Can Gays be Cured?

[wil]

Response from other thread apropo here...

Breaking news or maybe NOT..Dick Cheney offers his support for gay marriage.

Cheney Offers Support For Gay Marriage (VIDEO)

It is called family.

Some folks it doesn't affect but most folks...

When their child has a disability they become advocates of folks with disabilities.

When their child ends up on the wrong side of the law they change their tune about prisoner treatment.

When their child is gay their stance adjusts on gay rights and homophobia.


Again, it doesn't happen to all people, many disown their children for not fitting in the box that they perceive in their mind...others expand their awareness and realize their old viewpoints are archaic.

I often wonder if the universe has a hand in providing us with these lessons, bringing them close to home so to directly affect our awareness.

 

[citizenzen]

that to me would suggest I am saying this is one issue ... now do we apply the same criteria to a much more serious issue.

That, my friend is a comparison.

Does that mean that one can't use comparisons to illustrate a point? Of course not! My only objection is that you went where people often go when they talk about homosexuality, and that is to pedophilia. While this may have been an entirely innocent coincidence, I think it is revealing of your mindset. One might say, your freudian slip is showing.

 

[bob x]

if it is a lifestyle choice then I personally feel it is a wrong choice

It is not. It what I AM. Did you make a "wrong choice" to love your husband? Did you make a "choice" not to have attractions toward women instead? NEITHER DID I.

and believe I should be allowed to express that view as long as I am not just trying to attack for the sake of it.

Well, I was very taken aback that I greeted you in what I thought was a friendly and joshing manner, and your first response is to dredge up a thread devoted to vicious attacks on gays in general and myself in particular, and add your own foul attack. But I see that your Islam simply makes you incapable of seeing that that is what you did.

At the end of the day science is yet to show whether homosexuality is an illness, an altered gene, an unconcious psychological decision, a taught behaviour, a lifestyle choice or whatever

There is one option on the list that can absolutely be ruled out, without any need for "science", and that is "lifestyle choice". That theory is claiming something about what is in my own head: it is something that I know about, in that direct cogito ergo sum way that I cannot be mistaken about. When you look at the grass, do you see it as green? You might be mistaken about whether the grass is green (perhaps that is some kind of weird optical illusion), but you cannot be mistaken about what you see. I tell you there is no element of conscious choice whatsoever: now call me a liar, if you must in order to maintain your beliefs, but please don't act like there is any possibility of it being an open question.

and yet you put in bold that it is not an illness ..

An illness is something that causes harm. My sexuality causes me joy. The only harm that comes to me is from people like you.

Yes I enjoyed it because not being gay it is not a subject I can ever really understand, as you could not understand what it is like to be a woman.

That does not mean I would "enjoy" a thread about "How can we fix those goddamned women?" talking about how women are inherently abominable and what might be done to destroy their unacceptable femininity.

(Postmaster) is trying to understand the issue

No. He is completely uneducable. He does not wish to listen at all.

Actually I am not a liar, I do not feel that pedophilia is comparable to homosexuality.

Yet it was the first comparison you reached for. Religious people are often trained to make that link as a first recourse.

One reason is, the first is the deliberate preying on the innocent who cannot defend themselves, whereas homosexuality is consensual between two adults who know what they are signing up for.
The second example I have given above also does not compare parents who hit their children to homosexuality .. I am simply trying to explore where people feel it is ok to believe a behaviour is wrong and where they feel it demonises.

You note the distinction between doing harm to people and not doing harm, and yet you refuse to think that distinction has any importance to when it is or isn't correct to call behaviors "wrong"? If you were incapable of noticing the difference between doing harm and not doing harm, I would say you had no sense of morality at all; but since you do note the difference, and yet cannot ascribe moral significance to it, I would say your moral sense has been warped.

Come on Bobx, choose one. Either we should both be allowed to live our lives as we choose without having to endure constant insults and judgement or we should both have to conform to what is deemed normal in the majority of society in order to avoid such judgement and ridicule.

