Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
72 online now:
caffeine, Tangle, vimesey (3 members, 69 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,211 Year: 22,247/19,786 Month: 810/1,834 Week: 310/500 Day: 9/64 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20331
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 28 of 1309 (722819)
03-25-2014 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by lokiare
03-24-2014 2:41 PM


when did you choose
Is homosexuality a choice or ...
I put forward several studies that have been done that show homosexuality is more by choice and environment and falls under a mindset rather than a biological imperative or being of genetic origin:

Can you tell me when you decided to be heterosexual? Or did you always know?

Wouldn't it have been evolved out by now?

Why? Why would you expect the genetic traits that govern attraction should always be aligned with the genetic traits for reproduction apparatus during the process of reproduction? Especially when there are several gene sites that could be involved?

You do realize that there are many animals with homosexual individuals along with heterosexuals (and that they are not persecuted by their fellow beings)?

Bonobos (pygmy chimps) are perhaps the best known.

... or is it some biological process.
... and environment ...

If it is a biological process that occurs during fetal development due to hormones then this is logically going to be a common recurring result, and still not a choice on the part of the individual.

If it is a biological process it should have been eradicated by evolution right?

Why?

If the biological conditions that produce the hormones affecting the fetal development are commonly replicated there should be no reason for results to change.

If it is not a biological process and a result of choice and environment then it shouldn't be protected under the law any more than any other choice/environment option (like say vegetarianism). So which side does it fall under and what are the scientific and lawful implications?

Why?

Your purported choice to be heterosexual should also not be protected in that case, logically speaking, and thus laws should treat all people equally regardless of sexual orientation.

The scientific implications are that we don't know yet all the causes or reasons, but studies have shown than one cannot decide to be other than what they are (see Vimsey above and I have had similar experience). Whether it is strictly genetic, strictly hormone\environment\developmental or a combination is really irrelevant: the people are still fully human beings and members of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. Scientifically there is no more difference than there is between any two individuals.

The lawful implications are what we as society decide to do in making laws, and whether we want those laws to be equitable and just in their treatment of individuals or we want to be oppressive and discriminatory.

And in a country where we purportedly value independence, liberty, justice and equality, it seems to me logical that there should be no restriction on how people want to behave in private between consenting adults.

As far as laws go, I would propose that these guidelines should apply:

First do no harm or through inaction cause harm to occur
Second do unto others as you would have them do unto you

Finally I note that the preamble to the constitution states:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We have become more perfect with time as we have increased the freedom and liberty of others, more just in our laws treating people as equals, but there is still room to grow and become even more perfect still.

The constitution doesn't list exceptions. It gives no preference to any religious beliefs or biased beliefs.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lokiare, posted 03-24-2014 2:41 PM lokiare has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 7:14 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20331
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 31 of 1309 (722825)
03-25-2014 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Faith
03-25-2014 8:37 AM


... Homosexual sex does not reproduce. ...

So?

Can you tell me when you chose to be heterosexual? Or have you always known?

Should we outlaw every living style that does not lead to reproduction?

Single people cannot reproduce on their own, so single living should be outlawed?

Nunneries and Monasteries should be outlawed?

What about non-co-ed dormitories at universities?

Should every couple not producing offspring be jailed?

Why would it matter?


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 03-25-2014 8:37 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 03-25-2014 10:04 AM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20331
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 38 of 1309 (722832)
03-25-2014 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
03-25-2014 10:04 AM


Oh for crying out loud, read what I said IN CONTEXT.

Ah, so reproduction is not an issue.

Good.

Then there is no reason for bigotry and biased beliefs, and people should be treated equally under the laws of the land regardless of sexual orientations.

Glad you agree.

Of course it doesn't really matter what you think in this regard as we see increased recognition of equality occurring at a steady pace. In spite of bigotry and biased beliefs.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 03-25-2014 10:04 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 03-25-2014 10:20 AM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20331
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(4)
Message 44 of 1309 (722858)
03-25-2014 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Faith
03-25-2014 10:20 AM


IDIOT!

