You're telling me that you have chosen to be heterosexual? No offense to you, but that suggests sexual ambivalence to me. You are what you are. Do you believe a schizophrenic chooses to be schizophrenic? Does a depressed person choose to be depressed? Does a black man choose to be black?
You think “love” is being able to place a body organ somewhere
careful now. We're not exchanging insults here, we're just exchanging ideas in order to better understand reality. I love my girlfriend. Enough said.
How can I refute your main point that homosexuals can not change their orientation, when even Kinsey (the deviant that he was) said that homosexuality is fluid.
If you accept the Kinsey scale than you must accept that true homosexual identity is immutable. I personally do not 100% accept the Kinsey scale. I contend that there are not degrees of homosexuality but, rather, degrees of homosexual repression.
Also, you dismiss all the homosexuals who do change, as denying their “nature” and although they “pretend” to be heterosexual now, they are not.
There is no conclusive, unbiased, scientific body of evidence to suggest that conversion therapy is effective, real, healthy, or ethical. What's more, stories of successful conversion ignore the fact that social stigma creates a strong impulse in the homosexual's mind to believe he/she has changed or can change. There are numerous stories of homosexuals who claimed to have successfully converted only to later recant.
Like I say...history shows orientation to be learned...The boys who are raped have fantasies...
and like I said, physical/psychological torture will certainly explain abnormal psychosocial/psychosexual development in the adolescent.
You really need to read Aristotle...the Father of Logic
you have peddled your fair share of logical fallacies and anecdotal evidence here as well. Considering that there isn't any conclusive scientific evidence one way or the other, it is forgivable.
Psychologists have said that orientation has a lot to do with the initiation into the sexual act.
Right, this is absolutely consistent with what I have been saying all along-once the taboo idol has been touched without consequence, the desire to touch the taboo idol again grows; however, the question is, does the violation of the taboo prohibition merely stimulate an already ambivalent mind into acting? Freud says yes, that taboo violations are human constructions created to inhibit human proclivities.
You also never address NAMBLA’s motto...
and why would I? I have already conceded that corruptive acts will corrupt development, especially in children who are known to be sexually ambivalent in the first place. This supports my position that the perceived violation of social taboos without divine consequence by sexually ambivalent subjects breaks down the inhibitory wall that prevented the subject from acting on his/her desirable yet undesirable impulses. I hypothesize that pornography is a far deeper root cause of homosexuality than child molestation at least in western society. Having said that, once the die is cast, there's no going back but that is my opinion which is based on the complete lack of evidence to suggest otherwise. Having said that, It seems unethical and immoral to punish such an individual for being who he or she is. I think the only reason it is done is to punish the taboo violator in order to strengthen the taboo prohibition in order to deny one's own ambivalence. this is why the loudest voices in opposition to homosexuality are frequently found to be closet homosexuals themselves, they are clearly compensating. Look at Larry Craig for instance. His voting record was loudly anti-homosexual but his behavior was quite the opposite. There is no shortage of similar incidents.
Your continued idolization of Freud’s viewpoint is troubling. Not only has his theory been proven to be fraudulent...he is said to have been abused as a child.
We seem to be saying something similar, though. Culture (taboos, etc.) form the thinking and the actions of people and the ideas of right and wrong in the society. Take away the taboos and you take away incentive to do the good thing. Human nature is selfish, unlike Rousseau would claim, so, there is a need to put moral restraint on actions....or you would have Darwin’s world—survival of the fittest. Lord of the Flies defines the world with no rules pretty well. Even Freud acknowledged the need for restraint of the powerful sex drive.
You are telling me that nature goes against nature and creates homosexuals “naturally”. I say that is nonsense. There is no logic to it. It is humanly constructed by child abuse...either emotional or/and physical. There are no “normal” children born with a desire to copulate with dogs, babies, men, cadavers, etc. They are abnormal desires that are elicited by the environment.
Normal development does orient one to the opposite sex, unless interfered with by abuse, etc. There are no animals in nature that are homosexual—only in environments which were interfered or/and contaminated by man. One result of severe deprivation from maternal care is homosexuality which also exhibits many other antisocial acts.
I guess you are telling me that YES, homosexuality can be caused in someone who would have normally been heterosexual...That, of course, is obvious by all the males that were sexually abused as boys. You think that they were “born” with that orientation maybe anyhow??? Right. And a person is born with the orientation for babies or other orifices. Give me a break. That is so irrational to think that people are designed to use their bodies in destructive ways. I say NO. Never! You are deluded. It goes against Natural Law Theory and Aquinas! By your logic a rooster can be born to copulate with another rooster. Right...nature would really do that? Hmmmm, maybe it is environmentally caused...or learned. Pavlov could have made the rooster do unnatural acts, I am sure. Then that is a fact....you can condition people also.
True, when children have their sexual identity perverted, it is extremely difficult to combat. I agree with that but I disagree that orientation can’t be changed. It has and has been successful in thousands of cases. Of course, it is not 100% successful. Nothing really ever is and human nature is weak.
That a society has to have restraints on sexual acts...is a given if there is to be a civil society where people have the freedom to raise a healthy family.
Homosexuality should never be endorsed by a society because it destroys all sexual morality. Slippery Slope, you know. If you can say nothing is “wrong” with a homosexual act, then there is no sexual act which can be classified as “evil”. You take us off of the moral understanding of Natural Law Theory which always presupposed a Supreme Being and designer. You give us a Marxist man-creating value system, no longer based on truth. Laws that are just based on the whim who has the power...another nasty slippery slope.
It is very arrogant of you to think your “thinking” on homosexuality is so much more profound and correct, than the thousands of years of Theology and Psychology, and some of the most profound thinkers in history. You really should read the Pope’s encyclical on Love and Marriage. It goes much deeper than physical acts anyway—it unites the body and soul. Homosexual acts ignores the soul, and destroys the body. That is ok for an atheist society, I guess. But you only get totalitarianism in atheist countries and all sorts of inhumanity because there is no moral order.
Anyway....I don’t have any more time to post so I guess this is it. Good luck with you reading.