Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

My Personal Views On Homosexuality

Announcements Posted on
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by perlsh)
    I don't agree with the OP and certainly do not want to nor believe that he could put a switch on his orientation, but I do think that sometimes you can change your sexual orientation in the sense that you fall in love with a person that might just be male/female. Maybe I'm expressing myself poorly, but we are so quick to label sexual orientation. I'm much more comfortable with the idea of sexual fluidity, but then I can see how others wouldn't. I think the Kinsey scale kind of covers that though.
    I think the idea of sexual fluidity is a wonderful one. I just have yet to see any evidence for such a theory. I am merely going by what the evidence shows us so far. As far as the Kinsey scale goes....it doesn't show anything about fluidity unfortunately. The Kinsey scale measures one's past sexual endeavors. So it is more a measure of sexuality than sexual orientation. All it shows it that most people (if not all) don't seem to fit the binary of homosexual and heterosexual. Like most binaries these are extremes and misleading. Rather it suggests that people can have relatively neutral preferences, mildly homosexual/heterosexual, mostly homosexual/heterosexual, or purely homosexual/heterosexual. I greatly admire the Kinsey study because of how well constructed and what it shows about the binaries society imposes. But like I said it does not support sexual fluidity unfortunately.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    No I argued we cannot conclusively establish weather it is a choice or not and the previous poster agrees with this. Since you believe homosexuality is strictly not a choice I can provide a counter example. I am currently heterosexual but I can at this very moment choose to be homosexual such that I am only sexually attracted to other males. Hence the reason you see many people 'changing' their sexual orientation, some go from bisexual to homosexual.
    Then you are unique, and I encourage you to submit yourself to a good neuropsychologist for the purposes of research.

    Bisexuals can choose to pursue relationships with either, or both, sexes because they are attracted to both sexes.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    then why punish and criminalise paedophiles as they also have no choice?

    Two siblings
    Personally, I agree with you that if a person in their mind has an attraction in one of these categories, that attraction itself is not wrong if they can't help it. However, acting on these attractions is the thing which should not be allowed because a) a child cannot consent to a sexual act b) a child of siblings could suffer due to genetic problems. Of course, the idea of the attractions seems awful to me because of how my mind works, but logically I can't say that it's wrong unless the person acts on them. Gay sex between two consenting adults doesn't impinge on either of the person's rights so doesn't meet these criteria.

    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    we must investigate that claim and examine what it means for humanity
    Scientists are constantly examining possible 'causes' of different types of sexual attraction. They just haven't found anything conclusive yet.

    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    So because we want to control the population does that mean we should abandon research and development in preventing cancer and other forms of life threatening illnesses? By that logic we can say we should have more illegal wars as it will bring down the mortality levels and help control population?
    Life threatening illnesses and war cause a lot of pain and suffering for many people. That is why I personally feel they should be researched/prevented where possible. The continuation of the human race however is not about pain and suffering (particularly not in this case... if humans simply died out from not reproducing it would be much less painful than the sun engulfing the earth or everyone starving or something). Personally I'm not that worried about continuation of humans, we are just another species to me, we will eventually be gone and that's that. But anyway I can't see homosexuality ever causing that issue... if we somehow reached a point where everyone was gay, which again I can't see happening, people would either engage in the unpleasant act of heterosexual sex every now and then purely to reproduce or people would use IVF etc.

    xxx
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    You had a good argument until you quoted from Wikipedia... that is not a reliable source what so ever and destroys your argument as quite often when Wikipedia is researched using a plethora of well-established reliable sources, the information was found to be conveniently fabricated, if not simply wrong.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    No I argued we cannot conclusively establish weather it is a choice or not and the previous poster agrees with this. Since you believe homosexuality is strictly not a choice I can provide a counter example. I am currently heterosexual but I can at this very moment choose to be homosexual such that I am only sexually attracted to other males. Hence the reason you see many people 'changing' their sexual orientation, some go from bisexual to homosexual.
    I'm just going to point out 2 things.

