Craig and homosexuality

Corke · **#102** by **Corke** » Oct 12, 2012 5:37 am

Lion IRC wrote:
THWOTH wrote:

...Do you think a 'gay cure' is good thing Lion, and if so why?

Yes, for a person who wanted to modify their own sexual behaviour, porn ''addiction'', sex ''addiction'', sex ''aversion'', etc...

How many times does it need to be said? BEHAVIOUR AND SEXUALITY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!!!

I despise homophobes. They're people who willingly ostracize members of society based on nothing more than the way they were born. Something they can't change. Homophobes are as bad as racists.

Lion IRC wrote:
Everyone here knows how long the list of various types of sexual behaviour goes on for. (No need for an alphabetic list.)

And we all know that HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT ON THAT LIST!!!

Lion IRC wrote:
The point I'm making is, people can and do decide to seek medical help to change to and from wanted/unwanted sexual behaviour. Why shouldnt they? Hands up everyone who is pro-choice here?

Because it's not really their choice. They've rather been pressured into it by the society around them. If someone came up to me and said, "Hey, Corke, you like girls, don't you? Let's see if we can change that," I'd tell them to fuck off.

Why the fuck would a gay person want to change their sexuality? Apart from the existence of people like you, who hate them because of who they are.

Lion IRC wrote:
Now, if they can exercise choice, volition, free-will, decision-making in the matter of voluntarily seeking professional,
science-based, medical therapy to cure sex-addiction for example,

But they wouldn't make that choice. Because it's such a shitty choice to make.

Lion IRC wrote:
how can anyone argue the..."born that way'' opposite line of reasoning, that same person has no choice?

You appear to have completely ignored Cali's posts. You know, the one where he lists animals that exhibit homosexual behaviour. And then brings in a paper detailing observations of male insects mating with other male insects.

Lion IRC wrote:
The ability to deliberate and choose to contact a sex therapist proves that you CAN exercise choice.

It's not a choice anyone is willing to make. If there was counseling that could potentially make me gay, why would I go for it?

Lion IRC wrote:
This is yet another reason I am very skeptical of the claim that nobody can choose their sexual preference.

So, Lion, did you decide one day that you were going to be attracted to female humans? If so, name the day. Must have been a very important day, so I doubt you forgot.

Lion IRC · **#103** by **Lion IRC** » Oct 12, 2012 5:55 am

Corke wrote:
Lion IRC wrote:
THWOTH wrote:

...Do you think a 'gay cure' is good thing Lion, and if so why?

Yes, for a person who wanted to modify their own sexual behaviour, porn ''addiction'', sex ''addiction'', sex ''aversion'', etc...

How many times does it need to be said? BEHAVIOUR AND SEXUALITY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!!!

I dont think just "saying it'' over and over is getting you very far.

Corke wrote:...I despise homophobes. They're people who willingly ostracize members of society based on nothing more than the way they were born. Something they can't change. Homophobes are as bad as racists.

Thats the difference between you and me. I dont dispise anyone.

Corke wrote:
Lion IRC wrote:
Everyone here knows how long the list of various types of sexual behaviour goes on for. (No need for an alphabetic list.)

And we all know that HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT ON THAT LIST!!!

...says the person who goes on to remind us of Cali's blurred line between animal and human sexual behaviour.

Corke wrote:You appear to have completely ignored Cali's posts. You know, the one where he lists animals that exhibit homosexual behaviour. And then brings in a paper detailing observations of male insects mating with other male insects.

I specifically wanted to avoid any animal references.

Fenrir · **#104** by **Fenrir** » Oct 12, 2012 6:04 am

Lion IRC wrote:
THWOTH wrote:

...Do you think a 'gay cure' is good thing Lion, and if so why?

Yes, for a person who wanted to modify their own sexual behaviour, porn ''addiction'', sex ''addiction'', sex ''aversion'', etc...

Everyone here knows how long the list of various types of sexual behaviour goes on for. (No need for an alphabetic list.)

