New York's Gay School

[spikegifted]

As the evidence you've provided actually categorized the different types of motivation to homosexuality, I'm using the same language as the arguments put up by your evidence. I'm happy to accept the forementioned categories as they're support by evidcence found in nature. As the evidence is a scientific paper, I'm applying my scientific analysis to the evidence to critique the conclusion.

I'm suggesting that in providing the above paper, you were hoping that I'd swept away by the 'overhelming' research. However, I'm not. Now that I've had a chance to read and digest the information and have had a chance to discuss it with someone who has knowledge and understanding of these things, the evidence is simply incomplete and does not support the one area that I do not agree with. However, if you're as open minded as I'm in dealing with these things, you'd also recognize the same fact and arrive at a similar conclusion. Instead, you've now reverted back to calling people who don't aggree with you as 'bigot'. Who's the 'bigot' here?

[DaBeeeenster]

I'm not calling you a bigot because your view differs from mine. I am calling you it because your position is bigotted.

Not only are you are intolerant of those who differ from yourself, not only do you make offensive remarks about homosexuals but you are also of the opinion that your attitudes should dictate to others how they should live their life when it has absolutely nothing to do you with you whatsoever.

You asked me for evidence and I have provided it. There are hundreds of studies detailing and documenting homosexuality in animals. It happens. The fact that you cant deal with that says more about your opinions than anything you have posted thus far.

[spikegifted]

Well, call it what you might, but when I asked of evidence, I was expecting conclusive findings that will convince me that my prior opinion was incorrect. However, what you managed to throw at me was a piece of scientific writing that, while well researched, offered inconclusive evidence and drew its conclusion based on that. Moreover, I'm not prepared to accept anybody's scientific writing with blind faith and to do otherwise is not only a demonstration of poor understanding how scientific process function but also demonstrate ignorance. While you've provided the evidence and I'm entirely entitle to subject my analysis to that evidence. If the arguments are so conclusive, it would have convinced me, scientifically (since it is a scientific paper).

Your attack of me, as a person, also demonstrated your ignorance and your own 'bigotted' position. All you have to do is read the paper you've pointed to with a clear, open and objective mind and you'd arrive at the conclusion similar that of mine. I guess when you went over your own evidence, you were blinded by your own subjectivity and fail to observe the obvious - not all forms of homosexuality are supported by evolutionary evidence and the one form not supported by any form evidence is the "gay-culture". If you can find on the paper any 'evidence' that supports "gay culture" in animals, please let me know.

I'm trying to conduct, with you, through this forum, an civilized and intellectually-given argument. I resent your name-calling tactics as a form of support for your side of the debate. It is both unacceptable and rude. Additionally, your tactics is simply a form of demeaning yourself and degrading this debate.

[DaBeeeenster]

So you are going back on your previous statement "Please enlight me what which (sic) type of mammals conduct homosexual activities" and replacing that with "Please enlighten me what which (sic) type of mammals conduct what I consider to be the type of homosexuality present in humans" or something similar?

Your smoke screen efforts will not work.

Let's get back to the original point. You stated that "at a biological level, homosexuality in mammals is an unnatural concept.". I have clearly shown this statement to be false. It is very natural and occurs throughout the animal kingdom.

So what is your reasoning? As I have stated, your position is based on an utter falsehood, and hence your reasoning is misplaced.

You state "While I have my opinion on certain things, I accept that we live in a free and open society and hence people have a freedom of choice."

You accept we live in a free and open society and hence have a freedom of choice, but only when that choice suits your own bigotted opinion. Homosexuals do not enjoy the same freedoms you grant yourself. This is clear prejudice.

[Anders]

Spikegifted
“… also against homosexuals gaining treatment that is different from heterosexuals.”
So you said this, but you didn’t actually mean it?

I don’t even believe your original premise that just because something is unnatural it is wrong, is a valid one. How do you define what is natural? Humans are natural beings, so things we do are natural. If you do believe that unnatural things are wrong, do you apply this consistently?

[spikegifted]

If you're not so blinded by your own anger, you'd notice that I've mentioned above that:

After reading the above mention paper, it has certainly opened my mind on the ‘evolutionary’ argument and the motivation towards homosexuality. However, I’m not prepared to accept that all forms of homosexuality are acceptable. I believe there are vital distinction between the different types of homosexuality and hence their level of acceptability in their given historical and cultural context.

So, I guess I'm so full of myself that I don't recognize I've been enlighted... or it is otherwise.

This is not a smoke screen. Have you read the paper in full and understood what it says? Let me guess, you know what you're talking about. In your lines of argument, you've demonstrated that you're about as unprepared to accept facts in the cold light of day as you've suggested I'm. My lines of reasoning is well documented above and if you've the time and energy, you're welcome to read it.