    1. I am still waiting for your link to a credible counter example.

    2. It is completely irrelevant whether or not homosexuality is a choice or not. That is not grounds to discriminate. Unless you can show that homosexuality inherently is 'bad' or 'harms' someone, or something, then you have no logical justification for discriminating that class of individuals.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    That's not an accurate statement.

    (1) The Kinsey scale does not indicate that one has a 'choice' in their sexual orientation.

    (2) Nor does the Kinsey scale state that one can 'change' their sexual orientation.

    Rather, the Kinsey scale says that people do not have to be a binary sexuality (i.e. purely homosexual or purely heterosexual) - people can be mostly homosexual with some heterosexual tendencies and vice versa. However, these people do not change their sexual orientation, nor do they have a choice.
    I don't think you got my point.

    I didn't say it was a "choice" and "change" is probably the wrong term, but what happens if you fall in love/are attracted to someone that contradicts your sexual orientation, that you've labeled yourself with? Obviously it's not a conscious decision, so it's not a choice, but to some degree it is a change in the sense that it opposes your self-claimed sexual orientation. So it kind of is a change, but one that you and society inflicted because most of the time use binary sexuality to describe themselves and when they don't it's still frowned upon.

    (Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
    I think the idea of sexual fluidity is a wonderful one. I just have yet to see any evidence for such a theory. I am merely going by what the evidence shows us so far. As far as the Kinsey scale goes....it doesn't show anything about fluidity unfortunately. The Kinsey scale measures one's past sexual endeavors. So it is more a measure of sexuality than sexual orientation. All it shows it that most people (if not all) don't seem to fit the binary of homosexual and heterosexual. Like most binaries these are extremes and misleading. Rather it suggests that people can have relatively neutral preferences, mildly homosexual/heterosexual, mostly homosexual/heterosexual, or purely homosexual/heterosexual. I greatly admire the Kinsey study because of how well constructed and what it shows about the binaries society imposes. But like I said it does not support sexual fluidity unfortunately.
    Lisa Diamond conducted a study following 100 women over a period of 10 years in an attempt to research sexual fluidity, while she admits that it's not fully representative I still find it interesting. She does concentrate on women though and it seems that she thinks that sexual fluidity is something that is mostly found in women for whatever reason that may be.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by perlsh)
    I don't think you got my point.

    I didn't say it was a "choice" and "change" is probably the wrong term, but what happens if you fall in love/are attracted to someone that contradicts your sexual orientation, that you've labeled yourself with? Obviously it's not a conscious decision, so it's not a choice, but to some degree it is a change in the sense that it opposes your self-claimed sexual orientation. So it kind of is a change, but one that you and society inflicted because most of the time use binary sexuality to describe themselves and when they don't it's still frowned upon.
    I know someone in a situation pretty similar to what you have said...but I'm not sure that (and I think they would agree) that it....changes their sexual orientation...I would say that people are capable of forming romantic relations outside their sexual orientation...I mean whom you engage in relationships with is entirely a choice. Being sexually attracted to the person doesn't have to be a factor, nor does an innate desire to want that particular sex...it could just be that the person likes the person enough to try being romantic...I'm not sure how that has any bearing on sexual orientation however...it is an interesting thing though...



    Lisa Diamond conducted a study following 100 women over a period of 10 years in an attempt to research sexual fluidity, while she admits that it's not fully representative I still find it interesting. She does concentrate on women though and it seems that she thinks that sexual fluidity is something that is mostly found in women for whatever reason that may be.
    Sounds like an interesting study...do you have a link or anything that I could read up on it? The concentration on women could be for any number of reasons....it could be because most studies in the past have focused on gay males, it could be because there seems to be more of an open mindedness about exploring sexuality among females...but it definitely sounds interesting...
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I think it is probably a meaningless question to argue whether 'it' is a choice or 'natural'.

    It's a bit like free will vs determinism.

    It's probably a matter of perspective.

    I say 'it' because I do not believe that homosexuality is a 'thing' beyond the fact that we call it a 'thing'.
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by perlsh)
    I don't think you got my point.
    No, I very much did get your point.

