Harm in Homosexuality?

I seem to recall a professor in the past mentioned that there were people in the old days that claimed that god created blacks to be naturally ignorant and unhappy. Coincidently, it was during slavery.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

WHAT GOD HAS CREATED? Just because we have free will doesn't mean it is of GOD. That is the world in charge of homosexuality. I thought the homophobic problem with the suicidal folks in post 59 was HER (pink) perspective. Is that now fact in here? Have you ever had a professor say that "looks can be decieving" Where?Cry me a river... all this what kind of a society if you have to worry about loosing your job, being shot at, poked fun.......
I got news for you little man. That shit happens to EVERYONE, if they can't hack it they better grow a new set of balls. I have my own problems in life and I deal with them every day on my own or with help if needed. I deal with it. I expect them to do the same and not force feed it to us by mandates and new laws and programs funded by people that don't agree with them but have no choice on where there tax dollars go. Those are some of the problems brought on by homosexuality. I believe they do harm to the people that don't agree with that lifestyle. We are forced to except and we won't. That harms me. There is your examples. I have nothing more on this topic thread. As of now anyway. Peace out Rhain. Good talking with you again. Keeps my blood pumping. -ZachThis message has been edited by Zachariah, 11-15-2004 02:45 AMThis message has been edited by Zachariah, 11-15-2004 02:50 AM

Can you show me that in the bible? Answer. No. It's not there. It's a sin like the rest. And we can be forgiven of them but we have to attempt to really try to turn away. I say the gay with a gun in his/her mouth should drop the gun and read the bible before they assume it says they will burn in hell for their sins.

Zachariah writes:

quote:

---

Okay, I believe that socially homosexuality, AMONG OTHERTHINGS (ie... broken heterosexual homes, abusive homes and others of the like) adds to problems we see today.

---

You can believe that all you want, but we are demanding evidence. Since we find that gay people who are in loving, supportive environments are more productive members of society and that when society has productive members, it does better, you're going to have to explain how it is homosexuality adds to the problems we see today and not homophobia.

quote:

---

I believe (and studies have shown) that families with a mother and a father spawn children with less emotional problems.

---

First, it's "fewer," not "less." Pet peeve.Second, the studies also show that families with two mothers or two fathers spawn children with fewer emotional problems. In fact, we find that children of gay parents are actually more socially prepared than children of straight parents...it's that social training on how to tolerate those who are different from you.

quote:

---

I know, then 2 fathers are better than one?

---

Yes.When the State of Hawaii was trying to ban gay marriage, the State's own witnesses regarding the status of children raised in households headed by gay parents couldn't find any evidence that they did worse off than children raised in households headed by straight parents.

quote:

---

You can look at the problems we have today.

---

Yep. And homophobia is among the root causes of them. It's amazing how much better everyone is when you stop obsessing about what other people are doing with their naughty bits.

quote:

---

There is no family values anymore.

---

So please explain to me how breaking up loving families is going to solve this problem. Are you seriously saying that a child would be better off in an orphanage or in a single-parent household than in a family with two loving parents simply because those parents happen to be of the same sex? How does it help "family values" by stopping people who love each other from getting married? From inheriting their loved one's property? From visiting them in the hospital? From taking their children away from them? From kicking them out of their house? From firing them from their job?If you are so gung-ho for families, why are you doing everything you can to tear them apart?

quote:

---

I think the bigger problem is the Bisexual hipness that is going on today.

---

"Bisexual hipness"? (*snort!*) That's rich. Show me a single person who enjoys making out with a person they find sexually repulsive.

quote:

---

Porn has become trendy and so has bisexuality.

---

Right...engaging in behaviour that will ostracize you from your peers, possibly get you kicked out of school and sent to a "gender identity dysphoria" clinic where they will attach electrodes to your genitals in order to "cure" you...that's really appealing.

quote:

---

When there are pro-gay groups giving talks at schools about how to fist each other with MY tax dollars like they did at Tufts University (888webtoday.com [Dr. James Dobson])then that is a harm to me.

