophobe then why doesn't he just change the scenario so that the unforseen consquences don't happen.
By the way, to address the army example, why should civilians have to wear uniform?
This did show higher rates of promiscuity and perhaps more likelihood to commit nonconsensual sex acts.
I already agree that nonconsetual sex is wrong, and I could be persuaded to say that promiscuity is wrong. But even if homosexuals tend to be more promiscuious or tend to be involved in non-consentual sex more often that heterosexuals, that doesn't mean that homosexuality is wrong. It means that non-consentual sex ,and pomiscuity are wrong.
your position on pedophilia?
It is wrong for an adult to have sex with children. If one feels sexualy attracted to children they should see a psychiatrist and attempt to adress the issue.
This message has been edited by The Dread Dormammu, 11-22-2004 05:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2004 11:55 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Silent H, posted 11-22-2004 8:58 AM The Dread Dormammu has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 249 of 309 (162286)
11-22-2004 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by The Dread Dormammu
11-22-2004 5:39 AM


you can't figure out if strange answers is a pun, dread?
We certainly can say that, and do! It's called an intervention. When people drink to excess they hurt themselves, (liver damage etc.) and others, (those who care about them and don't want to see them hurt, at the very least).
This statement contradicts what it is trying to prove. I said you cannot say that an alcoholic drinking hurts themselves and others. In this quote you specifically talk about the affects of drinking to excess, which is not under question, and how people go about trying to help the person who has that problem.
This does not make the alcoholic's drinking under any circumstances harmful, and neither does it mean these people feel the person is wrong. There is a difference between wrong and ill, and some may be trying to stop the person before he ends up hurting someone, not that his actual actions have been harmful.
Fine, go ahead, try to get that law passed. Is there any legal precedent for this?
Uhhhh, okay, why don't you try and get it passed instead of whining that it can't. There is no legal precedent for gay marriage, but you do agree we can set one if we make one.
In the end, all one has to do is while making the class of civil union, write into that law that all laws pertaining to marriage pertain to civil unions, and vice versa. Why do you feel this is not possible?
Well which is it? Is it some mysterious unknown reason that we, with our puny human knowledge, cannot fathom, or is it the straight up reason that God is a homophobe?
Your forced incredulity is dreadful.
Statements in the Bible make it clear that God finds homosexual acts to be an abomination, and to not be natural. Abomination is an emotional description, unnatural is a functional one.
It could be that his emotional one is based on the functional one, or they are separate for some other reason.
In any case, either one may have implications we are unable to consider, since we do not share the persepective of Gods. Thus both quotes are applicable and not contrary.
to address the army example, why should civilians have to wear uniform?
You don't. Who said you have to? To be a Xian you will have to "wear the uniform", but you don't have to be a Xian.
Part of the Bible discusses God letting people become "civilians" and enjoy homosexual practices (among everything else they can then enjoy). The point is that they no longer have his protection.
If you don't care then you don't care. So, why do you care? God already said he doesn't.
But even if homosexuals tend to be more promiscuious or tend to be involved in non-consentual sex more often that heterosexuals, that doesn't mean that homosexuality is wrong. It means that non-consentual sex ,and pomiscuity are wrong.
Uh-huh. You said wrong was based on harm, and harm was determined by correlation or causation between action and observed harm, right?
If homosexuals are inherently predisposed to harmful acts then that would make it wrong... right?
Boy you just want to blame anyone but gays, huh?
It is wrong for an adult to have sex with children.
Wow, wasn't the point of your thread that people should not just say what you just said. Wasn't your other point to moralize against Xians saying you would never make such statements?
It is wrong for people to have sex with someone of the same gender. That is what many have said.
If you say it should be so easy for someone to prove that statement, using harm as the criteria of wrong, then it should be just as easy for you to prove yours... right?
Oh wait and while you're at it we can throw a new log on the fire...
It is wrong for people to have nonmonogamous sex.
Anyone but gays, tsk tsk.
h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e.
This message has been edited by holmes, 11-22-2004 09:01 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by The Dread Dormammu, posted 11-22-2004 5:39 AM The Dread Dormammu has not replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 309 (162348)
11-22-2004 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Silent H
11-20-2004 5:15 AM


