biped Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Maybe you don't see life so simply. But I do. Difference in opinion that we will never be able to resolve. Fair enough. Your definition of disease is incorrect however. Chronic diseases can be caused by exterior conditions. The answer does not always lie in genetics. We don't actually know what causes homosexuality, only what it's effects are. i see 'life' just as simply as you do, but i see humans as just a bit more than just life, and no that is not a spiritual or religious endeavor. maybe it help to think of it like life++ to avoid confusion. actually your definition is still incorrect. ofcourse diseases can be brought on through external sources ( virii/bacteria/fungus/what have you ), but its at the point where it interacts with our own genetics, that it becomes a disease. there are a lot of maladies that aren't diseases that you can contract externally. cancer is a disease, does it stop you from reproducing ? no, its the death from cancer that stops you from reproducing. what you are suggesting is that 'herriditary diseases' are an oxymoron, and cannot exist. i fail to see why you trumpet yourself as being 'purely objective' in the name of science. you are using an outdated definition to prop up a shock statement. thats not very objective if you ask me, unless your objective is to thread troll. symantics asides, i think we atleast have the same respect and sentiment for our fellow homosexual human beings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe75 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 {censored} isn't straight, just as left isn't right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I'd like to stress again that reproduction and love aren't the same thing, they aren't even remotely comparable. Reproduction is a physical instinct: animals, even plants reproduce. And love, who has a good definition of love? Exactly, you can't define love. Personally I believe you need something Spiritual in order to define love, but many will disagree and I can live with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwhsh8r Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I'd like to stress again that reproduction and love aren't the same thing, they aren't even remotely comparable.Reproduction is a physical instinct: animals, even plants reproduce. And love, who has a good definition of love? Exactly, you can't define love. Personally I believe you need something Spiritual in order to define love, but many will disagree and I can live with that. true, but to be {censored} im guessing youd have to go there..... and im going to not let my mind go any deeper into that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biped Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 just for fun now ... "What counts as a disease also changes over historical time, partly as a result of increasing expectations of health, partly due to changes in diagnostic ability, but mostly for a mixture of social and economic reasons. One example is osteoporosis, which after being officially recognized as a disease by the WHO in 1994 switched from being an unavoidable part of normal ageing to a pathology (WHO, 1994). This has consequences for sufferers' sense of whether they are 'normally old' or 'ill', but more concretely for their ability to have treatment reimbursed by health service providers. Another well-known example is homosexuality, which has travelled in the opposite direction to osteoporosis, through medical territory, and out the other side. After being redefined during the nineteenth century as a state rather than an act, in the first half of the twentieth century homo-sexuality was viewed as an endocrine disturbance requiring hormone treatment. Later its pathological identity changed as it was re-categorized as an organic mental disorder treatable by electroshock and sometimes neurosurgery; and finally in 1974 it was officially de-pathologized, when the American Psychiatric Association removed it from the listed disease states in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV (Bayer & Spitzer, 1982). " http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v5/n7/full/7400195.html so officially homosexuality is not a disease, and officially the 'popular social definition' for disease is up in the air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe75 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 so officially homosexuality is not a disease, and officially the 'popular social definition' for disease is up in the air. OK... I'll call it an illness then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 OK... I'll call it an illness then See, I'd have to disagree that its an illness, illnesses make you sick, and some make you die, homosexuality does none of these things. One MIGHT be able to classify it as a mental illness, but besides being attracted to somebody thats the same sex, these people are normal in all other respects, the condition doesn't affect their ability to function in any real way. So no...its not an illness or a disease, sorry... With electrode treatment, one can make a {censored} person strait, but one can also make a strait person {censored}, so one could argue that being strait is a disease if being {censored} is a disease, theres really no good side to THAT particular argument here, so its not a disease, at least thats what I've been forced to conclude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sHARD>> Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 i see 'life' just as simply as you do, but i see humans as just a bit more than