Defending the Truth

garysher;

Quote:

So you really think that publishing a list of titles such as: Finger length ratio (2D:4D) and dimensions of sexual orientation. is supposed to convince us that homosexuality is somehow NOT deviant and has a purpose?

interesting article you pick on in your refutation. this article discusses the idea that maternal hormones affect intrauterine development. these hormones have an effect on growth of the body (such as finger length) and on the brain (such as sexual orientation). theoretical, but good science, as it is easily testable and reproducable.

there are a few articles about this and similar ideas. they discuss homosexuality as a phenomena and present evidence for it as an inherent, unchangeable fixed part of the individual. you could not expect someone to change their sexual orientation any more than you could expect them to shrink their fourth finger.

also, it is not discussed in any of these articles as a problem. it is not presented as an abnormality or a condition, just as a phenomena that happens in some people (in large families, it tends to happen in later pregnancies, as the maternal hormone levels are higher in later pregnancies) the researchers do not regard it as something that needs intervention, treatment, prevention or anything other than understanding.

the evolution articles expand on the benefits of this phenomena to the individual and their family.

You are just the kind of gullible goon every car salesman hopes will wander on to his lot.

yes, perhaps i should stick to reading propaganda from Focus on the Family, then i would be better informed, right ?

garysher;

They make a lot more sense than trying to justify homosexuality because some people have long fingers are because some penguins are gay!

do you have anything to offer the class other than ridiculous twisting of words? the argument has never been that simple.

Some facts are so blatantly obvious instinctively that no amount of "scientific" blather, concocted in desperation, will overturn them.

like the fact that homosexuality is intrinsic to the individual ? or the fact that reparative therapy is a fraud ?

The dysfunctionality of homosexuality is one of those facts. Water is wet is another.

the earth is flat is another. and that it is impossible to build a machine that can fly. and that women are less intelligent than men, and that the earth is the centre of the universe. these were once all so obvious they went unchallenged. how wrong those people were.

BTW, it is possible for something to be wet with substances other than water. water is wet, if it is in its liquid state (steam and ice are not wet) but wetness is more complex than just being covered in water, and some things are water repellant.

my opinion is that your christian faith encourages you to see the world in black and white. christianity is like that in my experience. this is not a criticism, but an observation (actually, an opinion). i think it explains why you find it easier to break things down into right and wrong rather than see them as equal but different variations.

garysher;

What did you say earlier in this post about twisting words??

you were trying to twist my words into something i have never said. i have simply added to your words some additional insights that show how your statement is oversimplistic. i am not trying to be deceptive, just illustrate that black and white thinking sounds good, is easy to do, and is frequently inaccurate.

Au contraire.

Your stubborn denial of the fact that homosexuals can be cured is an example of your binary "right or wrong" outlook.

behaviour can be stopped. heterosexual or homosexuals can become celibate. but reversing ones sexual orientation is a fraud perpetrated by those with a religious agenda to justify.

And if homosexuals can be reformed then it cannot be genetic - end of argument.

would it then follow that if they cannot be reformed, it IS genetic?

Or would you prefer to carry on believing that the earth is flat?

i am not the one who believes the earth is flat. nor do i believe that the prejudices of the past generations should define what is right or wrong either morally or biologically.

BTW garysher, are you ever planning on actually refuting any of my arguments?

i seem to remember making several. even fxashun has become engaged in debate.

BTW, i have a post in relation to your favourite subject coming up in the next few days. keep an eye out.

I don't think there are flaws in the homosexual relationship. Never have doubted the feelings and emotions involved between two homosexuals. I think the drive that creates those feelings is dysfunctional and the relationships are just a workaround to that fundamental defect.
As much as modern media would like to portray it, not every pedophillic relationship is prone to dysfunction. Many societies have had those that practiced it. But just as with anything, the negative ones get all the attention because the ones that work make people uncomfortable. Homosexuality has passed through a period of being viewed like that.

Not necessarily. I don't expect the dynamics to be normal. It's just coincidental that gay people "get along" in their relationships. It's like male promiscuity and male homosexuality go hand in hand. When you look at the rates of actual marriage, the numbers of gay women that marry and gay men are almost even if not more leaning toward the women. Even though there are at least twice as many gay men. The stereotype of gay male promiscuity plays true in disease rates and the number of them that REALLY commit to each other.

You can't "fix" gay. I have never advocated for reparative therapy. That's Gary's argument. I think sexual orientation is innate. Hetero, homo, zoophie, and pedo are all pretty much hardwired into a person. You are debating something I've never addressed. We've already discussed how the medical profession came to the decision that "gay" was normal. Your "seems psychologists think being gay is as good as being straignt" assumes they all think this, and we both know that's not true.

That's another argument I have never made. There are very successful humans of all sexual persuasion. Not to mention successful humans with any number of serious mental maladies. I've never said that gay people are intrinsically anything but attracted to their own gender. Which is aberrant for humans. Any other problem that they might have is just coincidental. Even if a pedophile is a gifted [insert profession here] that doesn't mean that pedophilia is normal. His defining problem is pedo, any other issues he might have should be evaluated on their own.

It's not. Makes perfect sense. But that doesn't say anything other than the attractions are crossed. We have humans that have gender crossed mental perspectives and physiology, so a gay person being attracted to their own gender doesn't really prove anything in the BIG picture.

You would only expect that if you were looking for reasons to be positive about homosexuality. But from a neutral point if view, it just is what it is. But again, we have humans that are attracted to other species and children that we consider aberrant. And f'd up. And even with the social stigma that they suffer, many of them are successful and productive members of society. F'd up sexual drives don't automatically equate to f'd up chemical and neurological profiles. Just different ones that supports their f'd up situation.

No what I said was why don't you pick out the ones that matter so I won't have to read every hit from your search. So far, you haven't presented anything but stuff that looks at homosexuality and tries to justify it. Not interested, that's just rationalizing. Not to mention most of that stuff is just crap. So instead of me buying a bag full of corn with the husk on, why don't you clean it all off and sell me some nicely trimmed already cleaned ears?

Not really. Public opinion is driven by comfort and familiarity. removal of homosexuality as an illness was driven by a vote, a vote by people with an obvious political agenda. There is no real science presented that takes homosexuality as a human evolved trait from need to evolution of facilitation for both genders. All the science that you have presented are all individual rationalistic viewpoints. If you can show me something that can concisely explain homosexuality and it's components as can be done for heterosexuality from it's reproductive need, to it's male and female evolved complementation, to the care of the resulting offspring through behaviors and physiology, you'll have impressed me. Until then homosexuality is just another one of the myriad things that can be wrong with living things.

WOW, and you almost made it through an entire post without showing your weakness and talking about "me". But just couldn't quite make it I see. How trite.