Well, my severe reaction on the veil issue when it first came up was because some Muslims are trying to introduce it here. I have no problem with head-scarves, I knew a lot of scarved women back in Detroit, but the face-mask is very different: it is illegal in many contexts to conceal your identity, for very good reasons having to do with the harm that can be done by such people (only thieves, gunmen, and KKK members mask themselves, or have a reason to). Muslims are starting to demand exemptions from such laws, and my response is not just "No" but "HELL No!"

nobody is compelled to have sex with anyone of any gender... it has no purpose other than sexual gratification and human life is not all about that I think we can all agree.

It is not ALL about that, but it is a great and important blessing in life. Depriving oneself (or worse, depriving others at your dictation) of God's blessings for no sensible reason is a sin.

 

[Muslimwoman]

That, my friend is a comparison.

"A comparison involves a systematized endeavor to compare two items, with an eye toward identifying points that the items hold in common, along with citing areas where the two items differ."

Again I ask you to show me where I suggested for even a second that homosexuality and pedophilia have any similarities or differences.

Did you make a "choice" not to have attractions toward women instead?

Yes. As I said most adolescents, myself included, have been faced with physical attraction to someone of the same sex. I chose not to go down that road.

Have I ever had thoughts in that direction through the years since, again yes, I have occasionally had mental fantasies (for want of a better term) but I choose not to folllow them through with actions.

Am I latent bisexual .. I don't think so, I have never "loved" a woman or felt I could, it's just a taboo I ocassionally think about but even if I am, it is not something I would allow myself to do because I believe it is not what our bodies were intended for.

Well, I was very taken aback that I greeted you in what I thought was a friendly and joshing manner, and your first response is to dredge up a thread devoted to vicious attacks on gays in general and myself in particular, and add your own foul attack. But I see that your Islam simply makes you incapable of seeing that that is what you did.

I apologise, it was not my intension to attack you and I do not feel I have attacked you or gays in general. The fact that I feel your sexual behaviour goes against the bodies intended purpose is simply a view I hold and will not apologise for but it is not an attack on you as a person.

You dislike the way I dress but I don't think you hate me as a person because of it.

As I said I simply found the topic interesting as I don't understand homosexuality and I enjoy reading diverse opinions.

You will get the same response from me on this topic as BB gets when he says it's offensive to discuss the holocaust or other minority groups get when they say it is offensive to discuss a given topic they don't like (an example being Muslims and the marriage of the Prophet to Aisha) .. no subject should be taboo. Simply discussing a topic is not attacking anyone, even if your opinions differ. We learn by asking questions and digesting different answers .. hence my interest in the thread.

I tell you there is no element of conscious choice whatsoever: now call me a liar, if you must in order to maintain your beliefs, but please don't act like there is any possibility of it being an open question.

Had I wanted to call you a liar I would not have put a list of possibilites or said I do not understand the impulses that surround homosexuality.

An illness is something that causes harm. My sexuality causes me joy. The only harm that comes to me is from people like you.

much greater risk of STD's including HPV and HIV, tearing of the rectal tissue, plus the concerns about increased risk of rectal cancer.

• In the general population anal cancer is fairly rare; about one in 100,000 people.
• In men who have sex with men (MSM), the incidence climbs to about 35 in 100,000.

Rectal Cancer - Anal Cancer - Rectal Cancer Symptoms

Sounds like harm to me.

That does not mean I would "enjoy" a thread about "How can we fix those goddamned women?" talking about how women are inherently abominable and what might be done to destroy their unacceptable femininity.

Why would you not enjoy such a thread, I certainly would. What would be wrong with discussing the topic, hearing diverse opinions, seeing how others minds work and trying to break down stereotypical barriers?

We can't change thinking without discussing a subject.

No. He is completely uneducable. He does not wish to listen at all.

Now that was just a nasty remark. You have had many discussions on this forum with Postmaster and have never suggested he is uneducable before, until it touches a topic close to your heart. Perhaps he is simply incapable of understanding your lifestyle, as I am.

Yet it was the first comparison you reached for. Religious people are often trained to make that link as a first recourse.

Well I know it is easiest to reach for the "religious training" comment but my views are my own, as demonstrated by my comments about what gay people do in the privacy of their bedroom is their own business (completely against the views of my religious training in fact) .. if I was doing the "from religious training" bit I would be talking about Loot, stoning you to death and what an evil abomination you are but to be frank I may not mentally believe what you do is right but I also think it is your business.

