Replies

Excellent!

You really know your subject.

***Please do not confuse “sole purpose” with “primary purpose” or “natural purpose.”***

Your explaination makes a lot of sense.

On your second point:
***There are normal human beings who maintain a state of celibacy without detriment to their psyche.***

I wasn't refering to sexual intercourse, but to 'sexual activity'. I think we are at crossed purposes on this point. I wasn't clear. I am already assuming that the individual was celibate, but the difficulty comes with abstainance from any expulsion of fluid.
It's only the very devout religious who maintain any sort of total sexual abstainance, and that's achieved only with conciderable mental and emotional effort. It hardly relates to the standard homosexual.

I think that my general point is that even when an individual ceases 'intercourse' and any other sexual activity WITH another, they will still indulge privately with their own sexual imaginings, and be concidered celibate. This may be concidered to be harmless by society, but it is still a perpetuation of the condition.

***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.***

It's unrealistic to think that homosexual behavior would cease. But society can protect itself from those who it knows to have, and to have had, homosexual 'relations' by restricting the positions those individuals can have within society.
If an individual is known to have had homosexual interaction, then it is most likely that they will still have that desire, or 'inclination'.

My point through all this has been my concern that homosexuals should not be given direct access to those who can be influenced and harmed by it.
The reality is that the majority of homosexuals would totally resist any concept that their condition should be treated, and so the clear solution, in my opinion, is restricted access.

Excellent! … You really know your subject…. Your explanation makes a lot of sense.

Thank you.

On your second point:

There are normal human beings who maintain a state of celibacy without detriment to their psyche.

It's only the very devout religious who maintain any sort of total sexual abstinence, and that's achieved only with considerable mental and emotional effort…

You are incorrect. While it is certainly true that many who remain celibate do so for religious reasons, there are many who do so because of a personal moral code.

Nonetheless, let me address your point directly. Perhaps, those homosexual practitioners who wish to leave the lifestyle should be encouraged to explore the success that many ex-homosexuals have enjoyed with the support of religion and a religious support group, such as Operation Exodus. Additionally, a religious approach gives the would-be-ex-homosexual a strong moral code that can be internalized and relied upon.

If homosexuality is, as you have postulated in other posts, akin to an addiction, then a caring support group is essential. This principle has been demonstrated many times over. Beyond religious support groups such as Operation Exodus, there are secular support groups for homosexuals who want to leave the lifestyle. Among such support groups is PFOX. There are others potentially available, as well.

…It hardly relates to the standard homosexual… they will still indulge privately with their own sexual imaginings, and be considered celibate. This may be considered to be harmless by society, but it is still a perpetuation of the condition.

Your point is potentially valid, but it is more related to therapeutic reversal of the individual’s mental situation than to the concerns of society. Nonetheless, whatever legal activity any individual chooses to engage in the privacy their own home is not the business of society in general. As I noted earlier:

Security at the sacrifice of reasonable liberty is not worth it. All of life is a balance between conflicting rights, liberties, and responsibilities. The balance must be struck carefully.

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.

It's unrealistic to think that homosexual behavior would cease.

Unfortunately, you are probably correct, given the fact that the very word in English for homosexual activity, sodomy, comes from a record thousands of years old.

But society can protect itself from those who it knows to have, and to have had, homosexual 'relations' by restricting the positions those individuals can have within society.

A recent Supreme Court case ruled that homosexual acts committed in the privacy of the home are not properly subject to societal control. Therefore, your premise of “knowing those who engage, or have engaged, in homosexual relations” would be restricted to those who self-confess or have been convicted of engaging in a lewd, public homosexual act. As you can see, from a societal perspective, your postulated approach leaves a pretty large area (from a societal view) of potentially “unknowable,” homosexual activity. Consequently, beyond the potentially unlawful, liberty restrictions such an approach implies, it would be feckless against those who keep their mouths shut and don’t get caught publicly.

If an individual is known to have had homosexual interaction, then it is most likely that they will still have that desire, or 'inclination'.

You may correct. However, from our society’s view of personal liberty and individual rights, one can not be presumed guilty of an act before they have committed it.

My point through all this has been my concern that homosexuals should not be given direct access to those who can be influenced and harmed by it.

Your concern is valid based upon a history of case studies. A private employer can potentially put in place certain protective procedures (assuming that pointless additions to anti-discrimination codes for sexual orientation are kept out). However, no system is perfect and a determined adversary, intent on doing harm, will find ways to breach the system. The best that can hoped for is to deny access to the majority of those who would do harm.

Unfortunately, there is a large group of homosexual activists who are determined to force their lifestyle on society regardless of its detrimental impacts. Among other actions, these individuals adopt deceptive methods such as attempting to get the term “sexual orientation” incorporated into anti-discrimination codes. Such an action is ridiculous given, as we have discussed, that no internal, mental “orientation” can be known by someone other than its possessor absent some, overt action. If there is an action, then the term “orientation” is meaningless from a societal viewpoint.

The reality is that the majority of homosexuals would totally resist any concept that their condition should be treated, and so the clear solution, in my opinion, is restricted access.

You may be correct. However, restricted access would require some new laws and tougher enforcement of some current laws. Such actions would require a dedicated campaign to inform and convince society, at large, that homosexual activity is harmful beyond participating individual impacts. Unfortunately, a strong liberal bias in the media makes this type of effort difficult, if not impossible. Therefore, the only option remaining is for individuals to mount as many, one-on-one, anti-homosexual activity, information campaigns as possible. Additionally, as many homosexual practitioners as possible must be convinced that they can, and should, leave the lifestyle and such is, not only possible, but desirable from a personal perspective.