Hitler outlawed homosexuals too.

Godwin'd in 4 pages.

I win.

He also centralised the state.

And he was vegetarian.

And had really crap hair.

I must interject, I had the wrong book earlier (Tolstoy). I couldn't remember the name and did a quick search on google and that seemed to be the one.

Anyway, the one to read is called Confession, get it here: http://www.classicallibrary.org/tolstoy ... /index.htm. I haven't read that other book, I take no responsibility for its contents.

Haha, thanks.

Wow, I can just print that out.

fixed link

EDIT: doh your link just had a period at the end =p

EDIT2: my laser printer has been borrowed! Grr... I'll print it out this weekend. I never thought I'd have to worry about my printer being borrowed.

Hmm, the period was supposed to be at the end of the sentence. It seems PHPBB has a parsing bug.

Not really, there's no way for phpbb to tell if the period is part of the URi or not. It's a valid URI character.

I suppose for URN's it makes sense to allow a trailing dot, for names like "next...".

Barring everything else, I think that alludes to the real problem in society, which is that people lack integrity, and thus they can be bribed. Can we agree on that?



The probability that any one thing will occur is 1 divided by the number of probable events, given that the number of probable events is infinite, that gives us one divided by infinity, which when considered with a limit as x (the number of probable events) tends to infinity, yields zero.

Mathmatically, this means that it is impossible that anything has occurred by chance, as the probability that any one thing that could have occurred by chance did occur is zero. Thus, we can conclude that everything happens for a reason.

I'm no mathmentalist so cant really counter that one other than to say that yes everything logically does occur for some reason or another, but that is no proof of intent, and I did say I reject the notion that nature intends anything.

Homosexuality is a behaviour that appears to occur naturally. Studies have repeatedly shown that other animals also have homosexuals within their communities. As animals (such as sheep) are not credited with the ability to make lifestyle choices its a reasonable conclusion that homosexuality is a naturally occuring phenomenon. I think it is cruel to enforce a value in our society that heterosexuality is in some way preferable when 9% of our males are unable to feel attracted women rather than men. Imagine if it were the other way around and society demanded you to form relationships with other men. No matter how hard you tried, you would never find happiness in a homosexual relationship.

Another question I have to Trip.



I cant see why homosexual rights are at odds to the traditional family unit? I am not homosexual, so therefore any rights that a homosexual has has no bearing on my own rights, I feel that everyone has rights equally regardless of gender, sexuality colour etc etc etc. What rights are homosexuals enjoying or campaigning for that in particular you feel have an adverse effect on a family unit?



I do disagree with this comment I am afraid Trip. I am an aethiest, but that does not mean that I do not have moral ideals that I strive towards. I believe monogamy is important in a relationship, I believe that war is rarely justified, I believe in following the laws of the society that I live in. I can think of several examples of Christian sects who dont practice monogamy, support politically a party that took the US to an unethical war or break the laws of the state they reside in.

My aethiesm is tied to rigid belief that as humans we survive because we are a society, breaching the structure that has evolved as we have evolved is not in my interests, nor emotionally will it make me happy. I am biologically programmed to require companionship, so I behave in a way that will not offend my friends and will instill their respect for me. Otherwise I will find myself ostrasized which is not in my interests emotionally.

I dont think that if everyone abandend religion tomorrow that society would collapse, in some aspects of our society I even see benefits. Religion is a very divisive force in the world not just today but throughout history. I find it hard to see in fact what benefits society gains from it. I certainly dont feel that my life would be any better within that belief structure.

I can't follow your logic here. If the probability that any one thing will occur is zero, as you say, the conclusion that I come to is that nothing will ever happen. Period. I don't understand where "by chance" comes into this, although I can see that it is true by virtue of the fact that if nothing ever happens, then nothing can every happen by chance. However it is equally true that nother can ever happen by design either.

However, since it is manifestly true that events occur, I must reach one of two conclusions:

1) We live in a world where the impossible happens regularly. Under my understanding of God, this is proof of the divine.

or

2) Your understanding (and probably ours as well) of probability is bunk... You're either misapplying the theory, or the theory itself is wrong.

Intuitively, if you add 0 to itself any number of times, you still are left with 0. Even if you were to do it an infinite number of times, you should still have 0, right? Infinity can't manufacture something out of nothing.

Now for any finite number larger than 0, if you add it to itself an infinite number of times, the answer will be infinitely large.

So using 0 can only ever result in 0, but using any greater finite number leaves an infinite answer. The finite numbers are too coarse, our answer lies between the finite numbers, specifically between 0 and any greater finite number.

If we denote by V the infinite number of events that Shining Arcanine proposed, then the answer to our question is the (nonfinite) number K such that (K = 1/V). Think of K as a reflection of V, they depend on each other. K is no more or less meaningful than V.