    (Original post by perlsh)
    I didn't say it was a "choice" and "change" is probably the wrong term, but what happens if you fall in love/are attracted to someone that contradicts your sexual orientation, that you've labeled yourself with? Obviously it's not a conscious decision, so it's not a choice, but to some degree it is a change in the sense that it opposes your self-claimed sexual orientation. So it kind of is a change, but one that you and society inflicted because most of the time use binary sexuality to describe themselves and when they don't it's still frowned upon.
    I wouldn't say that their sexual orientation in any way changed - rather what was always present has become consciously known. Sexual orientation is solidified somewhere between 9 and 12, so sexual orientation does not 'change', rather, something causes you to become aware of something which you think is 'new'.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    Firstly these are my views. I have the right and I am entitled to have my views.


    Of course you're entitled to your opinion... But what do you want, a ****ing cookie? 1) It's a red herring fallacy to use that as part of your argument. 2) Being entitled to your opinion doesn't mean others aren't entitled to have opinions which are critical of yours.

    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    Just because you do not agree with me does not mean my rights should be compromised. It is my intention to promote positive discussion of the topic and my points.
    Since when did it become your right for the rest of us to give a **** what you think? (don't worry, I'll be civil, just saying).

    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    Some argue homosexuality is not a choice, one does not choose their sexual orientation. I disagree with that statement because this can also apply to other situations. A lot of people including some scientific researchers also say paedophilia is not chosen by an individual.
    Paedophilia almost certainly isn't chosen by an individual (do you honest think they'd choose a orientation that will land them in prison? But well, that doesn't mean homosexuality isn't a choice.


    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    My issue with this is if society is to accept homosexuals on the basis that they have no choice, then why punish and criminalise paedophiles as they also have no choice?
    It depends on the circumstances. I don't think people should criminalised just for being paedophiles; I'm not in favour of though crime. If they go around trying to have sex with kids though, there's reason for it to be illegal in that children don't understand what they're trying to do them, and they're too young to decide on that.
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    Humans are limited in their choice, we 'cant' decide what we want. We are designed in a way, this information is stored in our DNA. Society can also have a strong say. Two siblings, a brother and a sister, cannot have a sexual relationship because it goes against etiquette of society and science. He cannot just say 'oh I love my sister, its not affecting you so whats your problem if i go out with her'.
    Again, that's different. The reason why incestrous relationships aren't allowed is the genetic diffects it can have upon the offspring they have.
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    Furthermore if we are to accept the argument 'gays are born gay' we must investigate that claim and examine what it means for humanity. Under the assumption that the argument that they are born gay holds, then it is something which is affecting their ability to reproduce (as they are not attracted to the opposite sex). Then, it is in my belief that by definition of continuity of the human race we must find a way to prevent it as it is, technically speaking, a negative genetic mutation and must be addressed by doctors and medical researchers to preserve continuity.
    The human race is going to continue no matter what we do. There's always going to be straight people around, and even if every human being were gay, there's still other ways we can reproduce like in-vitro and cloning. Also, I think overpopulation is more of an issue today than underpopulation.

    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    I should not be down voted because of my views.
    Why the **** not? Is expressing what you think of somebody's post not precisely the point behind the rep system?

    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    Further to this my point is society in general is vastly negative towards paedophiles. If a paedophile is known to the authorities they are punished, criminalised and jailed. How is this fair if we are saying both circumstances are through no choice of their own? Nature has come up quiet frequently. Some users are saying homosexuality is natural and paedophilia is not - where is the evidence I ask to accept one and reject the other of being natural?
    I'll admit it is a logical fallacy to base an argument on whether something is natural or not. My main reasoning behind support for it is the fact that it doesn't hurt anyone, unlike paedophilia or incest.