The point I'm making is, people can and do decide to seek medical help to change to and from wanted/unwanted sexual behaviour. Why shouldnt they? Hands up everyone who is pro-choice here?

Now, if they can exercise choice, volition, free-will, decision-making in the matter of voluntarily seeking professional,
science-based, medical therapy to cure sex-addiction for example, how can anyone argue the..."born that way'' opposite line of reasoning, that same person has no choice? The ability to deliberate and choose to contact a sex therapist proves that you CAN exercise choice.

This is yet another reason I am very skeptical of the claim that nobody can choose their sexual preference.

Even if sexual preference was a conscious choice, whether for a minority or not, how would this impact on the right of people to do whatever the fuck they choose to do in the privacy of their own lives which does not impact on anyone else?

Even, and all the evidence says otherwise, even if the majority of people with sexual preferences outside the norm had some ability to choose, and even if they wanted to choose, how would that make it anyone else's business. How would that confer a right to others to judge and to insist on a single dogmatically applied model?

How would the pathetic "choice" strawman, even if it was true, which it isn't, how would that imply any basis for vilifying homosexuality?

It wouldn't, and this snarky implication that it would is beneath contempt.

Thomas Eshuis · **#105** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Oct 12, 2012 6:28 am

Lion IRC wrote:
Corke wrote:
Lion IRC wrote:
THWOTH wrote:

...Do you think a 'gay cure' is good thing Lion, and if so why?

Yes, for a person who wanted to modify their own sexual behaviour, porn ''addiction'', sex ''addiction'', sex ''aversion'', etc...

How many times does it need to be said? BEHAVIOUR AND SEXUALITY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!!!

I dont think just "saying it'' over and over is getting you very far.

Yet you seem to operate under the delusion that if you insinuate the opposite over and over it will get you somewhere.. :coffee:

Lion IRC wrote:
Corke wrote:...I despise homophobes. They're people who willingly ostracize members of society based on nothing more than the way they were born. Something they can't change. Homophobes are as bad as racists.

Thats the difference between you and me. I dont dispise anyone.

No, you're just actively seek to infringe upon their lives for no good reason.

Thomas Eshuis · **#106** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Oct 12, 2012 6:32 am

Lion IRC wrote:
THWOTH wrote:

...Do you think a 'gay cure' is good thing Lion, and if so why?

Yes, for a person who wanted to modify their own sexual behaviour, porn ''addiction'', sex ''addiction'', sex ''aversion'', etc...

You were asked if a 'gay cure' is a good thing, not if a cure for hindering sexual behaviour is a good thing.

Lion IRC wrote:Everyone here knows how long the list of various types of sexual behaviour goes on for. (No need for an alphabetic list.)

The point I'm making is, people can and do decide to seek medical help to change to and from wanted/unwanted sexual behaviour. Why shouldnt they? Hands up everyone who is pro-choice here?

Because homosexuality is a sexual orientation: an attraction, not a specific form of behaviour. A point, which seems, we need to keep reminding you of.

Lion IRC wrote:This is yet another reason I am very skeptical of the claim that nobody can choose their sexual preference.

Depends on what preference you're talking about. Homosexuality on the other hand is just that: a sexuality, not a preference.

Corke · **#107** by **Corke** » Oct 12, 2012 8:26 am

Lion IRC wrote:
Corke wrote:
Lion IRC wrote:
THWOTH wrote:

...Do you think a 'gay cure' is good thing Lion, and if so why?

Yes, for a person who wanted to modify their own sexual behaviour, porn ''addiction'', sex ''addiction'', sex ''aversion'', etc...

How many times does it need to be said? BEHAVIOUR AND SEXUALITY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!!!

I dont think just "saying it'' over and over is getting you very far.

Ah. I see. So, you're saying homosexuals are heterosexuals deep down, they just have a bad habit of falling in love with people of the same gender? Yes or no?

Lion IRC wrote:
Corke wrote:...I despise homophobes. They're people who willingly ostracize members of society based on nothing more than the way they were born. Something they can't change. Homophobes are as bad as racists.

