• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Give gays their rights!

sebastiansdreams said:
Which is why I think it is foolish to look at other animals to attempt to find some sort of genetic answer towards human emotional and sexual behavior.


Perhaps that is the case. Or perhaps you have simply made the choice to believe that you are homosexual in a world where you felt like you had to be heterosexual. An unconscious decision to be different if you will... It is all incredibly circular and inconclusive. Some fifty year old men say that they have no choice but to be in love with twelve year old girls, but that is something that we have marked as morally wrong. I would argue that what you chose was to follow your tendencies, and you have convinced yourself that you were made to be a lesbian.

Well now you're edging on age of consent, emotional maturity and harm.
Two adult homosexuals, having relations within the contexts of a committed, monogamous relationship, in the privacy of their own home, causes no one any harm.
Pedophilia creates victims. Children are not emotionally or mentally mature enough to make informed decisions. That's why we protect children from predators which take advantage of just that immaturity.
 
JustineCredible said:
Well now you're edging on age of consent, emotional maturity and harm.
Two adult homosexuals, having relations within the contexts of a committed, monogamous relationship, in the privacy of their own home, causes no one any harm.
Pedophilia creates victims. Children are not emotionally or mentally mature enough to make informed decisions. That's why we protect children from predators which take advantage of just that immaturity.
But arguably, I could say to you that in consenting to homosexual sex, there are two victims instead of one.
 
sebastiansdreams said:
But arguably, I could say to you that in consenting to homosexual sex, there are two victims instead of one.

Um, no, not logically. The use of the word "victim" implies harm which has been inflicted by force or without concent. Since neither person is inflicting harm by force on the other, and both parties are indeed in concent, there is no victim.
 
JustineCredible said:
Um, no, not logically. The use of the word "victim" implies harm which has been inflicted by force or without concent. Since neither person is inflicting harm by force on the other, and both parties are indeed in concent, there is no victim.
No, victim is not without concent. Victim is simply inflicted harm. Both are inflicting harm on each other and themselves by taking part in this action, under my own opinion.

(note definition 4 under dictionary.com)
4 - A person who suffers injury, loss, or death as a result of a voluntary undertaking: You are a victim of your own scheming.
 
so at this point, ur not debating, ur just giving ur opinon on the situation. not everybody believes in what u believe, my friend. i myself am religious (i'm muslim) yet i still do not feel there is a "victim" when two homosexuals engage in sexual intercourse if they both want to have sex. u see them as "victims" because it is morally (or rather religiously) wrong for two people of the same sex to be having sex. ask urself honestly tonight, when u say ur prayers, ask urself if u can truly see ur god, or if ur god responds to u when u pray. when u tell me truthfully that ur god came to u and told u that gays are "victims of their own scheming", i'll jump out a friggin window. but make sure ur god comes to me and proves to me that it's wrong as well.

by the way, if i seem to be aggressive or if i seem to try to offend u, i'm not. i always get excited when i debate.
 
on a futher note, im am TOTALLY heterosexual, i just dont think it's right for people who r different than me to suffer.
 
sebastiansdreams said:
No, victim is not without concent. Victim is simply inflicted harm. Both are inflicting harm on each other and themselves by taking part in this action, under my own opinion.

(note definition 4 under dictionary.com)
4 - A person who suffers injury, loss, or death as a result of a voluntary undertaking: You are a victim of your own scheming.


"Scheming"?

:2funny:

Talk about :spin: just to squeeze a point for all it's worth!