Yes, people who think that anyone should be deprived of basic human rights for any reason is an idiot.

It's such a simple concept: Person is a human ... basic human rights ... person has rights.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 03-25-2014 10:20 AM Faith has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20331
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 57 of 1309 (722896)
03-25-2014 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by lokiare
03-25-2014 5:14 PM


Re: Rights versus Responsibilities
Do you have any proof that "... that homosexual gender attraction is not a choice.". ...

When did you choose to be heterosexual or did you always know?


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 5:14 PM lokiare has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20331
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 58 of 1309 (722898)
03-25-2014 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by lokiare
03-25-2014 5:14 PM


Re: Rights versus Responsibilities
... negate the link I posted that lists many studies showing it is environmental and choice based?

We don't debate by citing websites here (see rules re posting bare links).

Perhaps you could cite the more salient points, and explain more what you mean by "environmental" ...

In biological terms "environmental" would mean chemicals and hormones that would affect fetal and childhood development - is this what you mean?


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 5:14 PM lokiare has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20331
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(3)
Message 74 of 1309 (722921)
03-25-2014 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by lokiare
03-25-2014 5:24 PM


Re: Why are choices fair game?
In fact its the religious freedoms that forcing those things would violate....

Nope - you and your church are free to have any beliefs you want to, but when you offer a public service you are expected to offer that service to anyone -- because you need to respect the beliefs of others rather than try to hold them to your beliefs: that is religious freedom.

It also has to do with what people consider persecution and bigotry. I once went to a forum and expressed my dislike of all of the homosexual lobbying that was putting homosexual scenes in every show. I said something along the lines that I was not entertained by it anymore than someone who doesn't like scenes of romantic comedy in their serious political thrillers. Shortly after I was severely 'persecuted' for having an opinion.

So you expressed you bigoted view and found out that some people were annoyed by it.

Did you learn anything by this experience?

The key thing to take away is that not liking something is not persecution or bigotry.

Sorry, you are free to have bigoted beliefs and people are free to persecute you for being bigoted -- that is what freedom is about.

Trying to paper over your bigotry by calling it dislike, to pretend that you are not a bigot, is your option. It doesn't fool anyone but you.

You can dislike chocolate ice-cream, but if you try to prevent other people from eating chocolate ice-cream then you are going much further than just dislike.

The second thing is we have to get rid of all those signs and clauses in contracts that say "we can do these things without having a reason at all.".

This is nonsense -- perhaps you could explain better with an example?


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 5:24 PM lokiare has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 8:14 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20331
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 77 of 1309 (722924)
03-25-2014 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by lokiare
03-25-2014 5:27 PM


... A christian bakery is now being sued and threatened with criminal conduct for choosing not to serve a homosexual couple for example. ...

Nope. A PUBLIC bakery discriminated against a couple based on the bigoted beliefs of the owner.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 5:27 PM lokiare has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 8:38 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20331
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(4)
Message 86 of 1309 (722934)
03-25-2014 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by lokiare
03-25-2014 5:36 PM


Nice try but you fail at a few points. One this would not work unless you had a large enough sample size to weed out randomness. Second it wouldn't prove anything one way or the other.

Nope, the question applied just to you. So is this:

Do you remember when you chose to be heterosexual? Or did you always know?

The one thing that most people don't understand is that it is reversible and treatable. ...

This is one of the most pernicious lies going around.

You can make people hide their homosexuality by persecuting them, that is not a cure, it is going back to the dark ages.

There is also no social reason for homosexuality to be "cured" when the alternative is to just recognize the various orientations within the human population. They are natural, they occur in other animals as well, there is no rational reason for discrimination.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 5:36 PM lokiare has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20331
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(4)
Message 99 of 1309 (722947)
03-25-2014 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by lokiare
03-25-2014 5:57 PM


Sure, but as I've said before. Its more akin to a mental psychosis reinforced by brain chemistry. So if you were attracted to the same sex it would most likely be a reinforced reaction rather than something stemming from your genetics.

