Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Another day, another gay rape scandal

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    We've been over this: a male who has sex with another male is homosexual by definition ("sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex"). All you're doing is trying to win the debate by redefining the terms.
    Your link is to the wrong word ('homosexuality' when in fact you are talking about 'homosexual'). As can be seen by looking at various dictionaries, being homosexual involves being "sexually attracted to people of the same sex and not to people of the opposite sex" or being "characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex". This reflects that fact that what is generally considered relevant to sexuality is the overall tendency to be attracted to one sex or the other.

    A person characterized by an overall tendency to be attracted to members of the opposite sex is "straight" / "heterosexual", whereas having an overall tendency to be attracted to members of the same sex makes a person "gay" / "homosexual", and a tendency to be attracted to members of both sexes makes a person "bisexual". In standard use, as reflected by their dictionary definitions, these words refer to overall tendencies about who a person is attracted to. While it is perfectly possible for a gay person to have sex with someone of the opposite sex (which has been a tool various ex-gay ministries have used over the years without much noticeable success), such an act likely doesn't affect whether the person has an overall tendency to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex, and thus does not change their sexuality. Likewise if a straight person has sex with someone of the same sex, the act is highly unlikely to alter their general attraction to members of the opposite sex, and thus highly unlikely to result in any change to their sexuality.

    You're doing the very strange thing of treating 'homosexual' as a permanent behavioral status like 'not a virgin' or 'sinner' in the sense of "if a person has done it once then they become one permanently". That's just not how the word homosexual is used in common usage. If you want to express your ideas clearly so they are not subject to misunderstanding I suggest you use the phrase "person who has performed a same-sex sexual act" if you want to talk about that sort of thing, otherwise you are misleading people by using words quite differently to their usual meanings. To see an obvious difference, consider the case of a person who had never had sex but who finds themselves solely sexually attracted to people of the same sex. Such a person would be typically described as being both homosexual and a virgin. But in your strange definition, because the person hasn't had sex so they can't yet be a homosexual. I would note for you that as a matter of general practice, it now tends to be pretty standard for a teenager who finds themselves attracted solely to people of the same sex to tell their friends and family that they are gay years before they ever have sex. Such gay virgins would find your implication that they weren't actually gay to be ridiculous.

    Your problem with definitions is apparent when you claim that:
    Less than 3% of the population is homosexual
    30% of all sex crimes against minors are committed by homosexuals
    Those two sentences are inconsistent with each other insofar as you jump between two totally different definitions of "homosexual". The first sentence uses the common meaning of homosexual, while the second sentence uses your very unusual and creative interpretation. If your meaning of homosexual is used in the first sentence, then the first sentence becomes false. Whereas if the common meaning of homosexual is used in the second sentence then the second sentence becomes false. You can't have it both ways. What your sentences really mean, when expanded out are:
    1. Less than 3% of the population reports an exclusive attraction toward members of the same-sex and no attraction to members of the opposite sex.
    2. In 30% of all sex crimes against minors, the victim and the offender are of the same sex.
    Those two statements are both true, but you can't directly use them together to derive any further conclusion because both statements are talking about two very different groups of people. Your error comes when you conflate those two different groups of people together by misusing the word "homosexual" for both.

    A more relevant and truthful presentation of the facts is:
    1b. Less than 3% of the population calls themselves "homosexual"
    2b. People who call themselves "homosexual" commit sex crimes against minors at an equal or lower rate than people who call themselves "heterosexual".
    3b. In 30% of all sex crimes against minors, the victim and the offender are of the same sex. The vast majority of these offenders call themselves "heterosexual" not "homosexual".
    Hopefully you can see that you're being inconsistent about whether you're referring to a group that calls themselves homosexual as opposed to a group that doesn't.

