Give Me One (JUST ONE) Reason.....

Brandon,

Even if it is a physical differnce at birth, for you to claim that it is a 'defect' is bigotry. Can you refute this?

Cycloptichorn

It is worthwhile for an independent minded people to realize that at one time a person who wrote with his left hand was considered sinister. Later people realized that it was actually a "quirk" of nature, and simply to be accepted. The homosexuals among us, numbering about 10% (which is also the likely percentage of left handers) may not merely be considered queer or odd in the sense of being a quirk like left handers, but even as a gift of a benevolent nature. Just think: if we could convince ourselves that morally there is no difference between a left handed person and a homosexual, any more than there is between a left hander and a right hander, then the religious among us would be praising God, as I do, for a nature which provides in a time of extreme overcrowding a benevolent solution which, if promoted, could mitigate the need for war or famine or pestilence or birth drugs or sterilization or abortion or even sexual self control (the weakest means of all), the latter considered in a monogamous relationship, of course.*

Brandon,

Even if it is a physical differnce at birth, for you to claim that it is a 'defect' is bigotry. Can you refute this?

Cycloptichorn

Brandon9000 wrote:

You still don't comprehend correctly my incredibly simple statement that a bisexual, someone attracted to both men and women, could be influenced to choose one lifestyle or the other by his society. That this is true is laughably obvious. You say that this thesis is contradictory to my thesis that sexual orientation has a physical origin? Nonsense.

Brandon, the misinterpretation of your seemingly straightforward post can in no way be attributed as a fault of my own.
You explicity stated and defended your own position that homosexuality was a birth defect. Now you have given an ex post facto defense of bisexuality as a product of the environment.
Now, it is either a birth defect, or it is learned.
It is not both.

You have also weakened you position by claiming that sexual orientation has a "physical origin", which can be manipulated depending on your interpretation of "physical origin" and what one regards as the physical.

Now, bisexuality is and includes homosexual behavior (meaning, having sex with someone of the same sex). That an individual is willing to have sex with both genders is, by your assessment, something learned or influenced by society.
Do you wish to claim that homosexuality is a birth defect and a learned response, because that is, in fact, what you have claimed no matter how silly you make me out to be.

Clearly evolution intended the being to have sex with someone of the opposite gender.

I know some people are left handed. Is that considered a birth defect because most people are right handed?

Brandon wrote:

Clearly evolution intended the being to have sex with someone of the opposite gender.

And just as clearly nature did not intend 100% of the beings to have sex with the opposite gender. Should we put Catholic clergy in the class as homosexuals? How do you accout for homosexuality in other animal species?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon,

Even if it is a physical differnce at birth, for you to claim that it is a 'defect' is bigotry. Can you refute this?

Cycloptichorn

There are two things that go into my description of it as a birth defect. The first is that I believe that sexual orientation has a physical basis and that the cause is present at birth. That accounts for the word "birth." I call it a defect because it is an aberration from the norm. Heterosexuality is the norm, not merely because of the frequency of incidence, but because evolution's intention in creating sexuality was clearly as a means of reproduction. Clearly evolution intended the being to have sex with someone of the opposite gender. This is simply a medical malfunction.

NickFun wrote:

I know some people are left handed. Is that considered a birth defect because most people are right handed?

Being left-handed is not obviously contrary to evolution's purpose in creating "handedness." Having sex with your own gender is obviously contrary to evolution's intent in creating sexual reproduction and sexuality. Evolution clearly created sexuality to enable reproduction. Therefore, a form of sexuality which cannot lead to reproduction, is simply a biological malfunction.

There are all kinds of reasons to have sex without the idea of procreation entering into the discussion.

Intimacy, the need to be close to the ones you love and love you.
Gratification, the physical release accompanied as it is with the feeling of intense pleasure.
Pleasure, the feeling of joy engendered by happy circumstance.
Love, the ingredient of life that if you are lucky you will never be without.

Oh, and put me down on the side of marriage for everyone. The 14th Amendment applies to everyone.

Joe(even me)Nation

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon,

Even if it is a physical differnce at birth, for you to claim that it is a 'defect' is bigotry. Can you refute this?