Re: More fun with statistics!
Holmes says,
Did you by any chance notice the technical notes which explain the limitations of the stats, which on top of many other issues explicitly showed how transmission calculation method is inherently skewed toward m2m?
No - thanks for calling me attention to it. I'm assuming you are referring to this:
Persons whose exposure category is classified as maleto-
male sexual contact include men who report sexual contact
with other men (i.e., homosexual contact) and men who
report sexual contact with both men and women (i.e., bisexual
contact). Persons whose exposure category is classified
as heterosexual contact are persons who report specific
heterosexual contact with a person with, or at increased
risk for, HIV infection (e.g., an injection drug user).
While this does skew the results, one would think that if this bisexual category very even somewhat significant a seperate category would be created - since they were lumped in with purely homosexual men suggest that it was in fact not a very significant category and this the results are only slighly skewed. Also, there is another group of people for whom a seperate category WAS made - the homosexual/injection drug category:
For surveillance purposes, cases of HIV infection (not
AIDS) and AIDS are counted only once in a hierarchy of
exposure categories. Persons with more than one reported
mode of exposure to HIV are classified in the exposure
category listed first in the hierarchy. The exception is men
who report sexual contact with other men and injection drug
use; this group makes up a separate exposure category.
Some of the members of this group could be included in the purely homosexual group, which at least partially negates any bias resulting from including bisexuals in the homosexual group.
How would this not make sense given that HIV first entered/impacted the US in the gay population? That neither indicates it is a gay phenomonon in the US, and especially not worldwide.
Ok, but now HIV has entered both the homosexual and heterosexual sectors of the population, and yet diagnoses of HIV (which estimate new cases) are still higher for homosexuals.
General, did you not see my post #23 which was a reply to your post? It is on page 2 of this thread. I totally spanked your assertion that gay is a cause, or that promiscuity is a cause, or that sex in any way shape or form is a cause of HIV.
Yes I saw it, and what you say there is perfectly true. When I said sex causes AIDS, I did not expect people to take it so literally. Of course I know that sex is the primary mode of transmission for the virus, not the cause itself. I assumed people would see it in this way, but I was wrong - I should have been more clear.
And if this is true is meningitis a sign that kids shouldn't go to college? The Nile virus a sign that God hates the elderly who don't stay home on summer nights?
I have made no claims as to the reason for AIDS, or said that it is a specific punishment from God. My only assertion is that in the US the average homosexual lifestyle is more harmful than the average heterosexual lifestyle.

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Silent H, posted 11-20-2004 5:15 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Silent H, posted 11-22-2004 2:49 PM General Nazort has not replied
 Message 276 by Silent H, posted 11-23-2004 10:04 AM General Nazort has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 251 of 309 (162382)
11-22-2004 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by General Nazort
11-22-2004 12:51 PM


While this does skew the results, one would think that if this bisexual category very even somewhat significant a seperate category would be created
Remember the stats were 44%homo, 35% hetero. That's not a vast gap, and since a change in one means a change in the other even a small change will bring them pretty close to even. For example if only 4% were bi, then its 40% to 39%.
But this is actually besides the point. I am not sure they did the joining based on what they thought would be the statistical significance overall. I think they were trying to get at possibility of m2m transmission. That is why you find a homosexual-druguser category as well.
The end result is that we really don't know what the actual impact is, and we see it doens't need much to even the playing field.
Ok, but now HIV has entered both the homosexual and heterosexual sectors of the population, and yet diagnoses of HIV (which estimate new cases) are still higher for homosexuals.
Again, you are extrapolating implications from pure stats which are not appropriate.
Because it entered the gay community first, that resulted in a large spread across the community. This means that in numbers you are likely to still see more infections. There is also another possible reason, which is that perhaps gays are more likely to be tested, or use the tests which enter into these reports. Either would skew the scale. They also mentioned this in the notes.
Of course I know that sex is the primary mode of transmission for the virus, not the cause itself.
But you also agreed that promiscuity had something to do with this as well, which it does not. You should leave sex in general out of discussions regarding HIV.
The main problem is knowing the status of a partner, and/or limiting sexual activity (with those whose status is unknown) to acts which simply will not spread the virus.
Promiscuity or nature of sexual orientation is completely irrelevant to the equation.
If there is a proven correlation between homosexuals and higher transmission, it only indicates that within the homosexual population more of them are engaging in risky sex acts (which are orientation unrelated) with those of unknown or known positive status. It wouldn't slander homosexual sex, but should raise eyebrows within that community as to why people are willing to take unnecessary risks.
My only assertion is that in the US the average homosexual lifestyle is more harmful than the average heterosexual lifestyle.
I will repeat this one more time to be clear. Only specific sex acts... not all sex... present risk of transmission. These sex acts are available to all sexual orientations.
There is absolutely 0% greater risk in homosexual sex than heterosexual sex, unless you are planning on engaging in high risk sex acts and on top of that, with partners of unknown status. That is the only way those stats make a difference to you in your everyday life.
Otherwise homosexual sex and heterosexual sex, promiscuous or monogamous, makes no difference.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by General Nazort, posted 11-22-2004 12:51 PM General Nazort has not replied

