Harm in Homosexuality?

Okay, I can't remember which one, but I read in a UK paper (it was in the G2 supplement to the Guardian, I remember) about a year ago that the offspring of cousins has a 3% chance of having a nasty defect, as opposed to 1% for people who weren't related. Quite how they arrived at that figure, God only knows (what is a nasty defect? etc). But its pretty low.

Actually, in the Netherlands you aren't "good to go" at 14. There are actually quite complex laws.have a look at http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

Okay, sorry. Insert other place of your choice which has an age of consent lower than you'd expect.http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

I thought we were going to talk about reality. 11 states do not a nation make.And it is pretty clear is it not that many of the people that rushed to the polls in fear of gay marriage did so because of the scare gay activists helped create via acts of civil disobediance?That San Francisco effort, and then the threat of additional efforts across the nation, while appluaded by people that are gay marriage positive, and people like me that like civil disobedience, was actually counterproductive. That scared a lot of people that didn't need scaring. And it worked right into the hands of conservative agendas.I don't believe all of the amendments voted on had all three of those points, but you can correct me if I am wrong (a link would be nice if you could).But lets say they were. Do you honestly believe most people actually understood what they said? Or would not have been amenable to a lesser proscriptive amendment?What you saw was a victory for kneejerk reactions and general election ignorance... and I will repeat that it was not necessarily a representation of most people. No, thankfully I was born after that was removed. However I do remember people milking that issue well after it was over.This issue is not necessarily like that at all. I think one of the largest bits of groupthink is that gay activists are missing the real point that marriage has a history and a connotation that really is important to some people. While personally I don't care about changing the laws, the reality is that others are, and it doesn't have to do with being antigay (though that always helps).Gays are trying to create a brand new tradition in society. It really didn't even exist (in the form we are discussing now) back in the days when homosexuality was considered okay, and that was at least 1000 years ago.Maybe it would have been wiser, more realistic, to go slowly and not make wild overt gestures and reach out to moderates? That's funny becuase that's not what I said at all. It is fingerpointing like that which is not helping your case.Don't you get it that instead of being practical and realistic, this is being pursued with an all or nothing with us or against us mentality?If I were not as openminded as I am you would have just alienated me from your cause. In this case you just made me shake my head. Uhhhh, that's what your opposition is saying.

---

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

The problem with a parent masturbating a child, even if it WHERE accepted as akin to a hug, is that then every person a child might normally hug (and there's quite a lot of them) would equally be normally involved in masturbation of the child.Practically, this kind of behaviour would lead to disease increase.But morally, this is a move towards a totally free sexual society. With the health implications this is just not practical, and with the current (more or less global) philosophy that sex is something extra and special (above kissing, hugging etc) it would lead to a downgrading of sex to just another act, taking away one of the things that makes sex great - the emotional side.Also, sex is a lot more open to exploitation for personal gain than hugging - in sex one partner can exploit the other for pleasure, while providing nothing back. This kind of behaviour is seen a lot in patriachal societies where women are not expected to gain much pleasure from sex.
Another interesting note is that in some cities in ancient greece relationships between older men and young boys were permitted. This was about physical gratification for the adult, and education or presents for the child or the childs parents. This kind of behaviour objectifies the child and teaches that sex should be bought, which is in stark contrast to modern ideas of healthy relationships.

If marriage is religious, ban all atheists from marrying and stop all marriages outside of church. Then set up a civil register for everyone to register for tax breaks/inheritence laws.If marriage is state registration let gay couples marry.

Jon said: I'll tell you why I don't think this boat floats. There are plenty of human behaviours that aren't overtly sexual that lead to disease increase, but we don't see mass protests about the evils of public swimming baths, or aunty's kisses, or whatever. We are surrounded by disease risk, and properly managed, its not going to crush civilisation. Besides, the Bonobos get by.

