test
 |
|

08-01-2006, 01:40 PM
|
 |
Political Junkie
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 153
|
|
Homosexuality.
What do you think? Is it innate or changeable? Nature or nurture? Is it good or bad? Is shaping of sexual orientation possible? Should it be allowed?
I read this article on NARTH. In summary, NARTH opposes the APA in that they think Homosexuality shouldnt have been taken off the list of psychological disorders. They promote re-orientation of homosexuals. What do you think?
http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html
The Innate-Immutable Argument
Finds No Basis in Science
In Their Own Words: Gay Activists Speak
About Science, Morality, Philosophy
A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH
Shirley E. Cox, DSW
Jeffrey W. Robinson, Ph.D.
|

08-01-2006, 01:48 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid-south
Posts: 11,827
|
|
Quote:
|
Leaving aside the politics of the issue, perhaps it is time to examine the innate-immutable argument about homosexual attraction. First of all-although the issue is enormously complex and simply cannot be reduced to a matter of nature vs. nature-the answer to that debate is probably "yes" - it is likely that homosexual attraction, like many other strong attractions, includes both biological and environmental influences.
|
He should have left the article at that, after the second paragragh. I have a younger sibling who is Gay and what is in this article is a bunch of dumb stuff that is biased.
|

08-01-2006, 02:28 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Cowtown, Texas
Posts: 7,417
|
|
This will not be news to anyone but I think that it is a choice and that it is wrong
|

08-01-2006, 03:46 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 16,020
|
|
The website is biased...go to NARTH's homepage; http://narth.com/ ; "Helping clients bring their desires and behaviors
into harmony with their values" Completely biased.
What do you think? Is it innate or changeable? Innate.
Nature or nurture? Nature
Is it good or bad? a healthy happy human being a good thing.
Is shaping of sexual orientation possible? No
Should it be allowed? Yes, it's nature.
The question I pose to you: Should women be just like men or vice versa? Everyone is genetically wired differently once people can grasp that simple concept it's easier to relate to people in general.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Happiness
What do you think? Is it innate or changeable? Nature or nurture? Is it good or bad? Is shaping of sexual orientation possible? Should it be allowed?
I read this article on NARTH. In summary, NARTH opposes the APA in that they think Homosexuality shouldnt have been taken off the list of psychological disorders. They promote re-orientation of homosexuals. What do you think?
http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html
The Innate-Immutable Argument
Finds No Basis in Science
In Their Own Words: Gay Activists Speak
About Science, Morality, Philosophy
A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH
Shirley E. Cox, DSW
Jeffrey W. Robinson, Ph.D.
|
|

08-01-2006, 04:32 PM
|
|
Political Guru
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 517
|
|
My Own Thoughts
I find male homosexually repugnant BUT female (lesbianism), the opposite. I guess that makes me a dirty old man. 
|

08-01-2006, 04:40 PM
|
|
Political Guru
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 903
|
|
Ok, I'm going to leave behind my religious beliefs for a moment and point out that I believe that nature itself points to homosexuality being wrong. (i.e. not normal) I point to the fact that AIDS as we know it was first discovered in gay men in the New York and San Francisco areas. If this was how things were suppose to be, why would such a horrendous disease come from it?
http://www.avert.org/his81_86.htm
__________________
"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." Alexander Hamilton
The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.
Plato
|

08-01-2006, 05:10 PM
|
|
Political Junkie
|
|
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 332
|
|
I've started to wonder lately if it's a check to the population that nature has come up with through evolution.
I think it's wrong strictly in a biological sense, along with what Politicon said. If homosexuality were natural, the species would die out, which goes against the innate drive of every species to perpetuate its own.
Morally and ethically, I couldn't care less and I don't understand those who care at all. For someone here who disagrees with it, what vested interest do you have at all in two people you don't know having sex with each other? Even if your rationale comes from a purely moral and religious basis...what do you care? Let them live and go to hell...you're fine right?
Last edited by jrafe; 08-01-2006 at 05:12 PM.
|

08-01-2006, 05:12 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid-south
Posts: 11,827
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Politicon
Ok, I'm going to leave behind my religious beliefs for a moment and point out that I believe that nature itself points to homosexuality being wrong. (i.e. not normal) I point to the fact that AIDS as we know it was first discovered in gay men in the New York and San Francisco areas. If this was how things were suppose to be, why would such a horrendous disease come from it?
http://www.avert.org/his81_86.htm
|
AIDS as we know it? Are you discounting it has a long history in the African continent before it was 'seen' here, particularly central African countries? AIDS is a not a homosexual disease, you need to do some reading and see the history of the infection and see how it developed/moved and was transmitted. What you say and imply can be argued as much as saying the Ebola virus is a homosexual disease. You do realize drug users have a high rate of infection...right? You do realize numerous people have become HIV positive through transfusion also...right?
Actually I think you are using your religious beliefs to be honest.
|

08-01-2006, 05:34 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 16,020
|
|
First, being gay IS NOT equilavent to having AIDS. AIDS is mainstream.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm
As Cat's Meow has already pointed out, it has been documented that AIDS point of origin was in Africa. I may be wrong, but I recall a strain of AIDS was found in Africa in Chimps. Also, I may be wrong again, but my recollection is that AIDS was "distributed globally" by a male Frech airline steward? I was 13 years old when AIDS was first diagnosis and it's sad some still have the stereotype 25 years later.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/spotlight.htm
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Politicon
Ok, I'm going to leave behind my religious beliefs for a moment and point out that I believe that nature itself points to homosexuality being wrong. (i.e. not normal) I point to the fact that AIDS as we know it was first discovered in gay men in the New York and San Francisco areas. If this was how things were suppose to be, why would such a horrendous disease come from it?
http://www.avert.org/his81_86.htm
|
Last edited by oceanbreeze; 08-01-2006 at 05:45 PM.
|

08-01-2006, 06:40 PM
|
|
Political Guru
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: toledo ohio
Posts: 582
|
|
I think anybody who is not gay can't understand what being gay is like,anymore than a man nows what its like to a child!
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|