Homosexuality: Biologically Determined?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…I'm just asking you 'what are the consequences of this belief?'

..…

What belief!? -you didn’t ask me what I believed!

Your original question was:

“…what do you say to people like me who accept homosexuals but recognise
the consequences? …”

Well, I also “accept” homosexuals -that “acceptance” is not a “belief” but rath iven by greed and supported by the greedy”?
-can you give me a specific example of how so?[/b]

Don't I deserve a straight answer?

Why should my life be turned upside down by 'your' ambitions?

I don't need an answer from you Andrew as I suspect you're acually
quite cool. But all the other joystick peddlers here, why don't you
speak up??

Here's your chance. Why don't you deal with the consequences of your philosophy?

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Don't I deserve a straight answer?

Why should my life be turned upside down by 'your' ambitions?

I don't need an answer from you Andrew as I suspect you're acually
quite cool. But all the other joystick peddlers here, why don't you
speak up??

Here's your chance. Why don't you deal with the consequences of your philosophy?

…Don't I deserve a straight answer? ..…

Yes, you do -but first I need to have clear understanding of the question else you will always be disappointed by my answer.

…Why should my life be turned upside down by 'your' ambitions? .….

What?

Which of my “ambitions” are threatening or at least have the potentially to turn your life “upside down”?
-I haven’t stated any of my “ambitions”.
-and it certainly isn’t my “ambition” to be a homosexual 😀

….Here's your chance. Why don't you deal with the consequences of your philosophy?..…

If what you mean by my “philosophy” is my acceptance of homosexuality,
to answer that question, I first need to know which “consequences” you are referring to and whether or not similar “consequences” exist for my acceptance of heterosexuality.
If what you mean by my “philosophy” is something OTHER than my acceptance of homosexuality, then to answer that question, I first need to know which aspect of my “philosophy” you are referring to AS WELL AS which “consequences” you are referring to.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Don't I deserve a straight answer? ..…

Yes, you do -but first I need to have clear understanding of the question else you will always be disappointed by my answer.

…Why should my life be turned upside down by 'your' ambitions? .….

What?

Which of my “ambitions” are threatening or at least have the potentially to turn your ...[text shortened]... my “philosophy” you are referring to AS WELL AS which “consequences” you are referring to.[/b]

It's you 'ambition' to fulfill what you consider to be your destiny.

I'm succeptible to addiction, I drink too much but I don't do class A's.
(anymore)
Is it my destiny to be a junky? It's in my genes but I've chosen not
to go down that path.

How is that different from sexuality when it is divorced from procreation?

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
It's you 'ambition' to fulfill what you consider to be your destiny.

I'm succeptible to addiction, I drink too much but I don't do class A's.
(anymore)
Is it my destiny to be a junky? It's in my genes but I've chosen not
to go down that path.

How is that different from sexuality when it is divorced from procreation?

I don't entirely understand your argument but let me try this comparison:
1. Excessive drinking can lead to various bad side effects both to the drinker and others. As such it should be discouraged. What is actually punished is when those side effects to others occur. It is recognized that moderate drinking has positive side effects in terms of entertainment. With stronger drugs the laws tend to be stricter because there is a recognition that it is much less common for a person to minimize the negative side effects.
2. Homosexuality does not in an of itself have any real negative side effect. Homosexuals may be guilty of rape just as heterosexuals may be and both may be guilty of child molestation. Homosexuals also may be at higher risk from STDs and other side effects of certain sexual practices. It must also be recognized that society often imposes strong negative side effects on homosexuals so of course if someone was borderline (if such things exist) they would do well to choose to be heterosexual.
But I fail to see how your susceptibility to drinking could be honestly compared to a susceptibility to homosexuality.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
It's you 'ambition' to fulfill what you consider to be your destiny.

I'm succeptible to addiction, I drink too much but I don't do class A's.
(anymore)
Is it my destiny to be a junky? It's in my genes but I've chosen not
to go down that path.

How is that different from sexuality when it is divorced from procreation?

…It's you 'ambition' to fulfil what you consider to be your destiny.

I'm susceptible to addiction, I drink too much but I don't do class A's.
(anymore)
Is it my destiny to be a junky? It's in my genes but I've chosen not
to go down that path.
.…

Oh I see. So you are not saying that specifically MY 'ambition' could “turned your life upside down” but rather the 'ambition' of homosexuals could “turned your life upside down”?

Ok, I see two things wrong with that. Firstly, homosexuals don’t “choose” to be homosexuals any more than I “choose” to be heterosexual. Thus neither I nor they have ever one day thought to them selves “I know, I think I will choose to have the sexuality that I have a predisposition to have” and then fulfil that 'ambition' just that because of that thought.

Secondly, how would, say, two homosexuals having a homosexual relationship and even sex in the privacy of their own home could be likely to “turn your life upside down”?
-I mean, I fail to see why you should be bothered providing it is done behind closed doors -it doesn’t, at least not directly, effect you.