    An alternative way of thinking about your statements would be to rephrase them to solely talk about the behavioral aspect: "people who have engaged in sexual activity with members of the same sex". This would give:
    1c. ??% of people have ever engaged in sexual activity with members of the same sex. (Where ??% is probably ~10%, but the rate is changing and the accuracy of our data on the subject is questionable)
    2c. In 30% of all sex crimes against minors, the victim and the offender are of the same sex.
    Unfortunately that doesn't get you anywhere, because you can't go on to draw any conclusions from it. It's like saying "soldiers kill people, and murderers also kill people" but it would be totally invalid to then conclude that "murderers are therefore soldiers" as it would be conflating two totally different groups of people and not a logical conclusion from the premises.
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      Originally posted by square_peg
      ...there's no real reason to believe that being attracted to people of the same sex inherently causes any sort of disorder.
      You can't be this obtuse. Being attracted to a person of the same sex is the disorder. Even from a naturalistic perspective, a good argument can be made against homosexuality on the basis that it contradicts the obvious purpose of sexuality and defies the natural order.
      Being left handed rather than right handed is unusual. And it causes those people to act slightly differently in some parts of their lives (eg catch the ball with a different hand, write with a different hand). But aside from those minor differences, those people can and do live perfectly normal happy lives. It doesn't seriously affect their ability to function in the rest of their lives. Therefore, though being left handed is unusual, there is not any reason to consider it a problem, and thus is not regarded by psychologists as a disorder.

      Homosexuality is exactly the same. It's unusual, and it causes people to act slightly differently in some parts of their lives (eg have a partner of the same sex, have kids by adoption or surrogacy). But aside from those minor differences, those people can and do live perfectly normal happy lives. It doesn't seriously affect their ability to function in the rest of their lives. Therefore, though being homosexual is unusual, there is not any reason to consider it a problem, and thus is not regarded by psychologists as a disorder.
      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
        Your link is to the wrong word ('homosexuality' when in fact you are talking about 'homosexual') blah blah blah let's keep redefining words until I'm right
        Because there is such a stark difference between the meanings of the two terms:

        homosexual: a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.
        homosexuality: sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex.


        Why, they're practically antonyms.

        It's very simple: if you're sexually attracted to a person of the same sex then you're a homosexual. That's literally what the word means. You're still trying to get yourself out of a corner by redefining the language, but I'm sure you realize that this is among the weakest of debate tactics and is employed by those who have no actual argument.

        So if there's nothing else, I'll retire from this thread.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          Being left handed rather than right handed is unusual.
          No it isn't. Estimates say that left handed people comprise up to almost 1/3 of the overall population.

          And it causes those people to act slightly differently in some parts of their lives (eg catch the ball with a different hand, write with a different hand). But aside from those minor differences, those people can and do live perfectly normal happy lives.
          And can learn to do things with their right hands.

          It doesn't seriously affect their ability to function in the rest of their lives. Therefore, though being left handed is unusual, there is not any reason to consider it a problem, and thus is not regarded by psychologists as a disorder.

          There are some studies that have shown that people with weaker hand preference are more prone to depression, dyslexia, and schizophrenia.

          Homosexuality is exactly the same.
          Asserted but not proven.

          It's unusual, and it causes people to act slightly differently in some parts of their lives (eg have a partner of the same sex, have kids by adoption or surrogacy).
          Adoption is not a behavior.

          But aside from those minor differences, those people can and do live perfectly normal happy lives.
          Define "normal".

          It doesn't seriously affect their ability to function in the rest of their lives.
          Yes it does. It can be debated that their ability to function is altered by internal stimuli or by external.

          Therefore, though being homosexual is unusual, there is not any reason to consider it a problem,
          Sure it is. Just like infertility is a problem to be addressed.

          and thus is not regarded by psychologists as a disorder.
          Again, debatable. An appeal to authority from biased sources who control the definitions is improper to anyone who is even marginally unbiased.
          Last edited by Bill the Cat; 11-25-2014, 03:22 PM.
          That's what
          - She

          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
          - Stephen R. Donaldson

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            No it isn't. Estimates say that left handed people comprise up to almost 1/3 of the overall population.
            10% is the more commonly cited figure. It can obviously vary somewhat depending on what one is prepared to class as 'ambidextrous'. The numbers for same-sex attraction are similar. Studies asking people if they have ever felt sexually attracted to someone of the same sex typically get numbers in the range 10-20% depending on how the question is phrased and the level of anonymity provided.

