Saturday, February 12, 2011

Fletch 'Born This Way'

Oh dear...
Lady Gaga has a new song out, and it's sure to be a hit. The song is called Born This Way, and here are some of the lyrics -

CHORUS:
I'M BEAUTIFUL IN MY WAY
'CAUSE GOD MAKES NO MISTAKES
I'M ON THE RIGHT TRACK BABY
I WAS BORN THIS WAY

DON'T HIDE YOURSELF IN REGRET
JUST LOVE YOURSELF AND YOU'RE SET
I'M ON THE RIGHT TRACK BABY
I WAS BORN THIS WAY


DON'T BE A DRAG -JUST BE A QUEEN
DON'T BE A DRAG -JUST BE A QUEEN
DON'T BE A DRAG -JUST BE A QUEEN
DON'T BE!

IN THE RELIGION OF THE INSECURE
I MUST BE MYSELF, RESPECT MY YOUTH

NO MATTER GAY, STRAIGHT, OR BI,
LESBIAN, TRANSGENDERED LIFE
I'M ON THE RIGHT TRACK BABY
I WAS BORN TO SURVIVE
NO MATTER BLACK, WHITE OR BEIGE
CHOLA OR ORIENT MADE
I'M ON THE RIGHT TRACK BABY
I WAS BORN TO BE BRAVE
Yes, I admit that I am cherry-picking the lyrics (you can Google the rest), but these are some of the ones I wanted to focus and that I take issue with.


First of all, the song has a very deceptive message, and I'm sure a message that the politically correct and the easily influenced (ie, youth) will lap up: the message that God doesn't make mistakes; He made me; I am this way; therefore God made me this way, so I shouldn't feel the slightest bit of guilt or angst over my conduct that some in society may see as unsavoury: I was made this way and don't have any influence over my own tendencies (or if I do have influence, I shouldn't do anything to change because this is how I was made).
In it's own way, it's saying, 'give into and enjoy your baser instincts: it's really OK'. It's the whisper of Satan put to music.

Like many a Liberal, Progressive, or Politically Correct idea, the lyric "no matter gay, straight, or bi [...] no matter black, white, or beige" tries to equate Civil Rights (the color of someone who really is "born that way" and cannot change) with the myth of sexual orientation (which can be chosen, and often is a matter of sexual preference, although may have a lot to do with abuse or other influences growing up).

And what exactly is the "religion of the insecure"? Doing what you want?

Also, what about those who have an unhealthy attraction to young children? Or animals? Or to sado-machicism? Are they "born that way" as well? And if not, then why not? Who is to say that one group, or group's sexual proclivities is an authentic orientation and another group's not? Or what if you're born with a tendency to alcoholism (as some people are), is it OK not to change that either? Just to be accepting of who and what you are?

Can a pedophile look at himself and say honestly, 'God made me this way'? I do not think many would agree. Yes, I know how the gay community hates me bringing pedophila into a discussion of sexual orientation, but I think it is relevant: homosexuality and pedophilia are both sexual proclivities directed toward different objects - there is no proof or logical basis to assume that one is a sexual orientation (or "born that way") and one is not.

In bringing God into the discussion (or song) it seems to me His unconditional love is used as a rationale for the conduct of everyone (OK, everyone except the perverts).

Oh, by the way, in the first verse she sings -
It doesn't matter if you love him, or capital H-I-M
Some on Gaga's forum have suggested that H-I-M stands for 'His Infernal Majesty', or Satan, and some not. I don't know enough about this to argue either way, but it's food for thought.

To conclude: I believe that God made us all, and loves us all, but that He spells out in His Word, The Bible, exactly what He sees as acceptable behaviour or not. No, it won't make God stop loving you, but disobeying him and giving into sin may have an effect on how you spend eternity.

49 comment(s):

malcolm said...

"..with the myth of sexual orientation (which can be chosen, and often is a matter of sexual preference, although may have a lot to do with abuse or other influences growing up)."

Fletch, when did you decide to be heterosexual? If you didn't decide this, why do assume homosexuals are the same as you but simply chose to be gay, against their nature?

Lucia Maria said...

Malcolm, there is no decision to be heterosexual, because being so is part of our nature. But to be attracted to a person of the same sex is against nature. The decision occurs when a person then acts on that unnatural attraction and engages in sex acts with the same sex.

Psycho Milt said...

Also, what about those who have an unhealthy attraction to religion? Are they "born that way" as well?

Can a
Christian/Muslim/Buddhist look at himself and say honestly, 'God made me this way'? I do not think many would agree.

The thing is, when you peddle that "gay = pedophile" shit, it's hard to remain polite about it.

...but it's food for thought.

For people to whom rationality, logic and statistical likelihood are utterly foreign concepts it may be food for thought, but for non-strangers to these concepts it's merely a depressing commentary on people at the lower ends of various bell curves.

I.M Fletcher said...

PM, where did I say gay=pedophile? What I said is that both homosexuality and pedophilia are sexual attractions (toward different objects) and that it makes no sense that one is somehow a valid sexual attraction or 'orientation', and the other not - where is the distinction drawn?

As I have said often before, I have nothing personal against people who describe themselves as being gay and I do not think they should be discriminated against. If they are aware of God's laws and decide (in their conduct) to act otherwise, then that is between themselves and God - fair enough. What I disagree with is when the law itself should be changed to allow that it should be demanded of society that their conduct should (nay, must) be considered as normal, and that my Christian conscience should instead be discriminated against if I disagree.

malcolm said...