You note the distinction between doing harm to people and not doing harm, and yet you refuse to think that distinction has any importance to when it is or isn't correct to call behaviors "wrong"? If you were incapable of noticing the difference between doing harm and not doing harm, I would say you had no sense of morality at all; but since you do note the difference, and yet cannot ascribe moral significance to it, I would say your moral sense has been warped.

see the answer concerning harm of anal sex above .. you may not believe this but I would hate to hear that you develop anal cancer, HIV or even have a ripped butt .. then who would I fight with

Well, my severe reaction on the veil issue when it first came up was because some Muslims are trying to introduce it here.

What, you mean they want to force non-Muslim women to wear them?

I feel sure that is not what you meant, so why should it concern you if people wish to adhere to religious beliefs without causing any harm to you or interference in your life?

You see in one breath you are saying your lifestyle harms nobody so should be accepted but in the next you go all HELL NO because women want to drape a bit of cloth on their face to be modest .. don't you see any hypocracy there?

I have no problem with head-scarves, I knew a lot of scarved women back in Detroit, but the face-mask is very different: it is illegal in many contexts to conceal your identity, for very good reasons having to do with the harm that can be done by such people (only thieves, gunmen, and KKK members mask themselves, or have a reason to). Muslims are starting to demand exemptions from such laws, and my response is not just "No" but "HELL No!"

So there is a law in your state that prohibits the wearing of masks or face coverings?

I wonder if I should get all upset and offended because you said only thieves, gunmen, and KKK members mask themselves, or have a reason to and mention harm and "such people" in the same paragraph .. perhaps you are trying to compare me to thieves and racists?!

I am thoroughly intrigued by your revulsion and anger at the veil. Do you have any evidence, other than general hysteria, that a veiled woman is any more danger to the world than a non-veiled woman?

It is not ALL about that, but it is a great and important blessing in life. Depriving oneself (or worse, depriving others at your dictation) of God's blessings for no sensible reason is a sin.

My dictation? Have said it before and will say it again ... I don't give a monkeys uncle what you do in the privacy of your bedroom with another consenting adult.

I'm trying to decide if you are more offended that I am not doing the group hug let's go on a gay pride march thing or because I don't care that you are gay but also don't approve of your sexual behaviour?

I shall let you have the last word and then leave this thread to die down, I genuinely had no intention of offending you.

 

[citizenzen]

Again I ask you to show me where I suggested for even a second that homosexuality and pedophilia have any similarities or differences.

So that you can deny it again? How many times do you think I'll ride this little merry-go-round?

I'm going to bid adieu for now and hold to a promise I made this afternoon in this thread.

Thank you MW, for these "enjoyable" posts.

 

[bob x]

"A comparison involves a systematized endeavor to compare two items, with an eye toward identifying points that the items hold in common, along with citing areas where the two items differ."
Again I ask you to show me where I suggested for even a second that homosexuality and pedophilia have any similarities or differences.

In the post that you made. If you did not think there was any relevance, then what the f*** were you bringing up pedophilia for in the first place?

Yes. As I said most adolescents, myself included, have been faced with physical attraction to someone of the same sex.

Many (not "most") adolescent women do have bisexual attractions. Very few males do. I have never been "faced with" a physical attraction to a woman. Women have taken me to bed before, and I am not totally impotent in such circumstances (although I have known gay men who are); it just doesn't do anything for me.

Am I latent bisexual .. I don't think so

Yes, by definition you are, given what you said. The fact that you ARE bisexual is not something you chose about yourself; it is just part of your makeup. It does of course give you more choices about what you DO. Someone whose physical attractions are exclusively toward one gender has no choice about that, and less choices about what to do. I could of course marry a woman whom I feel nothing for, and use her just as a sperm receptacle and baby factory; I have known gay men who have done that, because they thought that was what they were "supposed" to do; it is a sin, as far as I'm concerned, because it is horribly unfair to the woman involved.

I apologise, it was not my intension to attack you and I do not feel I have attacked you or gays in general.

The whole thread was about how gay people should not continue to exist, and then Tao made it into a thread about how gays in general and BobX in particular are especially evil. Your initial contribution was to point out that pedophiles are the first analogy you can think of.

The fact that I feel your sexual behaviour goes against the bodies intended purpose is simply a view I hold and will not apologise for but it is not an attack on you as a person.