Thats the difference between you and me. I dont dispise anyone.

Play the martyr card, Lion, see how far it gets you here.

Lion IRC wrote:
Corke wrote:
Lion IRC wrote:
Everyone here knows how long the list of various types of sexual behaviour goes on for. (No need for an alphabetic list.)

And we all know that HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT ON THAT LIST!!!

...says the person who goes on to remind us of Cali's blurred line between animal and human sexual behaviour.

You have just reminded me that you are in dire need of an education.

Humans are animals. Wrap your brain round that concept, because it is scientific fact.

Cali is not in error, here. Your attempt to portray his post as such is duplicitous and mendacious.

Lion IRC wrote:
Corke wrote:You appear to have completely ignored Cali's posts. You know, the one where he lists animals that exhibit homosexual behaviour. And then brings in a paper detailing observations of male insects mating with other male insects.

I specifically wanted to avoid any animal references.

And why is that? By referencing humans, you are referencing animals, since humans are animals.

Paul · **#108** by **Paul** » Oct 12, 2012 8:39 am

Lion IRC wrote:
Corke wrote:...I despise homophobes. They're people who willingly ostracize members of society based on nothing more than the way they were born. Something they can't change. Homophobes are as bad as racists.

Thats the difference between you and me. I dont dispise anyone.

At least Corke is open and honest about his feelings towards homophobes.

I despise the sort of people who constantly repeat and defend false claims about people, the sort of lies that lead in many places to groups of people not only suffering discrimination, but hatred and persecution, all 'justified' by their church.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19881905

Fallible · **#109** by **Fallible** » Oct 12, 2012 9:34 am

Lion IRC wrote:
THWOTH wrote:

...Do you think a 'gay cure' is good thing Lion, and if so why?

Yes, for a person who wanted to modify their own sexual behaviour, porn ''addiction'', sex ''addiction'', sex ''aversion'', etc...

Everyone here knows how long the list of various types of sexual behaviour goes on for. (No need for an alphabetic list.)

The point I'm making is, people can and do decide to seek medical help to change to and from wanted/unwanted sexual behaviour. Why shouldnt they? Hands up everyone who is pro-choice here?

Now, if they can exercise choice, volition, free-will, decision-making in the matter of voluntarily seeking professional,
science-based, medical therapy to cure sex-addiction for example, how can anyone argue the..."born that way'' opposite line of reasoning, that same person has no choice? The ability to deliberate and choose to contact a sex therapist proves that you CAN exercise choice. This is yet another reason I am very skeptical of the claim that nobody can choose their sexual preference.

No therapist in this country worth their salt as a member of a professional body will attempt to give anyone 'conversion therapy', since the WHO has found it, and I quote, to 'have no medical indication and represent[s] a severe threat to the health and human rights of the affected persons', and therapists have been very clearly told, and I quote, that 'the BACP opposes psychological treatment such as 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality is a mental disorder, or based on the premise that the client should change his/her sexuality'.

I've come to expect wriggling from your posts Lion, but just what do you think you achieve by actively ignoring lengthy explanations of how you are wrong, only to go on and repeat the mistakes? You've been told the difference between homosexuality and unwanted sexual behaviour. I suspect that this post of yours is even more dishonest than usual, although I'm not certain, since I don't often have the time or patience to read your drivel since I worked out what it usually amounts to some years back.

Fallible · **#110** by **Fallible** » Oct 12, 2012 9:44 am

Lion IRC wrote:
Corke wrote:
Lion IRC wrote:
THWOTH wrote:

...Do you think a 'gay cure' is good thing Lion, and if so why?

Yes, for a person who wanted to modify their own sexual behaviour, porn ''addiction'', sex ''addiction'', sex ''aversion'', etc...

How many times does it need to be said? BEHAVIOUR AND SEXUALITY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!!!

I dont think just "saying it'' over and over is getting you very far.

Nothing anyone says is going to get them very far in the face of such stubborn ignorance. That is no reflection on the ones saying it.

