charlatan:

no one was debating whether words were ever changed or not. that has nothing to do with whether that practice is proper or improper.

@ Zamunda: No governing document of the United States contains the words: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That's in the declaration of independance, which predates the actual constitution by a few years.

I wasn't referring to kleptomania as a defect in that sense. It's a difference between something that should ideally be treated and that for which there is no reason for treatment.

You've heard of homosexuality being 'cured' by Christian groups, right? Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical of it as well. But I haven't ruled out the possibility that science may be capable of 'curing' or 'controlling' it (and that it is a thing that one should seek to cure or control).

3 words that caused a LOT of problems in the past come to mind:
"seperate but equal"

I know i keep throwing the race card here, and I apologize, but when a situation parallells it so nicely it's hard to resist. I think the comparison is appropriate, and bears both repition and contempltaion. it was okay to allow blacks some rights... so long as they were seperate and pushed away...

See what we have here is a massive difference in opinion, I think homosexuality is natural for some people and their is no reason to attempt to "cure" it. You on the other hand believe that homosexuality needs to be curbed.

I so wish I could upload attachments because I have this great debate case from last year that involves curing homosexuality and irony, mostly irony.

Anyway I have a few of the link from that case and I think they might provoke some debate.

http://www.psychotherapistresources....totmframe.html


All from the Szasz interview:

"In the case of mental illness, we are dealing with a metaphorical way of expressing the view that the speaker thinks there is something wrong about the behavior of the person to whom he attributes the “illness.”

"In short, just as there were no witches, only women disapproved and called “witches,” so there are no mental diseases, only behaviors of which psychiatrists disapprove and call them “mental illnesses.” Let’s say a person has a fear of going out into the open. Psychiatrists call that “agoraphobia” and claim it is an illness. Or if a person has odd ideas or perceptions, psychiatrists say he has “delusions” or “hallucinations.” Or he uses illegal drugs or commits mass murder. These are all instances of behaviors, not diseases."

"Diagnoses are NOT diseases. Period. Psychiatrists have had some very famous diseases for which they have never apologized, the two most obvious ones being masturbation and homosexuality. People with these so-called “diseases” were tortured by psychiatrists — for hundreds of years. Children were tortured by antimasturbation treatments. Homosexuals were incarcerated and tortured by psychiatrists. Now all that is conveniently forgotten, while psychiatrists — prostitutes of the dominant ethic — invent new diseases, like the ones you mentioned."

"Only then could we begin to examine so-called “mental illnesses” as forms of behavior, like other behaviors."

I'm all for gay marriage. I think our failure to recognize gay marriages paints an incredibly ignorant picture of our country. I think that the generations who inherit this country from us will look back on this issue in this period the same way we look at the attitudes of society pre-civil rights and pre-women's suffrage movement. That is, with a furrowed brow and a shake of the head.

As far as protecting the "sanctity" of marriage, if you think divorce is in any way acceptable, then you have no right to pretend to defend the sanctity of marriage in any kind of religious sense.
I'm not saying that we should outlaw divorce, just that if you care about the sanctity of marriage from a christian standpoint you should be working towards outlawing divorce as well as defending the institution from homosexuals.
I just want to apply some consistency to all this "I just want to protect the sanctity of marriage" posturing, because it generally amounts to nothing more than a convenient way to rationalize bigotry. You only have look to the divorce rates in the u.s. if you want to see how much the average american cares about the sanctity of marriage.

No. I believe it's a possibility that it should be curbed. I don't believe that anyone's disproven it. Honestly, I lean toward your position. That's my intuition.

Kleptomania is something that should be treated, because the behavior that it can lead to is immoral.

Homosexuality might fit in the same category. It depends on whether the behavior that it can lead to is immoral. If you have some method of demonstrating that it's morally okey-dokey, then the analogy will be defeated.

Moral an immoral are such slippery terms. No behavior is ever always moral or always immoral. I don't think you can really compare kleptomania to homosexuality in that way. I think kleptomania is a compulsion, while homosexuality is no more a compulsion than heterosexuality. That is to say, a gay man likes to sex-up other men, but isn't compulsively sexxing-up another man at every opportunity. Kleptos steal uncontrollably. Stealing also requires a victim, homosexuality does not.

Funny thing is that you can "cure" anyone of anything depending on the method used. If you wanted, I could cure you of your will to eat through shock therapy. Funny aside, 13 methods have been developed to cure homosexuality. I like methods 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 for curing homosexuals.