Of course, one can now see that there are V-many K-numbers between 0 and the next finite number: (nK for all finite n). Of course, (nK + m for all finite n,m) are all K-numbers, between m and the next finite number. So between any finite number and the next we have infinitely many K-numbers. We have infinitely many infinities of K-numbers (V^2).

And we can continue by saying that we denote by W the number of K-numbers on the number-line. So W = V^2, and let's invent L-numbers (nL + m for all K-numbers n and m, L = 1/W). Then between any 2 K-numbers we find V-many L-numbers. Etc.

So you can invent larger and larger infinities and smaller and smaller infinitesimals to allow you to get to the precision you need. We need K-numbers to answer the question: what is the probability of any of V events? If you introduce V, you need K. They go together.

Small correction: W-many L-numbers between every K-number. Ok, back to politics.

Animals also have many behaviours and characteristics that differ from humans (ie spiders/praying mantis eating mates). Picking and choosing one characteristic and then saying this is "natural" is disingenuous. IMHO being gay is a product of upbringing and social acceptance/encouragement; many homosexuals have strong mother figures and weak/absent father figures. If homosexuality is innate, how do you explain that so many gays have similar personality traits (heightened interest in their appearance and clothes/fashion etc, catty behaviour, many other behaviours which are stereotypically associated with women).

I'll read the rest of the comments tomorrow. It's late, but I've got my printer for the Tolstoy

jaganath,

It could also be physically developmental with no genetic connection for some.

Not to imply that I write off the mental as a component. I met a student (I want to say president of the university GALA org but the memory has faded) who told me he enjoys turning young, straight men gay. I suspect it is possible to convince oneself that one is gay, esp if lonely and longing for companionship.

Also, identifying as gay simply to be different could become a part of a person's character.

There's without question a mental aspect in some gays and probably some physical aspect separate from genetics in many others. Whether such percentages of either are significant, I can't say.

If indeed it is a natural communally evolved trait that surfaces as a result of, say, crowding, malnutrition, or lack of a father, the question then is what is the best communal response? Is it best to welcome such developments or to not? Similarly if it is natural for a small part to be gay in a healthy society, the same question of what ought to be done arises again. Such does not make it natural for a human to do, simply natural to be found amongst human communities in small numbers. Not to say the abnormal is necessarily bad of course.

At that time homosexuals were outlawed just about everywhere and if they weren't outlawed, they were considered insane.
Hitler and nazis also had the most advanced animal rights laws of their time.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a good reason. People don't always need logical reasons to like or dislike something. There are many things I don't like, which I cannot explain. For example I cannot explain why I don't like the color yellow. Gaysex disgusts me and I cannot explain why it does so. It could be my upbringing, because I was raised christian, but turned agnostic when I learned to think for myself. But even so, I am not sure it's my upbringing that makes the act of two men having sex disgusting, because the act of two women having sex is very ahem.. arousing . I don't hate gays.

I agree, that justblairs justification for homosexuality is flawed. But I don't really understand why homosexuality would even need to be explained or justified? I have always believed, that everything should be accepted unless a good reason is given to do otherwise. And there really are no logical reasons not to accept homosexuality. Even the STDs that have been a problem with gays is imo a product of the society driving the gay culture underground and giving it an environment to flourish. And back in the days people didn't know about AIDS. It's very different to these days. I'm guessing the STDs won't be plagueing the gay culture for much longer.

Jaganath, even if it homosexuality is a result and product of upbringing, isn't it still natural? Imo, we humans are a product of nature and cannot be unnatural, even if we tried. Strange yes, but not unnatural.

What were the odds for me to reply to this? For all my infinite possible actions I answered, although the probability was close to 0... And mathematically it's not impossible, it's only very unlikely to happen. Actually if something has even the slightest possibility to happen, it will inevitably happen given enough opportunities and time.

I too reject that everything is happening as intended. When I look at nature, existance of "god" looks possible to me. TO me god would be a force, that makes the impossible happen. This is also something that ID people believe they see in nature. But I just cannot understand why people connect this possibilty to Allah/Jahve/God. The fact that nature suggest there might be a "god", doesn't make the existance of souls, holy ghost, sons of god an more probable then they already are, which is impossible by your zero probability logic. It's a disgrace to use this possibility of god's existance as a proof that the father of Jesus was god.

I just find it impossible, that there exists an invisible and sadistic omnipotent being, that creates human with feelings, lusts and desires and then denies them to act on them and punishes with eternal suffering, if men act on their god given instincts. Gives human reason, but then asks men not to use reason and just accept some things as truths, or otherwise burn in agony for all eternity. And this is how he shows love?

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus (c. 341-271 BCE)

I could gather from this that we are on the same page, but your god is a guardian of morality, my "possible god" would just be a loaded dice.