You could not POSSIBLY attack me more personally.

Simply discussing a topic is not attacking anyone, even if your opinions differ.

Discussing the "topic" of whether a particular group of people is unworthy to exist, and what to do to get rid of them, is most decidedly an attack, whether the "unpersons" are gays, women, Jews, Muslims, or Armenians.

Had I wanted to call you a liar I would not have put a list of possibilites

I have told you, often, that what you listed as a "possibility" (and in your very first sentence, indicated that you believe to be truth) is not possible at all, as a matter of my personal knowledge; yes indeed you were calling me a liar.

much greater risk of STD's including HPV and HIV, tearing of the rectal tissue, plus the concerns about increased risk of rectal cancer.

That is an issue for those who like anal sex. If it's any of your business, I am not one of those.

Now that was just a nasty remark. You have had many discussions on this forum with Postmaster and have never suggested he is uneducable before

I do not recall ever having much of any talk with Postmaster before. But his behavior on this thread has been to dogmatically insist that he will continue believing whatever he believes, even though he knows nothing whatsoever about the subject, and will not listen to anyone who knows anything about the subject; he has even pretended that those who have researched the subject share his views, when this is the opposite of truth (it is one thing for him to hold obstinately to his own opinions, but to claim that others hold opinions when they do not is something else again).

Perhaps he is simply incapable of understanding your lifestyle, as I am.

There is no such thing as my "lifestyle"; there is just my LIFE.

Well I know it is easiest to reach for the "religious training" comment but my views are my own

Oh? You think that viewing pedophilia as the primary analogy for homosexuality is original with you?

I may not mentally believe what you do is right but I also think it is your business.

If you really thought it was just "my business" then you would not intrude yourself with unsought advice.

I feel sure that is not what you meant, so why should it concern you if people wish to adhere to religious beliefs without causing any harm to you or interference in your life?

Wearing masks lets criminals get away with too much. In nations where veiling is the norm, the custom has often been a tool for smuggling explosives or helping fugitives evade justice.

you go all HELL NO because women want to drape a bit of cloth on their face to be modest .. don't you see any hypocracy there?

When I see a masked lump, I have no idea who that is or why he/she is doing that. It could be a pious Muslim woman, or could be somebody just pretending to be a Muslim woman for unknown reasons. It is necessary to keep a wary eye on someone who is deliberately making themselves difficult to identify.

So there is a law in your state that prohibits the wearing of masks or face coverings?

In several contexts. It is illegal to be masked in a public parade (many states have this ordinance, as a result of KKK rallies turned violent). It is illegal to be masked while on the witness stand (it is entirely necessary for the jury to view the facial demeanor of someone giving testimony). It is of course required to have a picture taken for a driver's license and to show this picture, and your face (that used to go without saying!), to a police officer who stops you. And while it is not a crime, in general, to be masked in public, it can be "suspicious behavior", justification for police to stop and question someone when a suspect (in a robbery that just occurred, for example) is being sought. Muslims are seeking exemptions from all these things. They can't have them.

I wonder if I should get all upset and offended because you said only thieves, gunmen, and KKK members mask themselves, or have a reason to

In our society this has been the case. It is the reason wearing masks is restricted.
Religion does not in general give an excuse for violating laws of general application: to take an extreme example, worshippers of Kali are not going to be allowed to strangle passersby as an act of sacrifice; at the other extreme, the Native American Church was not allowed to use peyote, until some legislation granted exemption from the general laws. The peyote case is arguably in the category of "victimless crimes", but even those who do not disagree with drug laws see it as less harmful when conducted in an organized traditional setting. In the middle between the extremes: should Sikhs be allowed to carry blades onto airplanes, or to refuse unwrapping their turbans for inspection? They are not: if they absolutely must carry their blades and keep their turbans at all times, then, they just can't fly, not in this country.
If your religion will not allow you to conform to our laws against masking, then don't come here. Stay in countries where it is accepted.

perhaps you are trying to compare me to thieves and racists?!

Obviously yes. The point of comparison is that you, like they, want to make yourself difficult to identify.

 

[citizenzen]

Rock on bob x.

Though it must be more difficult than I can imagine,

don't let the bustards bring you down.

Peace, brother.

 

[bob x]

Oh, I'm sure Sally isn't really a "bustard" at heart.

