Replies

"If one accepts that the natural, normal function of the mouth is the ingestion of material sufficient to supply adequate nutrition and hydration, then uses of the mouth for other purposes such as kissing other people or consuming candy are, by definition, abnormal and therefore disfunctional."

I think that this is one of my main stumbling blocks here.
This discussion assumes that sexual activity os solely for the purpose of reproduction, and that recreation or any mental or emotional stimulus or satisfaction is not a reason or purpose for it.

If you accept that procreation is the sole purpose of sexual activity, then Lucky Dog's case is very strong and convincing. However, I'm not convinced that this is it's sole purpose.

My other point of question is as follows:

When a smoker manages to give up smoking, the alternative is to not smoke, which is the natural condition.

For a human being to totally give up sexual activity (masturbation, sexual excitement) isn't comparable, as the human natural function is to be sexually active in some way. The sexual expression is also connected to mental health, and is a basic human function.

The alternative that I feel you would propose would be to redirect it to normal sexual activity, directed towards the opposite sex.
Taking into account that it is possible that the error of same-sex attraction might, in many homosexuals, be a fixed condition in the brain that mental treatment cannot correct, the correction may only be able to go as far as containing the effects of the condition as opposes to curing it... in these cases.

This is an interesting discussion, but my own focus is really on how it impacts upon society, and how that can be contained and 'made safe' as far as possible.

If you accept that procreation is the sole purpose of sexual activity, then Lucky Dog's case is very strong and convincing. However, I'm not convinced that this is it's sole purpose.

Please do not confuse “sole purpose” with “primary purpose” or “natural purpose.” Heterosexual activity involves other natural purposes beneficial to procreation but not directly, biologically required. One of these beneficial, auxiliary, natural purposes is pair bonding through mutual love, intimacy and trust. The creation of a stable pair of heterosexual parents establishes the primary requisite of a loving and protective environment with proper role models for child rearing, another aid to perpetuation of the species.

My other point of question is as follows:

… sexual expression is also connected to mental health, and is a basic human function.

There are normal human beings who maintain a state of celibacy without detriment to their psyche. This state may be a religious requirement or just a personal moral requirement. Nonetheless, the existence of such individuals in a normal state of mental health logically defeats any argument that abstinence from sexual intercourse is necessarily detrimental to emotional and mental health.

The alternative that I feel you would propose would be to redirect it to normal sexual activity, directed towards the opposite sex.

Essentially, you are correct, although, as previously noted, abstinence is not excluded from the recommended alternatives.

Taking into account that it is possible that the error of same-sex attraction might, in many homosexuals, be a fixed condition in the brain that mental treatment cannot correct, the correction may only be able to go as far as containing the effects of the condition as opposes to curing it... in these cases.

Let’s examine your implied point from three perspectives:

First, from a societal perspective, it is the behavior of the individual that is the concern. If homosexual practitioners completely cease engaging in the activity, society’s requirements are satisfied as all of the detrimental impacts of such behavior disappear.

Second, from the perspective of the homosexual practitioner and/or those who feel a compulsion to engage in such activities, the problem appears not to be completely solved. However, given that it is possible to be mentally healthy with a life style of abstinence, the presence of a “fixed condition” and absence of a “cure,” become logically irrelevant provided the individual willfully controls his behavior.

Third, from the perspective of a mental health professional, an obsessive-compulsive behavior (i.e., one whose possessor cannot willfully control) can be treated with drugs, behavior modification therapy or institutionalization. Therefore, avenues of treatment are available satisfying the requirement for humane and compassionate alternatives to doing nothing for those cannot control their behavior.

This is an interesting discussion, but my own focus is really on how it impacts upon society, and how that can be contained and 'made safe' as far as possible.

From society’s “safety” perspective, the most acceptable course of action is for all homosexual behavior to completely cease. This goal can logically be achieved in one of two ways: homosexual practitioners can become celibate or engage only in heterosexual activity.