            There are some studies that have shown that people with weaker hand preference are more prone to depression, dyslexia, and schizophrenia.
            Yes, but the overall effect is very small. This can be traced to the origins of left-handedness - which is primarily believed to be an unusual pattern of brain development of the fetus in the womb due to unusual hormonal exposure patterns. As the brain of the fetus develops in the womb, the presence or absence of various hormones at different parts of the process affect how the brain gets wired together. It is thought that more than 40 different genetic factors present in the mother and/or fetus can also affect this process of brain development, probably by affecting hormone levels. Fetuses that experience unusual patterns of hormonal exposure during development, leading to unusual patterns of brain development such as left-handedness, are more prone to also experiencing other unusual patterns of brain development leading to a slightly raised likelihood of some sort of mental illness.

            So yes, people who are left-handed are (slightly) more at risk of experiencing some sort of mental illness. But no one thinks that being left-handed is the cause of those illness. eg if someone develops schizophrenia, we don't say "well it is obviously because you're left handed". Instead both may stem from a common cause - an unusual pattern of brain development in the womb.

            Attraction to people of the same sex is similarly believed by scientists to primarily result from unusual patterns of hormonal exposure in the womb during brain development in the fetus. There is, as a result, a small correlation between homosexuality and left-handedness (as one would expect if both were caused by unusual patterns of hormonal exposure in utero), and similarly a small correlation between homosexuality and other mental illnesses. Research has shown, however, that social prejudice and discrimination against homosexuality people is a vastly bigger factor in causing mental illnesses in homosexual people than is any natural correlation relating to brain developmental causes. ie homosexual people, like left-handed people, are naturally prone to a very tiny increased chance of mental illness due to having experienced unusual developmental patterns in the womb, but this pales in comparison to the amount of damage social prejudice and discrimination does to these people. This tends to be why psychologists get so passionate about preventing discrimination - because the psychologists are sick of seeing patient after patient whose problems are clearly a result of obvious discrimination and prejudice they have suffered (eg rejection by family or friends, or loss of job etc) and have no obvious problems that are actually directly caused by being gay itself. Any gay person you talk to will immediately tell you that discrimination and prejudice has had a much bigger negative effect on their lives than the actual fact of being gay itself ever has. Gay people are hugely more likely to suffer from chronic anxiety and stress as a result of the nastiness they have to suffer through from other people, and chronic stress has huge negative health consequences in and of itself (chronic stress leads to a greatly increased rate of heart attacks and strokes, slows the healing process, and puts a person at risk of all sorts of other negative health outcomes), and gay people are also significantly more at risk of suicide as a result of experiencing social prejudice and rejection from friends or family or their church. The numbers have a good deal of statistical uncertainty, but doing the math on the available data suggests that Christian prejudice against gays in the US probably drives approximately as many people to suicide per year as were killed in 9/11, at least within an order of magnitude. So I guess if you wanting to be sensationalist about it you could claim that Christianity kills more Americans on average per year than Islam does, although I think that driving people to suicide is significantly worse than just killing them outright, since you've basically tortured them so much as to make their lives miserable and make them want to die. Regardless, the important thing is that negativity, prejudice, and stigmatization of gay people has truly massive negative consequences for millions of gay people and their families, which is why it is so important to prevent the propagation of slanders about gay people. Repeating lies about gay people is not harmless. Discriminating against gay people is not harmless. Having "sincerely held religious beliefs" about how awful gay people are are not harmless as soon as you express them in the direction of any gay people. Rejecting friends for being gay or rejecting family for being gay, or firing someone for being gay, are not harmless acts.

            Asserted but not proven.
            "All major professional mental health organizations have gone on record to affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder." (from here) Psychological organisations spend a lot of time thinking about what rational criteria there can be for calling things "disorders" or "normal", because that is precisely what they deal with. Like left-handedness, homosexuality in and of itself isn't a barrier to people leading perfectly happy and productive lives, and so psychologists have concluded there is no justifiable rationale for regarding it as a 'disorder'.
            Last edited by Starlight; 11-25-2014, 04:25 PM.
            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

            Comment

            Related Threads

            Collapse

            Topics Statistics Last Post
            Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
            16 responses
            139 views
            0 likes
            Last Post One Bad Pig  
            Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
            53 responses
            365 views
            0 likes
            Last Post Mountain Man  
            Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
            25 responses
            112 views
            0 likes
            Last Post rogue06
            by rogue06
             
            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
            33 responses
            197 views
            0 likes
            Last Post Roy
            by Roy
             
            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
            84 responses
            364 views
            0 likes
            Last Post JimL
            by JimL
             
            Working...
            X