If I'm a victim of my own scheming then I must charge you with willfull self-victimization through your belief system.
 
eja2721 said:
so at this point, ur not debating, ur just giving ur opinon on the situation. not everybody believes in what u believe, my friend. i myself am religious (i'm muslim) yet i still do not feel there is a "victim" when two homosexuals engage in sexual intercourse if they both want to have sex. u see them as "victims" because it is morally (or rather religiously) wrong for two people of the same sex to be having sex. ask urself honestly tonight, when u say ur prayers, ask urself if u can truly see ur god, or if ur god responds to u when u pray. when u tell me truthfully that ur god came to u and told u that gays are "victims of their own scheming", i'll jump out a friggin window. but make sure ur god comes to me and proves to me that it's wrong as well.

by the way, if i seem to be aggressive or if i seem to try to offend u, i'm not. i always get excited when i debate.
To the contrary, I have studied the Bible on this issue quite thoroughly. I have gone to God in prayer, and I have reached my conviction. I am sure that homosexual sex is against the will of God and is a sin. I do not suspect that you would understand this, as you have a completely different system of prayer and study than I do. But I would not say such things if I did not have this conviction I have from God.
 
JustineCredible said:
"Scheming"?

:2funny:

Talk about :spin: just to squeeze a point for all it's worth!

If I'm a victim of my own scheming then I must charge you with willfull self-victimization through your belief system.
And what sort of response is that? Is this how you respond when you have nothing worthy of debating? Am I not allowed to have this opinion due to my beliefs? Of course not. Because the only one who is allowed an opinion on this matter is you. Does that just about sum it up?
 
sebastiansdreams said:
To the contrary, I have studied the Bible on this issue quite thoroughly. I have gone to God in prayer, and I have reached my conviction. I am sure that homosexual sex is against the will of God and is a sin. I do not suspect that you would understand this, as you have a completely different system of prayer and study than I do. But I would not say such things if I did not have this conviction I have from God.


Truth is that no one has ever shown homosexuality is anything but a choice. No one has proven its "normal" behaviour. That means it could be no more than sexual perversion and/or a psychological disorder. I personally do not care what two consenting adults do between themselves in the bedroom. I do not want and will in fact fight against any attempt to indoctrinate my children in public schools that homosexuality is as "normal" as blue eyes or red hair.


http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
 
JustBob said:
Truth is that no one has ever shown homosexuality is anything but a choice. No one has proven its "normal" behaviour. That means it could be no more than sexual perversion and/or a psychological disorder. I personally do not care what two consenting adults do between themselves in the bedroom. I do not want and will in fact fight against any attempt to indoctrinate my children in public schools that homosexuality is as "normal" as blue eyes or red hair.


http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
Sure there is, a study has just proven about fruit flies and the gene for sexuality was isolated. And I'll do everything in my power to fight against any ignorance and hate that's being indoctrinated too. Enjoy.
 
Here's the link:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Altering a single gene in a fruit fly can turn its sexual orientation around, causing male flies to lose interest in females, and females to display male mating rituals to other females, according to a study published in the journal Cell on Friday.

The research by Barry J. Dickson and Ebru Demir of the Institute of Molecular Biotechnology of the Austrian Academy of Sciences into the workings of a "switch gene" touched on the scientific debate about whether genes or environment determine human sexual orientation.
 
shuamort said:
Sure there is, a study has just proven about fruit flies and the gene for sexuality was isolated. And I'll do everything in my power to fight against any ignorance and hate that's being indoctrinated too. Enjoy.
Please shuamort, show us undisputable documented proof that homosexuality is a genetic trait. Ignorance and hatred are two wonderful things to fight against. But it is far too premature to enter the claim that homosexuality IS genetic. Because that is a different kind of ignorance in itself.
 
Yeah gay animals is not unheard of. My local zoo has a lesbian chimp. Can animals have the intelligence to be sexually perverse?
I find it hard to believe bob that I can just choose to be gay if I wanted. That I can lose sexual interest in girls? You crazy! lol

Unless Jude Law expressed interest in me of course. :rofl :roll: lol
 
sebastiansdreams said:
Please shuamort, show us undisputable documented proof that homosexuality is a genetic trait. Ignorance and hatred are two wonderful things to fight against. But it is far too premature to enter the claim that homosexuality IS genetic. Because that is a different kind of ignorance in itself.
I just showed you one study. Of course, you're not showing any proof that it's a choice. The onus is on you since you're positing the ignorant position.
 
shuamort said:
Here's the link:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Altering a single gene in a fruit fly can turn its sexual orientation around, causing male flies to lose interest in females, and females to display male mating rituals to other females, according to a study published in the journal Cell on Friday.