---

(*chuckle*)You believed Dobson? Let me tell you what really happened:GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network) held a workshop entitled "What They Didn't Tell You About Queer Sex & Sexuality In Health Class: A Workshop For Youth Only Ages 14-21." And no, your tax dollars had nothing to do with it. It was sponsored entirely by private donations and registration fees. Neither the Massachusetts Department of Education nor the Governor’s Commission for Gay and Lesbian Youth had anything to do with it. The reasoning for it was that since it is very dangerous for gay youth to ask questions in traditional sex education classes without revealing their sexual orientation, a private session for those youth who wanted information that would be relevant to gay youth would be beneficial. It would provide them a safe, accepting environment in which they could ask the questions they wanted answers to.The workshop started off with a discussion about dating and how this might be different for gay youth. As the attendees stated, it is hard for gay youth to go through the common experience of dating because to do so, you have to reveal that you're gay. You can't talk to your parents about it.They went into questions about physical activity and the common questions that youth have: Just what is "sex"? How do you know if you've had it? How do you know if you're a virgin? Given the heterosexual emphasis of most sex education courses, these are legitimate questions for gay youth since they will not have the penis-vagina standard to compare to. Note, this does not mean that the workshop said that oral sex wasn't sex. It is simply pointing out that while there is nothing that gay people do that straight people don't do, there are some things that straight people do that gay people don't.Later on, anonymous question were taken by the presenters. The questions were submitted on cards by the youth attending and were not instigated by the presenters in any way. Among the questions:

• Is oral sex better with tongue rings? P.S. I hope so.
• Cum? Calories? Spit versus swallow? Health concerns?
• What age do most GLB first have sex? Is it different from the age of straight kids?
• What is an anal ball?
• Should some kind of protection be used in lesbian sex?
• Women’s vaginal wall can expand to any dick size Can anal walls do the same?
• Are girls who primarily like guys and are only attracted to other girls sexually (not in the love-y) way considered bisexual?
• How is protection used in lesbian sex since it’s mostly oral, where does the protection go?
• My ex said she enjoys pain, what the hell is that about?
• What is fisting?
• Define fetish.
• What is lesbian sex anyway?
• How do I find out if someone is bi? Homo?
• What are the technicalities of transsexual and hermaphrodite sex?
• How long do you have to wait to get tested for HIV or any STD after the "act" is committed?
• A question on the ethics of oral sex: would it be considered rude not to swallow?
• Can you answer the fish question?
• Do lesbians rub their clits together? Is that even sex?
• How do GLB kids determine loss of virginity?

You will notice that among the very obvious questions that you would expect from gay youth about sex, some more "advanced" questions were asked. And this is where the fisting question came in.Note, the questions were rasied by the youth, not the presenters. Now the question is, how did the presenters respond? In response to the question about if it is rude not to swallow, the answer as proferred by the other youth was, "whether or not it's rude, it's good HIV prevention to not swallow."But the presenters followed the standard lines of sexual education that a person should not engage in sexual activity until he or she is ready for it and discussed ways to determine how you can tell if you are. They didn't talk about "abstinence" but rather "postponement." The idea, as someone at a school board meeting regarding sex education once said, "We don't teach our children about drug use because we don't want them using drugs. But we do eventually want our children to have sex." The idea is that it is a bad thing to make sex out to be something dirty or verboten. Instead, you point out that sex has some very serious consequences that can result, both physical and emotional, and that one should be extremely careful before engaging in it. There is no shame in putting it off until you're better able to handle it.So how did they handle the fisting question? By answering it honestly and accurately. First, they turned the question back on the students (remember the question about if it is rude to spit?) in order to find out what the youth thought fisting was. They then corrected the misconceptions and pointed out that while some people like it, most don't. There was no encouragement of the practice but simple, straightforward information about what it is and what it isn't.It seems, Zachariah, that you are under the unfortunate delusion that you know what happened at this workshop. Now that you know that you were lied to, how will your opinion change?For more information, see here: Context Matters: An investigation into the allegations contained in the article "Kids Get Graphic Instruction In Homosexual Sex State sponsored conference featured detailed sexual material"