If you've forgotten already, I've either accepted or I'm prepare to accept the following:
- ‘effeminated’ men acting as female for heterosexual male (what can only be described as 'substitution');
- older men/younger men (as a form of dominant/subversive display or even a mentor/student relationship);
- and premarital homosexual relationships (as a form of 'training')

None of the participants of the above forms of homosexuality are exclusively homosexual and they're scientifically supported by either observations in mammals (and hence an evolutionary development) or by explanation in terms of biological developments in early life, by all the papers written referred in your evidence.

You've kindly used my own words: "hence people have a freedom of choice". I'm exercising my freedom of choice to not to accept "gay-culture" (the 4th kind of homosexuality observed in human beings). This form of homosexuality is not related to the above three and it is again, in the absence of any scientific evidence, a choice. People have their rights to choose what to do with their own lives, as long as it does not affect others, but it doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with their choice. (Just in case you've forgotten, this form of homosexuality is not observed in animals and hence it is not evolutionally evitable.) However, when it comes to a decision that will affect the lives of others, this choice will have its effect. In that case, I'm against allowing homosexual couples to adopt children (I've stated my reasoning in other posts).

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by Anders
“… also against homosexuals gaining treatment that is different from heterosexuals.”
So you said this, but you didn’t actually mean it?

I don’t even believe your original premise that just because something is unnatural it is wrong, is a valid one. How do you define what is natural? Humans are natural beings, so things we do are natural. If you do believe that unnatural things are wrong, do you apply this consistently?

Are you trying to suggest that I have a one-dimensional view of human nature and human relationships or are you trying to imply that you've such understanding?

No, I believe and practise equal treatment with heterosexuals and homosexuals. However, there're certain areas I cannot agree to: 'marriage', adoption of children and segregated institutions, etc. The first is because I don't believe 'marriage' is something that takes place between two individuals of the same sex. The second is that there's no proof homosexuals couple will not affect the psychological and social developments of their adopted children and the last is like having a segregated institutions for fat (or thin or left-handed or whatever you want to substitute) people.

If you want to see why I see one particular form of homosexuality as unnatural, and hence I'm against it, please refer my earlier post.

[Anders]

Just outlining that you say you believe in equality and it doesn’t appear that you practise it.

No I’m not interested in whether homosexuality is natural or not. I was asking you, why you believe that because something is unnatural it is wrong? If this is the case, do you see other unnatural things as wrong as well, i.e. do you apply you views consistency or just when it suits something you do not like? How do you define natural and unnatural? I think this is very hard to define.

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by Anders
No I’m not interested in whether homosexuality is natural or not. I was asking you, why you believe that because something is unnatural it is wrong? If this is the case, do you see other unnatural things as wrong as well, i.e. do you apply you views consistency or just when it suits something you do not like? How do you define natural and unnatural? I think this is very hard to define.

The subjects you're implying so broad that it is impossible to answer. Whatever I say, you'd pick something to try and contradict my answer and hence claim that I'm a hyprocrite.

If what you're referring above is limited to human behavior, biological and social developments, then the answer, on the whole, is yes. My believes are obviously being tested from time to time and it is impossible to know everything (I'm the first person to admit that I don't know everything, far from it) - e.g. the above mentioned paper has pointed out certain types of homosexuality have been found being practise in other primates and mammals, and I'm prepare to accept that these forms of practise are in effect extention of the evolutionary path - establishing of social order/hierarchy and mentoring. Moreover, I'm prepare to accept that due to particularities in early human biological developments, some males babies may become 'effeminated' which results in the biological and psychological developments of the said persons which result in homosexual tendencies and resultant practice of homosexual behavior. Yes, I have previously held incorrect views of most types of homosexuality and I'm prepare to say, I was wrong.

By all accounts, I'm perfectly happy to accept that I get things wrong if you can provide me with the evidence to the contrary - show me that humble pie and I'll eat. As far as I'm concern, there's no shame in being shown wrong - I learn something in every experience. However, until the evidence is there and it can withstand the vigor of objective analysis, I hold my own opinions.

[Anders]

This is ridiculous if you refuse to answer questions just because I might find fault with your arguments, maybe that could be because they are faulty?

So is your reasoning behind objecting to the remaining one type of homosexuality is because it’s not natural in human terms, yes or no? I think your answer is yes but I’d like to make sure I’m not wrong. The questions I asked were indeed difficult, as I said I don’t know the answer as to how to define natural, I wondered if you did. It’s pretty fundamental to your argument though should I be correct in my earlier question. The problem is you cannot in all logic object to homosexuality because it is unnatural, if you don’t also object to other “unnatural” things. I was suggesting that objecting to something because it’s “unnatural” is flawed, it’s the same as saying it’s not “normal”.

Yep, nobody knows everything. I believe we all learn from our mistakes. I wasn’t questioning that. At least on that we share the same views. Also, it’d be a weird, probably not very free world if we all agreed on everything.

[DaBeeeenster]

Spikegifted, two questions.