Malcolm, there is no decision to be heterosexual, because being so is part of our nature.

Lucia, you're saying heterosexuality is our nature and no choice is required, but Fletch is saying that people choose to be homosexual. Which is it? If people choose their sexuality, why didn't you, me or Fletch ever make that decision? The answer is that people don't choose. They're either gay or straight and some are in the middle (and they don't really make a choice either). So getting back to Gaga, why is God creating gays, only to punish them when they follow their nature?

But to be attracted to a person of the same sex is against nature.

"against nature" has no meaning in this context. If they're attracted, then it's in their nature. I think you're trying to say "But to be attracted to a person of the same sex should not happen because all people are heterosexual, because our nature is heterosexual". But it *does* happen, so how do you reconcile this? I think the sensible person concludes that gays are born that way (i.e. it's in their nature), and the "they choose to be gay, against there nature" nonsense is just Christians trying to square a circle.


What I said is that both homosexuality and pedophilia are sexual attractions (toward different objects) and that it makes no sense that one is somehow a valid sexual attraction or 'orientation', and the other not - where is the distinction drawn?

Isn't it obvious? The distinction is consent. Homosexuality happens between consenting adults. Paedophilia involves an adult and an under-age person, who by definition cannot consent.

ZenTiger said...

Malcolm, I think you miss the point Fletch was making regarding choosing to run with your urges or restrain them.

Or what if you're born with a tendency to alcoholism (as some people are), is it OK not to change that either? Just to be accepting of who and what you are?

So, with Paedophilia, perhaps it's not the fact that it is a matter of consent or not, it is more a matter of society saying that it is illegal (for whatever reason) and that any paedophile must restrain themselves from following "their nature", or face the consequences.

You presumably think that law is right and proper, because in your mind, a 12 year old (say) cannot provide informed consent.

But that is a legal issue demanding restraint, rather than the physical issue: The "unnatural" sexual attraction of the pedophile with prepubescent children.

Although, because most people find such an attraction unnatural, they despise the pedophile, or at least think them sick.

So we can assume Lady Gaga doesn't mean for those people to follow her advice, just because some of society don't agree with their practices?

DON'T HIDE YOURSELF IN REGRET
JUST LOVE YOURSELF AND YOU'RE SET
I'M ON THE RIGHT TRACK BABY
I WAS BORN THIS WAY

There are those that argue for a lower age of consent, and once something is legal, then we can see that society must do more than tolerate that activity, but endorse it and normalize it.

I wonder if it is bigoted to fight against the age of consent being lowered?

And how offended will people be if a group of people argue to have it raised?

ZenTiger said...

@PM: Firstly, I think Fletch didn't connect gay=pedophile as you seemed to think.

Secondly, you too (like Malcolm) seem to think being Gay is simply a matter of Genetics (statistical probability and all that)

On the matter of being born gay, I think that SOME people are genetically wired that way, and I also believe SOME are not.

You seem to be saying ALL Gay people are that way by genetics.

I don't see why the environment (cultural, social, physical) and other factors (upbringing, significant events, influences) cannot shape or alter a persons sexual preference, and equally alter it back.

If I look at a few case histories, that theory seems to hold some possibility, and those cases would therefore pertain to some of what Fletch is talking about.

I thought there was a fair amount of debate on if it was all genetics, or all environmental/mental or a bit of both (and I think the mix of both quite likely, with perhaps the genetics limited to 1% of the population, and the remaining percentage for all the other possible reasons).

I certainly don't claim to be an expert in this, and this may well be an uninformed opinion, so people, please leap in and give me the facts.

Has that question been settled? Is it one or the other, or a mix of both?

Seán said...

IMF said "with the myth of sexual orientation (which can be chosen, and often is a matter of sexual preference, although may have a lot to do with abuse or other influences growing up)."

I don't really have a definitive opinion but I am leaning to view that homosexuality can't be chosen. When I see two normal-looking blokes walking down the street holding hands - a bizarre view if ever there was one - then I have to think that there is something inside them that made them want this. Choice in this case is not logical.

David Winter said...

I thought there was a fair amount of debate on if it was all genetics, or all environmental/mental or a bit of both (and I think the mix of both quite likely, with perhaps the genetics limited to 1% of the population, and the remaining percentage for all the other possible reasons).

why would it matter at all?

I baked a cake yesterday, and the batter rose a few cm in the oven. What percentage of that rise was down to the baking powder I added, and what percentage was down to the heat in the oven?

Since the heat was entirely environmental, I'll be able to turn the cake back into batter. Right?

I.M Fletcher said...

Sean, I do not think that logic comes into it. Many people choose lifestyles that others condemn.

Dr Scott Lively also points out - On the question of choice, it must be noted that all sex but rape is voluntary and thus every sexual act involves a conscious choice. A person’s inclination toward a form of sexual conduct may not, for any number of reasons, be consciously chosen, but the mere existence of desire does not justify the act. To accept otherwise would be to validate adultery and pedophilia. Society has the right to require people to suppress harmful desires, even if it is difficult for them to do so.

A study at Otago University recently was taken, and the results show that a person who has been abused in their youth is more likely to identify with being homosexual or bisexual -

New Zealanders who identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual, or who have had a same-sex encounter or relationship, tend to come from more disturbed backgrounds, a University of Otago researcher has found.

Information extracted from 13,000 face-to-face interviews clearly showed those with same-sexual or bisexual orientation were more likely to have experienced negative events in childhood, Associate Prof Elisabeth Wells said yesterday.

