Why is homosexuality "bad" to some people?

[afleitch]

Going beyond that to ask, for instance, why homosexuality is abnormal, strange and different to most human societies (beyond the obvious reasons, obviously) is a little pointless.

It is quite an interesting onion to peel though particularly when you look at non western human society and ancient human society (and to touch a raw nerve for some - society before it encountered those three desert religions)

Even when you do, you find more questions than answers. Roman 'abandon' did not end abruptly, Christian emperors funded gay brothels and employed gay soldiers and a liberal 'who cares' attitude lasted well into the Middle Ages (they were almost ridiculously obsessed with sex)  around the seats of learning and boomed again during the Renaissance. It can even lead to the conclusion that on the whole, Western society has been broadly tolerant.

Until the industrial revolution. Then we became obsessed with convention and conformity (just like the things we produced) and began establishing what many now think of as older social concepts, such as the 'mum, dad and kids' idea of the family amongst the new middle classes which in many parts of society was an alien concept even until the Second War and then promptly collapsed again 30 years later.

I promise not to rant about the 'nuclear family' again

[afleitch]

It's the plumbing thing, no doubt in my mind, that fuels the phobe.

Yet many people 'plumb' (yes, that way) their own wife.

[afleitch]

It's the plumbing thing, no doubt in my mind, that fuels the phobe.

Yet many people 'plumb' (yes, that way) their own wife.

True, but well, I stand by what I wrote. No one claimed the human mind is seamlessly logical.

You're both right.

It's a simple double-standard.  Sodomy is perfectly acceptible to 95% of anti-Gay people, as long as it's committed with one's spouse. 

Its also very much the 'new' thing to try to have the wife/girlfriend find the guy's prostate. Very few people will admit it, but you often get the missus let it slip.

[afleitch]

Concerning male homosexuality:

Homophobia is used so loosely. Instead of being used for what it actually means, it has become a derogatory term used for those who don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle.

Homosexual attraction is disordered. What is normal and natural is for a man to be attracted to women and vice-versa, which is obviously intrinsically linked with procreation. The sexual revolution of the 60s attempted to legitimize homosexual behavior as simply a different lifestyle. Perhaps groups were hostile with male homosexuals, because they dealt with them as they were in the past historically-- straight men who were sexually promiscuous. They neglected to deal with it as it was at that time-- authentically homosexaully-oriented men, due to problems in the childhood. Ask any homosexual man-- generally speaking, they do not have great relationships with their fathers. This is the cause of the problem.

Many of you will likely say, "the APA disagrees". Yes, of course. I have learned not to trust most of what the APA says. Up until the early 70s, what I said above was the opinion of the APA. During one conference, the entire views of the APA changed. Why? The board was replaced by homosexual or homosexual-friendly psychologists. It was essentially hijacked. Most of the data used to justify homosexuality was hogwash. None of the studies were done properly. It was, and has become, a huge mess.

Homosexuality is a huge problem, as the entire lifestyle is unhealthy physically, psychologically, and spiritually. Homosexual men are more likely to have a promiscuous lifestyle, die earlier in life, and to have severe psychological problems. It's time that the APA takes a look at reality and find a solution for this problem. These people need help, and instead of helping, the APA is making it worse. More men-- often very young-- will die, and live very unsatisfying lives.

^^^^^^

Bullsh-t.

[afleitch]

If you were involved in the psychology community, you would know that the APA is losing respect, because of their poor methods of research. The scientific community had not respected NARTH because the APA condemned it. This is now changing, because NARTH is doing actual research.

Oh please. You keep saying how in touch you are with the psychology community - well then name some names. I would bet money all of your so called pscyhology buddies who denounce are rather devout Christians, and I'd bet a few are conversion therapists as well. They have probably been among those who denounced the APA ever since it changed it's tune.

While I'll admit that most of the psychologists I know are Christian or Catholic, none of them are conversion therapists. But this doesn't disqualify anything of what I've said-- most of them work for publicly-funded clinics such as UCSF, others are in private practices-- and all of them are licensed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also, read this TIME article, which explains what happened. This was a political stunt-- their studies to support this claim were not scientific. The psychological community VOTED to change their position. Psychology isn't a democracy-- it should be scientific, not populist. Interestingly enough, Robert Spitzer, who was the head of the entire campaign arguing that homosexuality was not a disorder, also published an article in the last few years in the psychology journal, Archives of Sexual Behavior that homosexuality can be reversed.