"Thirteen Theories to "Cure" Homosexuality
by Don Romesburg
from Out in All Directions: An Almanac of Gay and Lesbian America

Since the late nineteenth century doctors and religious leaders have been attempting to cure the desire for same-sex intimacy. The desire to "cure" homosexuality comes from societal discomfort with same-sex love rather than from any real pathology on the part of lesbians and gay men. Despite claims to the contrary, none of these "cures" work.

1. Prostitution Therapy (late nineteenth century): Through sex with prostitutes, "inverted men" would experience co-gender sexual desire. Famous sexologist Havelock Ellis noted that "the treatment was usually interrupted by continual backsliding to homosexual practices, and sometimes this cure involved a venereal disorder."

2. Marriage Therapy (late nineteenth century): When presented with the option of courting and marriage, the "deviant" would naturally go "straight." Dr. William Hammond, a New York medical researcher, prescribed a gay man "continuous association with virtuous women, and severe study of abstract studies (like math)."

3. Cauterization (late nineteenth century): Dr. Hammond also suggested that homosexual patients be "cauterized [at] the nape of the neck and the lower dorsal and lumbar regions" every ten days.

4. Castration/Ovary Removal (late nineteenth century): In a pre-Hitler world, the medical community did not consider castration particularly horrific. Aside from believing that removal of the testes would eliminate the sexual drive of the homosexual, many doctors also thought homosexuality to be hereditary.

5. Chastity (late nineteenth century): If homosexuality could not be cured, then homosexuals had no moral choice but to remain chaste. Catholic doctor Marc-Andre Raffalovich confessed that "the tendencies of our time, particularly the prevalent contempt for religion, make chastity more difficult for everyone."

6. Hypnosis (late nineteenth/early twentieth century): New Hampshire doctor John D. Quackenbos claimed that "unnatural passions for persons of the same sex"--like nymphomania, masturbation, and "gross impurity"--could be cured through hypnosis.

7. Aversion Therapy (early to mid twentieth century): Reward heterosexual arousal and punish homosexual attraction, often through electric shock. In 1935, New York University's Dr. Louis Max said of a homosexual male patient that "intensities [of shock] considerably higher than those usually employed on human subjects definitely diminished the value of the stimulus for days after each experimental period."

8. Psychoanalysis (early to mid twentieth century): With Freud came a whole new discussion of possible cures through a psychoanalytic approach. In the 1950s, Edmund Berger, M.D., spoke of homosexuality as a kind of "psychic masochism" in which the unconscious sets a person on a course of self-destruction. Find the cause, such as resentment toward a domineering mother, and you find the cure.

9. Radiation Treatment (early to mid twentieth century): X-ray treatments were believed to reduce levels of promiscuous homosexual urges brought on by glandular hyperactivity. In 1933, New York doctor La Forest Potter lamented Oscar Wilde's being born too soon, because if he were still alive, "we could [have] subjected the overactive thymus to X-ray radiation, atrophied the gland, and suppressed the overactivity of its function."

10. Hormone Therapy (mid twentieth century): If homosexual men are too effeminate and lesbians are too masculine, steroid treatments would theoretically butch up the boys and femme out the girls. Prolonged use also had effects such as sterility and cancer.

11. Lobotomy (mid twentieth century): By cutting nerve fibers in the front of the brain, homosexual drives (indeed, most sexual and even emotional reaction capabilities) were eliminated. Lobotomies for homosexuality were performed until the 1950s in the U.S.

12. Psycho-Religious Therapy (mid twentieth century): Religious doctors and therapists combined religious teachings with psychoanalysis to inspire heterosexuality. Man on a Pendulum (1955) written by rabbi/psychoanalyst Israel Gerber, is the "true story" of such a treatment.

13. Beauty Therapy (mid twentieth century): All a butch lesbian needs is a good make-over. In Is Homosexuality a Menace? (1957), Dr. Arthur Guy Matthew tells of how he cured a lesbian by getting her hair "professionally coiffured," teaching her to apply cosmetics--"which she had never used in her life"--and hiring "a fashion expert (not a male homosexual) who selected the most elegant feminine styles for her to bring out the charm and beauty in her body."

Why must it be treated and why is it immoral ?

I'm pretty sure that any behavior can lead to immorality, however you choose to define that, and no behavior can be cleared against immorality. In essence, homosexuality is no more moral or immoral than any other activity on the face of the earth, including posting on the TFP.

Actually, someone was debating whether words were ever changed or not and that would be you, right here:
The underlining is done by me to point out he relevant parts of the quote.

