toldailytopic: Does your opinion about homosexuality change if the behavior turns out

[PureX]

I seem to be genetically predisposed to hate peanuts as well so I make the choice to avoid them. Others love em but I don't. Is that a choice of mine? Do you think I could decide to start liking them?

Hey! You're gonna eat them peanuts, and LIKE 'EM Buster!

 

[Arthur Brain]

Hey! You're gonna eat them peanuts, and LIKE 'EM Buster!

:shocked:

Only as long as they're dry roasted.....then, ironically I can eat em just fine....

 

[Lon]

Well this is the crux then. There's no way on this earth that I could find either a child or a man remotely sexually attractive. I was attracted to the opposite sex since 4 years old though obviously in an immature sense and it continued thereon through adulthood. Whether social conditions could have affected that I can't say for absolute sure but I highly doubt it. I've heard plenty others who say they 'know' they're gay from a young age and without any abuse or any other 'event' that causes such. Why should I doubt them?

I seem to be genetically predisposed to hate peanuts as well so I make the choice to avoid them. Others love em but I don't. Is that a choice of mine? Do you think I could decide to start liking them?

:think:

Yeah, I think you could if you wanted to. I had a few things I hated. I didn't like coffee, didn't like sauer kraut, didn't like....etc.
You can pull the coffee drip-line from my veins when I'm dead.
I don't have a problem with genetics playing a role in things but my point is they don't at all determine them. In fact, it is a combination of genes that usually make for problems like allergies, heart-disease, etc.
However, these do not deal primarily with 'behavior.'
This goes back to my psych class, whether we are machines ala Pavlov/Skinner or are nurtured.

Imo, a sexual drive is just a sexual drive w/o confusion. What is wrong with women for men to have a different desire (and vise versa)? It doesn't make a lot of sense that genetics are at fault. To me, it seems obvious the first place to look is in that person's psyche, not their genetic make-up.

 

[Lon]

:shocked:

Only as long as they're dry roasted.....then, ironically I can eat em just fine....

Interesting, this is my preference as well.

 

[Lon]

I think you are confusing two different issues. Just because someone is genetically predisposed toward a behavior or lifestyle doesn't mean they are not responsible for acting on that predisposition. In the case of homosexuality, most people feel that for one to act on that predisposition with another consenting adult is acceptable social behavior. No one is harmed by it. In the case of acting on a genetic predisposition for pedophilia, however, (if there even is such a genetic predisposition), it is not deemed acceptable social behavior because someone is harmed by it, and the perpetrator of such an action will be held accountable for that harm regardless of his/her genetic predispositions.

You seem to be confusing the acceptance of genetic predisposition with the acceptance of actions taken based on such genetic predispositions. And this is not the case at all.

This isn't true, especially in gender confusion. Whether or not there is intention to harm isn't the question, but whether or not harm is caused is. You've seen the statistics, I'm sure. We should not turn a blind eye to facts that point otherwise. It is a lifestyle wrought with problems and consequences.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yeah, I think you could if you wanted to. I had a few things I hated. I didn't like coffee, didn't like sauer kraut, didn't like....etc.
You can pull the coffee drip-line from my veins when I'm dead.
I don't have a problem with genetics playing a role in things but my point is they don't at all determine them. In fact, it is a combination of genes that usually make for problems like allergies, heart-disease, etc.
However, these do not deal primarily with 'behavior.'
This goes back to my psych class, whether we are machines ala Pavlov/Skinner or are nurtured.

Imo, a sexual drive is just a sexual drive w/o confusion. What is wrong with women for men to have a different desire (and vise versa)? It doesn't make a lot of sense that genetics are at fault. To me, it seems obvious the first place to look is in that person's psyche, not their genetic make-up.

But this is the point. I didn't choose to gag at the taste of peanut butter for example. My sister loves the stuff as with peanuts in general. There's other foods I love that other people hate in turn. There's no 'choice' in that as I can see, it simply is. There's no 'behaviour' aspect in regards to the above so why should such be linked to sexuality or attraction?

If you're arguing that I could effectively choose to find peanut butter palatable then what are you basing it on? If the only source of sustenance available was sandwiches with that filling then I'd certainly end up eating them but I wouldn't be choosing to like them...

There is simply no way at present that I could choose to like my gender in turn. If I underwent some extreme psychological conditioning then who knows? But it certainly wouldn't be my choice to become bi or gay.

Where it comes to sexual drive and psyche: How long did it take you to realize you were attracted to the opposite sex Lon even without sexual drive being relevant? I knew at four....

:e4e:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Interesting, this is my preference as well.

It's the only version of a peanut I can stand eating, mainly because the actual taste of peanut is practically completely eradicated...

Though in honesty I can eat a whole bag of them with a pint.