The research by Barry J. Dickson and Ebru Demir of the Institute of Molecular Biotechnology of the Austrian Academy of Sciences into the workings of a "switch gene" touched on the scientific debate about whether genes or environment determine human sexual orientation.
Now now shuamort. This is one finding in one laboratory that suggest that there is a gene that alters mating rituals to same sex. This is not enough to conclude that homosexuality is genetic. It is only one step in a direction of suggestion. The other problem is that there has yet to be any counter-hypothesis study for this. But, as I have told you before, the genetic evidence is really a non-issue. Even if one has genetic leanings towards homosexuality, it does not change anything. It only means that there is a genetic leaning, such as there is in alcoholism.
 
Some state that simply due to the genetic makeup of the human race it is very unlikely that homosexuality would be anything other than a choice. In An Analysis of Biological Theories of Causation, by Dr. Tahir I jaz, M.D., he states, "Of all animals, human beings are the most genetically indeterminate. In the words of Dr. Joseph Wortis, Department of Psychiatry, State University of New York: 'no complex high-level behavior of the human species can be reduced to genetic endowment, not language, not house building and not sexual behavior.' Preferential and exclusive homosexuality is not naturally found in any infrahuman mammalian species and it would be odd for such behavior in humans to be genetically determined." It is Dr. Tahir's opinion that homosexuality is completely a choice as it is not possible for it to be genetically determined. He further cites various accounts of leading psychologists and psychiatrists, such as Masters and Johnson, Dieber, Barnhouse, Socarides, Cappon, Hadden, Ribinstein and Leif, who have reported very high rates of success in curing individuals of their homosexual tendencies. Tahir does not believe that individuals could be helped if homosexuality were indeed genetic -- just as you would not be able to cure someone of his or her race or gender.

So why again do you insist on calling me ignorant?
 
Controversial study says homosexuality is 'a choice'
By Holly Johnson


Published Thursday, May 31, 2001
When Chris Mandeville was 24, he made a confession.

Following his college graduation, the LaPorte, Ind., native found "home" at a church in Chicago.

Shortly thereafter, he divulged the secret of his homosexual feelings to a Christian counselor.

That counselor referred him to Overcomers, an "ex-gay ministry" designed to assist individuals in resolving homosexual tendencies.

Though cynical at the outset, Mandeville regularly attended weekly meetings of the group. Encouraging participants to develop "normal" relationships with men and establish support groups to hinder them from "acting out," or engaging in homosexual relationships, Overcomer's leaders lauded the ability of prayer, fellowship and the Holy Spirit to modify homosexual behavior.

"I went hoping it would help me resolve these feeling once and for all so I could move on with my life," he said.

But six months later, something changed. Realizing he didn't really conform to the group's teachings, Mandeville left.

"I just realized after several months and then talking to people who were OK with being gay that this group really didn't make sense," he recalls. "It was really a relief to leave."

Chris' story is not unique. Each year, thousands of gays and lesbians turn to such forms of "conversion therapy" to help "overcome" homosexual tendencies.

Now, a controversial study claiming homosexuals can choose to turn straight has sparked a heated national debate between right-wing religious groups and gay rights activists. Conducted by Columbia University professor Dr. Robert Spitzer and presented at last week's American Psychiactric Association meeting, the study traced more than 200 men and women's sexual behavior during a 12 to 14-year period.

Spitzer reported at the study's conclusion that 66 percent of men and 44 percent of women achieved "heterosexual functioning," through "prayer, therapy and mentoring relationships."