-I mean, I fail to see why you should be bothered providing it is done behind closed doors -it doesn’t, at least not directly, effect you.[/b]

Yet somehow it did, didn't it? Directly.

We were talking earlier about frames of reference. Your frame of
reference on this issue is a belief that you want to be true so bad
that you're willing to overlook and dismiss important aspects.

You want it so bad that you even want me to be able to see it.
But it doesn't wash on me. I'm not buying into your delusion.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Yet somehow it did, didn't it? Directly.

We were talking earlier about frames of reference. Your frame of
reference on this issue is a belief that you want to be true so bad
that you're willing to overlook and dismiss important aspects.

You want it so bad that you even want me to be able to see it.
But it doesn't wash on me. I'm not buying into your delusion.

…Yet somehow it did, didn't it? Directly. .…

In what way did it effect you?

…Your frame of reference on this issue is a BELIEF that you want to be true so bad
that.….

Which “BELIEF” of mine are you referring to? -That homosexual acts behind closed doors doesn’t effect you directly?
-if so, I have no “desire” to believe that this is the case any more than I have a “desire” to believe that this is NOT the case -my “feelings” on this particular matter (which I have virtually non of anyway) and of any other matter has no significant effect on my belief forming process.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Yet somehow it did, didn't it? Directly. .…

In what way did it effect you?

…Your frame of reference on this issue is a BELIEF that you want to be true so bad
that.….

Which “BELIEF” of mine are you referring to? -That homosexual acts behind closed doors doesn’t effect you directly?
-if so, I have no “desire” to believe t ...[text shortened]... non of anyway) and of any other matter has no significant effect on my belief forming process.[/b]

I'm not going to get a straight answer out of you am I?

Are you telling me that if you are a homosexual, the knowledge of whether or not
your actions affect others has no significant affect on your belief forming process?

If that were the case then I have a very good right to be concerned.

I think kids should be taught at school on the dangers of homosexuality, what do
you 'feel' about that?

edit. and your 'closed doors' scenario is lame. What about public toilets, bars, clubs,
planes, trains and many the heath?

You see this is precisely what I'm getting at, the image of homosexuality as a
sequinned liberation is a false one. It's a seedy sport at best.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
I'm not going to get a straight answer out of you am I?

Are you telling me that if you are a homosexual, the knowledge of whether or not
your actions affect others has no significant affect on your belief forming process?

If that were the case then I have a very good right to be concerned.

I think kids should be taught at school on the dangers of ...[text shortened]... of homosexuality as a
sequinned liberation is a false one. It's a seedy sport at best.

…Are you telling me that if you are a homosexual, the knowledge of whether or not
your actions affect others has no significant affect on your belief forming process?
.…

that wasn’t what I said.

…I think kids should be taught at school on the dangers of homosexuality, what do
you 'feel' about that? ….

I think that sounds strangely homophobic:
-do you think kids should be taught at school on the dangers of heterosexuality any more than kids should be taught at school on the dangers of homosexuality?
And don’t you mean actual homosexual acts as opposed to homosexuality in general?

….edit. and your 'closed doors' scenario is lame. What about public toilets, bars, clubs,
planes, trains and many the heath? ..…

What about them? Sometimes heterosexual acts are also done in these places.

….You see this is precisely what I'm getting at, the image of homosexuality as a
sequinned liberation is a false one.
...…

I am strangely unaware of the existence of this image of homosexuality.

…It's a seedy sport at best...…

What do you mean its a “sport”? -do they do it to compete for silver or gold?
Is heterosexuality a “sport”?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Are you telling me that if you are a homosexual, the knowledge of whether or not
your actions affect others has no significant affect on your belief forming process?
.…

that wasn’t what I said.

…I think kids should be taught at school on the dangers of homosexuality, what do
you 'feel' about that? ….

I think that soun ts a “sport”? -do they do it to compete for silver or gold?
Is heterosexuality a “sport”?[/b]

No it's not what you said. But then neither does smoking effect your health.
The fact that you chose to persue this rather pitiful line of avoiding answering
honestly just shows how much you have to hide.

Yes I think there should be equal discipline for children on the dangers of both.
No it's not homophobic, it's factual and informative. Much as teaching about the
dangers of driving is.

You can call me homophobic all you want, but I'm not frightened of them.
You see I'm immune. They made me that way.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
No it's not what you said. But then neither does smoking effect your health.
The fact that you chose to persue this rather pitiful line of avoiding answering
honestly just shows how much you have to hide.

Yes I think there should be equal discipline for children on the dangers of both.
No it's not homophobic, it's factual and informative. Much ...[text shortened]... c all you want, but I'm not frightened of them.
You see I'm immune. They made me that way.

…No it's not what you said. But then neither does smoking effect your health.
.…

No. Smoking necessarily does adversely effect your health (even if you don’t get cancer or hart disease -it decreases lung function and also probably still shortens life).
But homosexuality/heterosexuality does NOT necessarily adversely effect your health even if you practice it often -it depends on how responsibly you do it so it isn’t a fair comparison with smoking for that reason.