Morte
Member (Idle past 6102 days)
Posts: 140
From: Texas
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 252 of 309 (162464)
11-22-2004 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by The Dread Dormammu
11-21-2004 4:28 AM


Re: Dormammu Speaks
quote:
So far the only reason given for why God outlaws homosexuality is that he will punish homosexuals. Essentualy they are saying that homosexuality is wrong becase God says homosexuality is wrong and that God says homosexuality is wrong becase homosexuality IS wrong. But no one has given a good reason why!
If I understand what holmes is saying, one of the points he's trying to make is that to many, this is a good reason why. Their moral systems are based on what God says. To you, and to me, it is circular argument, but what you are asking is for them to use a separate moral system to explain why they believe it is wrong. I agree that it is not a good reason, but they don't, and that seems to be the crux of it.
Now, I actually had been thinking about starting a thread along these lines earlier (complaints about the number of threads on homosexuality made me hesitant), so perhaps I might be able to ask it in a different way.
holmes:
Many times people justify God's reasoning behind certain laws by explaining the necessity of such laws from a secular viewpoint. For example, the ban on certain meats, mentioned earlier in the thread (if I recall), is often attributed to the unhealthiness of them and the disease they could cause at the time due to unsanitary conditions. For the same reason, since we can ensure sanitary, healthy products today, most Christians ignore this law, believing it was not meant to be eternal and God's reasons for it are no longer an issue. The ban on tattoos and sowing a field with mixed seed are similar examples.
Now, it has been stated that homosexuality was prohibited because it was detrimental to tribes' or families' ability to reproduce and therefore to survive as a group. However, today we live in a society where this is no longer an issue - and in fact, an increase in the number of couples willing and able to adopt could be considered beneficial - so why is this law still applicable when others, also deemed unnecessary in today's world, are revoked?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by The Dread Dormammu, posted 11-21-2004 4:28 AM The Dread Dormammu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Silent H, posted 11-23-2004 4:28 AM Morte has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 253 of 309 (162465)
11-22-2004 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Tusko
11-18-2004 6:03 AM


Re: No I am making a seprate argument.
Tusko responds to me:
quote:
In other words, there are a hell of a lot of different things that flip peoples' berets.
Indeed. But just because two things involve the word "sex" in it doesn't mean they have any relation to each other beyond that word.
In the end, it simply means that we get bogged down in comparing gay people to the mentally ill, those who are forced into certain sexual activity, those who are assaulted, etc., etc., when the point is to compare a gay couple to a straight couple.
So stop bringing in alternatives that you know have emotional baggage attached to them. In this forum, someone was trying to say that "reparative therapy" should be taken seriously due to all the people who were "confused" about their sexuality. As I said then, oh, please. Can we just ignore the insane, incarcerated, in dire straits, and in employment and simply concentrate on what we would consider an average couple where the two people happen to be of the same sex?
We would never immediately jump to a conclusion that a heterosexual person is straight because of a "bad experience" or is "confused" about his sexuality or was forced into it because of rape or is only doing it as a prostitute because he's desperate and needs to pay the bills or is an actor in porn and doing it as a job or anything else along those lines. So why do we immediately jump to those conclusions when regarding gay people? Yes, those people are out there. There are quite a number of "gay for pay" porn stars. Sex happens in prison and it is usually same sex for obvious reasons. Sexual addiction and other mental conditions can play with your sexual activities. But none of that is relevant to the typical gay person. Why do we always jump to the unusual and bizarre when it comes to gay people?
We don't claim that the average straight person is like what you see in a Girls Gone Wild video. We don't claim that all straight people have sex in the streets the way they do at Mardi Gras in New Orleans. And despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of pederasts are heterosexual, we don't claim that the typical straight person is a pederast.
So why is it whenever homosexuality is brought up, people want to compare them to porn stars, Southern Decadence, and the molesters of Dirkhising? Those are atypical. They exist and they are interesting to discuss, but they are not representative.
We're talking about gay people and how they compare to straight people. What do pederasts, sado-masochists, necrophiliacs, or pornographers have to do with it? Is there something about being gay that makes one more likely to be any or all of the above?
quote:
I hope I'm not specifically conflating homosexuality with paedophilia any more than I'm conflating heterosexuality with foot-fetishism.
When pedophilia is always brought up in a discussion about homosexuality while shrimping is never brought up in a discussion about heterosexuality, then yes, you are specifically conflating homosexuality with pedophilia.
quote:
It hasn't been my intention to somehow conflate a non-destructive, loving kind of relationship that happens to be between two geezers with any kind of violent or exploitative one.
Then why did you bring it up? If you weren't trying to compare homosexuality to pedophilia, why did you bring up pedophilia? Wouldn't the obvious comparison to Sigfried and Roy's relationship be Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins' relationship? A famous, entertainment couple who have been around for a long time but have never married? How does one possibly think that child molestation has any sort of connection to the "non-destructive, loving kind of relationship" we were talking about?
quote:
However, I think there is some place for this discussion here in this thread, especially after Holmes clarified why he was persuing this whole paedophile thing with Dread D: he seems to be trying to draw attention to a double standard he percieves in Dread D's argument, which seems relevant enough to the discussion.
But why child molestation? Why is it [I][B]ALWAYS[/i][/b] child molestation? If you want to talk about "harm" in a relationship, why not do it with logical respect to the relationship with which you are comparing in the first place? We're comparing gays to straights. So let's talk about exploitative relationships that happen between adults since we were starting with adults in the first place.
Since we know that pedophilia is nearly impossible to discuss without emotional baggage coming along for the ride, why choose it as the shining example of comparison? Of all the possible ways in which a relationship can be exploitative, pedophilia is the best one to use?
It's a knee-jerk reaction: Homosexuality? Well, then, pedophilia. Those who find homosexuality to be wrong have so tightly tied the two together that even people who don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality can't help but immediately jump to pedophilia when talking about it. It's in their mind. The two are connected.
In essence, I'm going for the "atheist" attitude. That is, atheists don't go around deliberately and specifically thinking, "I don't believe in god." They don't set aside parts of their day to contemplate their lack of belief in god. It simply never enters their mind until somebody brings it up. So why do people connect homosexuality and pedophilia? Even if to vehemently denounce the idea that gays are after your children, there is the feeling that we need to make that statement.
Instead, a person who doesn't see the connection would never consider it important to make that statement unless somebody else brought it up. There's no need to make a point of disconnecting the two because they're already disconnected.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Tusko, posted 11-18-2004 6:03 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Tusko, posted 11-23-2004 4:33 AM Rrhain has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 254 of 309 (162480)
11-22-2004 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Itachi Uchiha
11-18-2004 8:03 AM