People who had experienced sexual abuse as children were three times more likely to identity themselves as homosexual or bisexual than those who had not experienced abuse, she said. Also, the more adverse events someone experienced in childhood, the more likely they were to belong to one of the "non-exclusively heterosexual" groups.

Associations between adverse events and sexuality group were found for sexual assault, rape, violence to the child and for witnessing violence in the home.

Other adverse events, such as the sudden death of a loved one, serious childhood illness or accident, were only slightly associated with non-heterosexual identity or behaviour.


I'm not pointing to this as proof of anything, but it is interesting.

I.M Fletcher said...

ps, I think this part of Lively's comment above is most important, so I will repeat it again -

[...] the mere existence of desire does not justify the act. To accept otherwise would be to validate adultery and pedophilia

Just because one feels desire for something does not validate it, and mean that they should pursue or act on that desire.

Psycho Milt said...

PM, where did I say gay=pedophile?

Of course you didn't say it directly, that would be rude. I was just paraphrasing your argument, which you've repeated below:

What I said is that both homosexuality and pedophilia are sexual attractions (toward different objects) and that it makes no sense that one is somehow a valid sexual attraction or 'orientation', and the other not - where is the distinction drawn?

Suppose I kept making posts in which I said that both Christianity and fascism are belief systems (with different objects) and that it makes no sense that one is somehow a valid belief system and the other not - where is the distinction drawn? I expect you'd notice immediately that the distinction is in fact obvious, that this minor point of similarity between Christianity and fascism I keep referring to is of little import given that obvious distinction, and that naivety isn't as likely an explanation as malicious intent for the fact that I keep making the comparison.

Just because one feels desire for something does not validate it, and mean that they should pursue or act on that desire.

Of course not. Equally, the fact that you don't like someone else's desire doesn't in itself constitute a reason they shouldn't act on it. You need something a bit more concrete than your personal distaste for it. In the cases of adultery and pedophilia we have that "something more" - in the case of homosexuality we have nothing more than your and Lively's personal distaste.

@PM: Firstly, I think Fletch didn't connect gay=pedophile as you seemed to think.

See above - I think there's a quite deliberate, malicious implication there, and it's not a one-off.

Secondly, you too (like Malcolm) seem to think being Gay is simply a matter of Genetics (statistical probability and all that)

Actually, the bit about probability referred to the likelihood that Lady Gaga is putting Satanic praises into her songs, but as far as sexuality goes, I invite the people on this thread to simply decide that they are now sexually attracted to the same sex, to small children, animals, inanimate objects or whatever - you'll find that your body isn't particulary interested in what decisions you make regarding those things. Regardless of whether that's down to genetics, upbringing or whatever, your chances of simply deciding your way out of what you are aren't really very good, as a couple of minutes attempting to do it will reveal to you.

One thing we can be sure of is that if God did make sex, he made it about a lot more than procreation and he made it pretty damn complicated. The existence of political lesbianism, for example, means that people can choose particular sexual practices as a matter of lifestyle, but if God did make sex he made it like that, as Gaga points out.

ZenTiger said...

why would it matter at all?

I can think of several reasons. The first would be "why does knowledge matter at all?" If you think the reason for something has no bearing on the outcome, then I can see why you might not find the pursuit of knowledge worthy in its own right, but maybe you can discover something from that knowledge...and then we can discuss the other reasons I can think of...

ZenTiger said...

as a couple of minutes attempting to do it will reveal to you.

Ah, so if anything ever takes more than a couple of minutes, it ain't going to happen?

That idea really shoots evolution down in flames, and we are safe from indoctrination of all forms, and so on and so on.

Your simplistic assessment doesn't gel with some of the case studies and personal testimonies I've read (and note that I am not making blanket statements that one person's story explains everyone's story).

David Winter said...

I'm sorry Zen,

You're going to need to explain to me why this piece of knowledge has anything to do with the question at hand.

I.M Fletcher said...

PM, actually you are putting words in my mouth. Nowhere do I claim a link between homosexuality and pedophilia apart from the fact that

1) they are both sexual desires

2) they have different objects as their desires

3) it isn't reasonable to suppose that one is an orientation and one isn't.

I'm sure you'd agree with at least (1) and (2) above, and find it difficult to argue against (3)

I.M Fletcher said...

In the cases of adultery and pedophilia we have that "something more" - in the case of homosexuality we have nothing more than your and Lively's personal distaste.

On the contrary, I believe that homosexuality is dangerous and dysfunctional. It could be as dangerous to children in the long run as pedophilia. Disease is a big part of it. A recent study showed that those in gay marriages have an average of 24 years shorter lifespan.

“What justification is there for condemning smoking and endorsing homosexuality?” asked Dr. Paul Cameron, of the Family Research Institute, a Colorado-based think tank. “Today, all across the Western world, school children are being taught the acceptability of homosexuality and the wrongness of smoking.

According to the Cameron research, married gays and lesbians lived 24 fewer years than their conventionally married counterparts.

In Denmark, the country with the longest history of gay marriage, for 1990-2002, married heterosexual men died at a median age of 74yrs., while the 561 partnered gays died at an average age of 51.

In Norway, married heterosexual men died at an average age of 77 and the 31 gays at 52 yrs. In Denmark, married women died at an average age of 78 yrs. compared to 56 yrs. for the 91 lesbians. In Norway, women married to men died at an average age of 81. v. 56 for the 6 lesbians.