If somebody strictly has consensual sex and always use a condom and also take other precautions and don’t do anything too peculiar and dangerous then, regardless of whether or not that person is a homosexual or a heterosexual, there is no credible chance that that person could adversely effect his health nor his partners nor anyone else’s even if that person would want to do it 8 times each day and 8 times each night like I do.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…No it's not what you said. But then neither does smoking effect your health.
.…

No. Smoking necessarily does adversely effect your health (even if you don’t get cancer or hart disease -it decreases lung function and also probably still shortens life).
But homosexuality/heterosexuality does NOT necessarily adversely effec ...[text shortened]... se’s even if that person would want to do it 8 times each day and 8 times each night like I do.[/b]

Smoking does have effects but it does not necessarily effect your health. That is
why it is said to 'affect your health' i.e. likely to effect it.

No surprises that you turn the conversation to sex, how very pedicable of you.
It's only a matter of time when talking to a homosexual before their attention
wanders back to the groin. A telltale sign of a psychological disorder.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Smoking does have effects but it does not necessarily effect your health. That is
why it is said to 'affect your health' i.e. likely to effect it.

No surprises that you turn the conversation to sex, how very pedicable of you.
It's only a matter of time when talking to a homosexual before their attention
wanders back to the groin. A telltale sign of a psychological disorder.

…Smoking does have effects but it does not necessarily effect your health.
…

Yes it does! -if absolutely nothing else (i.e. if you don't get cancer etc), it will INEVITABLY reduce the smoker’s lung function in terms of the lung’s ability to transfer oxygen from the air to the blood. It also reduces the efficiency that haemoglobin can pick-up oxygen because the carbon monoxide blocks some of this oxygen absorption by combining with haemoglobin.
WITH ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, you will INEVITABLY be able to run less far on a long-distance run if you smoke than if you don’t.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Smoking does have effects but it does not necessarily effect your health.
…

Yes it does! -if absolutely nothing else (i.e. if you don't get cancer etc), it will INEVITABLY reduce the smoker’s lung function in terms of the lung’s ability to transfer oxygen from the air to the blood. It also reduces the efficiency that haemoglobin can pick ...[text shortened]... will INEVITABLY be able to run less far on a long-distance run if you smoke than if you don’t.[/b]

The difference between affect and effect is subtle yet important. In this scenario
we can say that cigarettes have an affect that is very likely to cause an effect.
There are some very rare examples such as hyperventilation/over-oxygenation where
decreased lung function may actually be a bonus. You may find long term smokers
where a doctor recomends that they don't give up because the shock may kill
them. These are all very rare cases but the point is that it's not cast in stone.
For something to have a definitive effect on something else it has to be an absolute.

I have chosen an extreme example but can still produce some arguments why we
use the word affect and not effect. I think you already know this which is why you
were so determined to stear clear of using affect.

So to say that homosexuality doesn't effect others is a total cop-out. However
it does show that you are fully aware that it affects people in general and can
cause a detrimental effect on individuals.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
The difference between affect and effect is subtle yet important. In this scenario
we can say that cigarettes have an affect that is very likely to cause an effect.
There are some very rare examples such as hyperventilation/over-oxygenation where
decreased lung function may actually be a bonus. You may find long term smokers
where a doctor recomends tha that it affects people in general and can
cause a detrimental effect on individuals.

…There are some very rare examples such as hyperventilation/over-oxygenation where
decreased lung function may actually be a bonus.
…

I presume VERY rare! Smoking wouldn’t be recommended by any good doctor as a way of preventing such a thing -I am sure there are more suitable treatments.

…You may find long term smokers
where a doctor recommends that they don't give up because the shock may kill
them.
….

-it would have to be a very bad doctor in these modern times -why not give the smoker nicotine tables or nicotine patches to control the craving?

….I have chosen an extreme example but can still produce some arguments why we
use the word affect and not effect. I think you already know this which is why you
were so determined to steer clear of using affect.
..…

I wasn't trying to steer clear of using “affect” -I wasn’t considering the emotional effects in my previous arguments thus it would have been totally idiotic and inappropriate for me to have used the word affect rather than the word effect for that reason.

And besides, until you just pointed it out now, I didn’t even notice that you have sometimes been using the word “affect” rather than “effect” -the two words look so similar to me that it is easy for me to misread “affect” as “effect” and that is precisely what I have been doing.

….So to say that homosexuality doesn't effect others is a total cop-out. However
it does show that you are fully aware that it affects people in general
...…

Yes- an emotional affect/effect. All sexuality has an emotional affect/effect; heterosexuality has an emotional affect/effect -doesn’t mean it is always a bad affect/effect.

…and can cause a detrimental effect on individuals.
...…

don’t you mean “…and can cause a detrimental affect on individuals…?

-and heterosexuality can cause a detrimental effect/affect on individuals but, just like with homosexuality, NOT necessarily so.
-so why treat the two any different?