I think that this point is flawed. Yes a lot of the people we can instantly identify as gay follow the behaviours that you describe. Its could be that gay men have a more effeminate side, but I think it is more likely that most gay men dont behave in this manner. If a gay man exhibits "straight" characteristics, how do you as a stranger to him know he is gay? I have had over the years a few gay friends. One or two are effeminate, even behaving as you describe long before they accepted that they were gay. However more of the gay men I know do not behave as you describe, and in fact look down on the effeminate behaviour as conforming to stereotype.

I dont think it is disengenious to look to "gay animals" to give an indication that homosexuality occurs naturally. The studies that I have seen have all focused on comunual animals (cows, sheep etc) Now we are also comunual animals, so share a lot of their behaviours, so it is not unreasonable to look to these. A lot of psycology is based on the behaviour of animals such as rats and mice. Mamals have very similar brain functions, regardless of wether they on the surface seem quite different to us. In fact some might say we may have evolved from the same species some time far back in our history.



I think that this is down to social conditioning. I was raised as aethiest by fairly liberal parents. My Mum and Dad were in to acting, a traditionally liberal group of friends resulted. I am quite used to gay men expressing affection to each other in others company. My own feelings about gay sex are fairly neutral. I dont think of it as disgusting, nor do I find it arousing. I agree that female gay sex is very ahem. I find one naked girl arousing, two.... well that's just double the visual stimulation.

I think that the conversation has been interesting so far, I expected it might degrade into a hunt the faggot type rant, but I think that it has remained pleasantly intellectual on all sides.



I know it is. Gay men have to contend with this in their lives. They meet a young man they are attracted to and who flirts with them, however once a relationship develops, the straight guy cannot get fulfilment. Because as lonely as he is, he is not at heart a true homosexual. Curiosity is also a factor. I dont think though that you can convince yourself falsely about your sexuality forever.

It happens in reverse of course as well. It is not uncommon for married men to have secret gay relationships. They stay married sometimes for years, often due to repressive religious influence, or family expectations. Social conditioning may also make them desire to be in a straight relationship. How many politicians have been exposed for living double lives in this manner?

I think it is stupid to say "hey look, the animals do it so its okay". Do the animals go to university? Do they go to work?

You are talking about the logical fallacy of Hume's Guillotine, the is-ought problem. You cannot draw moral rules based on facts. It's especially classic form, when used to defend homosexualism.

Justblair: The same argument you use, could also be used to defend pedophilia or cannibalism. They also occur in nature.

I like to compare draw comparisons between homosexuality and pedophilia. They are very similar in the way society has looked at them.

Homosexuals already have the right to marry the opposite gender, and like heterosexuals, homosexuals are barred from marrying the same gender. If homosexuals gained the right to marry their own gender, then heterosexuals would lack the right to marry their own gender, and if both heterosexuals and homosexuals gained the right to marry their own gender, would this not mean that this is not equal rights that we are discussing, but new rights, of which the implications for society are not known?

In other words, you're scared of the unknown.

It is funny that you should say that, as I intentionally withheld my knowledge concerning the implications of homosexual marriage so that people could ponder it for themselves. The idea behind that was so that people would think for themselves, rather than have me give them all of the answers without them ever having a had a single thought. You are one of the people who refused to think even though I did not tell you what to think, given that you did not reply with any possible result.

I knew someone during High School, whose father was a sociologist; according to his father's information, statistically speaking, suicide rates are several times higher among children in homosexual unions than in heterosexual ones. Historically, homosexual marriage is an old issue; it was allowed during the Roman Empire after its peak, and it did not last long after that. From a scientific standpoint, all scientific knowledge obtained since the Renaissance has indicated that homosexuality itself is an illness, and therefore encouraging it harms those who have it. The reason that the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of psychological illnesses is because of an experiment that was performed on a child whose penis was severely damaged during birth. It was so damaged that the child would have never have had normal function, so his doctors decided to try a new unproven scientific theory on gender identity and castrated him. The gender change surgery was said as a huge success and the child was considered to have been changed into a girl, providing the impetus that caused the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality its list of illnesses, solely because of this "success." It was not until 1999, that the child, now an adult, came forward and informed everyone that the surgery was a completely failure and he still liked girls, providing a counter case that demonstrated that the gender identity theory was wrong and demonstrating that everything that was based on it was solely mistaken, including the APA's decision. Everyone of course, ignored it, but the fact remains that all scientific literature concerning homosexuality that had been accepted as scientific truth prior to the gender identity theory is scientifically correct. New research, since then, has demonstrated a flaw in past scientific knowledge in that past scientific knowledge considered homosexuality to be exclusively a psychological illness, while new research in the field of genetics has demonstrated that it is a genetic illness, but this has yet to be recognized, as the exact genetic cause is unknown. Recently, scientists discovered a gene from the Y chromosome on a X chromosome of a male that was chromosomally female; future research into this gene will likely demonstrate mutated versions of it in the homosexual population.