“The consistency of reduced lifespan for those engaging in homosexuality is significant,” said Dr. Cameron. “The same pattern of early death turned up whether we looked at obituaries in the U.S. or deaths in marriage. Given the greatly reduced lifespan for homosexuals, school children should be strongly and consistently warned about the dangers of homosexuality even more so than smoking. Those school districts which are introducing pro-gay curricula need to rethink their priorities.”

I.M Fletcher said...

Sorry, forgot the link to the study (in PDF format).

I.M Fletcher said...

Also in Canada, where gays have made huge inroads into the laws that govern the country, a gay newspaper Xtra points out -


Over the past 10 years [Government] have contracted with experts on gay, lesbian, bisexual health to produce studies ... issues affecting queer Canadians includes lower life expectancy than the average Canadian, suicide, higher rates of substance abuse, depression, inadequate access to care and HIV/AIDS... all kinds of health issues that are endemic to our community... higher rates of anal cancer in the gay male community, lesbians have higher rates of breast cancer ... more GLBT people in this country who die of suicide each year than die from AIDS, there are more who die early deaths from substance abuse than die of HIV/AIDS... now that we can get married everyone assumes that we don't have any issues ... A lot of the deaths that occur in our community are hidden ... Those of us who are working on the front lines see them and I'm tired of watching my community die"


And why is this? They put it down to "homophobia", even though health statistics are worse than they were in the 80s and homosexuality is more widely accepted now.

When a gay newspaper is talking about the dangers and diseases being greater in the gay community, you know it's not a good lifestyle to promote to children (or anyone, for that matter).

Psycho Milt said...

I'm sure you'd agree with at least (1) and (2) above, and find it difficult to argue against (3)

And yet there has to be some rhetorical purpose in drawing attention to these banal similarities, hasn't there? The same 1-3 points could made re heterosexuality vs pedophilia.

In fact, let's do that, going back to your earlier comment:

What I said is that both homosexuality and pedophilia are sexual attractions (toward different objects) and that it makes no sense that one is somehow a valid sexual attraction or 'orientation', and the other not - where is the distinction drawn?

Consider this altered version:

...both heterosexuality and pedophilia are sexual attractions (toward different objects) and ... it makes no sense that one is somehow a valid sexual attraction or 'orientation', and the other not - where is the distinction drawn?

Given the above, on what basis is your own sexuality "valid," as you put it?

On the contrary, I believe that homosexuality is dangerous and dysfunctional.

Of course you do. But if someone else's leisure activities puts them at a higher risk of harm than your own leisure activities, it's their business, not yours. The question of what effect their activities will have on their expected lifespan is a matter for insurance companies, not moralists with an axe to grind.

Your simplistic assessment doesn't gel with some of the case studies and personal testimonies I've read (and note that I am not making blanket statements that one person's story explains everyone's story).

Like I said, the existence of political lesbianism shows people can make choices in what they do to whom, but the bottom line is that they don't get to issue orders to their body about whom they're going to be sexually attracted to. You don't have to restrict yourself to a couple of minutes on it, take as long as you like - it'll have about the same effect as trying to order your heart to stop beating.

malcolm said...

Sorry I'm a bit late in replying, but thanks for the reply, ZT.

My point was against what I see as the absurd idea (prevalent amongst Christians and made by Fletch) that gay people choose to be that way. I think the vast majority make no such choice. It is in their nature, just as you and I are heterosexual without concious decision. And that absurdity is nicely revealed by the simple question "When did you decide not to be homosexual?" (or some such variant on the theme).

Anyway in response to a couple of points you raised, ZT:

Or what if you're born with a tendency to alcoholism (as some people are), is it OK not to change that either? Just to be accepting of who and what you are?

This is a dishonest segue IMHO (it was in Fletch's post). No one would argue that alcoholism isn't bad and that an alcoholic should just go with their addiction. But this has zero relevance to the question of homosexuals, unless you can explain how alcoholism and homosexuality are analogous. And by the time you've done that you might as well just explain why homosexuality is bad and drop the analogy.

So, with Paedophilia, perhaps it's not the fact that it is a matter of consent or not, it is more a matter of society saying that it is illegal (for whatever reason) and that any paedophile must restrain themselves from following "their nature", or face the consequences.

You presumably think that law is right and proper, because in your mind, a 12 year old (say) cannot provide informed consent.

But that is a legal issue demanding restraint, rather than the physical issue: The "unnatural" sexual attraction of the pedophile with prepubescent children.


I'm not sure I get the point you're trying to make. So I'll just say two things. If a person has a sexual attraction to prepubescent children then I would argue that has the same unconscious source. For example, could you or I decide we wanted to be attracted to children? I couldn't and I'm sure you are the same. The other point is, if someone does have a sexual attraction to children, but they keep this entirely within their head and never act on it, where is the harm to anyone? In the same way I might wish someone run over by a bus.

There are those that argue for a lower age of consent, and once something is legal, then we can see that society must do more than tolerate that activity, but endorse it and normalize it.

Laws are a baseline, designed to protect people from the actions of others. They are not a source of morals/civility/correctness (call it what you will). It's a false dichotomy to say that society outlaws that which is bad or wrong and endorses everything else. I hear this false dichotomy a lot from religious people. It's just a prelude to the tired old trick to make people think they must accept that God is the source of morality. It's the classic "well it can only be A or B, and we both agree that it's not A, so volia!"

I.M Fletcher said...

PM, have to leave for work soon, but to answer one of your questions -

Given the above, on what basis is your own sexuality "valid," as you put it?

Because that's how we are made. You can see tat is how the body is supposed to function. This is Aristotelian logic – a belief in empirical observation and logical deduction which he called “teleology”. Teleology assumes that all things have a purpose and that the purpose of each thing can be discerned from its design and function. Anything that deviates from that design and function is therefore not normal.