If this were true then the "normal" behavior would be monosexual, as one doesn't need to rely on anyone else for sexual pleasure. This would be even more prevalent in today's internet access world where visual stimulation is available at no cost, and can be kept in the privacy of one's home.

Curiously this is not the case.

... However there is no special equipment needed to be installed for homosexuals only costly products and services that would be incurred by a business that didn't refuse service to homosexuals....

Ah, a cake for homosexuals costs more than a cake for heterosexuals? Really?

Which is odd, since its purely a mental state brought on by environment and chemical reinforcement, which can be reversed. The phrase "Which one is not like the others" comes to mind.

Again, when did you decide to be heterosexual? Did you always know?

Here I'll list the contents of that short website which includes many studies since apparently I'm not supposed to link to facts (weird).

Note getting it are you? Now you are just copy and pasting information, now without a link to check your sources.

Do you know what quote mines are?

quote:
1.)Dr. Dean Hamer who failed to find a "gay gene":

"Homosexuality is not purely genetic. Environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. I don't think that we will ever be able to predict who will be gay."


This does not mean that it is a choice, it means that they don't know what the basis is, whether it is partly genetic and partly developmental (environmental chemicals and hormones during development).

Most of the other quotes appear to be similarly misrepresented.

Can you explain to me what a 'bare link' is? What I linked is literally a list of studies that have been done on the subject.

A bare link is just the link and no discussion, it is against the forum rules ...

Posting lengthy copy and pastes is also against the forum rules ...

What you are supposed to do is provide a link for reference, a brief quote of the pertinent information and then your argument about what it means. Your argument is what is under debate, the links and quotes are evidence you cite to support your position.

Its my understanding that homosexuals don't get aroused (as opposed to bisexuals) when around the opposite sex. ...

Back in the day when gays were forced into the closet due to violent suppression from religious bigotry many gays married and had children to hide their preferences -- and I know several men that came out gay after having been married and having children. There are different positions than just the missionary position you know (some quite fun in fact).

What it comes down to is what you visualize in the process -- it's like masturbating using someone else as a tool.

Personally I don't understand what your problem is -- I have not been negatively impacted in any way by having gays and lesbians in my neighborhood. I think it makes the neighborhood richer and more interesting in the variety of people and views and interactions.



we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 5:57 PM lokiare has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20331
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 103 of 1309 (722951)
03-25-2014 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by lokiare
03-25-2014 6:07 PM


People who have sickle cell anemia are immune or resistant to malaria a wide spread disease in some areas. There is a reason it persisted. There is no reason for homosexuality (if it were genetic) to persist.

Correction: there is no reason that you accept\know and you haven't considered how it would benefit the breeding population. There are several ways that non-breeding people benefit the breeding population, one of which is providing more resources for group survival and protection. A woman with a gay brother and a husband would have three sources of food and protection for her children rather than two.

Having homosexual people does not add to the needs of the population, nor is it detrimental to the survival of the population.

If there is no detriment caused by homosexual people then selection would not operate against those traits. It would be neutral to selection.

I already addressed this in a post above.

Nope. We have laws protecting lots of choices, especially choices in religious beliefs.

Ah the Ad hominem fallacy, where a source of information is defamed rather than the information provided.

Or the voice of experience in reading drivel and misinformation from a source over and over again.

If you find a source that misrepresents information do you quote it as valid information?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic

quote:
Free Republic is a moderated Internet forum for activists, and chat site for self-described conservatives, primarily within the United States.[2] It presents articles and comments posted pseudonymously by registered members, known as "Freepers",[3] using screen names. The site is supported entirely by donations, with pledge drives known as "Freepathons" held each quarter.

Free Republic has been involved in several organized conservative campaigns including against CBS anchor Dan Rather and against the Dixie Chicks for their antiwar statements.[4] Freepers were instrumental in raising the question of a lack of authenticity in the so-called "Killian memos".