Corke wrote:...I despise homophobes. They're people who willingly ostracize members of society based on nothing more than the way they were born. Something they can't change. Homophobes are as bad as racists.

Thats the difference between you and me. I dont dispise anyone.

I for one don't care what your personal feelings are. When you use them to talk shit to others, then I do.

Corke wrote:
Lion IRC wrote:
Everyone here knows how long the list of various types of sexual behaviour goes on for. (No need for an alphabetic list.)

And we all know that HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT ON THAT LIST!!!

...says the person who goes on to remind us of Cali's blurred line between animal and human sexual behaviour.

You also totally ignored my post, which detailed why the two things are different. Predicatbly you ignored that, preferring to give a glib one-liner and then go straight back to the durr-brained comments you'd already been educated about.

Corke wrote:You appear to have completely ignored Cali's posts. You know, the one where he lists animals that exhibit homosexual behaviour. And then brings in a paper detailing observations of male insects mating with other male insects.

I specifically wanted to avoid any animal references.

You also specifically want to avoid anything that trashes your idiotic and bigoted views. No one cares what you want.

Shrunk · **#111** by **Shrunk** » Oct 12, 2012 10:22 am

Lion IRC wrote:Now, if they can exercise choice, volition, free-will, decision-making in the matter of voluntarily seeking professional, science-based, medical therapy to cure sex-addiction for example, how can anyone argue the..."born that way'' opposite line of reasoning, that same person has no choice? The ability to deliberate and choose to contact a sex therapist proves that you CAN exercise choice.

This is yet another reason I am very skeptical of the claim that nobody can choose their sexual preference.

You're mixing up two different forms of "choice". Anyone can choose to try to get "therapy" to change something about themselves. That doesn't mean that they should do this, or that if they do it will work.

Someone can choose to take antibiotics for a case of pneumonia. They could also choose to enter a form of therapy to change their racial identity to one that is less subject to racial discrimination . One is "professional, science based, medical therapy", the other isn't. But both can be "chosen".

You really need to grasp the difference between sexual behaviour and sexual orientation. I can't believe you don't understand this yet.

Also, "Reparative therapy" for sexual orientation is not "science-based" but "science-debunked."

Kazaman · **#112** by **Kazaman** » Oct 12, 2012 11:03 am

Here's a question for you @LionIRC , which I ask not to trap you or provide the basis of a rant, but out of genuine curiosity and an inability to grasp what you espouse. What is it about homosexuality that makes it undesirable in the same way as sexual addiction?

THWOTH · **#113** by **THWOTH** » Oct 12, 2012 12:11 pm

Lion IRC wrote:
THWOTH wrote:

...Do you think a 'gay cure' is good thing Lion, and if so why?

Yes, for a person who wanted to modify their own sexual behaviour, porn ''addiction'', sex ''addiction'', sex ''aversion'', etc...

That would seem to suggest that a homosexual male has a 'man addiction' and a homosexual female a 'woman addiction,' and that kind of sounds like a clinical, or psychological judgement. And yet, I presume, you would shy away from flatly declaring homosexuality a clinical or psychological dysfunction - would you? And if you do shy away from such a flat declaration then why do you think a clinical or psychological approach to curing gayfulship should be attempted on those grounds? Wouldn't attempting to modify peoples sexual proclivities by clinical and/or psychological means in circumstances where the individual was not clinically and/or psychologically diagnosed as dysfunctional amount to a kind of torture - even if the individual had either volunteered or actively sought out and paid for the cure?

Lion IRC wrote:Everyone here knows how long the list of various types of sexual behaviour goes on for. (No need for an alphabetic list.)

The point I'm making is, people can and do decide to seek medical help to change to and from wanted/unwanted sexual behaviour. Why shouldnt they? Hands up everyone who is pro-choice here?