"Heterosexual functioning" is characterized by being in a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship within the past year, getting enough satisfaction from the emotional relationship with their partner to rate at least seven on a 10-point scale, having satisfying heterosexual sex at least monthly and never or rarely thinking of somebody of the same sex while having heterosexual sex.

Homosexual advocacy groups such as the Human Rights Campaign have taken a firm position against the study's findings, deeming them "unscientific" and "profoundly biased." The HRC and other groups like it have condemned Spitzer's personal views on homosexuality and his alleged ties to right-wing political organizations as detrimental to the study's credibility.

"The so-called study is snake oil packaged as science," Tim McFeeler, political director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, told the Human Rights Campaign Tuesday.

The HRC also decries the study for being based in the "Christian right."

"The Christian right has claimed for years that sexual orientation is a mutable characteristic -- but only when it comes to homosexuality," the HRC stated in a 1999 dissertation entitled "Mission Impossible: Why Reparative Therapy and Ex-Hate Ministries Fail."

Gay rights groups have also derided the study as statistically inaccurate, claiming the subjects were "hand-selected." According to the HRC, only 17 percent on the men and 55 percent of women tested said they were "entirely heterosexual" following five years of treatment. The HRC also warns against the psychological aspects associated with conversion therapy.

According to clinical studies conducted by the American Psychiatric Association, individuals seeking conversion therapy can do so as a result of homophobic social biases. The report suggests that gay men and lesbians who are able to accept their orientation positively are better adjusted than those who attempt to "change" their sexuality.

The APA publicly condemned the practice in 1998, stating conversion therapy fails to recognize alternative approaches to dealing with social stigmas against homosexuals.

The HRC study went on to claim religious political organizations utilize the issue of homosexuality to attract benefactors. It cited the use of political advertisements featuring "converted heterosexuals" subsidized by religious groups as an example.

In one such advertisement, Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott compares homosexuals to alcoholics, kleptomaniacs and sex addicts.

The HRC further attacked Spitzer's study, claiming 43 percent of the subjects were recommended by ex-gay ministries.

Manipulation lies at the root of such organizations, said Doug Bauder, coordinator of student services in IU's Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Office.

"We all want what's best for our kids, but it's a misunderstanding, a control thing," Bauder said. "That often stems from a family's conservative religious background, and those family and religious ties run very deep."

It's an experience to which Bauder himself can relate.

"With prayer, reading and conversation with others I began to hear God's voice telling me, 'Doug, I'm not expecting you to change, I'm just expecting you to live your life honestly, authentically and responsibly.'"

For Bauder, living within those parameters means maintaining healthy relationships and behaviors. He believes sexual orientation exists separate of the freedom to modify those behaviors, and to change that integral part of a person's composition would prove destructive and dangerous.

But for others such as Mandeville, positive benefits can surface from involvement in such groups.

"It helped me learn about myself and decide what I really believe," he said. "I don't think it was the most safe, productive way to do this, but it worked for me. I still had a hard time coming to terms with it even after I left, but I knew that an ex-gay ministry wasn't for me. "

Bauder maintains other, healthier alternatives exist to conversion therapy, however.

"If people are unhappy with their lives, there can be ways to assist in that," Bauder said. "But this is about an attempt to change a person's nature."

Mandeville agrees. "Like a lot of other people I've talked to, I think you can change behavior, but not who you are," he said. "The mind is very powerful and we can convince ourselves of almost anything we want to. If a person really believes they have changed and they are happy, then fine. But I believe we are whole and perfect as we are. There's nothing to fix."

Courage International, a Roman Catholic ministry aimed at assisting individuals in overcoming homosexual tendencies, discourages labels such as "gay" and "lesbian," claiming such generalizations lead people to believe they are locked into a specific sexual preference. The group claims some people, especially young adults, are "able to further their psychosexual development with spiritual and psychological aid," according to the group's Web site.

The group further defines such labels as "reductionist" methods of referring to individuals. Courage claims all people are "first and foremost children of God," and referring to them as gay or lesbian implies an unchaste lifestyle.