Not a scientific source of information, not an unbiased source of information, not a source that relies on facts but one which has an agenda.

How do you tell when a source presents factual information versus conspiracy theory and biased innuendo?


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 6:07 PM lokiare has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 9:18 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20331
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(5)
Message 108 of 1309 (722958)
03-25-2014 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by lokiare
03-25-2014 6:17 PM


Re: Research Studies
In order for natural selection to work, the gene has to be passed on, homosexual animals don't pass on genes.

Wrong.

Don't know much about evolution and how it works do you?

The gay uncle \ lesbian aunt share genes with their brothers and sisters, and so helping them survive means that those shared genes get passed from generation to generation, with some survival benefit from the extra pair of hands.

Actually relatives helping others in their families in social animals is seen whether the animals in question are gay or not. So this proposition doesn't even stand up to basic logic (are there other equally likely reasons that this could happen?). There is no genetic advantage to this that wouldn't be eclipsed by a heterosexual creature that helps take care of relatives young as well as its own. Thus being more likely to spread their genetic code to the next generation.

Let's talk about wolf packs. There is a dominant male and a dominant female, and only the dominant male and dominant female breed.

What is the benefit of the other wolves (male and female) in the pack? And why is this not similar to them being homosexual?

Then look at herd animals: again you have a dominant male that mates with the females in his herd, other males are left out. What is the benefit of having more males? Surely those other males could be gay and not impact the herd.

Bees have also been mentioned.

If your argument were valid then none of these behavior patterns would be observed, there would only be monogamous paired species, so as this is not the case your argument is logically rather obviously invalid.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 6:17 PM lokiare has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 9:26 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20331
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(11)
Message 169 of 1309 (723026)
03-25-2014 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by lokiare
03-25-2014 7:14 PM


Re: when did you choose
Very clever. ...

It's the logical conclusion of your argument. You like logical arguments yes?

If choice is involved in sexual orientation then you must have made a choice at some point to be heterosexual.

If choice is not involved then you would always know that you were heterosexual, just as someone could also always know that they were homosexual.

I note your reluctance to take up the gay porn challenge. I put that down to lack of choice and evidence that at your core you do not believe choice is involved in your sexual orientation.

... Except that all the evidence I've seen is that homosexuality is an environmentally caused ...

Except that this totally fails to explain the prevalence of homosexual animals -- that prevalence tells me that some homosexual orientation is normal across the spectrum of existence.

Or do you have evidence of what environmental factors are involved?

Note that in biology "environmental factors" are ones that affect the development of a fetus or a child before reaching maturity, and are usually chemical or hormonal in nature. Thalidomide is an example of a chemical environmental factor that affected fetal development.

Heat could be an environmental factor, as alligators and turtles have their sex determined by the temperature of their nests. Once they've hatched they do not have any choice about being male or female.

Hormones can also affect fetal development in different levels at different times, and some hormornes like estrogen levels can affect development.

These environmental factors do not create a situation in which choice becomes a factor. In this way these factors can operate on individuals in much the same way as genes, and they can become reinforced by genetic changes that in effect consolidate these factors into the genes by selecting mutations that enforce them.

... deviation from the norm. ...

Which is your unabashed biased bigoted view, rather than a logical conclusion.

... In which case your question is invalid, ...

So we agree that choice is not involved.

... unless you (or anyone really) would like to put forth some studies that prove otherwise to counter the sources and studies I've already posted. ...

As noted your sources are questionable at best. I can find no scientific evidence of any "success rate" for conversion therapies, certainly not anything that stands up to scrutiny:

NEWS: Reparative Therapist Claims 66% Success Rate In 'Gay Cure' Treatment

quote:
During the documentary aired on BBC2 called Out There, Stephen Fry visited LA based Doctor Joseph Nicolosi who claims that his therapy has a 66.6% success rate.

The former director and founder of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality NARTH said that his treatment cured around two thirds of the patients he worked with, saying a third saw 'no change, a third a significant improvement and a third cure'.