    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    Many users have rejected the idea of incest on the basis that children produced from an incestuous couple will be disadvantaged from a weaker gene pool, but why are users making the assumption that all incestuous relationships will directly lead to a child I ask?
    Yeah, but there's always the chance it can happen anyway. Contraception isn't 100% effective after all. I do think homosexual incestrous couples should be allowed (e.g. brother and brother, sister and sister, etc.) though since that wouldn't be an issue for them. Although I'm not entirely sure if I do agree with the law against incest at all.

    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    Many people have tackled my negative gene issue about human continuity by stating homosexuals will promote a negative population growth and will help issues of over crowding. I cannot express in words how offended I am by that statement. So because we want to control the population does that mean we should abandon research and development in preventing cancer and other forms of life threatening illnesses? By that logic we can say we should have more illegal wars as it will bring down the mortality levels and help control population?
    :banghead:

    No, if anything allowing overpopulation will result in more such problems. Are you really suggest something like this?:

    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
    You still cannot claim that it is a sexual orientation. It cannot be a sexual orientation simply by the definition of what a sexual orientation is.
    Why can it not be considered a "sexual orientation" and if it isn't, what is it?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    Firstly these are my views. I have the right and I am entitled to have my views regarding this subject especially as it is always under constant mass scrutiny. Just because you do not agree with me does not mean my rights should be compromised. It is my intention to promote positive discussion of the topic and my points.

    Some argue homosexuality is not a choice, one does not choose their sexual orientation. I disagree with that statement because this can also apply to other situations. A lot of people including some scientific researchers also say paedophilia is not chosen by an individual. My issue with this is if society is to accept homosexuals on the basis that they have no choice, then why punish and criminalise paedophiles as they also have no choice?

    Humans are limited in their choice, we 'cant' decide what we want. We are designed in a way, this information is stored in our DNA. Society can also have a strong say. Two siblings, a brother and a sister, cannot have a sexual relationship because it goes against etiquette of society and science. He cannot just say 'oh I love my sister, its not affecting you so whats your problem if i go out with her'. I therefore believe choice alone is not justification for homosexuality.

    Furthermore if we are to accept the argument 'gays are born gay' we must investigate that claim and examine what it means for humanity. Under the assumption that the argument that they are born gay holds, then it is something which is affecting their ability to reproduce (as they are not attracted to the opposite sex). Then, it is in my belief that by definition of continuity of the human race we must find a way to prevent it as it is, technically speaking, a negative genetic mutation and must be addressed by doctors and medical researchers to preserve continuity.

    These are some subjects which I feel strongly about. I am willing to debate issues regarding psychology, health and hygiene, communication, social impacts etc.

    This topic is constant in media, social and professional circles. There will always be support for and against, I am simply against due to some points I outlined above. I should not be down voted because of my views (there are plenty of groups which are allowed to have a say no matter how 'wrong' some people think they are such as BNP EDL Extremist Muslims), rather I would like TSR to assess my points. This issue must be discussed if were are to find an eventual solution. I welcome feedback and further discussion.

    ***************************

    A lot of people are saying that paedophilia and homosexuality cannot be compared and the comparison is not relevant. You cannot just say it is not relevant without any sort of justification. I am saying it is relevant and will pursue to argue the case. Wikipedia also agrees with the relevancy with a cited source, to quote directly from Wikipedia:



    Further to this my point is society in general is vastly negative towards paedophiles. If a paedophile is known to the authorities they are punished, criminalised and jailed. How is this fair if we are saying both circumstances are through no choice of their own? Nature has come up quiet frequently. Some users are saying homosexuality is natural and paedophilia is not - where is the evidence I ask to accept one and reject the other of being natural?

    People are discussing incest as being not natural. A common consensus for the acceptance of the homosexual community is the argument where two practising consensual adults are free to do what they desire as long it is not harming anyone else. One (or two) can maintain an incestuous sexual relationship in this manner as it can be said they are not harming anyone. Many users have rejected the idea of incest on the basis that children produced from an incestuous couple will be disadvantaged from a weaker gene pool, but why are users making the assumption that all incestuous relationships will directly lead to a child I ask? Homosexuality and incest can be practised without procreation so I ask again, why is the idea of incest constantly rejected by society?