You can look at the male and female genitalia and see how they work together - it's Natural Law - and how new life results from it. You don't even have to be religious to see this. Whereas sodomy, performed often enough, leads to disease. It also produces no life because the anal pathway is the sewerline of the body.

Psycho Milt said...

One thing that even a casual acquaintance with human sexuality will tell you is that it's about more than reproductive functionality. Alone, the fact the body is littered with erogenous zones would be enough to demonstrate it. By your definition, most sexual activity between men and women (from kissing on upwards) is not normal, and therefore invalid.

I.M Fletcher said...

PM, even putting sexuality completely aside, it's been pretty obvious down through the centuries that a societal unit based on male/female/children is the optimum. Even in nature it's all about male/female pairing and raising offspring. It is, as I said before, Natural Law.

Lucia Maria said...

Malcolm,

Lucia, you're saying heterosexuality is our nature and no choice is required, but Fletch is saying that people choose to be homosexual.

The two statements are not mutually exclusive. A choice is required to act on unnatural desires. A choice is made to take on an identity.

If people choose their sexuality, why didn't you, me or Fletch ever make that decision? The answer is that people don't choose.

I agree, people don't choose their sexuality, most of us (excluding those who have strange genetics that makes them neither male nor female properly) are born male or female. That is not chosen, that is how we are born. That is our sexuality, it's tied into our sex, it's tied into what we are.

There is also no choice involved in our initial reaction to something/someone desired. However, there is a choice in how we respond. If you see an attractive woman in the street that you initially physically respond to, you then have a choice on what you are going to do next. Are you going to keep looking and thereby consent to the physical response, or are you going to look away? All reactions require some sort of choice, even if that choice takes a split second.

The choice is not in the initial response that we have to another person, the choice is activated with when decide what to do that response. And how you respond to your reaction trains you in your future reactions.

The problem here is that we are arguing about two different things. You have lumped the initial reaction with the decision that is made as to how to respond to the reaction, while as Fletch is talking about the decision. There is always a choice at this point.

We don't necessary have control over our initial reaction, but we do have control over how we respond to that reaction. If we didn't have control, then we would have no ability to prevent ourselves from doing anything we desired. Animals are like that, human beings are not.

If they're attracted, then it's in their nature.

No, our physical body shows us what our nature is. Men and women are not interchangeable, despite recent propaganda to the contrary. People can be conditioned to be attracted to what is not in their nature.

... think you're trying to say "But to be attracted to a person of the same sex should not happen because all people are heterosexual, because our nature is heterosexual".

Our nature is to be male or female. Heterosexual is an invented term.

But it *does* happen, so how do you reconcile this?

Yes, it does. People can be attracted to all sorts of things that are not necessarily healthy for them. I can reconcile this because I believe in the doctrine of original sin, where we are dragged down by concupuscience, where our soul is in effect at war with our body, which means that because we are body/soul beings (ie physical spiritual beings, a bridge between earth and heaven), we are full of internal contradictions.

I think the sensible person concludes that gays are born that way (i.e. it's in their nature), and the "they choose to be gay, against there nature" nonsense is just Christians trying to square a circle.

I've talked to a couple who most definitely were not born that way, they were sexually abused as children. In other words, their sexual responses were distorted in childhood.

Psycho Milt said...

...it's been pretty obvious down through the centuries that a societal unit based on male/female/children is the optimum.

It's also been pretty obvious down through the centuries that a proportion of the population isn't within that "optimum." Your task is to demonstrate why this is some kind of problem that needs fixing.

There is also no choice involved in our initial reaction to something/someone desired. However, there is a choice in how we respond. If you see an attractive woman in the street that you initially physically respond to, you then have a choice on what you are going to do next.

Correct. And what makes an appropriate or inappropriate response comes down to the obligations of safety and respect owed to other humans. Your task is to demonstrate how homosexual acts between consenting adults breach those obligations.

Our nature is to be male or female. Heterosexual is an invented term.

This flies in the face of the entire history of human sexuality and everything we know about human sexual response - which makes it clear sex in humans is not simply about reproduction.

I've talked to a couple who most definitely were not born that way...

And I've seen a couple of sheep that were black. Anecdotal evidence doesn't tell us much.

Lucia Maria said...

Psycho Milt,

Only a virtuous society can be free. However, more immediately, this "problem" needs fixing, because it's enforcing itself upon the rest of society to the point where eventually, as in Britain, we are not allowed to have an opinion contrary to any sex is good sex. Thus, a slow slide into totalitarianism.

Correct. And what makes an appropriate or inappropriate response comes down to the obligations of safety and respect owed to other humans. Your task is to demonstrate how homosexual acts between consenting adults breach those obligations.

See my first paragraph.

This flies in the face of the entire history of human sexuality and everything we know about human sexual response - which makes it clear sex in humans is not simply about reproduction.

Yet, short of science butting in recently, it's been the only way we've been able to reproduce.

And I've seen a couple of sheep that were black. Anecdotal evidence doesn't tell us much.

Do you not believe that some sheep are black? My "anecdotal evidence" is also backed up by a recent NZ study (Fletch may have quoted it above), that found those that have been sexually abused as children are more likely to exhibit more unusual sexual desires.

I.M Fletcher said...

The other point is, if someone does have a sexual attraction to children, but they keep this entirely within their head and never act on it, where is the harm to anyone? Malcolm.

