LGBT, Not Born That Way?

[William Rea]

Actually, that trans are unbalanced is supported by objective data: high suicide rates, substance abuse, depression, etc. as compared to the general pop.

Actually no. Given a fair crack at it I suspect that trans people would have a good balance. The problem is unbalanced prejudice of the sort you display.

 

[joG]

New research review finds "no scientific evidence" to support the "born that way" view of human sexuality and gender.

Number 50 ~ Fall 2016 - The New Atlantis



Biased propaganda or legitimate review of literature?

That is interesting as it contradicts some other findings and, in fact, very widely held beliefs.

 

[roguenuke]

They're both mental distress and they would both be helped by damaging the body. :shrug: The solutions also both involve removing functionality from the individual.

Do you have any evidence that someone who wanted to be paralyzed would be helped by a doctor paralyzingly him? Any evidence at all? Maybe some evidence that no other treatment would work to alleviate those feelings?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CLAX1911]

Oh, that's some ****ed up ****.

 

[William Rea]

Oh, that's some ****ed up ****.

Kathy Bates in Misery.

 

[calamity]

Actually no. Given a fair crack at it I suspect that trans people would have a good balance. The problem is unbalanced prejudice of the sort you display.

bull****

 

[CLAX1911]

Kathy Bates in Misery.

Right.

 

[Henrin]

Who cares if it's nature or nurture. What two consenting adults do is nobody's business.

You don't see people making these videos about the origins of heterosexuals. The double standard is incredible.

Well, homosexuality serves no purpose whatsoever and appears to ignore the function of the sexual organs in question. Why would people not be interested in knowing how an attraction that doesn't seem to serve a biological function came to exist?

 

[Henrin]

Who is putting that forward as a good thing?

The AMA. You can go to their site and read all about it if you like.

 

[madman]

if it already hasnt been posted, i'll leave it here. it's a conservative/fundie rag


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Atlantis_(journal)

The New Atlantis, founded in 2003, is a quarterly journal about the social, ethical, political, and policy dimensions of modern science and technology.[1] The journal is published in Washington, D.C. by the social conservative advocacy group the Ethics and Public Policy Center in partnership with the Center for the Study of Technology and Society. It is edited by Adam Keiper, who took over in 2007 from founding editor Eric Cohen. It's most recent impact factor, assigned by Journal Citation Reports in 2007, was 0.59; In subsequent years, The New Atlantis has been omitted from impact factor rankings.[2]


Writing for the National Review, editor Adam Keiper described The New Atlantis as being written from a "particularly American and conservative way of thinking about both the blessings and the burdens of modern science and technology."[5] New Atlantis authors and bioethicists publishing in other journals have also similarly referred to The New Atlantis as being written from a social conservative stance which utilizes religion.

 

[madman]

People settle all the time. It might not be the nicest thing to say about the person you're with, but both men and women are out there settling for what they can get.

You really mean PC, right?

LOL

 

[calamity]

You really mean PC, right?

LOL

People make more out of an honest statement than they should. Of course my "preference" is to come home to a naked 23 year old blonde, preferably 5'7 and 120 lbs with tits out to here. But, the reality is that at 53 the only shot I have at getting that is to buy it, and I won't go there....and, it's not for moral reasons either. I just know that purchased sex is empty. So, did I "settle" for my wife, who is 43, looks 35 and loves me like mad? No. I'm not settling. She's pretty damned hot and I'm quite pleased to have bagged it. I doubt I could bag another one, to be honest.

But, seriously, If I could bag a 23 year old blonde who ****s me like a rabbit, won't **** around behind my back or plot to kill me for my insurance, I most certainly would.

 

[Absentglare]

Again, that only holds if we were to accept the born that way proposition, a proposition that lacks empirical and observational evidence. Besides, the born that way proposition contradicts the liberal conception of sexuality as a fluid construct.

That's completely false- you are asserting that you're either born gay or that exposure to gay culture transforms them into homosexuals. That's a fallacy: "A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, false binary, black-and-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the either–or fallacy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, fallacy of the excluded middle, the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of the false alternative) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option."

 

[calamity]

That's completely false- you are asserting that you're either born gay or that exposure to gay culture transforms them into homosexuals. That's a fallacy: "A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, false binary, black-and-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the either–or fallacy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, fallacy of the excluded middle, the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of the false alternative) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option."