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.Now clear your mind. Here is what I am saying.You have stated that you have a criteria for determining something is wrong; Wrong comes from harm. You are then asking that another group give you a reason why their moral system says someting is wrong, based on harm.1) I have challenged that you do not actually use that criteria, but that is an issue that the admins have apparently selectively chosen to not allow anyone to attack, yet allow you to keep making. Frankly I think it is important to discuss.2) Regardless of whether you actually use it or not, let's say you do... There is no logical reason that another group must use your criteria to determine moral assignments. Indeed there is nothing wrong with them not giving a hoot whether harm is part of a criteria for right and wrong.3) 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.If you want to know why their god says something is wrong, you must first abandon your own moral system. That's how you compare different systems of thought. You cannot expect them to give criteria that fits your own, to prove that theirs is somehow valid. No, I wasn't, but I'd love to discuss that finally. This is disengenuous. There is absolutely no question that in a society that expects and enforces sanctions against those that engage in a certain act, one will find problems in people that have engaged in certain acts.That is why psychology did, and still does today, finds problems with homosexuals. They are quite clear now that it is societal reactions and indeed the environment one is supposed to socialize in, which generates the negative feelings.This appears to be exactly the same for pedophilia. Unless you are discussing cases of overt violence or coercion which can hurt anyone, minor do not show any negative effects besides those which result from social expectations, or trying to fit into their social environment that is negative to their experiences.You will find if you look at Pyschology texts on this issue, that this is the case.And if one gives it a serious, honest analysis this will become obvious.Sex is physical and psychological pleasure derived from touching (in various ways) areas of skin that are extra sensitive. That is it. A minor's brain development does not alter in some malignant way by receiving pleasure from those regions rather than other regions. If it did than the addage of masturbation driving you insane (or blind) would be true. Neither does a minor have any inate aversion to touching others in those areas, unless socialized not to.That can be seen in other cultures, historical and otherwise, where pedophilia or genital manipulation of some kind was acceptable, and in some cases a natural expectation of those societies. There was no inherent harm done to those children.This can also be seen in the fact that pedophilia has no set definition. I have been trying to get anyone who asserts that sex inherently causes harm to give me an age on when this "harm" ends. The fact is that legal consensual sex ranges from 13-18 in the US, and (where set at all) varies from 9-21. Thus child molestation causes harm at what age?Are you even aware how the history of sexual issues progressed such that pedophilia became such a pressing issue? Where the assumption of harm comes from, when there was no assumption before?In the end the same evidence which condemns or "supports", as you call it, homosexuality is the same kind of evidence used against pedophilia, incest, bestiality, and other sexual minorities where violence and coercion are not explicitly used.So the question goes back to you. You claim evidence... present it. Explain mechanisms and define ages. Again you continue to miss the only real point. Whether you or I have any evidence means nothing.To a person that believes that there is a powerful entity capable of seeing more than we do, and states that it is wrong, then our limited perspective is irrelevant.Maybe what you need to do is assume for sake of argument a God comes down to earth which you simply cannot deny. Now you may want to know what that God sees, or wonder if he's just making up things, but you will obviously be in no position to dispute the claims of the God.Indeed the harm may not even be understandable to a human mind.If you don't agree with Xianity, just say so. If you dislike its tenets no matter what the reason, just say so. But if you want to pretend you have some logical superiority where you can prove their God is bad and has bad laws, you are departing from reason. This is also a bit disengenuous. You can't say that because he has a taste or even becomes weaker in a certain environment that he is less omnipotent or that he is homophobic.For example we could promote Lam to the status of God. He can know and change anything. That does not stop the fact that he could inherently be lactose intolerant.Yeah he could change the milk into water and so not be harmed, but maybe he'd create as a law for anyone wanting to be his pals that they would refrain from giving him milk products.I mean you get that this is about showing their obedience to him right? Their care for him?This is not to mention that it is perhaps a way to prevent other deities from getting stronger and so helping those other people. This would be about wasting time and energy where it doesn't need to be.If you don't like the rules and so decide to hate their God, you can do that. Heck, I would have problems with a God that doesn't carefully explain things himself and let's scattered writers do the talking... not to mention calling himself angry and jealous.That does not logically elevate your moral position above theirs nor mean they have to fulfill your personal criteria to be right. No. Never. I don't know, but it seems silly to want to be. I have no idea, but I would think not.Feel better? Your paragraph contained humor but no substance at all. If that was true (and all we need is a probability) then God had a reason and he can let it stand as long as he likes. Maybe Ba'al is waiting just around the corner. I don't know and would have no way of knowing. Do you?Remember you can't just assume you are right and then ask them to prove things according to your standards. Civil is fine, though I was honestly telling the truth. Your statement made me laugh. And frankly I feel your actions are not exactly civil. I'm still waiting for an acknowledgement that it was you who started the whole pedophilia thing and you weren't responding to a post of mine.I wasn't exactly happy to have that laid out on my doorstep. No it doesn't. What it does is expect homosexuals to curb their behavior. If they stray from the mandate, then they will be harmed.A soldier is expected to stay in uniform. He may hate his uniform or find it vastly uncomfortable, but as long as he is in the army, and especially as long as he is in battle, he must remain in uniform no matter how much it pains him or her.Removal of the uniform can get one courtmartialed at home, and summarily shot on the battlefield.Being expected to curb one's sexual appetite may be an inconvenience, but that is not the only appetite expected to be curbed.If you want to question why many Xians focus on the one facet of their "uniform code" while letting others slip by, that is valid, but an entirely different question. In any case I somehow don't believe that you would be any happier if they simply got as sticky on all the other codes... right? But it is not wholly "harm" which you invoke, rather perceptions of harm, which are the result of taste and societal environment.If there was clear cut evidence of harm vs nonharm on the subject of sexual minorities (or deviance) then I wouldn't have been making the counterarguments I have, and if I did, you could have pointed out all this glorious evidence we have in science. We don't, which a simply look across cultures now and in the past ought to tell you. I already did. So did others. The fact that you don't accept that it is valid within the context of their own morality system, is your problem not theirs.And as far as my own moral system, I can't argue it as I see no problem with it at all. That makes me a competitor of those that disagree with my moral system. However it does not excuse my being ignorant of how their belief system operates or expect it to act along my criteria.That is what you want. You want people with an opposing (deontological) system to validate their system to you, using your teleological system's criteria. You are the one being unreasonable. That was what I was refering to. I have already addressed this in earlier post.Natural from a scientific standpoint, does not have to coincide with natural from a religious standpoint.You are equating the two and then punking on them for not meeting your scientific criteria. It is just as silly as when they do the reverse.Natural to them can be primary or certain intended variations of function. That is a valid definition, especially when one believes that a creator God exists. That goes double when he explicitly says something is a natural function and something is not.I don't like their God's rules, that doesn't mean they are logically inconsistent.