just life, and no that is not a spiritual or religious endeavor. maybe it help to think of it like life++ to avoid confusion. actually your definition is still incorrect. ofcourse diseases can be brought on through external sources ( virii/bacteria/fungus/what have you ), but its at the point where it interacts with our own genetics, that it becomes a disease. there are a lot of maladies that aren't diseases that you can contract externally. cancer is a disease, does it stop you from reproducing ? no, its the death from cancer that stops you from reproducing. what you are suggesting is that 'herriditary diseases' are an oxymoron, and cannot exist. i fail to see why you trumpet yourself as being 'purely objective' in the name of science. you are using an outdated definition to prop up a shock statement. thats not very objective if you ask me, unless your objective is to thread troll. symantics asides, i think we atleast have the same respect and sentiment for our fellow homosexual human beings. Actually, I don't see humans as a bit more than "life", so my opinion still stands. We agree to disagree. Oh, and cancer kills you. Last I checked that hampers reproduction. And no, I'm not here to do anything but out those who either a) simply jump on the bandwagon, or jump to conclusions. Obviously your critical thought puts you beyond those conditions. just for fun now ..."What counts as a disease also changes over historical time, partly as a result of increasing expectations of health, partly due to changes in diagnostic ability, but mostly for a mixture of social and economic reasons. One example is osteoporosis, which after being officially recognized as a disease by the WHO in 1994 switched from being an unavoidable part of normal ageing to a pathology (WHO, 1994). This has consequences for sufferers' sense of whether they are 'normally old' or 'ill', but more concretely for their ability to have treatment reimbursed by health service providers. Another well-known example is homosexuality, which has travelled in the opposite direction to osteoporosis, through medical territory, and out the other side. After being redefined during the nineteenth century as a state rather than an act, in the first half of the twentieth century homo-sexuality was viewed as an endocrine disturbance requiring hormone treatment. Later its pathological identity changed as it was re-categorized as an organic mental disorder treatable by electroshock and sometimes neurosurgery; and finally in 1974 it was officially de-pathologized, when the American Psychiatric Association removed it from the listed disease states in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV (Bayer & Spitzer, 1982). " http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v5/n7/full/7400195.html so officially homosexuality is not a disease, and officially the 'popular social definition' for disease is up in the air. Unfortunately as much as I'd like to believe the WHO and the DSM, both are succeptable to politics. Take a look at ADD for a case study. At first the DSM listed ADD quite differently from what it does now. If you take a look at the evolution of it's diagnosis, you will find it was orginally based largely on pseudo-science and politics. It wouldn't suprise me at all if this wasn't similar. The key phrase I'd like to point out is "this has consequences for sufferers' sense of whether they are 'normally old' or 'ill'". That is a key indication of the desire to be politically correct. It doesn't seem objective to mention the impact of personal feeling in this case. What I find most often however is that research in this field is underfunded or dissuaded, as any offensive findings may cause institutions to lose key funding. The problem here is that of desire for political correctness, but that is for another debate entirely. If you want an example of the extreme however, look to the deaf community. Deaf people have long gathered together in communities to better relate and interact. That's great, it prevents them from feeling excluded due to their trouble with communication. In the modern day and age, technologies have been developed such as coclea implants, giving many deaf patients the gift of hearing. But some sects of the deaf community now consider being deaf a gift which makes them superior individuals. They have been known to call the implants evil and the doctors who give them out demonic. Of course, anyone who would rather be deaf can be, that is their choice and I enjoy seeing them exercise it. What saddens me however is seeing children go without implants when they really struggle. Sure, it's their child, but they are being held back by their handicap, which could easily be fixed. I may feel it is their choice to do that to their children, but it is also my choice to look down upon that. But is that politically correct? No, I'd basically be considered a terrible person for insulting their way of life, for actually suggesting that hearing people have less trouble in life due to their lack of communications trouble. But you can see why I'd think that right? Why I'd feel anger towards parents for their actions? Probably. But what if a scientist came up with a way to convert homosexuals to heterosexuals. Wouldn't that doctor be burned at the stake? Probably. And it's for the same reason as the irrational deaf parents. There's nothing wrong with being {censored} or deaf, and there's nothing wrong with becoming heterosexual or hearing, if you want to. If human beings are meant to make more human beings (we are built for it after all), there is obviously some difference from normal (let me