I think it's pretty clear that you were talking about the evolution of language...

English is quite possibly the youngest of all languages (aside from Klingon or Esporanto) so it doesn't mean much to me if the word marriage hasn't changed in it's history.

Besides, words are hijacked all the time. What's the worry? I bet the definition of the word vertigo will soon be changed to mean the fear of heights...

Science also hasn't said anything about whether being a geek is just a difference or also a deficiency...

Theft for selfish reasons? Lying for selfish reasons? Rape? Murder?

Two good points. I'll conceed that it can't be a great analogy. The main point of it is the idea that homosexuality/kleptomania can lead to spiritually unhealthy (immoral) behavior, so it's a good idea to treat it.

Yeah, I know. The question is whether or not it should be cured.

Not 'must'. I leave that choice up to the person (or if a minor, his/her guardian). 'Should' is the word I used.

Are you really questioning whether theft is immoral?

But that's not what I said. I talked of the idea that the behavior itself immoral.

Homosexuality isn't an activity. It's a condition. Conditions can't be moral or immoral, they aren't choices.

Is moral relativism lurking about? Because if it is, I can make this really simple.

So anything that can lead to immoral behavior should be treated? If this is the case, we should be treating sexuality in general, as it can lead to rape, adultery, lust, etc.

This raises an interesting point. What would you call your sexuality if not "a condition"? Assuming you subscribe to the belief that it's not a chosen thing, I'd say "characteristic," like hair color or height.

"quote:
Originally posted by FoolThemAll

Homosexuality isn't an activity. It's a condition. Conditions can't be moral or immoral, they aren't choices.


This raises an interesting point. What would you call your sexuality if not "a condition"? Assuming you subscribe to the belief that it's not a chosen thing, I'd say "characteristic," like hair color or height."

Yeah I mis-spoke, homosexuality is a characteristic, not an activity. If you look at the stuff by Szasz I posted it is pretty evident that it is a characteristic and not a condition.

Someone is actually trying to make the argument that homosexuality is immoral and comparing it to a psychological disorder...

shakes his head and walks away...

Okay, toss condition. Characteristic suits me fine.

Thank you for your thoughtful contribution to this thread.

Sorry it took so long to respond, but I did not say it was in the constitution, i said it was in the govt, because it was one of the founding principles, the decleration of independence. If you think this document doesn't hold a foundation of our indpendence, then thats different.

When is consensual sexual behavior between two people ever immoral?

Here are a few thoughts as to why someone might think this.

1. Nature intended that sexual intercourse only take place between a man and a woman, and then only for reproduction.

Response: First, I don't know what "nature" is, and if "nature" even exists at all, I don't think it is capable of intending anything. This is similar to a religious or "intelligent design" argument, and there's a crucial question that needs to be asked. "If nature, or God, or whatever intended for us to live a certain way, why is sex so pleasureable, and why is our knowledge of this ideal life so elusive?" If our designer, or nature, intended that our sexual behavior be governed by point 1., they did a rather poor job of it.

In short, the creator designed us in such a way that immoral sexual behavior is rewarded, and we are designed with no innate way of telling which kinds of sex we ought to be having.

Now, how would I argue the immorality of homosexuality without an argument from religion or nature?

I don't see any need to restrict sex to increase the population, so it would be silly to say people can't have sex unless they want to have babies. Recreational sex ought to be allowed, as it increases happiness, interpersonal connections (between couples), and these gains in personal satisfaction translate to a more harmonious society. But this looks like an argument FOR permitting homosexuality.

So, can I make a secular argument against homosexuality? I can't think of anything now, so if someone else would like to attempt, I will help. :)

Well if you want to argue "Nature", homosexuality would definently be a dsiadvantage. Gay's don't reproduce, thus they will be eliminated from the gene pool.

I don't think a secular argument is possible.

and, since the government is not religiously-affiliated, they have no reason to deny homosexuals marriage, or the right to be gay, for that matter. thank you for wrapping that up nicely.

I can think of several dozen animals off the top of my head who engage in homosexual and bisexual activity outside of humans.

For instance, leave female cows cooped up long enough together and they will start humping each other. Not just a small percentage of them, but virtually all of the animals will attempt this.

So, since it isn't against nature, the only reason people can be against it is because "God says it's bad"
But if God thought that, why would he allow homo and bisexuality to be so prevalent in nature?

turn: And since a lot of people are anti-gay that would be an argument for allowing gay marriage...