 

[Snoopy]

The difference is if you act on those feelings .. perhaps if they do it strengthens the feelings of attraction toward the same gender?

I think if it was a matter of adolescents having feelings reinforced by actions there'd be more of a mixed up world of gender preferences than we have. We might all be bi-sexual!

Yes I suppose one does always have the choice of whether to act on feelings. I suppose I view sexual preference as being a basic drive like food and water. We can all choose whether or not to eat or drink, but we're unlikely to deny what we feel inside.

s.

 

[bananabrain]

At the end of the day science is yet to show whether homosexuality is an illness, an altered gene, an unconcious psychological decision, a taught behaviour, a lifestyle choice or whatever and yet you put in bold that it is not an illness

science shows homosexual behaviour in approximately 1500 animal species. clearly for them it is not a "lifestyle choice", nor is it "abnormal", it is unlikely that it does not serve some evolutionary purpose even if we do not entirely understand what that is. i personally find it very hard to understand why G!D would include this as an evolutionary possibility for the sole purpose of allowing religious people to bitch about it incessantly, when as you yourself realise, between consenting adults it is not a matter for society to deal with but something, like heterosexual sex, between humans and G!D. either way, it is surely not permissible to persecute someone or make them feel less like a human being even if you disagree with them.

Because I was not comparing the two, I was saying we all accept one as wrong and nobody condemns us for saying it is wrong but when we say another behaviour is wrong we are suddenly demonising a group of people.

sally, come on, i think you're really doing yourself and your argument a complete disservice by bringing paedophilia into it. i mean, look at your fellow-travellers here - do you really want to be on the same side as the fred phelpses of the world? of course that is going to be a red rag to a bull when there is a clear distinction between consensual acts and non-consensual acts. i am astonished that you can't see how offensive that is and i think nativeastral has called you on it quite effectively:

Of all the transgressions in the world to choose from, you decided pedophilia was the most illustrative. I think that says a lot about where your mind is and what you really feel about homosexuality.

if you are, as you claim, not hostile to this issue, i would suggest you find a better way of discussing it that isn't going to raise the temperature.

You will get the same response from me on this topic as BB gets when he says it's offensive to discuss the holocaust

this is a case in point. i do *NOT* find it offensive to discuss the holocaust, but i do find it offensive to choose the holocaust as the example when there is, for example, a discussion about the palestinian naqba, as it reveals that the person who brought it up thinks the onus is on me to disprove the assumption that the jews wished to commit genocide in 1948, which is an offensive and ludicrous position to take. i would consider that bringing up paedophilia in this context would be similarly offensive, just as offensive as if, during a discussion on paedophilia, of all the examples one might choose, somebody decided to bring up muhammad's marriage to aisha. the issue is the preconceptions, which outweigh any benefit in the comparison by making it tendentious from start to finish.

Allow me to give you a different example, punishing children by hitting. This is a behaviour pattern, often taught in childhood or a cultural norm. Most people would now agree it is wrong to hit your children, so are we simply trying to demonise parents who hit their children by saying their behaviour is wrong?

i'd have stuck with this as a far better example, but in any case children never agree to be hit, so this still falls foul of the consensuality issue. if you are going to talk about this, you should use a decent comparison of an interpersonal behaviour that many feel to be wrong, but others feel to be a no-harm-done behaviour - actually, the niqab/veil is quite a pertinent one here: you feel it is personal and nobody else's business, others feel it affects them and the nature of society.

We can all choose whether or not to eat or drink, but we're unlikely to deny what we feel inside.

exactly. now, arguably, choice is a factor on some level for both homosexuality and the niqab - someone who experiences the authority of Divine Commandment, however overwhelming this is, has on some level to make the choice (however uncomfortable) and, equally, i hope without offending anyone, the overwhelming authority of one's sexual identity can either be fought or embraced. in both cases psychological harm will occur from fighting, i would suggest, although, equally, uncritical embrace can in some cases also lead to harm and that compulsion is a factor in both, whether social, religious or intrinsically personal.