re-iterate, society assumes abnormal = bad...that's so full of {censored} it's not even funny) in the brain which causes some to decide that's not for them. Fine, don't call it a disease if you can't get beyond the need for political correctness, but at the very least, admit that homosexuality is a physical difference which hampers one's ability to reproduce. I'll keep calling it a disease, and you'll keep calling it, well, whatever you'd like to call it. See, I'd have to disagree that its an illness, illnesses make you sick, and some make you die, homosexuality does none of these things. One MIGHT be able to classify it as a mental illness, but besides being attracted to somebody thats the same sex, these people are normal in all other respects, the condition doesn't affect their ability to function in any real way. So no...its not an illness or a disease, sorry... With electrode treatment, one can make a {censored} person strait, but one can also make a strait person {censored}, so one could argue that being strait is a disease if being {censored} is a disease, theres really no good side to THAT particular argument here, so its not a disease, at least thats what I've been forced to conclude. Not true actually, besides your circular logic, the treatment doesn't work. If you *really* want to go down that road: you are saying that, because I can be given AIDS, though I do not currently have AIDS, I suffer from the non-AIDS illness. People don't know exactly what makes people attracted to the same sex, largely because such research has been suppressed due to fears of retaliation and loss of funds. Also, it does interfere with your ability to function. Your ability to reproduce specifically. My post above makes a far more wholesome point, but I felt the need to point out the problems in your arguement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dice7 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I disagree with everything, Just kidding! Honestly, I dont know what to think anymore, with all that is going on. I dont know if they will go to hell or not, but for right now I dont think they should be able to get married. Don't know why they shouldnt but I guess that is The Media or Internet brain washing me to think the way I do. Dice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Not true actually, besides your circular logic, the treatment doesn't work. If you *really* want to go down that road: you are saying that, because I can be given AIDS, though I do not currently have AIDS, I suffer from the non-AIDS illness. People don't know exactly what makes people attracted to the same sex, largely because such research has been suppressed due to fears of retaliation and loss of funds. Also, it does interfere with your ability to function. Your ability to reproduce specifically. My post above makes a far more wholesome point, but I felt the need to point out the problems in your arguement. My logic was not circular, and HIV is different, again, back to my original point, HIV makes you sick, and you will die from it eventually, you will not die from homosexuality, it is not a disease, at least not one that harms you in any appreciable way, HIV is. it is stupid to say one has the NON-HIV disease. And my point was not that we also have a disease, but was more rather to say that homosexual people don't have a disease. And no, this does not stop reproduction, let us play out a scenario here that I think will help what I am thinking about: Lets say, everyone was {censored}, and being strait was the minority. Reproduction wouldn't stop, people would recognize that they need to reproduce with the opposite sex, the whole structure of the family would be completely different, people would find same sex mates for happiness, and would find people to reproduce with (maybe a close friend, etc.) the structure of society would just be completely different than it is now, it doesn't mean that they have a disease, it just means that they work differently, thats all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sHARD>> Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 My logic was not circular, and HIV is different, again, back to my original point, HIV makes you sick, and you will die from it eventually, you will not die from homosexuality, it is not a disease, at least not one that harms you in any appreciable way, HIV is. it is stupid to say one has the NON-HIV disease. And my point was not that we also have a disease, but was more rather to say that homosexual people don't have a disease. And no, this does not stop reproduction, let us play out a scenario here that I think will help what I am thinking about: Lets say, everyone was {censored}, and being strait was the minority. Reproduction wouldn't stop, people would recognize that they need to reproduce with the opposite sex, the whole structure of the family would be completely different, people would find same sex mates for happiness, and would find people to reproduce with (maybe a close friend, etc.) the structure of society would just be completely different than it is now, it doesn't mean that they have a disease, it just means that they work differently, thats all. Your logic was completely circular and incorrect, but given your evidence in the form of a theoretical situation it now at least has some basis. You actually did exactly what I wanted to do. I used your logical technique with HIV substituted for homosexuality. I find the situation however to be both completely untrue and completely inaccurate, but I will say that we must agree to disagree. I cannot argue with things that do not make