Stephen Fry said, “For all his talk of his success, Nicolosi is unable to find one of his ex-gays to talk to us, Dan Gonzales is not one of his success stories.’

Daniel Gonzales, who spent ‘thousands of dollars’ on Dr Nicolosi’s therapy and is now a spokesperson for the Ex Gay Watch organisation - says that the treatment doesn’t work.

He said in his interview with Fry,

‘You take these people on the posters for these ‘ex-gay’ programmes and not even they will tell you that they’re a 100% straight, they’ll give you these bizarre and convoluted answers about how they love women, their wife, but they’re not physically attracted to a woman walking down the street, you get these bizarre answers – that’s not heterosexuality.’

‘And not to mention [it’s] damaging, because every time you feel attracted to someone that’s supposedly a reminder of how you’re broken.’


Why are there no happy converted gay people?

Gay Orthodox Jews Sue Over Therapy That Claims to ‘Cure’ Them

quote:
When Ben Unger was growing up in Orthodox Jewish Brooklyn, he thought he knew exactly how his life would unfold. He would live in the same neighborhood as his parents and grandparents, worship in the same synagogue, become a husband and father and uphold an age-old way of life. But by the time Unger was 19, that future was looking precarious: after years trying to dismiss his attractions to other boys, he finally faced up to being gay.

On the advice of a rabbi, Unger went for therapy to “cure” his homosexuality. Twice a week for nearly a year, he traveled across the river to New Jersey for “reparative therapy” treatment at JONAH—or Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing—a group that claims to help Orthodox Jews eliminate their same-sex attraction. When he signed up with JONAH, Unger was confused, desperate, and vulnerable. When he finally walked away, he was close to suicide.

Last April, Robert Spitzer, a respected psychiatrist and longtime contributor to the DSM, the American Psychiatric Association's manual of mental disorders, publicly apologized for a study he had conducted in 2001 concluding that reparative therapy worked.

In May, the World Health Organization condemned reparative therapy as "a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people," and in September, California banned its use in the treatment of gay and lesbian teens. Even Alan Chambers, president of Exodus, a Christian ex-gay group, has said he believes it is impossible to change someone's sexual orientation.

With every mainstream psychological body rejecting the idea that homosexuality is a disorder and finding efforts to "treat" it as unethical, those who still practice reparative therapy, such as JONAH, do so on the unregulated fringes of the profession.

But that may soon change, following a consumer-fraud lawsuit Unger and three other young men filed against JONAH on Tuesday in New Jersey state court.


That doesn't look like success to me.

Conversion therapy (wikipedia)

quote:
Conversion therapy (also known as reparative therapy) is a range of pseudo-scientific treatments that aim to change sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual.[1][2][3][4][5] Conversion therapy has been a source of controversy in the United States and other countries.[6] The American Psychiatric Association has condemned "psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation."[7] It states that, "Ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation."[8] It also states that political and moral debates over the integration of gays and lesbians into the mainstream of American society have obscured scientific data about changing sexual orientation "by calling into question the motives and even the character of individuals on both sides of the issue."[7]

The highest-profile contemporary advocates of conversion therapy tend to be fundamentalist Christian groups and other right-wing religious organizations [9] and the therapy is derided by critics as "pray the gay away". The main organization advocating secular forms of conversion therapy is the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), which often partners with religious groups.[9] Psychologist Douglas Haldeman writes that conversion therapy comprises efforts by mental health professionals and pastoral care providers to convert lesbians and gay men to heterosexuality by techniques including aversive treatments, such as "the application of electric shock to the hands and/or genitals," and "nausea-inducing drugs...administered simultaneously with the presentation of homoerotic stimuli," masturbatory reconditioning, visualization, social skills training, psychoanalytic therapy, and spiritual interventions, such as "prayer and group support and pressure."[10]


Sounds more like torture and cult-like indoctrination techniques than just changing your mind on a choice.

It also does not look like anything that could alter what may have occurred via environmental factors (chemicals and hormones) during development.