I have a slight problem with this, not least because it implies an implicit definition of homosexuality not as description of gender attraction but as a action, as behaviour, and specifically a dysfunctional behaviour that warrants clinical intervention. I know you couch this in terms of 'choice,' but even in those who might choose to partake of this proposed medical intervention to modify their behaviour the question still remains as to why an individual -- or anybody else -- might consider the expression of a specific gender attraction as a problematic, unwanted behaviour that could or should be curbed by medical intervention.

What is it the problem with the behaviour of homosexuals that might be deemed a an unwanted problem such that curbing that behaviour by medical intervention seems medically justified and justifiable?

Lion IRC wrote:Now, if they can exercise choice, volition, free-will, decision-making in the matter of voluntarily seeking professional,
science-based, medical therapy to cure sex-addiction for example, how can anyone argue the..."born that way'' opposite line of reasoning, that same person has no choice? The ability to deliberate and choose to contact a sex therapist proves that you CAN exercise choice.

This is yet another reason I am very skeptical of the claim that nobody can choose their sexual preference.

I understand you position, but I do not get any sense of why you think it is warranted.

Again you have declared a specific behaviour as something that some people can (and by implication should) choose to curb by some sort of therapeutic procedure. But 'therapy' pertains to healing, or relates to the medical treatment of a disease or condition. In your view a certain category of behaviour constitutes a medical condition which may require some form of cure via a therapeutic route. But is this always the case? Does the expression of this specific gender attraction, manifested in certain behaviours, always warrant therapeutic intervention, or are you saying that this is a valid and/or necessary option only for those who view such behaviour as an unwanted clinical problem?

I would very much like to know what you consider to be the essential medical problem with homosexual behaviour, beyond repeating the assertion that those who do have a problem with the behaviour should be allowed and/or encouraged to seek medical intervention to curb or cure it?

Shrunk · **#114** by **Shrunk** » Oct 12, 2012 12:43 pm

The other aspect of the question that LionIRC and his fellow apologists for homosexual bigotry keep overlooking is the ethical aspect. It might be possible for a doctor to, for instance, use some form of "therapy" to convince a Jew to become a Christian in order to make him more acceptable to society. But this would be considered highly unethical. Even if the Jewish person wanted such "therapy", the doctor would not be able to provide it.

Of course, that does not mean that other organizations are under similar restraints. While a health professional could not attempt such "therapy" a religious "professional" can do so. Similarly, religious organizations are free to demand that its members renounce their homosexuality in order to remain members. And I have no problem with that. Well, actually, I do have a problem, with it since it tends to shatter people's lives. But, as Lion says, people have the right to choose to destroy their own lives. And if religions want to continue this type of behaviour in order to further demonstrate to the world how irrelevant and destructive they are, I guess that's a potential benefit.

Simply put, health professionals have higher ethical standards that religious "professionals" Health professionals are not allowed to practice bigotry. Religious "professionals," OTOH, are free to do so. In many cases, in fact, it seems to be a requirement of the job.

CookieJon · **#115** by **CookieJon** » Oct 12, 2012 12:43 pm

Lion IRC wrote:Thats the difference between you and me. I dont dispise anyone.

How would a person who does despise homosexuals treat them differently to the way you have on this forum?

swiatlo · **#116** by **swiatlo** » Oct 12, 2012 1:01 pm

Cali and other give examples of animals displaying homosexual activity. This proves nothing, has no significance in recognizing that someone suffers from disorder. What could be normal for other species may not be normal for human kind. Second, because we do not heal animals, so should the same be apply to a human?
Talking about sex addiction, like any other addiction (hypersexuality) is a red herring. As if practicing homosexuality in moderation would make it OK. Again this has nothing to do with recognizing a disorder. Another analogy to illustrate that “straw man” would be necrophilia and coprophagia. Those are not OK, even when done in moderation. Yes, we do help people suffering from those disorders.
Another, third fallacy is the argument about people doing things in private and no one sees it, nor 3rd party suffers. This again does not change the classification of it. It still could be a disorder.
Yet another one is a talk about reasons people engage in therapy. Each of us have own motives, I don’t see an argument here about recognizing disorders and available therapies.
I look at definitions of other disorders: necrophilia, pedophilia, and others. Those are all described as sexual attractions, they all are disorders (Paraphilia). You insist homosexuality should be seen differently but I cannot see the reason for that.