---

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

Uh yeah, but not necessarily from an objective injury of some kind, and they do not have to have their base in an idea of people abusing their dominant position for sexual gain. Remember that that is what I was addressing.Taboos, especially sexual taboos, often have their base in creating social identity and cultural tastes. The harms are often about perceived harms to "goodness" or "innocence", or just the potential of harm. This is logical? Its easy to define because it is arbitrary? Yeah you can have concrete numbers, but that doesn't make it any more concretely defined as a moral as there is no underlying reason. Nice try. Unfortunately teacher/student is pretty concrete, and so is parent/child.Even your boss example is a bit lame. All you have to do is add "immediate" or "directly connected". And if you say there is no reason to differentiate one between the other, then one is forced to point out there is no reason to pick any specific age either. Citations please. And again even if true only underscores my position. In this context we are no longer talking about actual harm, we are talking about behavior that might have a tendency to lead to behaviors that might cause harm.This is true of many other activities, but only the sexual realm gets the full brunt of social sanctions. Nice assertions. I read the link you gave too. This is philosophy devoid of real world application called evidence, for shame.But once again, my point is proven even if the evidence were there for your position. We are not discussing the harm of acts. We are talking about future possibilities or signs that there may be acts which are harmful. There is plenty of evidence which suggests that some behaviors act as catharsis and so put a brake on more extreme acts, correct? When worldwide they swing from 0-21, what exactly is your evidence that the concept of harm to a minor is anything more than a social construct?You do realize that given the type of arguments you have made, homosexuality can be pathologized and condemned?What stops anyone from saying it is psychologically damaging because it rewards potentially damaging behavior and is certainly a sign of insecurity (with properly dealing with 1/2 of the population), and therefore a sign of extreme insecurity.Anyone can make up anything, and ranges of anything, if they want to and make it sound real.

