GENIUS FORUMS

It may be a mental illness, defect in nurture, even maybe in nature (animals also), In the biblical sense it is evil.

What are your views and why?

Homosexuality is simply bad luck. I suspect it is usually more of a function of hormones than environmental upbringing. Studies that have shown that if groups of men are injected with estrogen, they begin to have more feminine types of thoughts, fantasies, and their self-image actually changes. In the future, if a gay person wishes to change their orientation, a simple treatment of genetic therapy maybe all that is necessary.

also i've made up this thing called incidental bisexuality, it's where if you've had a particular homosexual experience with someone, you will tend to want to do the act only with them and not with others, due to the demands of your libido. pre-adolescent sexual acts with other adolescents also may stay in your system and you would find it tolerable to do it now with the same person, atleast i am.

Sexual orientation has no practical, ethical or philosophic significance for me at all, other than in the sense that sexuality, in general, does.

This topic is sort of interesting to me. Not in that the subject itself is interesting, but rather, that it keeps coming up is interesting. Why on earth should it matter other than between the individuals directly involved? Why should we want to "cure" it?

theres no point to it, either then the obvious.

Ask yourselves why is sex important why do we get pleasure and are attracted to some and not to others. -How do your answers add up to the subject?

I'm not gay, but I do have a friend thats a lesbian and I'm perfectly fine with that (O.o)

I stated that homosexuality is a curse because based on the gay men I’ve met, I suspect that the probability of those individuals becoming enlightened is much lower than your average heterosexual bloke.

As long as they don't hurt anyone I don't have a problem with them. I hang with the "chill" crowd here at university, and they just happen to be very much gay. I really could not care less. I would join them on gay pride day parades but I hate crowds and consider them dangerous as well as overtly boring.

I don't believe in "gay pride." Then again, I don't believe in any kind of pride that I know of, but "gay pride" is particularly bothersome to me because it is celebrating something which even free will advocates insist happens by nature, through no choice of a person's own.

Gay culture makes way too much of sexuality anyway. They allow their sexual preference to define their whole identity and personality. When heterosexuals do this, they are called "sex maniacs" or similar derogatory things. A lot of gays remind me of potheads and other drug culture types who only talk about drugs and drug use constantly. It's very boring to me.

Okay, Tom is gay. Bob is straight. Ted is celibate. Whoopty-doo. Get over it and talk about something more interesting.

What I find most perplexing about homosexuals is how they envision themselves within. I work with a guy who has gotten "married" to his partner of 15 years or so. I say "married" because it is not recognized legally, but his church openly blessed their union.

In a male/female view, he is the female. Because he is comfortable around me, he drops his male guard and speaks as a female to a female would about things, which is odd to me because he is more female than I am. He would duck out of a meeting as soon as possible if he were to miss his manicure. He speaks of buying a new "purse" (briefcase). It is so very curious to me how they can be female on the interior but male on the exterior, that I wonder how they perceive themselves.

Dan:

Sexual orientation has no practical, ethical or philosophic significance for me at all, other than in the sense that sexuality, in general, does.

Indeed, truly there are so many variations of the feminine and masculine in both genders that orientation may not have practical, ethical or philosophic significance, but the psychological aspect is a bit curious to me.

In the bigger picture, the chemical imbalances in people can do a great many things to change a person from the standard, in not only sexual orientation but psychological stability (neurochemical imbalances), that it seems making either of them a moral issue by practical, ethical or philosophical absolutes is pretty shameful and a bit ignorant.

In case anybody here has any misconceptions, gay and straight men have roughly equal levels of hormones. The idea that homosexuality results from a "testosterone deficiency" in adulthood is false, although some researchers have considered the idea that men who grow up to be gay or straight may have experienced different levels of hormones in the womb.

Philosophaster wrote:In case anybody here has any misconceptions, gay and straight men have roughly equal levels of hormones. The idea that homosexuality results from a "testosterone deficiency" in adulthood is false, although some researchers have considered the idea that men who grow up to be gay or straight may have experienced different levels of hormones in the womb.

Sorry, I should have added genetic predisposition in there as well. You are correct. However, my point remains the same -some judgments are unfair and unintelligent in their making.

Would those not biologically determined to be homosexual be excused from the practical, ethical and philosophical debate? Or is there such a being as an environmentally created homosexual?

Well, the issue is complicated by the concept of "choice." It is one thing to say that a person is predisposed to a certain behavior, but another to say that he is compelled to do it. Alcohol abuse is the example with which I have the most personal experience. I am genetically predisposed to alcoholism, but I'm also a cold-turkey quitter who broke a 10-year habit with a modified version of the classic "willpower" approach. Christians and other anti-homosexuality activists would maintain that a similar distinction exists in the case of sexual behavior. For them, a certain preference may exist as a result of genetics, but the behavior itself is within the power of the individual to choose.

