Just like us: at least half of gay marriages open

[Mountain Man]

Sure, but it doesn't change his point in any way:
"Not sure how pica disorder is relevant to this. Eating metal and glass is inherently harmful; getting married to people of the same sex is not."

The point, obviously (as if you didn't know), is that one characteristic of a disorder is replacing a natural desire with something unnatural. In the case of pica disorder, it's replacing the consumption of food with the consumption of non-food. In the case of homosexual disorder, it's replacing heterosexuality with homosexuality. Even if you prescribe to a wholly naturalistic moral philosophy, it's impossible to argue that homosexuality is not unnatural for the simple reason that males and females are physically compatible in a way that two males and two females are not.

[Adrift]

The debate is not about attractions, but about same sex sexual activity, and "marriage". square_peg should know that. Especially since on TWeb both before and after the crash this has been explicitly stated.

Are you referring primarily to the political debate on the subject? Because there are plenty of Christians (myself included) who think that the attraction aspect ought not to be completely ignored (among believers that is).

[fm93]

You really should know better. That's not what the debate is about, and I have a hard time believing you didn't know that.

I figured someone would insist that it's about sexual activity, but technically speaking, being gay simply means having attractions. It's a pet peeve of mine that some people automatically conflate it with behavior, and to be clear, this is something that both sides do too often. But I digress for an inevitable later thread.

But okay, let's focus on the behavior aspect. Done in certain ways, homosexual activity can be harmful, but unlike eating metal or glass, it's not inherently harmful. Gay people can be abstinent and then monogamous. They can engage in safe practices and use safe materials/devices. You may attempt to counter that with a theological argument about the meaning of marriage or sinfulness, but strictly in regard to the comparison with pica disorder, those are irrelevant.

[Jedidiah]

Are you referring primarily to the political debate on the subject? Because there are plenty of Christians (myself included) who think that the attraction aspect ought not to be completely ignored (among believers that is).

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the attractions. We can be sexually attracted to many other people. The problem is in acting on it and claiming there is nothing wrong about such actions.

[Cerebrum123]

I figured someone would insist that it's about sexual activity, but technically speaking, being gay simply means having attractions. It's a pet peeve of mine that some people automatically conflate it with behavior, and to be clear, this is something that both sides do too often. But I digress for an inevitable later thread.

The dictionary has both as part of the primary definition. So to try and exclude one as the only meaning doesn't seem right to me.

gay
[gey]
Spell Syllables
Word Origin
adjective, gayer, gayest.
1.
of, relating to, or exhibiting sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex; homosexual:
a gay couple.
Antonyms: straight.

In this debate, most people I know, and most people I've interacted with who disagree with homosexual "marriage", and homosexual sexual activity see attraction on the same level as heterosexual attraction. Something that can lead to sin, but is not sin in and of itself.

But okay, let's focus on the behavior aspect. Done in certain ways, homosexual activity can be harmful, but unlike eating metal or glass, it's not inherently harmful.

From a Biblical perspective all sin is harmful to an individual. Homosexual sex that is not repented of is explicitly listed as something that cuts people off from the Kingdom of God. It's also listed as something that can be gotten past(1 Corinthians 6:11).

We also need certain metals in our diet, so to say it's "inherently harmful" ignores certain things about biology. I mean, iron, copper, zinc, etc are all metals, but are necessary for bodily function. Glass could also pass through the digestive tract with no harm if it were done right, and sturdy enough not to break.

Gay people can be abstinent and then monogamous.

The abstinent ones seem to be an extremely small portion, and this is of an already very small population of people to begin with.

They can engage in safe practices and use safe materials/devices. You may attempt to counter that with a theological argument about the meaning of marriage or sinfulness, but strictly in regard to the comparison with pica disorder, those are irrelevant.

How? There are ways you can eat metals and glass without causing yourself harm. However the majority of the time you are causing long term side effects by doing that which is unnatural uses for the body. That it's possible to engage in the activity "safely" does not make it unnatural. There are a multitude of things you can do safely with the right equipment and measures taken that are simply not what our bodies are meant to do. This of course is not to say they are all sinful.

Are you referring primarily to the political debate on the subject? Because there are plenty of Christians (myself included) who think that the attraction aspect ought not to be completely ignored (among believers that is).

I didn't say anything about it being completely ignored. However, it's not the primary problem. Also, given the location of this thread, I would think it's rather obvious that weight is more towards the political end. Not that I wish to exclude theological discussion, but that for anything in depth it's probably better to do a thread in an area more suited to such.

[Starlight]

Same sex sexual activity could be argued to be inherently harmful like eating certain non-food items.

You're welcome to try to make such an argument. You'll fail abysmally of course, because it's obviously false.