Shinging Arcanine:

Would you define "illness" for me? Specifically, could you supply the definition that "science" uses? Doing so would greatly clarify what you're trying to say.

I would define an illness as the state of being unwell, but being a student, I have yet to come across an exact scientific definition, despite its widespread usage.

Some scientist also believe that religious tendencies are one form of mental illness, where the subject refuses to evaluate existing evidence and chooses to believe in something in spite of, or even because of the lack of evidence.

If homosexuality were an illness, then what would be the cure? Jesus?

It's moral cowardice to dub things you don't like as illnesses. This goes for people who call homosexuality an illness and those who call religion an illness.

If the APA removed their listing, I would think it would be because it has become something almost normal, and therefore not a disorder, because disorder means not ordinary or not normal.

If that gender reassignment proved that genders can't be reassigned, that is not an argument against homosexuality per se, but only against the transience of gender. Some could still be born more homosexual than heterosexual.

Some scientists would say that the lack of religious tendencies is a mental illness. It is a debate.

As for the cure, I would imagine Gene Therapy would be, but not enough research has been done in that field to produce one.



I do not like cancer; does that make it moral cowardice to dub it as an illness?



The APA removed their listing solely because of that experiment; all scientific information known until then and even after then had affirmed that homosexuality should be on the list of psychological illnesses, as it is a disorder.

I love the topic of eugenetics. But tell me something. If homosexuality really was a genetic disorder that caused homosexuality, then how come the problem hasn't solved itself yet? How has the geen been able to survive? It would clearly had to be a very common recessive gene, one that is found everywhere, among every race and population, It's also not a gender specific. Why would the same gene have opposite effect on men and women? Homosexual males become feminine and attracted to men and homosexual females become more masculine and attracted to women. And why would such an illness leave no traces of unusual hormonal activities or any other symptoms, that can be measured inside a laboratory?
I like how you compare homosexuality to cancer. But your answer to vertigo is moot and shows how you completely missed his point. Cancer is medically proven illness, therefore it's ok to call it an illness. Homosexuality is not a proven illness. The fact that you hate homosexuals, doesn't make it an illness, so therefore it's immoral to dub it as such.

I don't really think that religion is an illness. I was just making a point of how silly it sounds to call something an illness because of moral beliefs, not scientific reasons. But empirical evidence has proven to me that most religious people are idiots, who abandon logic, when reality conflicts with the words of their ancient holy books (not limited to christians). This is hardly a newsflash, since most people lack the ability to think for themselves anyway... But what I really dislike is this bs coming from religious people, who are trying to justify their prejudiced views, that are based on the holy book, by some pseudo-scientific crap like ID. Saying homosexuality is a disease falls to the same category, it's just and attempt to justify their moral beliefs with pseudo-science.

When Shining Arcanium is suggesting that homosexuality is a genetic disorder and says it can be cured with gene therapy, his views are really not that different from a Hitler's (Godwin's law has already been invoked).

When I am talking about genetic disorder, it's not the same genetic illness Shining Arcanium is talking about. Man could have a genetic disorder of crooked teeth, baldness, near-sightedness or homosexuality (if it was genetic). Shining Arcanium calls them genetic illnesses, I call them features.

Btw. I'd like to present a moral dilemma to all you religious people. If we were to find out, that homosexuality is indeed a genetic feature, then what would it tell you about god? God designed everything, so why would god give man a genetic feature that condemns him for eternity in hell? Why would god give innocent babies a gene that prevents them from getting married in his church, when they grow up? And if it truly is a genetic condition designed by god, then why does god condemn it in the holy books? Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they should surely be put to death...." And it's not just the old testament. Apostle Paul condemns homosexuality as well in Romans and in Corinthians. Did god give some men a genetic condition and then told the rest to oppress them, out of malice?

How can "all scientific knowledge obtained since the Renaissance" indicate that homosexuality is an illness if it can't even explain what an illness is? I might add I think it's quite likely that the idea of "illness" has evolved signficantly since the Renaissance, or even since the 50's.

I'll go with your definition though. Can we agree that the ultimate judge of wellness is the individual? And, if that is the case, can you say with any certainty that homosexuals feel unwell by virtue of being homosexual? I'd say you have a lot to prove here...

I'd welcome a link to a scientific journal that can speak authoritatively on a "consensus" in the scientfic community. In my experience, there is very little consensus among scientists...

From the APA website:


Neither did a "single study" cause the reclassification you speak of, nor do studies show a correlation between same-sex parents and suicide.