jazzlover_PR responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Then I hope you are mute because the "natural use" of your vocal cords is to cough, not speak.
If their natural use wasn't communication, why call them vocal cords then. Why aren't they called cough cords then.
You really can't figure out why?
You use them primarily for speech now, but you were talking about "original purpose." You were claiming that because something was being used for something other than the "original purpose," then that means it is a horrible thing.
Not only are your vocal cords used for something other than their "original purpose," they have been contaminated and perverted so that we use them primarily for something other than their "original intent." How twisted and sick is that?
The vocal chords were present long before any organism ever used them for speech. We call them "vocal cords" because we went from our personal, current view of the world before figuring out their history and "original purpose."
quote:
quote:
And I hope you never use your penis for sex since the "natural use" of the penis is for urination.
So i guess that we reproduce unaturally. Is that what youre saying?
What I am saying is that your desire to equate morality with "original purpose" and "exit, not entry" and such leads to such ludicrous things as not using your penis for anything except urination. It is an organ of excretion, not of sex.
But if you agree that your penis can be used for both urination and sex, why do you get so upset over the anus and rectum being used for both defecation and sex? Surely you aren't saying that sex is only for procreation, are you? Are you truly going to say that masturbation and oral sex are just as evil and unworthy of "social sanction" as anal sex? Since the most common forms of sex are manual and oral sex, we've got a big problem. Everybody, then, is an unnatural pervert using their sex organs for pleasure instead of procreation.
Are you seriously saying that a heterosexual couple who does not like penis-vagina sex but instead engages strictly in oral and manual sex is harming society? That they need to be ostracized? That there is something wrong with them?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 11-18-2004 8:03 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

Zachariah
Inactive Member


Message 255 of 309 (162487)
11-22-2004 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by crashfrog
11-17-2004 11:53 PM


You have alot of nerve you little ass. Have you heard what is going on in California. Don't EVEN TRY to tell me the Gay rights movement doesn't have an aggenda to get their lifestyle viewed as a normal choice for everyone. It's people like YOU that pressure people into making bold stances on homosexuality. So piss off frog!
This message has been edited by Zachariah, 11-22-2004 11:49 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by crashfrog, posted 11-17-2004 11:53 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by AdminNosy, posted 11-23-2004 12:00 AM Zachariah has not replied
 Message 257 by crashfrog, posted 11-23-2004 1:00 AM Zachariah has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024