At the end of the day our sexual organs have a purpose, most men love to play with womens breasts, as a form of pleasure for both parties but the purpose of breasts is to feed a baby. The reason they have nerve endings is to start the flow of milk when a baby suckles, the facxt that gives pleasure to the woman is an aside.

i think you really need to understand more about evolution before you make comments like this. there is no such thing as an "aside" in evolution; everything has a purpose, if it doesn't, it disappears. one of the reasons that human breasts have evolved in the way they have is because both men and babies find them appealing for different reasons. breasts are not such an issue for, say, chimpanzees as far as i know. you need to read some dan dennett.

much greater risk of STD's including HPV and HIV, tearing of the rectal tissue, plus the concerns about increased risk of rectal cancer.

now it's about stats? i thought it was about morality. surely the fact that people can live perfectly conservative, monogamous homosexual lives makes this irrelevant?

In several contexts. It is illegal to be masked in a public parade (many states have this ordinance, as a result of KKK rallies turned violent). It is illegal to be masked while on the witness stand (it is entirely necessary for the jury to view the facial demeanor of someone giving testimony). It is of course required to have a picture taken for a driver's license and to show this picture, and your face (that used to go without saying!), to a police officer who stops you. And while it is not a crime, in general, to be masked in public, it can be "suspicious behavior", justification for police to stop and question someone when a suspect (in a robbery that just occurred, for example) is being sought. Muslims are seeking exemptions from all these things. They can't have them.

i share these concerns, whereas i have no issue whatsoever with hijab or modest clothing other than in terms of face-covering.

personally, i would prefer it if this discussion could be had without hackles going up. but you can see how it happens!

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Snoopy]

bb,

what is it with me and Salty??!!

First Path of One, now you

s.

 

[Postmaster]

I respect homosexuals in the same way I respect another minority of people.. As equals. And I happily encourage this.

Anyone that took offence to this thread really needs to get over it. It isn’t an attack on homosexuals in the slightest. There is nothing morally or ethically wrong with providing a cognitive service at people’s discretion. And there is nothing ethnically or morally wrong with regarding homosexuality as ethically or morally wrong.

For example I happen not to believe in reincarnation, I happen to think it is wrong to believe in it. I happen to promote that everyone has a soul. Yet I respect all people that believe in reincarnation as equals.

People have taken offense to the term "cure" but that was the media headline that it was branded as that I quoted.

 

[Postmaster]

Just realised i broke my promise. I forgot about it.

 

[nativeastral]

sally, come on, i think you're really doing yourself and your argument a complete disservice by bringing paedophilia into it. i mean, look at your fellow-travellers here - do you really want to be on the same side as the fred phelpses of the world? of course that is going to be a red rag to a bull when there is a clear distinction between consensual acts and non-consensual acts. i am astonished that you can't see how offensive that is and i think nativeastral has called you on it quite effectively:

there is no such thing as an "aside" in evolution; everything has a purpose, if it doesn't, it disappears. one of the reasons that human breasts have evolved in the way they have is because both men and babies find them appealing for different reasons. breasts are not such an issue for, say, chimpanzees as far as i know. you need to read some dan dennett.

b'shalom

bananabrain

WOT how did l get inviegled into this 'enjoyable' thread? l only put my nose in the beginning, so bb retract or explain my involvement here!

dan dennett, mmm that athiestic deterministic operationalist, memes thinks he hasn't a leg to stand on.

 

[citizenzen]

dan dennett, mmm that athiestic deterministic operationalist, memes thinks he hasn't a leg to stand on.

Is he that bearded old fellow I saw on TED the other day?

No leg to stand on? I guess that's just a matter of perspective.

I thought he was quite good.

 

[bananabrain]

oops! sorry, snoopy. don't know why that happened. and nativeastral, of course i meant citizenzen, i don't know what is going on with me today. tchoh!

but as for dan dennett, i may not agree with him about quite a lot but i think he is an impressive thinker on darwin and evolution and quite a lot less irritating than dawkins.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[nativeastral]

oops! sorry, snoopy. don't know why that happened. and nativeastral, of course i meant citizenzen, i don't know what is going on with me today. tchoh!

but as for dan dennett, i may not agree with him about quite a lot but i think he is an impressive thinker on darwin and evolution and quite a lot less irritating than dawkins.

b'shalom

bananabrain

no worries banana brain! as for dennett l just don't think his arguments are convincing enough in some of the vids l've watched on him but need to read up more. l've only encountered him in the philosophy of mind where he seems to be a total behaviourist.

