Why does everyone dislike homosexuality so much?

[OllieFranz]

Fundamental to this question is whether there are actually gay ‘people’ whether a person can be ‘gay’ Some posters are still arguing from a position of there being queer people or gay people rather than merely people who have same sex attraction.
It is going to be frustrating for those who believe this ‘battle’ has been won to now recognise the recent APA statement which very much supports what NARTH has been saying, that there is no consensus of scientific agreement that gay is inate.
It makes a huge difference to the debate about therapy.

I used to be under the impression that "gay/queer/homosexual" were the very terms for people who have same sex attraction.
I´m somewhat surprised to see that you apparently are working from different definitions. Providing them would do a great job in helping me understand your terminology.

There is a condition known as hysterical blindness, where the lenses, retinas, optic nerves, and the sections of the brain that register, process and interpret the signals are all working, but the person cannot see. If a doctor/researcher knew only of patients with this condition, he might not accept descriptions of blindness from other causes, and could be excused if he claimed that there was no such thing, ultimately, as blindness, only people who do not see.

It is my impression that BMS is in a similar position. If I am reading him correctly, then he believes that there is no such thing as homosexuality, only people who do not feel an attraction to the opposite sex.

I don't agree with him, of course, but it is an interesting position to take, and one that is difficult to present any refuting evidence against in a way that will affect his opinion.

 

[JustMeSee]

"Certain species of whiptail lizards have all-female or nearly all-female populations.[2] These lizards reproduce by parthenogenesis, and research has shown that simulated mating behavior increases fertility. For instance, one female lies on top of another, engaging in pseudocopulation. When they lay eggs, the lizard that was on bottom has larger eggs while the one on top has smaller. The lizards switch off this role each mating season.[3] The offspring are genetic clones of the mother, sparking debate as to how these lizards evolve or adapt to the environment.[4]"

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teiidae

Many people would say that this is 'unnatural'. Female on female pseudo-sex. How can you say that this is unnatural when it appears in nature?
-----


----
Homosexuality is seen in nature. So, wouldn't you say that it is natural?

 

[fated]

There is a condition known as hysterical blindness, where the lenses, retinas, optic nerves, and the sections of the brain that register, process and interpret the signals are all working, but the person cannot see. If a doctor/researcher knew only of patients with this condition, he might not accept descriptions of blindness from other causes, and could be excused if he claimed that there was no such thing, ultimately, as blindness, only people who do not see.

It is my impression that BMS is in a similar position. If I am reading him correctly, then he believes that there is no such thing as homosexuality, only people who do not feel an attraction to the opposite sex.

I don't agree with him, of course, but it is an interesting position to take, and one that is difficult to present any refuting evidence against in a way that will affect his opinion.

You think this is a legitimate logical argument? Probably not, but it is an excercise in shaming.

 

[KCKID]

You think this is a legitimate logical argument? Probably not, but it is an excercise in shaming.

I've asked a question over and over of people such as BMS and never yet received a response. The question is: do you (whoever) believe that there are people claiming to be homosexuals who are INVOLUNTARILY sexually attracted to those of the same gender? ...OR are there people claiming to be homosexuals who are nothing other than deviant heterosexuals?

 

[fated]

The reason these debates on thread are so heated is because those who are pro-marriage generally know actual logical arguments regarding the issue. It is then that gay marriage activists are taught to avoid reason and use either an emotional appeal or shaming to avoid any discussion of procreation.

Also, they the emotional appeal often shows that they don't have a logical argument and appeals that allows should be awarded marriage to help them with their differences.

Also, I read a recent article, wherein it is indicated that the best need to identify themselves as gay first, and then indicates that anyone who is against gay marriage therefore hates them, which, as I have indicated is not a logical conclusion, but a malignant type of rhetoric.

Finally, you can see by going through these thread the lack of respect for children and families that is taught to gay marriage activist. As if I'm abhorrent just because I'm different than? And that is were the unnatural argument comes in, when you don't respect natural mothers and fathers, and comprehend natural differences, then you aren't in reality.

In fact, many of the arguments aren't even logical. And among those that are logical they fail to see that logic has many paths, and many of them are false.

 

[fated]

I've asked a question over and over of people such as BMS and never yet received a response. The question is: do you (whoever) believe that there are people claiming to be homosexuals who are INVOLUNTARILY sexually attracted to those of the same gender? ...OR are there people claiming to be homosexuals who are nothing other than deviant heterosexuals?

I would think the answer to both is yes. It's clear that people who seek out therapy to change their sexual orientation want to change it. It appears that one enjoying and affirming their sexual orientation is a reason that therapy would fail.

 

[David Brider]

The reason these debates on thread are so heated is because those who are pro-marriage generally know actual logical arguments regarding the issue. It is then that gay marriage activists are taught to avoid reason and use either an emotional appeal or shaming to avoid any discussion of procreation.

Of course, "gay marriage activists"* are also pro-marriage.

David.

*i.e. people who support the right of same-gender couples to marry. Which, granted, is a bit of a mouthful, but the pedant in me rather objects to the notion that anyone in a same-gender couple is necessarily gay. It's as bad as the assumption that anyone in an opposite-gender couple is necessarily straight.