If someone said they could only get a hard on when with a 12-year old girl, we'd all call that person sick. But, for some reason, when someone says they can only get a stiffy when with another male, we call that person gay and everyone has to say it's normal. Granted one is legal and the other is not....but, only now, after the gay agenda lobbied for changes in the law. So, there is some hypocrisy at play here. The only argument that remains is "consenting adults." Which is fine. But, the notion that this form of deviant sexual attraction is somehow normal is certainly a load of PC garbage.

 

[CriticalThought]

Again, that only holds if we were to accept the born that way proposition, a proposition that lacks empirical and observational evidence. Besides, the born that way proposition contradicts the liberal conception of sexuality as a fluid construct.

I had same sex attraction when I was approximately 10 or 11. I was not molested. I did not even meet a gay person until I was 21. I had no exposure to gay culture as a child and teenager and grew up predominantly with LDS and Catholics.

How in your mind was I inflicted with the gay?

 

[CriticalThought]

If someone said they could only get a hard on when with a 12-year old girl, we'd all call that person sick. But, for some reason, when someone says they can only get a stiffy when with another male, we call that person gay and everyone has to say it's normal. Granted one is legal and the other is not....but, only now, after the gay agenda lobbied for changes in the law. So, there is some hypocrisy at play here. The only argument that remains is "consenting adults." Which is fine. But, the notion that this form of deviant sexual attraction is somehow normal is certainly a load of PC garbage.

I actually would not call them sick. By the DSM criteria, pedophilic attractions are only considered a mental illness if they cause distress to the person experiencing them, cause dysfunction in their day to day life, or they are acted upon. A person can be sexually attracted to children and as long as they do act on it and are not upset by it, they are not mentally ill. The difference here is that gay people can act on their attractions and because their adult partners are capable of consent, they are not acting in an inherently harmful or dysfunctional way. Furthermore, gay people are capable of being happy and functional, which by definition is not possible to be considered mentally ill.

 

[calamity]

I actually would not call them sick. By the DSM criteria, pedophilic attractions are only considered a mental illness if they cause distress to the person experiencing them, cause dysfunction in their day to day life, or they are acted upon. A person can be sexually attracted to children and as long as they do act on it and are not upset by it, they are not mentally ill. The difference here is that gay people can act on their attractions and because their adult partners are capable of consent, they are not acting in an inherently harmful or dysfunctional way. Furthermore, gay people are capable of being happy and functional, which by definition is not possible to be considered mentally ill.

thanks for the clarification. I did not know the DSM considered pedophilia just fine as long as it's kept under wraps. ****ing quacks.

 

[CriticalThought]

thanks for the clarification. I did not know the DSM considered pedophilia just fine as long as it's kept under wraps. ****ing quacks.

Why wouldn't it be? This is an area you should probably not research into further if you are that uncomfortable with it. One study that comes to mind found 1 in 5 college aged men reported sexual attraction and fantasies to prepubescent girls. I hardly doubt it is uncommon. I have worked with men who carry those attractions, are very distressed by them, and would never act on them. Should I condemn them for it?

 

[Fearandloathing]

I'm not familiar with the source; I originally read the YouGov poll a while back and for the sake of this topic, I googled the words "YouGov poll british youth" and linked to the first source that cites it. If the International Business Times isn't to your liking, here are links to The Guardian and The Independent citing the same poll.

I suspect you aren't interested in learning anything new, but rather prefer to shelter your established views. I understand, even though I was never like that.



This applies to anything which isn't purely theoretical, but this isn't ground to invalidate abstract understanding of things. Also, I don't know why you assume I never met LGBT people before.



There actually is. I'm still a newcomer, but I debated this subject on the forums more than enough. Not once did I appeal to religion in my arguments against homosexuality, though I understand why people are inclined to assume that.



Good for you, though I don't see the relevancy of that. I can question the behavior of a certain demographic without demonizing them or denying them their humanity.



I see you're resorting to the asinine "secure with your sexuality" cheap shot, which is unfortunate.

Wow, my congratulations. That most long winded personal attack I've seen in ages. You are right, I am not interested in learning anything "new", from you. Your original post was gross ignorance and this one is nothing but personal criticism attaching motives to a person you know through ONE post, using several hundred words. From the outsized response it's reasonable to assume you have nothing I want.