Well, that's part of what I am arguing. Is that then (attraction to children, but kept in a head) not an orientation? The GLBT community would say no. As Scoot Lively puts it -

By definition, there are an unlimited number of potential sexual orientations. The “gay” movement, however, arbitrarily recognizes only four orientations: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered (i.e. transvestites and transsexuals). Why? Because to recognize other orientations -- pedophilia, for example -- would draw attention to the importance of distinguishing between orientation and conduct, when a major purpose of sexual orientation theory is to legitimize and protect homosexual conduct by obscuring this distinction.

Yet, as I said at the beginning, isn't an attraction in your head, even not acted on, an orientation? If it isn't then I don't see how homosexuality can be, either. They either both are, or neither is. The gay community can't have it both ways.

By the way - you do know of course that homosexuality was considered a disorder by the American Psychiatric Association until 1973?

Guess why it changed... No, it wasn't because of new advances in medicine or understanding. it was purely because protesters turned up at ASA conventions and meetings and more-or-less forced them into changing it. Typical leftists.

More on that in the next comment...

I.M Fletcher said...

Continued . . .


Like bullies on the playground, homosexual activists didn't want to play by the rules. You know, the rules that say if you want to influence a body of science, you should conduct properly designed studies and build scientific research that makes your case. No. There weren't any scientific studies like that (still aren't). No problem, just harass and intimidate those scientists who present properly designed studies that you don't like. Like Dr. Irving Bieber, prominent psychoanalyst and psychiatrist, who presented a paper on "homosexuality and transsexualism" at the 1970 APA convention. Instead of challenging his findings by questioning the accuracy of his research methods, they just disrupted his presentation. Way easier. Especially when there isn't any research to support your position.

Imagine the prestigious, scientific setting of the APA conference where Dr. Bieber presents his study – homosexual activists employ what has become their customary tactic: fear and intimidation. As Bieber begins to present his research, homosexual attendees loudly mock and laugh at him. They further disrupt his presentation by shouting and calling him names and making threats, suggesting he deserved to be "drawn and quartered." If we said something like that about homosexuals, it'd be a "hate crime."

On May 3, 1971, the psychiatrist protesters broke into a meeting of distinguished members of their profession and grabbed the microphone – giving it to one of their allied outside activists, who proclaimed:

Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you. … We're rejecting you all as our owners.

"No one raised an objection," recounts Dr. Satinover. Their disruption was met with more reconciliation and an appearance before the APA's Committee on Nomenclature. Further bullying and lobbying delivered the committee vote that maybe, just maybe, homosexual behavior was not a sign of psychiatric disorder after all.

By the time of the 1973 APA convention, the group announced its new "finding" with only 15 minutes for dissenters to discuss 70 years of psychiatric research to the contrary. The hijacked vote was formally appealed to the full membership. But activists already had a letter drafted, in part by friends at the National Gay Taskforce, urging a vote to "retain the nomenclature change," which was sent to the 30,000 APA members with the money the NGTF had raised.

Of course, no one let on to APA members that the letter came from homosexual activists, as Dr. Bayer revealed, "that would have been 'the kiss of death.'" But the letter drafted and paid for by the NGTF was able to secure a majority response from a third of the members who responded. But the vast majority was not behind the change. How do I know? Four years later, the Medical Journal Aspects of Human Sexuality reported a survey showing "69 percent of psychiatrists disagreed with the vote and still considered homosexuality a disorder."


MORE

So, that's how it happened.

Psycho Milt said...

...isn't an attraction in your head, even not acted on, an orientation?

I believe the conclusion we came to was that, if it is an orientation in your case, so is it also for gays.

By the way - you do know of course that homosexuality was considered a disorder by the American Psychiatric Association until 1973?

Did I know that the majority tend to regard the minority as "other," and therefore by definition suspect? Yes, certainly. The fact that homosexuality was considered a disorder by the APA is one of the most telling examples of why psychiatry is crap.

...this "problem" needs fixing, because it's enforcing itself upon the rest of society to the point where eventually, as in Britain, we are not allowed to have an opinion contrary to any sex is good sex. Thus, a slow slide into totalitarianism.

As opposed to those freedom-enhancing good old days when non-state-approved sex acts were categorised as serious crimes? I can't say I miss those days. Apart from which, I've yet to see anyone in a position of power suggest that "any sex is good sex," let alone that those disagreeing should be prevented from doing so. The idea that a politician in the UK could suggest rape, or pederasty, or bestiality was "good sex" and expect to keep their seat come election time is ludicrous. Let's not pretend - we're not talking here about "any sex is good sex," we're talking about the right of homosexuals not to have to endure discrimination.

Yet, short of science butting in recently, it's been the only way we've been able to reproduce.

The concept that sex is about more than reproduction in no way implies it isn't necessary in order to reproduce. To elaborate: the concept that human sexuality is merely a matter of reproduction is implied in your comment "...our physical body shows us what our nature is. Men and women are not interchangeable, despite recent propaganda to the contrary." Things aren't actually that simple - when you kiss someone, what natural function determined by the physical differences between male and female is being carried out? In what essential physical characteristic is the male mouth different to the female?

malcolm said...

Thanks for the replies Lucia and Fletch. Psycho Milt is doing a better job writing my replies than I could, so I'll leave it to him. cheers.

Lucia Maria said...

Ok Milt,

That last sentence of yours is going into a no-go-zone. If you want to get into the nitty gritty of what I believe, read this: John Paul II'S Theology of the Body. It should keep you busy for a while.

David Winter said...