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Were you there? Why do you attempt to demean those of us who are not in agreement with normalizing homosexuality as homophobes? Isn't that petty. You are above that I would think. -zThis message has been edited by Zachariah, 11-15-2004 03:39 AM

You provide a nice list of assertions with no evidence to back them up. You say studies exist. Please link to the studies or give more information about them. I went to fathermag, and didn't see what you were talking about. Please provide a direct link.The studies I have seen state that having two loving parents (vs. one) is the important factor in raising a well-adjusted child, not the gender of the parents. Yeah, if you check the Bush is Back pt II thread, you'll find the statistics showing that red states, and specifically the states that voted against homosexual marriage, are the ones with the highest divorce rates.The heathen "blue states" keep their families together better than the anti-homosexual Bible-belt-basket "red states". Who should we trust about the dangers of homosexuality to the sanctity of the family? That has nothing to do with homosexuality. Do you really base your knowledge of sex on MTV? No wonder you have bizarre ideas. The stats I present weren't of heterosexuals with HIV. They were of confirmed cases of heterosexual transmission of HIV. You do know the difference right? Heterosexual transmission means they got HIV through heterosexual sex, and not homosexual experimentation.If they got it through homosexual experimentation it would go in the homosexual transmission category.You interpretation is wrong. You do realize I'm actually looking at your sources, don't you? There is nothing about "fisting training" at 888webtoday.com.And maybe you should think about more objective sources than unreviewed conservative websites.Provide some real studies, please.

First of all, why do you think I'm a "HER"?I'm guessing it is because you quickly judge people with little to no knowledge of them.Since you "know" my sex, do you "know" my sexuality, too?By the way, it was not my perspective, I was reiterating what I thought was an important conclusion of the study: There would be no stress associated with "coming out" to an open society (indeed in an open society "coming out" wouldn't exist as a process). The stress and fear and depression come from the pressure of being one's self in a bigoted society. The lack of services available for homosexuals (again a result of a bigoted society) exacerbate this problem.That's the conclusion of the study.

Zachariah responds to me:

quote:

---

WHAT GOD HAS CREATED?

---

Of course. God made everything, right? God doesn't make mistakes, right? Therefore, god made gay people. God wants people to be happy. Therefore, god created joyful, happy couples in gay people.

quote:

---

Just because we have free will doesn't mean it is of GOD.

---

You're assuming that people choose their sexual orientation. When and how did you choose yours? Did you try having sex with other men before deciding that it wasn't for you? What kind of man turns you on?Question: If god came down and told you that it was OK to be gay, would you be able to have a loving relationship with another man?

quote:

---

quote:

---

prof says.."it is obvious to all except the most casual observers"

---

​

Have you ever had a professor say that "looks can be decieving"

---

No, because my profs were teaching us how to be good observers. It was, after all, Harvey Mudd: The #1 college of science and engineering in the nation.In other words, of course looks can be deceiving but the only thing we have to go on is our observations so we had better be good at it.As I asked you directly: Go to your local gay pride festival and take a look at the people there. Are you seriously claiming that these people are self-hating and depressed? That when gay people are in a loving, supportive environment free of homophobia, they remain emotionally broken?

quote:

---

quote:

---

just because you insist 2+2=5

---

​

Where?