So no I do not find your argument persuasive in the slightest, rather it appears to me that you like it because it matches your biases and bigotry and you use it to justify them rather than really look into the issue with an open mind.

Where did persecution come into this? ...

You mean the persecution that was invented by humans for purportedly religious reasons?

... ? You'll find that the rates of homosexuals in animals is pretty similar to the rates of homosexuals in humans (2%-6% depending on the study you look at). You'll also find that some of the same causes happen to both (serotonin imbalances for one). ...

So you agree that it is natural, that it is inherent in the development of the individuals, and that it is not a matter of choice. Progress is made.

Now that we know it is natural we can see that it is just a matter of recognition of this fact, and that there is no cause to discriminate in any way.

... In animals as long as you follow the social rules you fit in, which is why humans have dogs and cats as pets, because our social structures are compatible. ...

Indeed, that is part of social behavior. Thus we can recognize homosexual humans the same as heterosexual humans when we all follow the same social rules and learn to treat others with respect and equality.

... This is a non-sequitur. The one doesn't necessarily follow the other, because we can come up with multiple reasons why it might be so or not so.

I'm afraid you lost me there, and we were doing so well.

Actually some of the research I linked shows that it happens long after birth and is caused by social (parenting) and sexual factors (sexual abuse) as well as chemical imbalances which can happen during gestation as well as any time after, but generally before early sexual experiences. Can you show some studies that show homosexuality only happens during or before birth?

Presumably this is more trustworthy than your other sources? Peer reviewed scientific articles would be a good start. Can you provide such?

What I have seen is (a) it is not choice, (b) it cannot be changed but (c) it can be hidden, usually with worse outcomes in the end (suicides for instance).

What I don't see is any cause for concern. If people want to live according to their sexual orientation who are you or anyone else to say it is wrong and needs to be changed?

As I've said before I have experienced no negative impact from gays and lesbians in my neighborhood. They are fun people and have fun parties, and they are happy to let me live according to my sexual orientation even though it differs from theirs. I see no reason they should not be treated the same.

See above. Assumptions devoid of facts are not helpful.

Indeed, so you should stop making them, particularly confusing misinformation from questionable biased sources that have an agenda with facts.

Curiously I have not seen a single report from a person who is purportedly "cured" showing that they are now 100% heterosexual and happy.

But I do know a lot of homosexuals who are still 100% homosexual and happy. Perhaps it is the environment here that accepts all sexual orientations that makes that possible.

Firstly all people should be treated equally under the law, but that does not mean some people can't refuse service to others, especially if it is on another protect right (such as freedom of religion).

There is no right to be a discriminatory bigot, and freedom of religion does not give you that right.

When the law says no discrimination it means no discrimination.

When discrimination serves no secular purpose then it fails the lemon test (have you heard what that is?) ...

The Lemon Test

quote:
The Lemon test was formulated by Chief Justice Warren Burger in the majority opinion in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). Lemon dealt with Rhode Island and Pennsylvania programs that supplemented the salaries of teachers in religiously based, private schools for teaching secular subjects. The Court struck down both programs as violating the establishment clause.

The purpose of the Lemon test is to determine when a law has the effect of establishing religion. The test has served as the foundation for many of the Court's post-1971 establishment clause rulings. As articulated by Chief Justice Burger, the test has three parts:

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

According to separationist scholars Barry Lynn, Marc Stern, and Oliver Thomas, the fact that a law may have a "religious purpose or be motivated by religion does not mean it is unconstitutional as long as it also has a bona fide secular or civic purpose" (The Right to Religious Liberty, p. 3). Similarly, "a law that has a remote or incidental effect of advancing religion is not unconstitutional as long as the effect is not a 'primary' effect" (p. 3). Finally, the Court has allowed some entanglement between church and state, as long as this entanglement is not "excessive" (p. 3). Hence, the Court has built some leeway into the test so as not to invalidate laws that have only remote connections to religious practice. This is not, in other words, the work of a Court that was hostile to religion. On the contrary, Justice Burger, a Nixon appointee, is generally reckoned as a conservative on social issues.