I question for the conservative types on this thread:

Even I accepted your idea that homosexuality was a "problem", I don't know what you would want done about it. How would you fix the "problem"?

Lucia Maria said...

David,

I don't want anything done about it. If people want to have sex with their shoes, I'll just leave them to it. I just want to have the right to protest, and I don't want children exposed to it, and I don't want marriage redefined by it.

As to how I would fix the "problem", only Jesus can do that, if the person is willing to ask for His help.

I.M Fletcher said...

I agree. I don't care who has sex with whom, but I do care that it is enshrined in law to make it legal, and that if I object (like a Christian couple recently who didn't want to rent a motel room to a same-sex couple) I could be prosecuted for hate speech or something similar.

Many adoption agencies have had to close because of the same thing - they don't want to adopt children out to same-sex couples, the Govt says you must because otherwise it's discrimination, so the adoption agency closes rather than giving up it's values because they can see the harm that will be done to innocent children exposed to that lifestyle. Same with foster parents.

Same thing is likely to happen with Catholic hospitals who would rather close than be ordered that they have to perform abortions.

David Winter said...

So, Lucia wants people to have sex with whoever they chose but also wants to protest their choice (?) and IM wants people to have sex with whoever they want, as long as the government makes some choices illegal.

Or am I not getting it?

I.M Fletcher said...

David, right...
You're not getting it.

ZenTiger said...

So, Lucia wants people to have sex with whoever they chose but also wants to protest their choice

I think that is an argumentative interpretation that is also inaccurate, but surely you must realise that. It's a bit like me saying "So David, you want everyone to be sodomised..."

Whereas I am fairly sure you only expect people to be sodimised when they consent.

I think the bit you are missing from the above comments by Fletch and Lucia (or this is the way I read it, at least) is that there is a belief that people have the freedom to make choices, good or bad, and that such a freedom should not be illegal providing it does not cause others harm.

Also, that there is a difference between requiring other people to tolerate some-ones behaviour, and for them to be told they must endorse it, and that they cannot express a contrary opinion without suffering for it (for example, holding the opinion that sodomy is distasteful and being accused of hate speech for that (and I note sodomy is not limited to gay people).

I'd like to answer your direct question to me, but I really don't have sufficient time at this stage.

David Winter said...

IM,

Then explain your position

Zen,

I really don't understand either position, and IM actually said he didn't want it be legal (as far as I can tell).

If you get a chance I 'd like to hear an answer to that question, because I think it's a mistake both sides of the 'debate' make.

ZenTiger said...

Fair enough, I expect to resurface at the end of the week. If its a mistake both sides are making, I'll make my reply a post perhaps, and we can explore the ideas that follow and keep the thread tighter.

Gee, my list of posts owed to the blog is getting fairly huge though :)

Psycho Milt said...

I don't care who has sex with whom

immediately followed by:

but I do care that it is enshrined in law to make it legal

So, you have absolutely nothing against it, nothing at all, well, other than that you think it just shouldn't be allowed? It's enough to make you bang your head on the desk.

Ciaron said...

I suspect but I do care that it is enshrined in law to make it legal refers to the drive to "normalise" the behavior, and as Zen clearly illustrates above, how that then imposes on our right to object.

I.M Fletcher said...

PM, perhaps I could have laid out my thoughts better, so I will try to use an analogy to better explain.

Scott Lively says, " Because sexual conduct has serious public health consequences [,] society has both a right and an obligation to regulate."

As my own analogy, smoking is allowed by society, but society recognizes that is it dangerous to health and there are more and more places where you can't smoke. This dangerous behavior is regulated in a number of ways, including increased taxes on cigarettes and non-smoking areas.

Similarly, I believe that homosexual conduct is also dangerous, and that living in the lifestyle can shorten your life even more than smoking; yet more and more laws are coming into force to give gays more rights protecting their conduct.

What if smokers got together and complained that their rights were being violated? That is was their civil right to be able to smoke in the office, or on a plane. That anyone who complained about it was guilty of "hate speech", was a bigoted smokophobe and should be arrested. That smoking wasn't a choice but an orientation. So the smokers demonstrated across the country, crashed health meetings, complained to the Govt Health Dept etc until they got their way.

Does that sound absurd? Well, that's what I see happening with the gay movement. Taking the analogy further -

I do not hate or fear smokers: if they want to smoke, then it is up to them. I know some people who smoke and have them as friends. I want to be able to be free to say I do not agree with smoking without being called a bigoted smokophobe. I do not want special provision given to smokers in the law so that, for instance, if two smokers go to a hotel, and the hotelier says his hotel is non-smoking, that the smokers can then accuse him of bigotry and have him fined. I do not want school children taught in school that smoking is a valid lifestyle and taught how to roll their own and shown how a lighter works. I do not want the health system having the extra burden of treating easily preventable diseases caused by smoking.

On tuning in to TV everyday do I have to see a token smoker, because Hollywood feels they have to include at least one smoker per programme to normalize smoking?

In this case, is it right for society to dissuade people from smoking, even thought it is not illegal? I'm not calling for homosexuality to be made illegal, but also (as I have said) I do not think laws should be changed to promote and protect it as a civil right.

Psycho Milt said...

Similarly, I believe that homosexual conduct is also dangerous, and that living in the lifestyle can shorten your life even more than smoking; yet more and more laws are coming into force to give gays more rights protecting their conduct.