 

[fated]

Of course, "gay marriage activists"* are also pro-marriage.

David.

*i.e. people who support the right of same-gender couples to marry. Which, granted, is a bit of a mouthful, but the pedant in me rather objects to the notion that anyone in a same-gender couple is necessarily gay. It's as bad as the assumption that anyone in an opposite-gender couple is necessarily straight.

As for your *.

To me, it's irrelevant to the marriage debate. I think we should have substantial protections for caregivers and such, all without the culturally positive sexual connotation of marriage. Which is ultimately what many gays are after, an affirmation that gay sex is the same good as straight sex and of the same value to society.

I think that when one moves from what is in societies best interests to what makes one feel good about oneself, they aren't pro-marriage.

 

[OllieFranz]

You think this is a legitimate logical argument? Probably not, but it is an excercise in shaming.

It is not intended as an argument for or against anything. Just an attempt to understand BMS's use of language.

Do you even read what you "respond" to? At least four people before me claimed you were giving counter-arguments to claims they never made, and another three said that your "response" was a complete non sequitur.

 

[FlamingFemme]

You think this is a legitimate logical argument? Probably not, but it is an excercise in shaming.

Pot, meet Kettle.

Your 'argument' against gay marriage is anything BUT logical. For example, you have given many reasons why opposite-sex marriage should be encouraged, but absolutely no (good, logical) reason why same-sex marriage should be prevented.

You keep bringing up children, but the fact remains (and has been pointed out to you ad infinitum) that there are many monogamous gay couples who are cohabiting with children. Some of us, who live in areas where it is recognized, are actually married with children. Shocking, isn't it?

If marriage is only about children, then the same-sex couples with children (and there are quite a lot of us) qualify for marriage (even if they don't have kids at the time of the ceremony, if they intend to have children, then it still applies), and if marriage is NOT only about children, then same-sex couples still qualify for marriage.
Marriage (logically) cannot only be about procreation, or every marriage that didn't beget children would have to be annulled. Since we don't do that, marriage is absolutely not only about procreation. Since procreation (and hence, children) are not a prerequisite for marriage, there is no logical reason to prevent same-sex couples from marrying.

So, who's being logical here?

 

[fated]

Pot, meet Kettle.

Your 'argument' against gay marriage is anything BUT logical. For example, you have given many reasons why opposite-sex marriage should be encouraged, but absolutely no (good, logical) reason why same-sex marriage should be prevented.

You keep bringing up children, but the fact remains (and has been pointed out to you ad infinitum) that there are many monogamous gay couples who are cohabiting with children. Some of us, who live in areas where it is recognized, are actually married with children. Shocking, isn't it?

If marriage is only about children, then the same-sex couples with children (and there are quite a lot of us) qualify for marriage (even if they don't have kids at the time of the ceremony, if they intend to have children, then it still applies), and if marriage is NOT only about children, then same-sex couples still qualify for marriage.
Marriage (logically) cannot only be about procreation, or every marriage that didn't beget children would have to be annulled. Since we don't do that, marriage is absolutely not only about procreation. Since procreation (and hence, children) are not a prerequisite for marriage, there is no logical reason to prevent same-sex couples from marrying.

So, who's being logical here?

Without a strong disposition toward protecting children, marriage makes no sense, it becomes an elitist group. This is why gay marriage advocates use this argument. The only answer you can give is that sometimes people don't have children. And all I can say is, "So?" Their is still a definitive difference, and its is reasonable and non-discriminatory to make.

 

[fated]

The pot meet kettle stuff is a bunch of crap..

The only thing I'm calling illogical is illogical stuff. Equality is illogical.

You can make reasonable jurisprudence arguments without claiming things like that are illogical.

You guys attempt to force a new definition on marriage because some straight married people don't have kids. So what?

 

[FlamingFemme]

Without a strong disposition toward protecting children, marriage makes no sense, it becomes an elitist group.

Um... ok.

This is why gay marriage advocates use this argument.

Which argument is that again?

The only answer you can give is that sometimes people don't have children.

Oh. Well, actually, what has been said is: Some heterosexual couples have children, and others don't; and some homosexual couples have children, and others don't. And then, of course, the question is: What on earth is the difference??

And all I can say is, "So?" Their is still a definitive difference, and its is reasonable and non-discriminatory to make.

There is no difference, and you have yet to show one. You can't use the procreation argument, because some hetero couples don't procreate; Either because they can't, or simply because they don't want to. The same is true for gay couples. Some of us (straight or gay) procreate, some of us don't. Some of us (straight or gay) adopt, and some of us don't. It's really not that complicated to understand.

 

[FlamingFemme]

The pot meet kettle stuff is a bunch of crap..

The only thing I'm calling illogical is illogical stuff. Equality is illogical.

You can make reasonable jurisprudence arguments without claiming things like that are illogical.

You guys attempt to force a new definition on marriage because some straight married people don't have kids. So what?