There is a lot more there if you care to read it.

... so if you want to ensconce your discrimination into law you need a secular purpose, and I fail totally to see any secular purpose that can be served by discriminating against people that are law abiding citizens happily engaged in constructive social behavior.

Is there a purpose to your crusade against homosexuality? a purpose that is not based on your religious beliefs?

Secondly, all my research (as I said above) has shown me that homosexuality is ...

And as has been pointed out your "research" seems to focus on questionable sources that match your biases rather than peer reviewed scientific articles that depend on facts and observations and tests with replicatable results.

... a deviation from the normal sexual process ...

Curiously I have seen nothing presented so far that shows that there is anything wrong with homosexual orientation. Instead I see evidence that it occurs in many species in nature and that by definition makes it natural.

It is no more of a deviation from the normal sexual process than the behavior of wolves, where only the dominant male and female mate and the whole pack engages in raising the pups.

Instead what I see is that your choice of words betray your bigotry and bias and that the problem is you, not homosexuality.

... brought on by environment, and thus this argument is invalid. We would no more protect psychopaths and sociopaths (mental orientations) than we should protect homosexuals beyond the ways we protect all humans.

Except that psychopaths and sociopaths harm other people, and that is a critical difference that invalidates your argument, completely, because the concern of a free society is to allow people to freely behave according to their worldviews beliefs and desires so long as it does not cause harm to others.

This is why discriminatory behavior against law abiding citizens doing normal social interactions with other people for no other reason than bigotry and biased beliefs is wrong -- it causes harm to those fellow citizens.

Now you may argue that not being allowed to be a discriminatory biased bigot causes harm to you ... but in reality it is not the existence of homosexuals that causes harm to you, rather it is your own biased and bigoted beliefs that cause you harm.

Perhaps you should seek a cure for your bigotry, because if you cure that then there will be no problem yes?

Except for the fact that voluntary therapies have been shown to reverse the effects of homosexuality. ...

What I have seen is that this claim is questionable at best, and that really what happens is that people are tortured until they agree to hide their true feelings and pretend to be heterosexual and that this often results in suicide.

And I also consider it totally unnecessary when there is no harm in law abiding citizens behaving like adults being homosexual.

You have totally failed to make the case that there is anything wrong with homosexuality, rather you have started from the (hidden) assumption that this is so. I'm sure you are aware that not including a hidden assumption in your argument is a logical fallacy.

... Combine this with our previous knowledge that homosexuality appears to simply be a deviation ...

In your biased and bigoted view. To me it is just a lifestyle, one that does no harm and does not cause any problems for other people in society, rather that the problem is with biased and bigoted people, and that the problem is caused by their biased and bigoted beliefs and opinions, not by the homosexuals. Those of us that do not have such narrow-minded beliefs and opinions do not have those problems.

... caused by environment and we end up with another invalid argument ...

No, it is a valid argument and it shows that the problem is with your beliefs and not with the behavior of others.

... (unless you are homosexual and have voluntarily tried the therapies and failed, then its just a matter of sample sizes not being high enough).

Have you tried to be homosexual? Have you tried to cure yourself of heterosexuality? Have you decided to be heterosexual? If you don't answer yes then your argument fails.

You are correct, however homosexuals should not get special treatment under the law over others. ...

Nobody is asking for special treatment that I have seen. What I have seen is people asking for equal treatment under the law -- and I have seen no reason provided by anyone that would justify discrimination rather than equal treatment.

And this is WHY in court after court after court the decisions are increasingly for equal treatment.

... So should it be illegal for Christians and other religions to not hire homosexuals or serve them?

Discrimination is harmful and insulting to people that are ostracized in spite of being honest hard working law abiding citizens that contribute positively to society. Whatever the cause of discrimination, it is wrong.

You have not shown that there is any harm to either individuals or to society as a whole from homosexual orientations, and thus there is no secular reason for discrimination.