[Cerebrum123]

You're welcome to try to make such an argument. You'll fail abysmally of course, because it's obviously false.

I was explaining what the argument is. I'll leave this particular one to the others here. They have the experience with this argument, that I don't. Here's a hint though, not everything done by wild animals is "natural", so appeals to the animal kingdom will fail here.

[Starlight]

appeals to the animal kingdom will fail here.

...and just when I was getting ready to appeal the case to the Lion King too. :(

I was explaining what the argument is.

I agree that that is what the argument ought to be: Whether same-sex activity or marriage is "inherently harmful" is the crucial question. And the crucial answer is: It isn't.

We're now up to ~50 court cases in the US alone where the judges have looked at the scientific evidence and said (my paraphrase) "same sex marriage is not harmful, but denying it to people is harmful, because it harms the couples that it is denied to and it harms the children of those couples." The Supreme Court has already clearly indicated that it's going to rule the same way in June. In the course of all this, the anti-marriage crowd have totally failed to show any single harm at all that is caused by allowing same sex marriage. For me, reading the legal submissions has been quite eye-opening: It's been quite astonishing how weak the case is against same-sex marriage - the arguments against it amount to absolutely nothing.

[fm93]

The dictionary has both as part of the primary definition. So to try and exclude one as the only meaning doesn't seem right to me.

gay
[gey]
Spell Syllables
Word Origin
adjective, gayer, gayest.
1.
of, relating to, or exhibiting sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex; homosexual:
a gay couple.
Antonyms: straight.

Fair enough, then, but it's still inaccurate to automatically conflate the term with behavior alone.

From a Biblical perspective all sin is harmful to an individual. Homosexual sex that is not repented of is explicitly listed as something that cuts people off from the Kingdom of God. It's also listed as something that can be gotten past(1 Corinthians 6:11).

I agree with the first sentence, but as you might've guessed, the reason I have no issue with same-sex marriage is precisely that I don't believe homosexual sex is necessarily harmful. You appear to be inferring that homosexual sex must be harmful because you accept the premise that it's sinful from traditional scriptural interpretations, whereas I'm starting with an observation that it's not necessarily harmful and thereby inferring that it's not necessarily sinful.

We also need certain metals in our diet, so to say it's "inherently harmful" ignores certain things about biology. I mean, iron, copper, zinc, etc are all metals, but are necessary for bodily function. Glass could also pass through the digestive tract with no harm if it were done right, and sturdy enough not to break.

Hmm...I'm no medical expert, but I'm unconvinced that glass can actually pass through the digestive tract with no harm. And it's true that we do need certain metals, but aren't people with pica disorder consuming those substances in much larger quantities than is healthy?

The abstinent ones seem to be an extremely small portion, and this is of an already very small population of people to begin with.

But even if this is true, it's merely an issue of number/subcultural norms. That is, there's no inherent reason that large numbers of gay people supposedly aren't abstinent or monogamous, and no inherent reason that large numbers couldn't eventually choose abstinence and monogamy.

Besides, I admit that currently this is just conjecture, but I suspect that higher rates of abstinence and monogamy among straight people are due in large part to Christian traditions pervading our culture, even among secular folks. But I also suspect that gay people are less likely to hold to Christian-based traditions precisely because so many Christians have made them believe that being gay and being Christian are incompatible. If the church had consistently preached from the beginning that the two can go hand-in-hand, I figure that abstinence and monogamy rates would be much higher within the gay community.

How? There are ways you can eat metals and glass without causing yourself harm.

Well, yes, we can--we're supposed to--eat metals without causing ourselves harm, but a healthy amount is only a few milligrams per day. How exactly can people with pica do so while consuming far more than that?

However the majority of the time you are causing long term side effects by doing that which is unnatural uses for the body. That it's possible to engage in the activity "safely" does not make it unnatural.

This is a new one. Ordinarily I hear "that it's possible to engage in the activity safely essentially does make it natural, but being natural doesn't make it right." If our physical nature is capable of engaging in it without causing immediate harm, how is it unnatural? I thought being unnatural was essentially defined by the presence of immediate harm.

There are a multitude of things you can do safely with the right equipment and measures taken that are simply not what our bodies are meant to do. This of course is not to say they are all sinful.

So what non-scriptural reasons are there that homosexual sex wouldn't also apply? And what non-scriptural reasons for the homosexual aspect itself? Straight couples can safely engage in anal sex, for instance, but I've never heard anyone argue that such an act is sinful when done within the context of committed straight relationships. Straight couples can perform oral sex on each other, and I've never heard anyone argue that the act in such a context is sinful.