You have a nice day or whatever. We will not speak again

 

[blarg]

If someone said they could only get a hard on when with a 12-year old girl, we'd all call that person sick. But, for some reason, when someone says they can only get a stiffy when with another male, we call that person gay and everyone has to say it's normal. Granted one is legal and the other is not....but, only now, after the gay agenda lobbied for changes in the law. So, there is some hypocrisy at play here. The only argument that remains is "consenting adults." Which is fine. But, the notion that this form of deviant sexual attraction is somehow normal is certainly a load of PC garbage.

um why would the gay person be sick why should i object to people being attracted to the same sex?

its not normal in the sense its not common but its something that seems to happen on a fairly regular basis that dosent bother me in any way

so ya gay people existing is normal

 

[calamity]

um why would the gay person be sick why should i object to people being attracted to the same sex?

its not normal in the sense its not common but its something that seems to happen on a fairly regular basis that dosent bother me in any way

so ya gay people existing is normal

I personally don't care if people are gay, straight or bi. I just find it odd that we twist this attraction/choice/preference into some god-given trait that needs everyone's respect. It's no different than anyone else who is attracted to or chooses or has a preference for things not mainstream, like 50 year old dudes who want to bang 23-year old hotties, for instance.

Guy leaves his wife of thirty years because he suddenly decides he has to live out his gay thing. Everyone says, well, he's just being himself. Dude leaves the same wife to go bang cheerleaders--everyone is up in arms.

 

[Gaztopian]

That's not my argument. My argument is that homosexuality is not a choice, which it isn't.

Asserting something as fact doesn't qualify as an argument. Unless you can present empirical evidence or a well-reasoned argument in its favor, you're only avowing a belief. For homosexuality not to be a choice, it'd need to be an inborn trait, something that lacks scientific evidence and defies observed reality.

There is a lot of evidence to show that sexuality is inborn. But do we know for certain if orientation is a soley inborn trait? Of course not

Actually, there is no such empirical evidence, and it's ironic that you say that in light of this topic. More importantly, the two parts of your statement are contradictory. An inborn trait is by definition rigid and immutable; as such, you can't claim that sexuality is inborn and agree it may not be entirely inborn. Regardless of that contradiction, you're rephrasing my original proposition. If we lack the evidence to support the born that way proposition, what high ground do those that claim that only homosexuals would come out as such in a society more tolerant of homosexuality compared to my proposition that perhaps a heterosexual is more likely to come out as homosexual in such a society?

Is it also possible that one's orientation can be affected by culture? Of course it is.

Then homosexuality isn't an inborn trait if it can be biased by social norms and practices.

t's not like people can just change their sexuality on a whim whenever they like.

Actually they can, and they do. Isn't this what the liberal conception of sexuality as a fluid construct is all about? Many people start off as heterosexual, then they decide to "experiment". They either like the other team better and join accordingly, or they decide buggery isn't really for them and go back to base one. Sometimes, they decide to have the cake and eat it, and they become bisexual. These possibilities happen in different permutations and through different periods of time for different people. So yes, people can change their sexuality apparently, and some 50% of British youth profess to that.

 

[Gaztopian]

That's completely false- you are asserting that you're either born gay or that exposure to gay culture transforms them into homosexuals. That's a fallacy: "A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, false binary, black-and-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the either–or fallacy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, fallacy of the excluded middle, the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of the false alternative) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option."

I made no such assertion. In light of the absence of evidence supporting the born that way proposition, I presented a counter-proposition and questioned the basis of its dismissal. More importantly, instead of that pseudo-intellectual verbiage, why don't you enlighten me and present that illusive additional option?

 

[Gaztopian]

I had same sex attraction when I was approximately 10 or 11. I was not molested. I did not even meet a gay person until I was 21. I had no exposure to gay culture as a child and teenager and grew up predominantly with LDS and Catholics.

How in your mind was I inflicted with the gay?

But I didn't say that, and instead of appealing to anecdotal evidence, I'd like to see you addressing the argument. What evidence do we have that homosexuality is inborn? Also, if homosexuality is inborn, how can sexuality be fluid?

 

[Gaztopian]

Wow, my congratulations. That most long winded personal attack I've seen in ages. You are right, I am not interested in learning anything "new", from you. Your original post was gross ignorance and this one is nothing but personal criticism attaching motives to a person you know through ONE post, using several hundred words. From the outsized response it's reasonable to assume you have nothing I want.

You have a nice day or whatever. We will not speak again

Your cop-out is duly noted.