Actually, I think most of the restrictions on smoking are about us not having to breathe the smoke, not about helping smokers protect their health. But, regardless - a counter-factual:

Visit any feminist site and you'll encounter plenty of information about the dangers of heterosexual conduct for women. Heterosexual acts increase women's risk of exposure to disease, physical abuse, rape, unwanted pregnancy and various other unpleasant or even life-shortening consequences (all this regardless of whether the heterosexual acts take place within marriage or not - the risk might be lower within marriage, but is still significant, especially viewed on a global scale). Whether you're looking for broad statistical analyses or intensely disturbing personal anecdotes, feminists can point you to them.

And yet, more and more laws have come into force over the centuries giving heterosexuals more rights to protect their conduct, to the point where other forms of sexual conduct were banned outright. Was it wrong to introduce laws protecting their right to be exposed to the dangers of heterosexuality?

I.M Fletcher said...

PM, I think you're being very disingenuous there. Heterosexual conduct has nowhere near the danger of disease as homosexual conduct, especially within monogamous relationships, and I could give you some stats as well - eg, The Health Risks of Gay Sex by Dr John R Diggs, Jr


The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal sex is alarming:

Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Cryptosporidium
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Microsporidia
Gonorrhea
Viral hepatitis types B & C
Syphilis

Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown. Others, while found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners, are clearly predominated by those involved in homosexual activity.

Syphilis, for example is found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners. But in 1999, King County, Washington (Seattle), reported that 85 percent of syphilis cases were among self-identified homosexual practitioners.30 And as noted above, syphilis among homosexual men is now at epidemic levels in San Francisco.31


I could go on of course, but you probably don't want the gory details.

Psycho Milt said...

Not disingenuous, merely curious as to why the risk some people are exposed to is apparently considered of so little consequence that the govt should encourage and support the activity that led to it, when a somewhat higher level of risk for another activity merits active discouragement. Is there some measurable risk threshold that you're arguing for, or is it just "well, obviously my group is OK, by definition."

David Winter said...

. I know some people who smoke and have them as friends. I want to be able to be free to say I do not agree with smoking without being called a bigoted smokophobe.

Apart from the way in which you analogy doesn't work, that's actually not how it works. The freedoms that allow you to say that you don't 'accept' homosexuality, and that think sexuality is a valid reason to discriminate against people (the only legal protection I know of is in the human rights act) and that homosexuality should be left out of sex ed are the same freedoms that allow me to say I think that ammonts to bigotry.

No one is going to fine you or arrest your for expressing your opinion, but we do get to form our own opinion of you are a result of it.

I'm also curious about this being a public health issue. Does that meant lesbianism is OK?

I.M Fletcher said...

David, but I'm not saying anything is a reason to discriminate against anyone. I don't see disagreeing with someone's conduct is discrimination. I'm sorry, but it just isn't.

Dr Scott Lively points out that, in discussions with gays, there is no way he can disagree with them that they don't consider discrimination.


I hate being called a homophobe. It has such an ugly connotation. Its especially unpleasant because, as a Christian, I m supposed to have a reputation for loving people, not hating them. So I ve worked really hard over the years to try to get the homosexuals to stop calling me a homophobe. I ve pointed out the difference between hating people and hating their behavior (loving the sinner but hating the sin). They hated that. Then I tried walking my talk by taking an ex- gay man who was dying of AIDS into my family. My wife and I and our children loved and cared for him during the last year of his life. They hated that even more.

Then I began asking for guidance from homosexuals themselves: Tell me, where is the line between homophobia and acceptable opposition to homosexuality? I asked. What if I just agree with the Bible that homosexuality is a sin no worse than any other sex outside of marriage? No, that s homophobic, they replied. Suppose I talk only about the proven medical hazards of gay sex and try to discourage people from hurting themselves? No, you can t do that, they said. How about if I say that homosexuals have the option to change if they choose? Ridiculous they answered. Maybe I could just be completely positive, say nothing about homosexuality, and focus only on promoting the natural family and traditional marriage? That s really hateful, they replied.

After I while, I realized that the only way I could get them to stop calling me a homophobe was to start agreeing with them about everything. But here s my dilemma: I honestly believe the Bible which says that homosexuality is wrong and harmful and that all sex belongs within marriage. I ve also read the professional studies and know that gay sex hurts people because it goes against the design of their bodies. And I m friends with a number of former homosexuals who are now married and living heterosexual lives. Do I have to give up my religion? Ignore scientific facts? Betray my friends? Is that the only way to avoid being called a hater and a homophobe?

There s no escape. A homophobe is anyone who, for any reason, disapproves of homosexuality in any way, shape, manner, form or degree. This leaves me with just two choices: agree that everything about homosexuality is natural, normal, healthy, moral and worthy to be celebrated OR be labeled as a mentally ill, hate-filled bigot.

Am I wrong? Is there any way to openly disapprove of homosexuality without being a homophobe? Gay leaders, please set me straight on this.

There s a queer reasoning behind all of this. Homosexuals call me names like bigot and homophobe, condemn my religion, mock my rational conclusions about social issues, impugn my motives, display intense hostility toward my actions, and curse my very existence, all under the justification that I m a hater. But if I m a hater for civilly opposing what they do, why aren t they haters for uncivilly opposing what I do? Such a double standard, in the context of a public debate on civil rights, is not just hypocritical, it is surreal.


So yes, there's no way to disagree with gays without being called a "hater"; none. You're not allowed to disagree; to do so makes you a bigot.

I'm sorry David, but I don't think it's "discrimination" as you put it, to disagree with someone's actions.

David Winter said...

David, but I'm not saying anything is a reason to discriminate against anyone

Then you are railing against laws that don't exist.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.