The National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality adheres to such perceptions, stating social and psychological factors may influence sexually curious young adults by encouraging labeling.

The keys to change, NARTH asserts, are "desire, persistence, and a willingness to investigate the conscious and unconscious conflicts from which the condition originated." While NARTH acknowledges change might come slowly, they claim clients gradually "grow into" their heterosexual potential.

Also, to dispute your case, we have studies done on twins he are genetically the same:

Studies of homosexuality among identical twins have provided another source for those who claim homosexuality is genetic. Homosexual activists are quick to point out that such studies show that if one brother is homosexual, an identical twin brother is more likely than a fraternal twin or non-twin brother to be homosexual. Does this prove a genetic basis for homosexuality? In one study at the University of Queensland, over 14,000 twins were surveyed. In cases where one identical twin was homosexual, 38% of the time his brother was homosexual also. For lesbians, the rate drops to 30%. If homosexuality were determined by genetics, we would expect both of these numbers to be 100%, because identical twins are genetically identical. Any "gay gene" present in one would be present in the other. Instead, we find in the studies that less than half of the twins match. Neil Whitehead asked and answered the question of biological determination of homosexuality this way
"Will continuing research eventually find some overwhelming biological influences that produce homosexuality, or find that added together, all the biological influences are overwhelming? No. The twin studies prove that future research will never discover any overwhelming biological factors which compel homosexuality." (Whitehead, 2002, para. 16)
 
You're citing NARTH whereas you might as well as ask a church to scientifically prove that god doesn't exist. :roll:

Got a non-biased source?
 
sebastiansdreams said:
Now now shuamort. This is one finding in one laboratory that suggest that there is a gene that alters mating rituals to same sex. This is not enough to conclude that homosexuality is genetic. It is only one step in a direction of suggestion. The other problem is that there has yet to be any counter-hypothesis study for this. But, as I have told you before, the genetic evidence is really a non-issue. Even if one has genetic leanings towards homosexuality, it does not change anything. It only means that there is a genetic leaning, such as there is in alcoholism.
You're really scraping the bottom to defend your hateful views aren't ya?
 
shuamort said:
You're citing NARTH whereas you might as well as ask a church to scientifically prove that god doesn't exist. :roll:

Got a non-biased source?
And what dear sir is unbiased about a scientist doing research on fruit flies with the hypothesis that they have sexual preference genes?
 
shuamort said:
You're really scraping the bottom to defend your hateful views aren't ya?
The problem is I do not hate homosexuals. I have no reason to hate them. I have never acted in hate towards them. So why do you accuse me of such?
 
sebastiansdreams said:
And what dear sir is unbiased about a scientist doing research on fruit flies with the hypothesis that they have sexual preference genes?
You can tell what his/her bias is by the study? As opposed to NARTH's bias which is hung on it's silk sleeve? Pfft. Sorry that the facts are elusive when they're jumping up and down in front of you.
 
sebastiansdreams said:
The problem is I do not hate homosexuals. I have no reason to hate them. I have never acted in hate towards them. So why do you accuse me of such?
Your defense of the ignorance... a person could say that "I think that black people are uneducated because that's what I've seen". Now, is that fact based or ignorance based? Is it supporting a hateful view?
 
shuamort said:
You can tell what his/her bias is by the study? As opposed to NARTH's bias which is hung on it's silk sleeve? Pfft. Sorry that the facts are elusive when they're jumping up and down in front of you.
No, I have no problem viewing facts. If there is enough evidence (and yes, I'm sorry but that does have to mean more than one study by one group) I will gladly except facts for facts. The problem is that you are taking one study and making it fact, and that is just not good form. And I am not offering that this study was certainly bias. However, hypothesese can have bias, leading to a desired answer. Surely you are aware of this. This is why these tests must be repeated by seperate groups. I don't have a problem with this being fact. I have a problem with you calling it fact before it is fact.
 
Back
Top Bottom