Replies

I’m quite familiar with what a false dichotomy is. I just don’t think that I presented one. Are you familiar with the term “false analogy?” I appreciate your effort to argue by analogy, and it makes sense up to a point, but all analogies fall short eventually. I could just as easily argue using the analogy of an extrovert, who might be quiet as a mouse while sitting in a library or courtroom, but is no less of an extrovert there.

I would agree that there is a difference between one who has acted on homosexual inclinations and one who has had them but has not acted. However, both are homosexuals, and they are fundamentally different from heterosexuals. Not only science recognizes this, but the Vatican and the Army, as well. Clearly, the Catholic church finds it necessary to distinguish between “heterosexuals,” “active homosexuals,” and those “with deep-seated homosexual tendencies” (even if they’ve never had sex). Who is excluded in ordination and military service? Both of the latter categories, or (in other words) “homosexuals.” In fact, someone who has had a same sex encounter in the past is qualified for both military service and the priesthood, as long as he is not a “homosexual” (meaning, a member of either of the latter two categories).

Clearly this distinction is a meaningful one for the Church, for the military, and I daresay for the marital satisfaction of a spouse. I don’t think I presented a false dichotomy — I am fairly certain that you’d choose someone who is attracted to women, rather than men, if you were choosing a husband for your daughter. I believe that this is likely implicit in the answer you provided.

It’s very clear that homosexual orientation is not a choice, except perhaps in some very unusual circumstances. Homosexual behavior is most certainly a choice. As for whether orientation is a psychosis or not, that’s largely a semantic game. Your arguments about genetics notwithstanding, a genotype does not have to confer a reproductive advantage specific to its bearer in order to persist. Creative evolutionists have found ways to explain the persistence of homosexuality. However, whether it is genetic or not does not have any bearing on whether it is a psychosis. After all, there is very strong evidence that schizophrenia, which is widely recognized as a psychotic condition, is largely genetic.

I’m quite familiar with what a false dichotomy is. I just don’t think that I presented one.

From one of your earlier posts: Do you seriously think that there’s no difference between a guy who has the hots for guys and one who has the hots for girls, as long as they’ve never had sex?

From my reply to you: Is there a difference between a guy who has the hots for sheep and one who has the hots for girls?

From one of your earlier posts: Would you distinguish between which one you’d want to marry your daughter? From another of my earlier posts: The reason I raised the issue of a false dichotomy is because you presented one, not I. In that spirit, I will answer your question thusly: I want a mentally and physically healthy, gainfully employed, committed Christian, man to marry my daughter.

The false dichotomy with which you presented me was a choice between perverted sexual practitioner and a sexually normal man as a husband for my daughter. Note that my selection specified neither of the choices you proffered. Therefore, since there was an option other than those you specified, you were guilty of a false dichotomy.

Are you familiar with the term “false analogy?” I appreciate your effort to argue by analogy, and it makes sense up to a point, but all analogies fall short eventually. I could just as easily argue using the analogy of an extrovert, who might be quiet as a mouse while sitting in a library or courtroom, but is no less of an extrovert there.

If you were not previously acquainted with the extrovert you cited above, and saw nothing of his or her behavior before you saw the person sitting quietly in the library or courtroom, how would you know he or she was an extrovert? Could you accurately predict that the person was going to engage in extroverted activity merely on seeing him or her so quietly seated? Your attempted analogy proves my point exactly, i.e., Homosexuality is defined by behavior… Being an extrovert or introvert is a mental proclivity that is completely unknown to any but its possessor absent some action. Similarly, having a homosexual attraction is completely unknown to any but its possessor absent some action.

I would agree that there is a difference between one who has acted on homosexual inclinations and one who has had them but has not acted. However, both are homosexuals, and they are fundamentally different from heterosexuals.

Yet again, I would ask you, are polygamists or prostitutes are fundamentally different those who practice monogamous sexual activities? I would, yet, again, also ask if someone merely wants to marry multiple women or sell sexual favors are those people polygamist and prostitutes? If you are going classify someone solely on the “feelings” that he or she has but does not act upon, then you are in the realm of mental illness descriptions, i.e., bi-polar, schizoid, etc. Is it your position that homosexual behavior practitioners are mentally ill, i.e., psychotic?

From an earlier post of mine: Any human behavior (excluding autonomic or instinctual responses) that is not voluntary is, by definition, a psychosis.

Therefore, homosexual behavior is either a voluntary choice or a psychosis.

Your earlier statement (… they [homosexuals] are fundamentally different from heterosexuals) is true only if you concede that homosexuality is a psychosis.

Not only science recognizes this, but the Vatican and the Army, as well. Clearly, the Catholic church finds it necessary to distinguish between “heterosexuals,” “active homosexuals,” and those “with deep-seated homosexual tendencies” (even if they’ve never had sex).

These same organizations find it necessary to distinguish between those with kleptomaniacal tendencies and those who have actually stolen. Is it your point to hold that homosexuality is a psychosis similar to kleptomania?

It’s very clear that homosexual orientation is not a choice, except perhaps in some very unusual circumstances.

I disagree with. However, I also maintain that whether or not your statement is true or false, it is irrelevant outside the bounds of mental health classifications.

Homosexual behavior is most certainly a choice.

At last, we agree.

As for whether orientation is a psychosis or not, that’s largely a semantic game.

I would agree with you except for a very important issue. Homosexual behavior activists have managed to get the term “sexual orientation” codified into anti-discrimination laws in a number of places. Additionally, they are using this stalking horse in an attempt to get homosexual practitioners accepted into the military. Therefore, it cannot be simply brushed off and ignored as largely a semantic game.

Your arguments about genetics notwithstanding, a genotype does not have to confer a reproductive advantage specific to its bearer in order to persist.

However, a genetic disorder that creates a reproductive dis- advantage specific to its bearer specifically as in no reproduction will persist only as a genetic disorder in the quantities of population similar to the disease I cited.

Creative evolutionists have found ways to explain the persistence of homosexuality.

Without facts and logic such are mere flights of fantasy and should be regarded as such.

However, whether it is genetic or not does not have any bearing on whether it is a psychosis. After all, there is very strong evidence that schizophrenia, which is widely recognized as a psychotic condition, is largely genetic.

Regardless, psychoses are treated and, in some cases, cured. Psychosis surfers are not given special rights nor permitted in the military service.