 

[Flipper]

On the subject of LGBT issues, this week onemillionmoms.com condemned Dancing With The Stars, writing:

Some families have already decided against watching Dancing with the Stars because of the skimpy costumes and provocative dance routines, but now they have gone too far! This year, not only are they casting Carson Kressley from Carson-Nation, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, and How to Look Good Naked, but also transgender Chaz Bono- child to Sonny and Cher- from the documentary Becoming Chaz will be appearing in the show. Both are LGBT rights advocates and promote this destructive lifestyle. DWTS is helping them create visibility for the LGBT community.

I can't believe what I'm reading! Apparently the gays and their advocates are taking over ballroom dancing. It'll be figure skating next, mark my words.

 

[ragTagblues]

Because the sexual drive is greater than the consequence to them.

Spot on, because those we find sexually attractive is part of our base nature as human's and cannot be simply overridden and turned off.

Sexuality is a human right? Where was that in the Constitution? I missed it.

I don't know about the constitution, since I'm from England; but I know that the the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says -

Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

and

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a2

:e4e:

 

[some other dude]

How is it choice; because if it is it's the harder choice.

It's a choice that will bring someone persecution for the rest of their days, they will be prejudiced, bullied , ran out of town, turned down for jobs, be put under a spy glass every god damn day. They will never be accepted fully by society . . . . yet you say it is choice. If that is the case why would anyone make it? If it is that easy, then no one would be gay as surely that suffering is not worth it.

Seriously why would anyone make that choice if they didn't have to? The issues and insecurities that come with choosing to be gay and then accepting it and telling your friends and family does not sound like something I would 'choose' to do.

Neither is it as simple as 'manning up' and ignoring your true colors, because we all deserve to be with someone that not only we love; but someone who attracts us sexually, something that is a basic human right.

Now substitute the word "pedophile" for "gay" and you're on your way!

 

[Skavau]

No. Genetics may have contributing factors but they do not make behavioral choices. People do.

Yes I know. I just said that. Did you read?

I said that understanding why people may feel certain ways (not just in sexuality) might help us understand it better.

I already said no. Genetics has little to nothing to do with it.

I said emphasis on if, of course.

Some people in this thread don't care if homosexual tendencies are genetic, they would still argue it wrong. I agreed that something being genetic does not impact on whether or not it is right but they would endorse a God afflicting people with homosexual tendencies and then condemning them for it should they act. Switch and bait. Capricious. I don't like it.

I don't agree. Yes I've seen heteros treat the opposite gender poorly.
It has not a lot to do with the topic other than they too, are maladjusted.
That homosexuals 'get along' with the opposite gender doesn't mean healthy, nor a healthy view toward them. This was not the only listed point.

The only reason you say homosexuals have an unhealthy view of the opposite gender then is purely because they are not interested in having sexual relations with them. It is literally describing what they are by definition as "unhealthy". It is a meaningless point.

And then what? Eradicate those deviant genes? Remember you said this just below.

No. Only work to nullify behavioural tendencies that are harmful. Homosexuality is not amongst them.

You mean as 'intolerant?' Yep, so are you.

I'm intolerant towards people who would murder people for their sexual relations if they could. I take pride in being called bigoted for that.

How can you pretend to be addressing this conversation by the same token?

When you're interested in defending your baseless assumptions about all homosexuals, let me know.

Saying "Shallow" does not argument make an.

Tell that to the pedaphiles that propositioned me as a pre-teen.

Yes, that's pedophilia. Not homosexuality. Are you still not noticing the difference after all this time?

The deviance has affected other people. You have your head in the sand and have let media and commercials influence your opinions as any uncritical drone. What's your favorite toothpaste and soap?

Whatever's avaliable. Or in the case of toothpaste whatever tastes the most pleasant. Got any more bizarre questions that imply I am a media drone?

 

[Granite]

This isn't true, especially in gender confusion. Whether or not there is intention to harm isn't the question, but whether or not harm is caused is. You've seen the statistics, I'm sure. We should not turn a blind eye to facts that point otherwise. It is a lifestyle wrought with problems and consequences.

You keep on insisting that homosexuals must be malcontented maladjusted freaks of nature which leads me to believe you've either read too much Christian propaganda on this subject or you don't really know what the world you're talking about.

Insisting that "the other" must be damaged goods by nature of its distinction is an extremely old trope, and it's never been terribly effective.

 

[Nihilo]

toldailytopic: Does your opinion about homosexuality change if the behavior turns out to be genetic?

"There, but for the grace of God, go I."

No.

 

[Lon]

But this is the point. I didn't choose to gag at the taste of peanut butter for example. My sister loves the stuff as with peanuts in general. There's other foods I love that other people hate in turn. There's no 'choice' in that as I can see, it simply is. There's no 'behaviour' aspect in regards to the above so why should such be linked to sexuality or attraction?

If you're arguing that I could effectively choose to find peanut butter palatable then what are you basing it on? If the only source of sustenance available was sandwiches with that filling then I'd certainly end up eating them but I wouldn't be choosing to like them...