 

[bob x]

I think if it was a matter of adolescents having feelings reinforced by actions there'd be more of a mixed up world of gender preferences than we have.

I did "act" heterosexually once in my adolescence (and once later; in both cases initiated by the other party). It didn't induce any feelings.

of course that is going to be a red rag to a bull when there is a clear distinction between consensual acts and non-consensual acts.

Sally was asking "when is it appropriate for me to be calling you 'wrong'?" I would offer these guidelines:
Am I harming you? If so, of course you have a right to object.
Otherwise: Am I harming someone else? Of course you should also protect others, particularly if the victims are to some extent helpless to protect themselves. But if the ones you call "victims" can speak for themselves, and do not agree with you that there is any harm being done, you are intruding where you have no business.
Otherwise: Was anyone asking for your advice?

one of the reasons that human breasts have evolved in the way they have is because both men and babies find them appealing for different reasons. breasts are not such an issue for, say, chimpanzees as far as i know.

The buttocks are a different matter: in us, in the chimps, and in primates in general, they are filled with nerve-endings that serve no purpose except enjoyment; even those (hetero and homo alike) who are not into penetrative anal sex pretty much all (all, in my experience, but I don't know everybody) find a good butt-rub fun. That there is no other functional necessity for this is indicated by the absence of this feature in non-primate mammals. Is this another way of driving us to more frequent procreation? Perhaps in part, but sexuality in primates also serves the purpose of pair-bonding, getting us outside ourselves and interested in others. In humans in particular, sexuality is strongly divorced from procreation: the "estrus" cycle, where females are only arousing to males when they are ovulating, has been completely suppressed. This is all part of how we are designed, and demanding that we "should have been" designed more like other animals in which sexuality functions for procreative ends only is a disagreement with the Creator.

I respect homosexuals in the same way I respect another minority of people.

I haven't seen you act so insulting toward other minorities.

There is nothing morally or ethically wrong with providing a cognitive service at people’s discretion.

The "service" you are talking about is the emotional equivalent of lobotomy, a savage destruction of a core aspect of one's being, which no-one would seek except under terrible duress. You are unwilling to come to grips with the profound evil of what you are advocating; you hang on to a thoroughly ignorant misconception of what is going on here, unwilling to let yourself be educated.

And there is nothing ethnically or morally wrong with regarding homosexuality as ethically or morally wrong.

It is telling a whole group of people they are unworthy to exist. It is very wrong.

People have taken offense to the term "cure" but that was the media headline that it was branded as that I quoted.

It is the term used by some very repugnant people; by adopting it as your own, you associate yourself with those people.

Just realised i broke my promise. I forgot about it.

Don't worry, nobody believed your promise anyway

 

[Muslimwoman]

i think you really need to understand more about evolution before you make comments like this. there is no such thing as an "aside" in evolution; everything has a purpose, if it doesn't, it disappears. one of the reasons that human breasts have evolved in the way they have is because both men and babies find them appealing for different reasons. breasts are not such an issue for, say, chimpanzees as far as i know. you need to read some dan dennett.

Whilst I bow to your superior breast function knowledge BB I strongly disagree with you.

It's got bog all to do with what men enjoy, evolution isn't that concerned about mens pleasure.

The reason women derive pleasure from breast manipulation is to arouse us and lubricate our vagina ready to be entered by a penis .. which would then ejaculate sperm and create a baby.

The fact that we invented birth control and get jiggy for just for the fun of it is not a part of the evolutionary process, other than to keep us making babies.

I promised I wouldn't comment on again on the thread topic so shall just post this link and ask a quick question:

'Gay penguins' rear adopted chick



BBC NEWS | Europe | 'Gay penguins' rear adopted chick

"The zoo flew in four females in a bid to get the endangered birds to reproduce - but quickly abandoned the scheme after causing outrage among gay rights activists, who accused it of interfering in the animals' behaviour."

My question is .. is it better to allow the endangered species to die out or privide females for the males to mate with?

 

[Muslimwoman]

Oh, I'm sure Sally isn't really a "bustard" at heart.

I don't mind being called a Bustard Bob, they are quite beautiful birds .. maybe citizenzen was trying to compliment me

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Wiltshire | New bustard chicks a 'huge step'