Finally I note that there are many Christian churches, hospitals, schools and other institutions where homosexuality is not a problem, rather that the problem is in certain sects of the Christian umbrella, and thus for you to claim that your biased and bigoted views are Christian is a false application of logical principals, the fallacy of the part for the whole.

Your bigotry is not based on Christianity (if other Christians are not so bigoted) so it must be your personal beliefs that you justify as Christian.

... According to the Boy Scouts law suit it was deemed that it shouldn't.

Curiously the Boy Scouts have decided to allow gay kids into scouting thus ending years of discrimination:

Boy Scouts to allow gay youths to join

quote:
Openly gay youths will be allowed to join scouting, a historic decision the Boy Scouts of America says will keep it unclouded by "a single, divisive, and unresolved societal issue."

More than 60% of the group's 1,400-member national council voted Thursday at an annual meeting in Grapevine, Texas, for the change, which takes effect Jan. 1.

"No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone," says the resolution.


So another group has moved forward into the 21st century. You should too.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 7:14 PM lokiare has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20331
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 171 of 1309 (723029)
03-26-2014 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by lokiare
03-25-2014 8:38 PM


bigot (ˈbɪɡət)

— n
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 8:38 PM lokiare has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20331
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(2)
Message 173 of 1309 (723033)
03-26-2014 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by lokiare
03-25-2014 9:18 PM


I concede this point, well done. ...

A good beginning. So you agree that evolution would not eliminate any genetic component to homosexuality.

... However this still all relies on the unproven supposition that homosexuality is genetic rather than purely environmental. I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever being put forth in favor of that argument.

This is the logical fallacy of moving the goal posts. You wanted to know how evolution would not "eradicate" homosexuality, and all it needs is for homosexuality to be naturally occurring, whether by genetics, by environmental (chemical or hormonal) factors or some combination is irrelevant to it being naturally occurring.

We have laws that protect everyone from general discrimination while allowing people to choose not to serve someone for personal reasons (whether it be not wearing a shirt or shoes, or because they have a firearm). ...

Which involve safety issues and the possibility of harm to others.

... The equivalent if you want to use religious terms would be if you were outlawed from saying religion isn't true and that its made up, ...

For someone who prides themselves on logic you make horrid irrelevant analogies.

... or be forced to create a religious cake in your non-religious ceremonies. ...

Again you seem to totally miss the issue. When you offer a public service to bake cakes you agree to bake cakes for the public, that is the purpose of your business. If you refuse service to someone because of what they are, that is discrimination and bigotry.

I have no problem with free will or having people do what they want between consenting adults in their own homes. I do have a problem when I am forced to cater to something I don't believe is right. ...

Your not asked to endorse homosexuality, you are asked to bake a cake -- when your business is baking cakes -- so you have already agreed to baking cakes ...

... Akin to an animal rights activist being forced to slaughter a cow or something like that.

Again with the bad analogies. Amusing that you don't see the relevance of civil rights and the Woolworths counter incident but feel this is a valid comparison.

Experience or not doesn't matter, logic dictates that you refute the evidence and facts not the source. Which no one in this thread has decided to do up to this post.

Oh but experience does matter very much when you cite a source that has posted lies how do you know which are lies, which are half-truths, which are ignorance and what may be true? How do you know which are facts and which are not?

Logic dictates that when you have found a source to be bad that you don't trust it.

It doesn't matter if they are the worst most lie filled organization around you should still refute their evidence. ...

Nope, what you do is look for other sources of information to see if it can be corroborated first, if it can't then it is bogus, if it can then you work with that source.

... I've caught numerous evolutionists in many many logical fallacies, yet I don't write them off as a whole as dishonest and unable to be reasoned with. Everyone should do the same.

And of course you make the logical fallacy of equating logical fallacy with intentional falsehoods, when all a fallacy means is that the conclusion does not follow from the precepts.

This is also an appeal to authority, claiming to be an authority and claiming to have a wicked eye for finding falsehoods.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 9:18 PM lokiare has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019