I tend to agree with this view without endorsing the idea that homosexuality is "wrong" or "bad." I think that people can theoretically choose not to participate in such behavior regardless of genetic predispositions, although I see no reason they should have to make such a choice, because harmless behavior between consenting adults in no one's business but their own. Christians and others disagree, of course, and feel that homosexual individuals should ignore their genetic predispositions through the exercise of willpower. Such things can be done, as I know through my experience with drinking, but I'd hate to have to do it unless it seemed absolutely necessary.

Any form of self-deprivation is a difficult experience, and there is a unavoidable loss in quality of life. I think it should only be done for good reasons, and in my mind, religious or bigoted people's ideas about what people should do in their own bedrooms does not qualify.

Unidian, gay pride is about being proud of ACCEPTING what nature has given to you which you can not change. A lot of young people have committed suicide over being teased about their differences. I think gay pride is very important.

And yes, most of my gay friends are stoned sex maniacs ( then again who is not these days?! Hell I should start "virgin pride days" ) but they are also quite clever, funny, and tolerating of difference. Plus they don't talk about sex 24/7 and they know how prude I am so we discuss other stuff.

Plus, being the population control freak that I am, I consider open gayness important because I believe it results in less kids.

yeah - gay pride is more about "it's ok to be us" - actually more than anything I think it's a way of protesting against the fundies. I just don't care either way about it though I used to know some of the organizers in Atlanta.

What gets me is all the copy-cats. We need a pagan pride day?

Uni:

Well, the issue is complicated by the concept of "choice." It is one thing to say that a person is predisposed to a certain behavior, but another to say that he is compelled to do it. Alcohol abuse is the example with which I have the most personal experience. I am genetically predisposed to alcoholism, but I'm also a cold-turkey quitter who broke a 10-year habit with a modified version of the classic "willpower" approach. Christians and other anti-homosexuality activists would maintain that a similar distinction exists in the case of sexual behavior. For them, a certain preference may exist as a result of genetics, but the behavior itself is within the power of the individual to choose.

P: I was diagnosed with a mental illness that I have under control without drugs by virtue of will power, change of job and the way I approach problem solving. It was difficult, as I am sure your battle was…but how can Christians and anti-homosexual activist’s expectations be a measure with which to judge? Can a Downs syndrome person be expected to understand the moral wrong and right of an action? At what point in the chain of genetic and neuro-chemical disorders is it “ok” to not judge another’s behavior? Should we judge at all?

Uni:

Christians and others disagree, of course, and feel that homosexual individuals should ignore their genetic predispositions through the exercise of willpower. Such things can be done, as I know through my experience with drinking, but I'd hate to have to do it unless it seemed absolutely necessary. Any form of self-deprivation is a difficult experience, and there is an unavoidable loss in quality of life. I think it should only be done for good reasons.

P: I sometimes wonder if we picked a couple of these dissenters and found out their weakness, how they would respond when temptation is all around while another shouts, “will power, man, will power.” I am not espousing a life without moral standards, especially for oneself, as a course to live one’s life. While I do not agree completely with what little I have read of Buddhism, their noble truth and path should be a staple. But is not encouraging one to live up to these virtues not a better plan than eschewing them for their perceived less than moral behavior due to weakness or genetic predisposition? The guy I know who is “married” to his partner is a very devout Christian and leader in his church. Is he better or worse than the John Smith who sits next to him thinking how immoral he is when John Smith is in his second marriage contemplating a divorce so that he can marry wife #3?

It is odd because I speak to devout Christians who are not the “evil in a can” Christian. They speak with such absolute about love the sinner, hate the sin, which is a very difficult love to achieve and which many, many more do not even have the slightest inclination towards an understanding of what that truly means, and yet, who am I or they to judge the action of another? If they were given the same predisposition, would they have more “will power” than the guy they are accusing? Kant wrote that we should not act unless we can will the act into universal law…the “do unto others” rule. When do you think it is appropriate to make a moral judgment of another’s actions?

The problem is that homosexuals want legal rights and recognition…and the question comes in how far does governmental law go into private relationships to protect this right they want so badly in order to attain spousal rights and privileges that is only now enjoyed by male/female relationships? Should government force insurance companies to underwrite health insurance policies for gay couples? There is more than just an orientation issue going on here.

I'm not sure if you're asking me, but for the record, I tried to make it fairly clear that I don't have a problem with homosexuality and I disagree with those who do, so I'm not sure most of those questions apply to me.

Unidian wrote:I'm not sure if you're asking me, but for the record, I tried to make it fairly clear that I don't have a problem with homosexuality and I disagree with those who do, so I'm not sure most of those questions apply to me.

We are studying ethics right now and I am sitting on a fence looking at both sides and mostly just thinking out loud...or in writing. Funny thing is that I'm not sure whether I do or don't have a problem with it. One of my dearest friends is gay, but it doesn't mean that I agree that he is right in choosing to act. But when thinking about "being right," it occurred to me that why do I think that I am right? These questions do not necessarily apply to you, but if you want to comment, feel free. Your comments are always thought-full and insight-full.