---

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

quote:

---

And it is pretty clear is it not that many of the people that rushed to the polls in fear of gay marriage did so because of the scare gay activists helped create via acts of civil disobediance?

---

Yeah - and anti-slavery activists caused a polarisation of opinion, and so did equal rights activists, and feminists et al.This is a reactionary claim, and a common form of discrimination; frex "I'm not racist but other people are, so if we let the black family buy a house in the neighbourhood property values will go down". Thus the speaker acts on the racists behalf.It's just a crude attempt to make the discrimination covert.

Sweet. You are the first person to be addressing this rationally. However my point is being made.I'm not sure if you were around for this but my first statement on pedophilia was in response to the bald assertion that pedophilic acts inherently cause harm and so were wrong morally.Well that's simply not true and what I was trying to point out. It turns out the pedophilia has repercussions on an individual in just the same way homosexuality would and certainly did back when it was considered in the same pathological category. It is a social construct, based on cultural views of what sex is and how it should be used.Parents and other adults are allowed to "exploit" their children for all sorts of reasons, and certainly getting pleasure from them (even in physical ways) is allowed. It is only due to our cultural history of damning sex as a loss of innocence and somewhat inherently dirty, that sexual exploitation became thought of as an inherent harm.I mean if a minor gets touched sexually by someone, just think of what happens. Yeah... what? You have hit on one of the implications I would address as the concept of "informed consent" was explored. I think the concept of "informed consent" with respect to sex can be shown to be a red herring. It sounds good, but does not stand up to consistent scrutiny. It is currently 12. The US and Britain are pushing the Dutch to raise it to 18. Indeed there is a global push through the UN to arbitrarily set all age of consents to 18. Not that there is any proven problem, just to make things easy for americans and Britains to enforce their own laws.I guess then I won't be able to point to cultural diversity anymore. This is true. Unfortunately it is a poor argument for continued punishment and moralizing against it. Or if it is, the gays have lost their own moral and legal case. It increases the potential, but I would disagree with the likelihood and the degree. Historically, in cultures where children are allowed to within the bounds of parent/teacher relationships, it didn't really seem to do this. Rather it was used as a tie between mentor and student.Where it is wholly banned, it is more likely that any circumstance will involve exploitation just because people who engage in it will be the type to be flouting other cultural expectations, and in the end they may feel they have to get everything out of what little time they have to get what they want and so increase the degree of "use". No doubt, but again this does not help any arguments for continuing the cultural practice. It is the same argument used to repress young homosexuals by their family members, and society grown ones.Of course this raises another question, isn't repression of sexuality or sexual behavior in minors a form of exploitation itself and also potentially a source of harm? Yet this is the same position for children discovering that they are gay. And this was also one of the major "secular" issues with mixed race relationships. Yeah we have to remember that that was taboo once as well. And these children didn't even have the chance of hiding their "scar". Yet eventually we stopped picking on them.

---

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

Hey, where did I hear this argument before? Oh yeah, against gays.Guess what... it doesn't work here either. Indeed I invite you to explain how masturbating a child could cause an increase in disease. Wow, so to make sex better, we have to keep considering it bad, and scarring kids that happen to do it earlier than others?People manage to enjoy massages, meditation, bike riding and riding cars and they are every day events. So what?Why can't people enjoy the physical pleasure of sex and not artificially combine it with a specific emotion? That has been one of the problems with society since Xians took over the asylum. Your defense of their proscription, without an accompanying deity, looks pretty hollow. You are good with this assertion thing. I guess you haven't had relatives that get great pleasure hugging everyone (or kissing you) and you'd rather not?But by the way, who in this scenario said a person can't decline? Are you saying the children in no way enjoyed the sex? And you know this how?It does not teach that it should be bought, but can be bought, and what difference does it make if it stands in stark contract to modern ideas? Uhhh, homosexuality was also acceptable back then and stands in stark contrast to modern ideas of healthy relationships.That is unless you view just your modern viewpoint as the only modern viewpoint? And indeed it may be pointed out that you are in the minority.