Cycloptichorn

There are two things that go into my description of it as a birth defect. The first is that I believe that sexual orientation has a physical basis and that the cause is present at birth. That accounts for the word "birth." I call it a defect because it is an aberration from the norm. Heterosexuality is the norm, not merely because of the frequency of incidence, but because evolution's intention in creating sexuality was clearly as a means of reproduction. Clearly evolution intended the being to have sex with someone of the opposite gender. This is simply a medical malfunction.

Then call it an 'abberation.' Defect has negative connotations, and as far as I can tell, being gay doesn't physically harm or change a person in any way. So it certainly isn't a negative thing.

You say 'evolution intended' as if it was a directed, thinking thing. Evolution most certainly is not a directed, thinking thing. It didn't 'intend' anything at all. This misconception on your part betrays your lack of understanding about the process of evolution, and your attempt to use evolution as a judgement for validness of a person is also somewhat revolting.

Also, there is no reason whatsoever that a gay person cannot reproduce. Many gay people have biological children. Just because their preference is for having sex with members of their own sex, this does not preclude their ability to reproduce.

Your argument doesn't hold up to examination.

Cycloptichorn

Brandon9000 wrote:

NickFun wrote:

I know some people are left handed. Is that considered a birth defect because most people are right handed?

Being left-handed is not obviously contrary to evolution's purpose in creating "handedness." Having sex with your own gender is obviously contrary to evolution's intent in creating sexual reproduction and sexuality. Evolution clearly created sexuality to enable reproduction. Therefore, a form of sexuality which cannot lead to reproduction, is simply a biological malfunction.

Now you're just talking out of your ass.

There are many things created via evolution that are hardly "obvious." Some things that appear "obviously" counter-survival turn out to be survival characteristics in times of hardship.

Sickle-cell anemia comes to mind as one example. Clearly having sickle-cell anemia is not a survival characteristic. But having one gene for sickle-cell, and the other not, turns out to aid in times of thirst.




The burnden lies on you to prove that this "biological malfunction" is actually a defect. Pleas to "the norm" or "tradition" are a logical fallacy, you may recall.

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

NickFun wrote:

I know some people are left handed. Is that considered a birth defect because most people are right handed?

Being left-handed is not obviously contrary to evolution's purpose in creating "handedness." Having sex with your own gender is obviously contrary to evolution's intent in creating sexual reproduction and sexuality. Evolution clearly created sexuality to enable reproduction. Therefore, a form of sexuality which cannot lead to reproduction, is simply a biological malfunction.

Now you're just talking out of your ass.

There are many things created via evolution that are hardly "obvious." Some things that appear "obviously" counter-survival turn out to be survival characteristics in times of hardship.

Sickle-cell anemia comes to mind as one example. Clearly having sickle-cell anemia is not a survival characteristic. But having one gene for sickle-cell, and the other not, turns out to aid in times of thirst.




The burnden lies on you to prove that this "biological malfunction" is actually a defect. Pleas to "the norm" or "tradition" are a logical fallacy, you may recall.

I'm not making a plea to tradition. I'm saying that evolution designed the reproductive system for reproduction, and an attraction for someone of your own gender, or a tree, or a rock is apparently a malfunction. If you maintain that an attraction for your own sex is not a malfunction, then, hypothetically, if you were confronted with someone who was sexually attracted to trees, you would have to say that that was not a malfunction either, however, clearly it would be.

"I'm in love with my sheep," the nervous young man told his psychiatrist.

"Nothing to worry about," the psychiatrist consoled. "Many people are fond of animals. As a matter of fact, my wife and I have a dog we are very attached to."

"But, doctor," continued the troubled patient, "I feel physically attracted to my sheep."

"Hmmm," observed the doctor. "Is it male or female?"

"Female, of course!" the man replied curtly. "What do you think I am? Gay?"

edgarblythe wrote:

Oh, gee. A society where we choose a partner out of love, after the manner of our choosing. What a radical concept. That's sure to destroy civilization.

Well, I'd say it's radical considering that it has never been adopted by any society in the history of mankind.