    Many people have tackled my negative gene issue about human continuity by stating homosexuals will promote a negative population growth and will help issues of over crowding. I cannot express in words how offended I am by that statement. So because we want to control the population does that mean we should abandon research and development in preventing cancer and other forms of life threatening illnesses? By that logic we can say we should have more illegal wars as it will bring down the mortality levels and help control population?
    I would neg you but there's really no point now is there? I'd go into detail bit by bit of why you're wrong but I'm sure that the 10 or so pages I haven't read are filled with decent posters politely explaining why you can gtfo.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jester94)
    These are sexual orientations because they are based upon the sex you are attracted to, i.e. male or female. However, child is not a sex, thus paedophilia cannot be described as a sexual orientation. It can be described as a sexual attraction, because that is what it is, but not as a sexual orientation, because it isn't.
    Sexual orientation is the orientation of sexual attraction. It is where sexual attractions are orientated towards. Therefore when you say sexual orientation, you really mean sexual [attaction] orientation.

    Sex refers to biological sex, sexual refers to sexual attraction.
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Why can it not be considered a "sexual orientation" and if it isn't, what is it?
    Sexual orientation: (From the APA)
    Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes.

    Because 'children' are not a sex, it cannot be a sexual orientation. Rather, a pedophile is homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual with a particular attraction towards children.

    Pedophilia is considered to be a paraphilia and not a sexual orientation.
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Sexual orientation is the orientation of sexual attraction. It is where sexual attractions are orientated towards. Therefore when you say sexual orientation, you really mean sexual [attaction] orientation.

    Sex refers to biological sex, sexual refers to sexual attraction.
    False.

    Sexual orientation refers to which sex you're attracted to; not merely a collective sum of all of your sexual 'attractions'.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
    Basic Psychology? Studies have shown how harmful adult-child sexual relations can be.
    Which studies have suggested non-coercive and consensual adult-child sexual relations are universally and inherently harmful?

    What would be the causal relationship and mechanism for this harm?

    Are there studies which suggest this is not the case?
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miracle Day)
    Oh stfu ignoramous.
    I would think a person ignoring the requirement for evidence and not using evidence to base their assumptions on would be the definition of a "ignoramous" :rolleyes:

    i.e. you
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Sexual orientation is the orientation of sexual attraction. It is where sexual attractions are orientated towards. Therefore when you say sexual orientation, you really mean sexual [attaction] orientation.

    Sex refers to biological sex, sexual refers to sexual attraction.
    No. Not at all. That isn't what sexual orientation means. NYU gave you the definition and I have given you definitions in the past. It's not very difficult to understand. Sexual orientation has to do with what sex (or lack there of) an individual is attracted to. Now seeing as 'child' is not a sex, pedophilia cannot be an orientation. The child possesses a sex, but that does not make pedophilia a sexual orientation because the attraction to the sex and the attraction to the child are two separate things.
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Which studies have suggested non-coercive and consensual adult-child sexual relations are universally and inherently harmful?
    We realize you don't study psychology and don't actually know anything about this subject, but do a simple google search; take some psychology classes.

    The child cannot understand the actions, implications, etc. of such things because the brain is not yet fully developed enough in the pre-frontal cortex to allow for such understanding.

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Are there studies which suggest this is not the case?
    A very limited few which have been highly criticized and are not considered to be acceptable with the vast majority of psychologists and psychiatrists. I believe even the APA has stated outright that pedophilia causes harm to the child. (And to the pedophile as well, since not being able to act on their sexual fantasies and desires causes psychological distress, harm, etc. - which makes pedophilia a paraphilia)
    • 50 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    I would think a person ignoring the requirement for evidence and not using evidence to base their assumptions on would be the definition of a "ignoramous" :rolleyes:

    i.e. you
    Firstly, that's not what an ignoramus means.

    I don't have to explain myself to you. You're probably a paedophile.
Updated: April 15, 2012
New on TSR

The future of apprenticeships

Join the discussion in the apprenticeships hub!

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.