---

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

Uhhhh, are you saying the actions ended up being helpful, rather than if they had reached out to moderate groups to try and solidify ties with them? That is not what I am saying at all... not even close. Contra, personally I am for gay marriage as I don't care who gets married. I even support gay initiatives for it. I am just pointing out that there are alternate routes and it appears that they would be more productive.I can recognize that there are some with a legitimate concern, along the lines of having used a particular term for a long time that has a connotation... like kosher. Whether it is silly in an objective sense I am not going to argue as anyone's particular moral stances (especially semantic ones) usually look silly. But silly or not, it is legitimate.If I were desperate to get my rights, as opposed to having them plus a specific name, I'd be finding the support among those willing to give me my rights and not do things that might get them upset. Looking radical does not fly very far.Sorry for being the messenger.

---

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

quote:

---

Uhhhh, are you saying the actions ended up being helpful, rather than if they had reached out to moderate groups to try and solidify ties with them?

---

Yes absolutely. Because after all, "moderate" is just code for "people who agree with me".It is repeatedly the case that "extremism" - that is, actual and serious political activism rather than uselss jaw-jaw - creates the space ibnto which "moderates" move. Extremism is always the engine of social change.

quote:

---

Contra, personally I am for gay marriage as I don't care who gets married. I even support gay initiatives for it. I am just pointing out that there are alternate routes and it appears that they would be more productive.

---

Which is what the reactionary status quo always says. Slaves shouldn't rebel against cruel masters - they should know their place and campaign peacefully. Women shouldnl;t protest innthe streets - they should know their place and work behind the scenes. Gays shouldn't take to the streets with Pride - they should stay carefully our of sight and out of mind so as not to provoke anyone.All of these are basically restatements of "whatever you do, don't rock the boat". But that is a recipe for defeat - the only way to change the status quo is precisely to rock the boat.

quote:

---

If I were desperate to get my rights, as opposed to having them plus a specific name, I'd be finding the support among those willing to give me my rights and not do things that might get them upset. Looking radical does not fly very far.

---

Those who sympathise with you already do not need to be persuaded. Those who do not sympathise with you already need to be persuaded, but you cannot do that if you are afraid confrontation. TYhose who directly oppose you are not going to be persuaded and most be resisted.NON-radicalism is a recipe for failure. Sorry to be the messenger.

Oh then by all means show what positive results were had! Heheheh... can't keep straight which debate your tackling huh? Even if I accept you definition that only helps my argument.That is right, they should have reached out to the people that agreed with them rather than alienating them, which allowed another extremist group to open up a space and let them in.Yelling and spitting into peoples faces is pretty extreme, does that mean you would recommend that activity to someone who wants to get people on their side? Hey I thought they were cool demonstrations, I tend to like civil disobedience. But even at the time I also said I wasn't sure if they were going to be productive, and it turns out that they weren't.At the time many of the demonstrations began you had initiatives for civil unions floating around. There was also some pretty solid evidence of popular support, which was pissing off the conservatives who were trying to whip up support against them.In that environment, maybe it wasn't such a good time to say "no way am I going to accept anything less than full use of the word marriage", break the law, and throw it in the faces of everyone. Like I said, cool, but smart? Productive?It gave the conservatives the ammo they needed to create a rainbow scare, and make it seem like gays were about to turn the nation upside down.Then in an odd twist gay activists seemed to step right into the monster suit the conservatives had created and yelled "yeah we're going to turn this country upside down." Again, this is not conducive to getting people on your side.It looks to me that gay activism got a little bit too excited and did not look at how to achieve ends realistically. Its human, but it was a mistake. In the end they turned potential victories into defeats by alienating potential supporters.You don't rock the boat when you are underway in the direction you want to go. Right, but on the flipside they don't need to be antagonized. This is what occured. Yeah you have to not be afraid of confrontation with your opponents, not simply people that do not sympathize with you. It is hard to persuade and confront at the same time. That is delicate. I agree with this. The problem was failing in the first two parts. Radicalism is also a recipe for failure. It all depends on how careful the cook is.And as far as being the messenger, it was me. You were attacking me, remember?

---

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