There is simply no way at present that I could choose to like my gender in turn. If I underwent some extreme psychological conditioning then who knows? But it certainly wouldn't be my choice to become bi or gay.

Where it comes to sexual drive and psyche: How long did it take you to realize you were attracted to the opposite sex Lon even without sexual drive being relevant? I knew at four....

:e4e:

Yes, I still take responsibility for my likes and dislikes.

Attracted to the opposite sex? I didn't have a sex drive until after puberty. I loved both my mother and my father. I loved both genders of friends. Nature and nurture, not either or and nature is a much weaker influence to any of my behaviors.

 

[Lon]

You keep on insisting that homosexuals must be malcontented maladjusted freaks of nature which leads me to believe you've either read too much Christian propaganda on this subject or you don't really know what the world you're talking about.

Insisting that "the other" must be damaged goods by nature of its distinction is an extremely old trope, and it's never been terribly effective.

As I said to him, this is turning a blind eye to grounded statistics.
It is a destructive lifestyle for the majority.

Read up on suicide rates, multiple partners, percentages that have dealings with under aged, etc. It is my opinion, you are turning a blind eye. It may certainly be that your history is coloring your opinion here.
You've been involved in the minority problems with Christianity. Don't let it color all of your perception.

 

[Lon]

Yes, that's pedophilia. Not homosexuality. Are you still not noticing the difference after all this time?

Read up on the statistics. They are old statistics, but 7 out of 10 was much too high to turn a blind eye. What if it is now 1/2? 1/3?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, I still take responsibility for my likes and dislikes.

Attracted to the opposite sex? I didn't have a sex drive until after puberty. I loved both my mother and my father. I loved both genders of friends. Nature and nurture, not either or and nature is a much weaker influence to any of my behaviors.

But how can you take responsibility for what you either like or dislike? I don't see the relevance here to be honest. I didn't like runner beans along with peanuts as a kid and I still don't like them now. By this logic I may as well 'take responsibility' for not liking cramp?

I didn't mean to imply that you (or anyone else including myself) would have any sexual attraction before puberty but it was apparent enough that I saw the opposite sex in a different way even at such a young age.

 

[Lighthouse]

They don't? Have you ever tried to make a watch. Ok, I haven't either, but I'd imagine you have quite a few failures amongst the successes.

If a watchmaker makes a watch that breaks itself, does the watchmaker:

A. Blame the watch, and punish it?
B. Accept responsibility for the mistake themselves, and try to correct it?
C. Make more watches exactly the same way?
D. A and C?
E. All of the above?
F. None of the above?
...
X. Call in his son, induce the watch to kill him, and then resurrect him, thus fixing the watch?

A. If your child disobeys you do you not punish them?
B. Q: What mistake did God make? A: None.
C. You assume God made more of us... You assume wrong.
D-F: See above.
X: We were broken, God fixed us, and we didn't have to do anything. DO you seriously have a problem with that?

My! How medieval of you! So killing someone in self defense, and killing someone just for fun demand the same punishment, because the motive for the killing is irrelevant? I don't think you've considered this position very clearly.

Killing in self defense is not a punishable offense, moron.

 

[Skavau]

A. If your child disobeys you do you not punish them?

Not if it was my responsibility through caprice, incompetence or design for them to disobey and not if their disobedience to my orders was justified.

God created humans knowing they would falter and blames us for it and intends to (according to many Christians) punish us for it in the end. Born sick and commanded to be well.

B. Q: What mistake did God make? A: None.

That depends on your mileage.

X: We were broken, God fixed us, and we didn't have to do anything. DO you seriously have a problem with that?

Actually, according to you we do. We have to be convinced that a human sacrifice took place on our behalf and accepted that such a sacrifice made us bound to its effects for eternity. We have to endorse the power of a blood sacrifice to safeguard our redemption from our own wretchedness which God also foresaw and allowed and/or directed in the first place.

Not to mention the method of being 'fixed' (by accepting Jesus sacrifice) also de facto condemns all Non-Christians for not being convinced. All adherents of other religions may believe in a different form of redemption or a different path towards heaven but according to you I suspect they are all condemned until they accept the specific sacrifice of Jesus. In addition, all non-religious people who don't believe in sin, vicarious redemption or any notable supernatural concept are also condemned. The method that you endorse to rectify these issues naturally condemns people to hell purely for what they think.

So yes, I do have a problem with it.

 

[Granite]

As I said to him, this is turning a blind eye to grounded statistics. It is a destructive lifestyle for the majority.

Now, could you come up with any numbers of your own, or are you just making this up as you go and repeating what you've heard before?

I don't care what lengths you go to in order to justify being an ignorant bigot, Lon, but at the end of the day, one can only wash the same filthy backwards hatred so many times. It still reeks. It's obvious to me that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and are relying on the same uninformed armchair psychoanalysis Christians have been attempting to run on gay men and women for decades. All you're groping for is a justification for hatred. Why not just have the courage of your convictions?