1. What is your opinion on IVF?
2. What are, in your opinion, the "psychological and social developments" that could be affected by having homosexual parents?

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
1. What is your opinion on IVF?
2. What are, in your opinion, the "psychological and social developments" that could be affected by having homosexual parents?

1) IVF...

(It's not directly related, but I'll entertain the question anyway.) I'm against IVF, artificial insemenation; cloning and other methods of artificially create human life. (You're going hate the reasoning, but here we go...) Personally, I think it is unnatural. There are a multitude of reasons why some couple can't have children, but if I recall correctly they can be classified into the following categories: biological/genetical, health, environmental and life-style. For biological/genetical and health reasons, some people can't have children. This might sound cruel, but unfortunately has given you a bad hand. Either due to biological developments or poor health somewhere along the line, the people concern have lost the ability to have their own children. It is also nature's own way of improving humans as a race. Why temper with that? Life-style is the worst possible excuse to employ artificial methods to have children. If your life-style has made people incapable of having children and they're desperately looking for ways to have them, may be it is time to look at their own life-styles and change them. Guess what, when the babies, their life-styles have to change anyway. If anyone who wants to a parent and don't think they're going to change their life and life-style - may be they should think again. Environmental effects on humans can be seen all over the world and it is often the pollutants that are causing people unable to have children. This is nature's way tell us we've gone too far.

Aside from the biological/genetical and health category, the rest of them are products of the so-call 'progress' in our society. Allowing these people to have children using artificial methods is simply treating the symptoms but not the causes. Why spend all the money and energy into short-term fixes while the big picture is getting worse and worse.

2) I believe that there are a number of ways children adopted by homosexual couple can be affected. In general, children acquire a significant portion their social skills from their parents, and later in life may be have difficulties in dealing with people of the same sex or the opposite sex, in terms of friendship and relationships. (I don't know because I haven't found anything relevant on this subject.) This again refer back to what I'd considered as 'normal family' if such things exist. However, it is entirely possible that the children may grow up to be strongly anti-homosexual despite the fact that they grow up in a family with homosexual parents, because it is not possible to know how children will develop. Psychological studies of children grew up in single-parent family have indicated that they may have aggressive behavior, concentration problems and other psychological and sociological difficulties. On the other hand, I have read somewhere that girls in who grew up in homosexual, bisexual and transsexual family tend to have higher aspirations while boys tend to be less aggressive. There is simply not enough research done on this area of child psychology, or not that I’m aware of anyway, and anything I have read appears to have been colored by political agendas (for one reason or another).

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by Anders
So is your reasoning behind objecting to the remaining one type of homosexuality is because it’s not natural in human terms, yes or no? I think your answer is yes but I’d like to make sure I’m not wrong. The questions I asked were indeed difficult, as I said I don’t know the answer as to how to define natural, I wondered if you did. It’s pretty fundamental to your argument though should I be correct in my earlier question. The problem is you cannot in all logic object to homosexuality because it is unnatural, if you don’t also object to other “unnatural” things. I was suggesting that objecting to something because it’s “unnatural” is flawed, it’s the same as saying it’s not “normal”.

The answer to your question is 'yes'. However, I'm aware that it is nearly impossible distinguish different forms of homosexuality, but their given cultural and social context. Of the three other categories of homosexuality mentioned in the above paper, they can be linked, either tentitively or concretely, to behavior in animals.

I'm curious as to your interpretation of what is 'normal' and what is not?

[DaBeeeenster]

Spikegifted. In that case I would be interested to know whether you are against abortion?

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
Spikegifted. In that case I would be interested to know whether you are against abortion?

This is moving away of the topic of thread, but I guess I can entertain it.

Personally, I'm against abortion, unless it is the result of rape (with or without conviction) or in cases where genetic defects or bodily defects means that the child will not be allowed to have a meaningful quality of life (meaning a life of misery). There is a large array of methods to prevent pregnancy. The argument in the 'Pro-Choice' camp is invalid as far as I'm concern as they've already exercise choice in using or not using contraceptive methods. I agree that sometimes contraceptives malfunction and my feelings on this small area is a little more flexible.

[Anders]

Originally posted by spikegifted
The answer to your question is 'yes'. However, I'm aware that it is nearly impossible distinguish different forms of homosexuality, but their given cultural and social context. Of the three other categories of homosexuality mentioned in the above paper, they can be linked, either tentitively or concretely, to behavior in animals.

I'm curious as to your interpretation of what is 'normal' and what is not?

Well that was my point. I don’t know how to define normal or natural, and in fact they can be used interchangeably in some sentences. I suppose one dictionary definition might be “what the majority do”. I don’t see it as a valid argument to say that something is wrong because it is not natural (or not normal). I’m asking you why you think that because something is not natural it is wrong?

I’m not arguing as to whether homosexuality is natural or not, because I don’t believe that just because something is unnatural it is wrong. Do you have a definition of natural that you apply?