[Starlight]

Straight couples can safely engage in anal sex, for instance, but I've never heard anyone argue that such an act is sinful when done within the context of committed straight relationships. Straight couples can perform oral sex on each other, and I've never heard anyone argue that the act in such a context is sinful.

I've come across quite a few Christians who take it for granted that anal sex is sinful even in the context of a heterosexual marriage and who are deeply suspicious of oral sex too. I suspect that this is because older Bible translations used the word "sodomy" in 1 Cor 6:9-10 and the word sodomy used to be regularly understood to refer to oral and anal sex or just anal sex. These people seem to take it for granted that Lev 18 & 20 bans male-male anal sex and that the reason it does so is because anal sex is unchristian, period.

The amusing thing is that the older generation that holds this view has, by and large, failed to pass it on to younger Christians, because 'some things just shouldn't be talked about'. As a result, a lot of younger evangelicals simply don't realize that some of the older people in their congregation think anal or oral sex is sinful. Even zealously Christian young people will therefore happily engage in those sexual acts within their Christian heterosexual marriages without having any idea that they 'shouldn't', and the older people will simply assume that of course no Christians at their church would ever do such things. The results can be amusing when older evangelical Christians start ranting about homosexuality in front of younger evangelical Christians and some comment about the horrors of anal sex gets made...

It's worth bearing in mind that the "missionary position" is called what it is for a reason: Some Christians are just really obsessed with the intricacies of other people's sex lives and making sure everyone is having sex in the right position. None of this heathen doggy-style nonsense!

There's also a startling tendency for conservatives to equate gay sex with anal sex. But surveys show that only about a third of male-male gay couples regularly do anal sex, so the idea that gay sex = anal sex is only true for about 1/6th of same-sex couples. The percentage of young opposite-sex couples who have tried anal sex is much higher than that according to surveys.

[hamster]

There are more abstinent gay people than people realize. It's not a large population compared to non-abstinent gays but we do exist. You never hear about us because we're not politically useful to the right groups.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the attractions

Depends on what you mean when you say "attractions." If you mean feelings that appreciate someone's beauty which leads to feelings of affection I guess I agree...but it's still the result of a malfunctioning system somewhere in the brain and/or body and can lead to bad decisions. Hormones, serotonin, dopamine, etc. can make you "drunk" if you're not careful. It is a very frustrating and painful experience to have feelings which can go nowhere like a train running into a brick wall.

[Starlight]

The point, obviously (as if you didn't know), is that one characteristic of a disorder is replacing a natural desire with something unnatural.

No, that's only the criteria of mental disorders in your vivid imagination, and you just made it up. It has nothing whatsoever in common with any definition of mental disorders that are actually used by professionals, which typically focus on whether harm is being caused to the person or others.

Even if you prescribe to a wholly naturalistic moral philosophy, it's impossible to argue that homosexuality is not unnatural for the simple reason that males and females are physically compatible in a way that two males and two females are not.

My wholly naturalistic moral philosophy is: Treat others well. Your word "unnatural" has no relevance whatsoever... why would the morality of anything whatsoever have anything to do with its "naturalness" or otherwise? The computer I'm typing this on is very unnatural indeed.

[Darth Executor]

No, that's only the criteria of mental disorders in your vivid imagination, and you just made it up. It has nothing whatsoever in common with any definition of mental disorders that are actually used by professionals, which typically focus on whether harm is being caused to the person or others.

That definition was specifically made up to exclude things like homosexuality, but even under that definition homosexuality is harmful so it doesn't matter.

[Darth Executor]

Not sure how pica disorder is relevant to this. Eating metal and glass is inherently harmful; having attractions to people of the same sex is not.

In pica disorder your digestive system is disrupted by your inability to properly identify food. Same with homosexuality and reproduction. And I'm fairly sure AIDS and ruptured colons are both harmful. Like with pica, homosexuals can avoid harm by not engaging in the behavior that their brain demands (eating glass and having sex with 5 strangers in your nearest truck stop bathroom, respectively) but that doesn't change the reality that their brains are malfunctioning.

[Mountain Man]

No, that's only the criteria of mental disorders in your vivid imagination, and you just made it up. It has nothing whatsoever in common with any definition of mental disorders that are actually used by professionals, which typically focus on whether harm is being caused to the person or others.

So a man who thinks he is a dog is not considered to have a mental disorder so long as he is not harming himself or others? How about someone who thinks he hears voices from his television compelling to him to run around his house once an hour but is otherwise harmless? Does he have a mental disorder? How about someone who can't walk past a lightswitch without flipping it up and down five times? Is that a mental disorder? How about someone who fantasizes about having sex with children but doesn't act on it? Does he or she have a mental disorder?

Your notion of what is and is not a psychological disorder is unreasonably narrow.