---

Where you said gay people are emotionally broken people: Message 69: As I pointed out to you, you overlooked the conclusion that the problem was not the sexual orientation of the people involved but rather the homophobia surrounding the people involved.You are claiming that it is the fault of a person who was shot in the head for having a skull that is capable of being penetrated by bullets rather than the one pulling the trigger.When you rain on someone else's parade, the bad mood is your fault, not theirs. They were trying to have a joyful, happy time and you came along and pissed all over it.Why are you so obsessed over the sex lives of people whom you don't know, will never meet, and will never be involved with?

quote:

---

Cry me a river... all this what kind of a society if you have to worry about loosing your job, being shot at, poked fun

---

Right...losing your job or being murdered is just getting "poked fun" at.

quote:

---

I got news for you little man. That shit happens to EVERYONE

---

When was the last time you heard of someone being murdered for being straight?I do not deny that straight people are murdered. But straight people don't have the additional worry of being murdered simply for being straight. Anybody can get mugged, but you don't find straight people being subjected to drive-by shootings simply because they are straight.

quote:

---

I have my own problems in life

---

When was the last time you were shot at for being straight?By your logic, blacks shouldn't have been worried in the South of the 1950s since, after all, lynchings could happen to anybody and white people have their own problems in life, too.

quote:

---

I expect them to do the same and not force feed it to us by mandates and new laws and programs funded by people that don't agree with them but have no choice on where there tax dollars go.

---

It sounds like you're more concerned about governmental involvement in the romantic lives of the citizenry. After all, if these people weren't gay, they'd be getting married to people of the opposite sex and you'd still be paying for it.If we have two men and two women, how is there any differential tax burden if they pair up boy-boy/girl-girl instead of boy-girl/boy-girl? The tax break is because there is a couple, so why do we care who makes up the couple?You keep claiming to be pro-family, so why are you doing everything you can to break up families?

quote:

---

Those are some of the problems brought on by homosexuality.

---

Incorrect. You would have the identical tax burden if the couple were heterosexual rather than homosexual. Your problem seems to be that you don't like the government giving tax breaks to couples. Why do you care who is in the couple?

quote:

---

I believe they do harm to the people that don't agree with that lifestyle.

---

You can believe it all you want but wishing doesn't make it so. As I said before, Just because you insist that 2 + 2 = 5, that doesn't mean you're right.The problem is not the gay people but rather your psychotic obsession with them. If you are upset by the existence of gay people, then you need to stop thinking about them. It isn't like they're making you do anything you don't want to do. Nobody is forcing you to have sex with another man. Nobody is forcing you to marry another man. Your life doesn't change one iota if we treat gay people the same way we treat straight people.Question: What in your life will change if it turns out that the couple next door is Ms. and Ms. Smith rather than Mr. and Ms.?

quote:

---

We are forced to except and we won't. That harms me. There is your examples.

---

No, that isn't an example. That's an unsubstantiated claim. You claim there is harm, but you haven't given any example of how that harm is realized. How are you forced to do anything you don't want to do? Are you being forced to have sex with another man against your will? Are you being forced to marry another man against your will?Be specific. What precise harm is being done to you by the existence of happy gay people?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zachariah writes:

quote:

---

I say the gay with a gun in his/her mouth should drop the gun and read the bible before they assume it says they will burn in hell for their sins.

---

I've got a better idea.The gay with a gun in his/her mouth needs to kick the homophobic asshole in the balls, take that gun, and shove it down the homophobic prick's throat so that he can see what it's like.You seem to be saying that a person who was shot in the head is at fault for having a skull capable of being penetrated by a bullet rather than the person pulling the trigger.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

You're wrong. Here it is: Unless you think that "eternal fire" refers to something other than hell...

To me, someone who is against normalizing homosexuality is the very definition of a homophobe.So no, it isn't petty.How do you define homophobe that you don't fit that definition?

Zachariah responds to me:

quote:

---

Were you there?

---

Were you?

quote:

---

Why do you attempt to demean those of us who are not in agreement with normalizing homosexuality as homophobes?

---

Because those who think that there is something wrong with being gay are deficient, mentally unstable individuals who can be helped if only they would give up their psychotic behaviour and stop obsessing over the sex lives of people they don't know, will never meet, and will never experience if they don't want to.

quote:

---

Isn't that petty.