Read what Robert Perloff (former APA President, 1985) says here. The APA is biased. They don't want to have any options open for repairative therapy, even if there is scientific data to support it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think people with Same-sex attractions need to see a psychologist or counselor just as a pedophile or somebody with Oedipus complex needs to. As I said earlier to John Dibble, even the man who was the head of the entire movement to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder, Dr. Robert Spitzer, has recently admitted that homosexuality can be reversed.

^^^^^

Bullsh-t

I'm known to be someone who usually has something far more point by point constructive than that, but I am not going to pay the slightest attention to pseudopschological bull.

[afleitch]

Sure your environment always shapes who you are. But your statement is the same as saying heterosexuality isn't 100% genetic. My point is that whatever % is genetic is the same for homosexuals and heteros.

That's a fair point. There are similar, but different combinations of genetic, environmental and possibly pre-natal factors that influence sexuality full stop, inlcuding whether you end up straight. It's increasingly considered unhelpful and generally speaking incorrect to suggest that we are 'default' straight when all chips are down until one moves. We are not really anything by default (with the possible exemption of 'female' at the early stages of zygomatic and embryonic development until sex is determined, although for some the physical and psychological defenition of sex is not clear even after birth)

[afleitch]

He has a deep prejudice against a group of people based on questionable reasons.  In my book, that makes him bigoted.

Indeed. You can be nice, but hold a bigoted opinion.

''A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding state of mind. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.''

[afleitch]

Sure. But what authority ordains that it is "bad" to harm someone? That value judgment is just as arbitrary as condemnation of sexual deviancy.

Harm? The act of murder is to kill, to end the life of someone with no reversal of that fate. What is arbitrary about that?

[afleitch]

You're presupposing that there is a "right to life." That is an arbitrary value judgment, precisely as with condemnation of homosexuality.

If you had a gun to your head you wouldn't say that.

[afleitch]

You're presupposing that there is a "right to life." That is an arbitrary value judgment, precisely as with condemnation of homosexuality.

If you had a gun to your head you wouldn't say that.

And if you had a gun to yours I imagine you could be convinced to say that homosexuality is bad - people can say things they don't believe if coerced to.

Why would somone who truly did not believe in a right to life be convinced to believe in it with a gun to his head? Why would he even be in that position in the first place? If he felt he had no right to life would he not have strived to end it before then? Would the gun to his head not therefore be a release?

As for the gun to my head, I have given that much thought in the past. I'd let them shoot me. In the same way, for my self worth and sanity I would never admit to 2+2=5.

[afleitch]

That's easy to say when your life isn't actually being threatened, now isn't it?

Not really. I have high functioning aspergers. Such a position actually makes sense in my mind as I weigh my own position by rights, wrongs and 'worths.' I took physical beatings when I was teenager from people who tried to make me say something I didn't believe or deny an essential part of me and I didn't cave in. I would probably, whether it is considered rash or even stupid take the bullet rather than deny what I know, for me, to be a truth.

[afleitch]

Unless, then, you're willing to denounce all morality, it's inconsistent to complain that critics of homosexuality can't offer a "reason" for their condemnation.

You'll notice I never said that.

[afleitch]

That's easy to say when your life isn't actually being threatened, now isn't it?

Not really. I have high functioning aspergers. Such a position actually makes sense in my mind as I weigh my own position by rights, wrongs and 'worths.' I took physical beatings when I was teenager from people who tried to make me say something I didn't believe or deny an essential part of me and I didn't cave in. I would probably, whether it is considered rash or even stupid take the bullet rather than deny what I know, for me, to be a truth.

Fair enough then, just so long as you know your case wouldn't apply to most people. Depending on the circumstances, I'd certainly lie if it would save my own skin.

Well you understand that means I would still reason with them before hand. But appeal to their reason and not subjugate my own with regards to the fact they had a gun to my head and were about to kill me and impede their own freedoms as a result of that act. Of course whether I would have time for all that....

If they got pissed off and pulled the trigger then fair enough. I would have 'reasoned' without subscribing to something I believe to be false.

[afleitch]

(Oh, and as far as "impeding their own freedoms" I assume you mean jail - suppose these are authority figures or something. It's all hypothetical so they could hypothetically be in a position in which they can get away with killing you.)

And hypothetically the bullet could enter the skull and not kill me (as has happened at a case I deal with in work) Yet I could choke to death on a piece of onion two days later

The problem with hypotheticals and indeed relativism and arbitrary prononouncements is that they often just circle above the head and indeed just outside of the argument. That is why moral relativism is often deployed by those who try to justify otherwise unsavoury or untenable positions. So when faced with white they deploy relativism rather than prepare to face off with black or even grey. Sometimes it is better simply to accept there is a fence and in relation to that fence you are somewhere.