Fallible · **#117** by **Fallible** » Oct 12, 2012 1:03 pm

Who cares.

CookieJon · **#118** by **CookieJon** » Oct 12, 2012 1:14 pm

swiatlo wrote:Cali and other give examples of animals displaying homosexual activity. This proves nothing, has no significance in recognizing that someone suffers from disorder. What could be normal for other species may not be normal for human kind. Second, because we do not heal animals, so should the same be apply to a human?
Talking about sex addiction, like any other addiction (hypersexuality) is a red herring. As if practicing homosexuality in moderation would make it OK. Again this has nothing to do with recognizing a disorder. Another analogy to illustrate that “straw man” would be necrophilia and coprophagia. Those are not OK, even when done in moderation. Yes, we do help people suffering from those disorders.
Another, third fallacy is the argument about people doing things in private and no one sees it, nor 3rd party suffers. This again does not change the classification of it. It still could be a disorder.
Yet another one is a talk about reasons people engage in therapy. Each of us have own motives, I don’t see an argument here about recognizing disorders and available therapies.
I look at definitions of other disorders: necrophilia, pedophilia, and others. Those are all described as sexual attractions, they all are disorders (Paraphilia). You insist homosexuality should be seen differently but I cannot see the reason for that.

Rumraket · **#119** by **Rumraket** » Oct 12, 2012 1:18 pm

swiatlo wrote:Cali and other give examples of animals displaying homosexual activity. This proves nothing, has no significance in recognizing that someone suffers from disorder. What could be normal for other species may not be normal for human kind. Second, because we do not heal animals, so should the same be apply to a human?
Talking about sex addiction, like any other addiction (hypersexuality) is a red herring. As if practicing homosexuality in moderation would make it OK. Again this has nothing to do with recognizing a disorder. Another analogy to illustrate that “straw man” would be necrophilia and coprophagia. Those are not OK, even when done in moderation. Yes, we do help people suffering from those disorders.
Another, third fallacy is the argument about people doing things in private and no one sees it, nor 3rd party suffers. This again does not change the classification of it. It still could be a disorder.
Yet another one is a talk about reasons people engage in therapy. Each of us have own motives, I don’t see an argument here about recognizing disorders and available therapies.
I look at definitions of other disorders: necrophilia, pedophilia, and others. Those are all described as sexual attractions, they all are disorders (Paraphilia). You insist homosexuality should be seen differently but I cannot see the reason for that.

You've been given plenty of reasons, such as homosexuals love each other and want to engage in consentual intercourse and partnership, which you can't claim is happening in cases of necrophilia, bestiality and pedophilia.

And you're the one insisting homosexuality should be seen differently from heterosexuals and I cannot see the reason for that, well, other than idiot religious bias. Hey it says in this old book that it's bad, so I'm going to keep people that love each other from having equal status as everyone else.

Shrunk · **#120** by **Shrunk** » Oct 12, 2012 1:25 pm

swiatlo wrote:You insist homosexuality should be seen differently but I cannot see the reason for that.

Let me help you out:

A man shakes a man's hand. Another man shakes a woman's hand. Why would one be considered "normal", and the other "disordered"?

A man physically assaults a woman. Another man physically assaults a man. Why would one one be considered acceptable, and the other unacceptable?

Whether an action is considered "normal" or "acceptable" has to do with the quality of the act itself, not the gender of the person who is the object of the act. Pedophilia, necrophilia and the other perversions you describe are considered unacceptable regardless of the gender of the other person (or cadaver) involved.

So if it is considered "normal" or "acceptable" for a man to engage in consensual sexual activity with an adult woman, then it should be considered "normal" and "acceptable" for a a man to engage in consensual sexual activity with an adult man.

Simple, isn't it?

Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Who is online