---

Since when is promoting families and advocating love and happiness "petty"? You said that you were for families and yet you sit here and tell us that the formation of loving families is a bad thing.

quote:

---

You are above that I would think.

---

Indeed. That's why I am doing everything I can to make you feel ashamed of yourself. You are doing a terrible, evil thing. You are destroying families. You have an unhealthy obsession. You need to stop panicking over things that have no effect upon you. Your happiness in this world is at stake. The sooner you stop getting worked up over what other people you'll never meet are doing with their naughty bits, the sooner you'll be able to live a more life-affirming, loving, joyful life.At the smallest level, you'll stop wasting your time here debating something that doesn't affect you. You say you have problems of your own. Imagine how much time you could invest in finding a solution to those problems if you were to stop wasting time here having apoplexy over the existence of happy gay people.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Now I am totally pissed off. The above claim is completely untrue. I answered your post regarding pedophilia, not the other way around. My first and only post was related to HIV infection. Check it out.And what's more, AdminNosy comes in to stop discussion of pedophilia only when I start explaining that there is a connection between it and homosexuality, ESPECIALLY to those who do NOT LIKE homosexuality, which happens to be the question in this thread, right????Then AdminNosy allows pedophilia to continue being discussed as long as people reassert that it can't have any possible similarity to homosexuality?Oh yeah, this is just "obvious". Or is it? Wasn't that my whole point? The distinction is not "obvious" at all, except for the people who want to see it as obvious. And frankly if we are to uphold "obviousness" as set the standard for discussion, then there should be no analogies or suggestion of similarity between homosexuality and heterosexuality as they are patently "obviously" different as well.Maybe not to you? Well it obviously is to those who are against homosexuality now isn't it? And that is who you are asking right? You want to know from those who are against homosexuality why it is they view it as harmful, and it begins with the fact that they do view it as different. Right?You want to know why? Is it distinguishable based on its ability to cause harm? This is what people seem to be trying to assert they must do...Such a discussion will naturally lead to criteria of how to distinguish harm from sexual acts in general. This is why you DD said you brought up pedophilia and why (IMO) you were correct in doing so. You could have just as easily brought up some other sexual minority and you'd have been correct (IMO) and gotten my equal reply.This is to say if you want an honest discussion on what is the harm of homosexuality in some objective sense, then you are going to have to define harm (what constitutes harm to an individual) in general and then ask where this can be seen inherent in any sexual act.In an objective sense all sex is the same (health wise) until some criteria of harm is defined which can separate them. What we have now done is allowed this type of discussion to be shut down.If you want a subjective discussion, so that you can claim homo is the same as hetero, but please no discussing any other kind of sex which is considered harmful so as to gauge what is meant by harm, then you already have your answer. It is obviously different and it is obviously wrong, and since it is wrong doing it causes harm by furthering wrong.Yet everyone is now acting like what's good for the goose is not good for the gander, and trying to shut down debate along those remaining lines available for discussion.Zachariah is right, you ask the question but absolutely none of you are willing to listen to the answer because the actual implications disturb you. This is not to say that you have to end up accepting other sexual minorities you may hate, but rather realize and accept that the underlying bigotry against almost all of them stems from your initial contempt for them.So let me repeat this... the answer has been given. The harm of homosexuality is that it is considered wrong. Whether from God or just plain people that feel that it is wrong, that is the source. Homosexuality is obviously different from heterosexuality in that it is same sex coupling versus opposite sex coupling and one is felt right while the other is felt wrong.That [i]is[/] the same reason for just about every sexual minority there is, including pedophilia, bestiality, incest, etc etc. They are different based on some physical difference that can be identified and it is felt wrong, and thus must be harmful.I guess if we want an honest debate on objective harm, we have to start a different thread.And just so's you know it is not my personal feeling that homosexuality is wrong or harmful, I was just trying to explain what it will boil down to for those against homosexuality.