You're not arguing nature, you're arguing natural selection, which in many ways, doesn't apply in the way your trying to apply it. For example, i know plenty of people with gay mothers or fathers. Gay people do reproduce. Gay men can donate sperm, lesbians can use donated sperm. It is feasable for a gay man to father a child through a lesbian woman. Don't say it isn't natural either because if "nature"(in the convenient, personified sense) didn't want us to be able to do it we wouldn't be able to do it.

We're talking about behavior, not the reasoning behind it. It takes only a brief look around this world of ours to find a "moral" justification for murder(war, self-defense), theft(stealing bread to feed the family), and if you want to get purely hypothetical, rape(well, if i didn't rape so and so they said they'd kill five people).

Sometimes, homosexuals reproduce with members of the opposite sex. It might be a slight disadvantage, but it doesn't preclude the transmission of genes either.

Now, the principle you're getting at probably isn't one that you want to follow through on. One of the greatest accomplishments of human civilization is that we no longer have to be subject to natural selection.

Why would heterosexuals want to get married?

I agree.

I've always taken murder to mean "unjustified killing". (Just replace 'murder' with this if you don't accept that definition.) Thus, war is not necessarily murder and self-defense is certainly not murder. "Lying/stealing for selfish reasons" is most certainly behavior, behavior distinct from "lying/stealing for altruistic reasons". And please, you aren't going to find an uncoerced instance of rape that isn't immoral.

All right, I wrote a big old response and my computer crashed, so I'll drop some quick science on you all. Assuming for one terrible, stupid moment that sexuality is a genetic trait and that homosexuality is recessive, if both parents have the trait, they have a 25% chance of having a homosexual child. This is junk science, not realistic, overly simplistic. It's just to remind people that gay parents do not necessarily have gay children, nor do straight parents always have straight children. Gays are in no danger of being eliminated from the gene pool, as evidenced by the fact that they're still around and have been for thousands and thousands of years. Enough.

not that this is exceedingly pertinent, but some people have also mentioned that homosexuality might be an evolutionary development as nature's way of controlling population. I think its hogwash but then again so are most arguements against homosexuality.

and, im very surprised by this because I long thought the only animals that engaged in homosexual sex and orgies as such were bonobo chimps.

Nope. It is not as uncommon as we were led to believe. :P

As for gay marriage, I will post what I have posted in the twelve other gay marriage threads on this board -- the government has no business involving itself in a social institution like marriage.

Word.

Coerced or not. Would the moral person rape someone if that meant that five more people wouldn't get raped? Completely hypothetical, but then i think any debate on morals has to be. I guess it depends on whether your morals are flexible to allow you to adapt to new situations on conditions.
Again, you have to consider the bahavior inepentdently to the motivation. Of course when you apply motivations that are inherently immoral to the majority of society to certain behaviors those behaviors seem immoral. Defining murder as "unjustified killing" completely ignores the fact that "justification" is in the eyes of the beholder. Some think all war is immoral, some think some wars are immoral. No doubt there is someone somewhere who thinks war is the ultimate form of morality.

Denotological- you can't morally rape the woman

Consequentialism- you have to rape the woman

done.

hehehehehehehe...

yeah, im really pissed about the hijacking of the word 'gay' too. not to mention 'black'!!

the government does not have the right to withold the same legal status and tax benefits to gay married couples as it does to mixed couples, the government also does not have the right to prevent any two consenting and reasonable adults marrying.

Of course, this can become difficult, should a daughter and a father be allowed to marry, if both genuinely wish to, or canwe assume the daughter cannot be reasonable if she wants to do so?

Once you start enforcing your own standards of reason on other people's actions, then it becomes a matter of degree what is repressive and what is necessary.

Clearly, we do not want parents to be able to marry their children, and most people would think it is right that this is illegal, and I believe most people do believe gay marriage should be allowed. We should always trust the democratic instincts of the people - not the media, the government, the religious zealots, those who cry the loudest - ordinary men and women normally will make the right decision if they are allowed to.

I am slightly biased though, since my mum is gay, and I dont think it is fair, legal, or decent that she should be prevented from marrying her girlfriend if she wants to.

I had gay rabbits when I was a kid, both male. They humped each other just about every 5th minute. Sometimes it looked like they did oral too. Bet God hated those pagan faggy bunnies.

Gay marriages should be forbidden by law.
The sacred institution of marriage should be protected for people like Newt Gingrich, Jimmy Swaggart, and Brittany Spears.

"Britney"

;)