No, it's not just that 'some straight married people don't have kids'. It's that a LOT (not most, but still) of straight married people don't have kids, and a LOT (probably close to half) of same-sex committed couples DO HAVE CHILDREN - whether through in vitro fertilization, adoption, surrogacy, or children from a previous relationship, they are still children, and are still the responsibility of the couple raising them.

 

[fated]

Um... ok.



Which argument is that again?



Oh. Well, actually, what has been said is: Some heterosexual couples have children, and others don't; and some homosexual couples have children, and others don't. And then, of course, the question is: What on earth is the difference??



There is no difference, and you have yet to show one. You can't use the procreation argument, because some hetero couples don't procreate; Either because they can't, or simply because they don't want to. The same is true for gay couples. Some of us (straight or gay) procreate, some of us don't. Some of us (straight or gay) adopt, and some of us don't. It's really not that complicated to understand.

No, it's not just that 'some straight married people don't have kids'. It's that a LOT (not most, but still) of straight married people don't have kids, and a LOT (probably close to half) of same-sex committed couples DO HAVE CHILDREN - whether through in vitro fertilization, adoption, surrogacy, or children from a previous relationship, they are still children, and are still the responsibility of the couple raising them.

I still can use biological children of both partners as a defense, it is perfectly logical to do so. I can use the makeup of the couple as a valid defense and it is perfectly reasonable to do so.

To be logical and reasonable, it isn't required that we agree. If your argument is logical it does not mean that mine is not.

 

[FlamingFemme]

I still can use biological children of both partners as a defense, it is perfectly logical to do so. I can use the makeup of the couple as a valid defense and it is perfectly reasonable to do so.

No, it is not logical to do so. There are thousands of couples who have children that are not biologically related to both partners, and they are allowed to marry. Therefore, biological children of both partners is not required for marriage.

To be logical and reasonable, it isn't required that we agree. If your argument is logical it does not mean that mine is not.

Right on both points.
However, just saying that your argument is logical and reasonable does not make it so. Your argument is based on circular logic, as well as several other logical fallacies. That alone makes your argument illogical and unreasonable.

 

[David Brider]

As for your *.

To me, it's irrelevant to the marriage debate. I think we should have substantial protections for caregivers and such, all without the culturally positive sexual connotation of marriage. Which is ultimately what many gays are after, an affirmation that gay sex is the same good as straight sex and of the same value to society.

No, what same-gender couples seeking to be married are after is an affirmation that their relationships are as good as those of opposite-gender couples and are of the same value to society.

I think that when one moves from what is in societies best interests to what makes one feel good about oneself, they aren't pro-marriage.

I suspect that the reality is that very few couples seeking to be married - same-gender or opposite gender - are thinking about whether their marriage is in society's best interests, and are mostly concerned about making a lifelong commitment to each other. That may or may not be (hopefully is) something they can both feel good about. To want to get married is, in itself, pro-marriage.

David.

 

[The-Doctor]

well some say cus its int eh bible so its a sin so i am going to hate it, others just dont liek them and hide behide the bible. but most are in the middle they dont relly accpcet gays but they dont relly hate them. me i can care less what your sexual pref is is not for me to say one way or other thats for God to do. In my book God loves everyone jsut has they are gay not gay black, white, liers, killers he loves us all so why should i show hate when i am called to love all jsut like God.

Well said...Love thy neighbour does it for me

 

[fated]

Look, there is a logical argument here. If you don't realize this, then you're prejudiced by something, or too dumb to understand, or still unable to comprehend. If you do understand, and you propagate the belief that there is no logical argument, then you are propagating hate. People who disagree neither hate you or are necessarily discriminatory.

You aren't clearing anything up by calling me an idiot, illogical, or claiming that my words are impenetrable.

Give me some more shaming and hate speech.

Look, I have a wife and kids. Marriage is about children, even if some people don't have them. Gay couples never have the biological children of both partners. That's it. That is a full logical argument.


This is your argument:
Here we have a group of sometimes couples that are easily distinguished from these never couples. Therefore the only thing we can do is add these never couples to the sometimes couples. That isn't true.

 

[Maren]

Look, there is a logical argument here. If you don't realize this, then you're prejudiced by something, or too dumb to understand, or still unable to comprehend. If you do understand, and you propagate the belief that there is no logical argument, then you are propagating hate. People who disagree neither hate you or are necessarily discriminatory.

You aren't clearing anything up by calling me an idiot, illogical, or claiming that my words are impenetrable.

Give me some more shaming and hate speech.

Look, I have a wife and kids. Marriage is about children, even if some people don't have them. Gay couples never have the biological children of both partners. That's it. That is a full logical argument.


This is your argument:
Here we have a group of sometimes couples that are easily distinguished from these never couples. Therefore the only thing we can do is add these never couples to the sometimes couples. That isn't true.

Or perhaps it is you who, if you can't "realize this, then you're prejudiced by something, or too dumb to understand, or still unable to comprehend."

That not all couples have children is evidence that it is not a requirement, particularly that couples who are known to be incapable of having children still are allowed to marry, means marriage is not about children. While I understand you believe that, it does not make it a requirement for marriage. Since having children is not a requirement for marriage, your claim that marriage is about children is false, leaving your argument without logic.