---

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

Maybe this post will make more sense as it won't involve any icky feelings for you guys.The problem is that you are not listening to what these people are saying, and so have constucted a question doomed to failure. This can be seen in the original question... So what this is saying is that you want to know why but are unable to accept any other answer than something you are willing to accept. Yeah that will go far.You either want to know why and try to get to the root of why God would forbid such a thing, or you want to know why it is harmful. It is very possible that the two have nothing to do with each other.Indeed if one looks at the laws where homosexuality is first condemned (for those that believe that that is what is being said) there are a lot of other laws. Why are you not looking at them to find your answer?It is readily evident that many of these laws have nothing to do with whether they intrinsically cause harm... outside of stirring God's wrath. Choose this for sacrifice and not that? Problems with mixing fibers? Concepts of "cleanliness" relating to time of day.Heck God comes right out and admits that he simply doesn't want to see crippled people at his alter.If God does not always proscribe based on objective criteria of harm, and one believes there is no objective harm in homosexual acts, then its pretty obvious he did so for other reasons.I have read theories regarding God wanting to have the world fit his own tastes, or his vision of what he wanted when designing things, as well as his simply trying to help define "his people" from those around them. That is he was deliberately creating a subculture that was visible in act and dress, and he could best judge who was commited to him or not based on the subborning personal desire to his direction.You could almost envision the latter as God's enacting some sort of military code of dress and discipline.As anyone can tell you there are a lot of things that are proscribed in the military (and government in general) for no real reason. Hell, in a government office I often had to visit it was actually illegal for me to walk through a certain door because of the nature of the people behind it, despite the fact that there was no issue with me talking to them and indeed I had to. But to make things legal I had to walk into a separate hallway to get to another door to the exact same room. When I addressed this to management they shrugged it off as admittedly not doing anything... but important none the less.I think it is pretty clear God wanted men to be with women. He seems pretty hot for that coupling and coupling to produce children. So maybe that is the source for his taste. Or perhaps it makes sense out of necessity. If he's going to proscribe any sexual activity (even if just to make his people distinct) it better be same sex or his people won't be around much longer.And so it is bad because as a Jew or Xian he said not to (note: I realize the proscription itself is contended but that is another topic). It is wrong for this reason. And it is harmful because he does not like it and says he will leave you if he does not like you.Kind of like okay you wanna have sex with another person of the same sex, then go ahead and do so... see where it gets you because I am out of here. That would be a pretty solid reason why you wouldn't want to engage in such an act and view its spread as somehow harmful.This of course addresses your other point... It sure would be bad if you believe God is going to leave you because all the people around you are having homosexual sex. Such events (God walking out on all people because he doesn't like most of them) have plenty of biblical precedent. This is because people that believe in God and scripture have a different view of what is natural. The Bible does state homosexuality is unnatural. That pretty well seals the deal.Scientific natural is does it occur in nature. Religious natural can be should it, or was it intended to be in nature. And that can very well mean god makes something unnatural be definitional proscription. For YOU (as a part of my people) it is no longer natural. Morality is a subjective construct (or lets say subjective acceptance) and so can be based on scientific naturalism, or religious naturalism. Or it might have nothing to do with nature at all.If you base moral "wrong" on whether something must do harm, then in a way you certainly are basing your judgement on nature. You don't proscribe based on whether something does not happen, but rather if in nature we see it causing harm.Well that's if you use and objective standard of harm, but then we circle right back into personal religious standards or personal taste.This message has been edited by holmes, 11-15-2004 06:54 AM

---

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

Forgive the tones of my post. I've edited out my vulgarities.But I wasn't looking for a fight - I'm just sick of people using the bible against gay people. It seems to be a repetitive theme here at EvC. Or rather - there theology of the bible. That's correct. But what about the reality of these recent days? Where christians do what they like - without geting married? What about them?The bible is against lustful acts, fornication etc.. But people usually "handpick" gay people as an example of lust. Tis wrong and judgemental. Fair enough. Okay, okay already. I misconscrued your post a bit.