logical sense. No offense, it just isn't a fun way to waste my time debating things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biped Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 (edited) Actually, I don't see humans as a bit more than "life", so my opinion still stands. We agree to disagree. Oh, and cancer kills you. Last I checked that hampers reproduction. And no, I'm not here to do anything but out those who either a) simply jump on the bandwagon, or jump to conclusions. Obviously your critical thought puts you beyond those conditions. fair enough, we can disagree rationally, thank god the act thereof has no bearing on relevance of life. moving on .. so what your saying is that anything that prematurely causes death ( therefore hindering your ability to procreate ) is a disease. the deadly car accident disease and the drug overdose disease ( ok addiction may very well be ). weather the process is internal or external is irrevelant at this point. if this is what you are saying, then i will concur that logically you have to conclude homosexuality is a disease as well. and seeing as we are all diseased, we better start reproducing more !!! ( i will try this angle at the bar with the ladies, will get back to you on it ). As for the politics of definitions and the bodies that regulate, you really can't cherry pick that argument. every institition, weather non-profit care giving, to public/private research, education systems; the people that print the textbooks that feed us definitions of the word disease, are all politically motivated in one way or another. with enough time you can dispute any official/institutional opinion on the basis of political bias. mind you some a lot easier than others. the deaf child is interesting.. even though the connection maybe weak, i remember richard dawkins talking about how there are no christian or mouslim children, there are only children of christian and mouslim parents. sufferage at the hands of parents is something intrinsic to 'life' maybe ? its more a question of morality/ethics, rather than definitions, although you can definitely mash em up for a while if you are so inclined. Edited February 14, 2007 by biped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranoid Marvin Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 It's interesting where this thread is going.... Having seen things from both sides (i've gone from straight to {censored} at many points recently in my life), I can say I am not ill Homosexuality is not an illness. Never has been, never will be. Only intolerance is an illness. There's an interesting point to note about my area... Approx 1 in 50 in the population are black, and statistically, the average rate for homosexuality is about 1 in 13. So with {censored} being more common than black people (at least in this area), why are they treated with hatred and disrespect? As far as I know, I am the only {censored} in my year. I can't come out - I will be ridiculed, bullied, and perhaps be on the bad end of violence. The same fear keeps these other estimate 30 people in my school from doing to same. Personally, I'm against {censored} parades and '{censored} pride' - it's just a bunch of camp guys prancing around like little girls, creating a bad stereotype for people like me, who show no outward signs of homosexuality. I'm not one of the opinon of the '{censored} gene' - I like to think I had some choice in where I went. Homosexuality is no different from vegetarianism. Just thought I'd mention, Hitler was a vegetarian. That's the bad thing about vegetarianism - in some extreme cases it can lead to mass genocide! As far as I know, there have been no megalomanic {censored}, but there's always a first! Seriously though, what we do in bed doesn't hurt anyone else. I did write an essay for school a while ago on the subject, i might post it, to see what people think.... At the end of the day, people have their own opinions, and I might not be able to change that - but discriminating someone because of thier sexuality is just as bad as discriminating against any other minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Lets say, everyone was {censored}, and being strait was the minority. Reproduction wouldn't stop, people would recognize that they need to reproduce with the opposite sex, the whole structure of the family would be completely different, people would find same sex mates for happiness, and would find people to reproduce with (maybe a close friend, etc.) the structure of society would just be completely different than it is now, it doesn't mean that they have a disease, it just means that they work differently, thats all. That is almost exactly what happened in ancient Greece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 That is almost exactly what happened in ancient Greece. I know, thats my point, that it's not a disease BECAUSE the conclusion of that particular argument was that it would stop reproduction, so it was a disease, I was trying to say that it wouldn't stop reproduction, I don't consider my argument for this circular, although I have been told it is...I don't know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranoid Marvin Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I know it sounds very much against me... But just because the Greeks did it doesn't mean it's right That counts for anything. They weren't wiser than us or anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I don't consider my argument for this circular, although I have been told it is...I don't know I don't think it is (circular) And BTW I found something quite interesting: http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/marriage.htm Anthropologists have discovered that the primary social bond among primates is the same-sex one between males, and usually involves actual sex (see Lionel Tiger, Men in Groups, 1969). Modern psychologists are increasingly recognizing that the most lasting and genuine emotional attachments are not between heterosexual husbands and wives, but between men and their menfriends, and women and their womenfriends. I'm vastly amused whenever I observe a man and a woman trying to achieve between themselves that degree of intimacy that is only possible between pesons of the same gender. It's even more touching to watch their attempts to found a friendship upon the rutting instinct. It simply cannot be done. However much heterosexuals try to compensate for the failures of their own marriages by projecting their frustrations upon homosexuals, they'll never overcome the probability that heterosexual "romance" is a cultural superfluity. The above is something I have always suspected. Here are the reasons: 1)I have seen *very few* happy and working relationships between hetero couples. 2)Men and women are too different. How can they have deep, long lasting emotional bonds? I know it sounds very much against me...But just because the Greeks did it doesn't mean it's right That counts for anything. They weren't wiser than us or anything They were very wise (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle...) But that isn't even the point. The point is that it has already happened on this planet (see also the link above) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMC6053 Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 This topic again? BTW: :The civil partnership we have in the UK works fine, as {censored} couples can get the financial benefits of marriage------- Last year a similar law was approved but only in one State (the capital, well it is a district but counts as a state). Several states in the US have 'civil unions' and i believe mass has marriage if I'm not mistaken (for homosexuals). Personally I don't care what peoples preferences are - however I also believe in equality under the law. A good question/topic would be: "Why the hell do you even care so much if its not effecting you personally anyway?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macgirl Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 This topic again? BTW: Several states in the US have 'civil unions' and i believe mass has marriage if I'm not mistaken (for homosexuals). Personally I don't care what peoples preferences are - however I also believe in equality under the law. A good question/topic would be: "Why the hell do you even care so much if its not effecting you personally anyway?" Sure, and in some state Polygamy is "legally" acepted, or at least is not persecuted legally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Sure, and in some state Polygamy is "legally" acepted, or at least is not persecuted legally. it shouldn't be persecuted, if its consensual, anybody should be allowed to marry as many people as they want (this goes for ladies too in my opinion) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arenared Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 well last time my opinion was deleted .. so this thread doesnt really allow an opinion to be posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macgirl Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 I never liked them, and I never will! Call me a {censored} hater! You know, hate comes from fear, so what's your fear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conan Obrien Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 well last time my opinion was deleted .. so this thread doesnt really allow an opinion to be posted. what was your opinion... i wanna know please PM it to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranoid Marvin Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 I have not read the whole topic but I do know that 1) Human nature dictates that homosexuality is NOT NATURAL. Evidence of this is that there is no reproduction, no offspring of any kind from the union of 2 same sex humans, or dogs, or cats. The reproductive organs are design to accept the opposite sex, the women's organ lubricates to facilitate the male organ entry. Two women or two men can not have the same effect. 2) You can love a same sex human but you can not treat it as opposite sex love. You love your same sex friend or same sex parent. But love does not equal sex and does not equal marriage. There is no basis to make marriage = love. It just not true. Marriage is between 2 people of the opposite sex, who can naturally have children. End of story. Is just plain biology. You make a good point. But if it is so unnatural, why are 1 in 10 attracted to the same sex? As far as I am considered, we are bisexual, but 90% of the population show preference to the opposite sex. Kinsey said some interesting things about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports This article also makes good reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation I can't see why people show hatred towards people such as myself. I haven't done anything to hurt them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arenared Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Here is a PG version of my post.. Looking at the whole {censored} sexuality from a sanitary point of view.. I would not want fecal matter on my {censored}. hope it doesnt get deleted this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts