Homosexual Liberal Atheists ~ What's UP with that?

[anonemouse 1]

I personally feel that "abnormal sexual behavior" is anything where one or both partners are not able to legally say "yes". That includes incest, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, etc.

To say that homosexuality not being classified as "abnormal" anymore is simply a function of our society becomeing more PC is a cop-out, IMO. To me, it is because our society is becoming more educated and more accepting of people that aren't necessarily in the "main stream". If we sat around and said that the knowledge we had in the past is good enough for the future, our society would never get anywhere. Black people would still be thought to be anatomically and physiologically different from white people and doctors would still practice blood-letting and would still think that drilling holes in people's heads would cure them of all sorts of evils.

[anonemouse 1]

They are very interesting to know and to talk to. And they're not often hugely vocal because, as you can imagine, if they went from homosexual to heterosexual it's usually because they felt there was some sin in homosexuality, so they therefore don't broadcast it.

As to why they're fundamentalists, not all of them are, but my guess is something about the strength of their faith assisted them in combatting what they saw to be sin.

Or they felt so strongly that it was a sin that they were willing to hide what they were from themselves and the people around them.

[anonemouse 1]

How much are our opinions shaped by lobbies?

Well, I'd say it's as good a method of shaping our opinions as letting one denomination's interpretation of the Bible shape them.

[gadgetlady 4]

gadgetlady, if you are interested in being fair you are going to have to admit that no one has made the argument that they can offer you biological proof that explains homosexuality. No one has made that claim, yet you repeatedly ask for it in a manner that suggests that you are calling someone on a promise they can't keep.

Of course I know that. That is, in fact, what I was highlighting -- because no scientific evidence exists that homosexuality is a born condition. One can either choose to listen to what people who are entrenched in the behavior have to say, what people or to what people who were once entrenched in the behavior say. There are others you can choose to listen to, too (those who were never entrenched but wanted to be, etc.), but those are the two main groups. Why you discount the experiences of the latter group, I don't know. I don't discount the experiences of the former group. I believe there are people who believe they have no choice about their sexuality.

The thing you don't want to talk about is this: The overwhelming majority of gay people (statistically close to 100%) experience their sexuality just exactly like you do. They are gay because they are. That's it. Just like you are not gay because you are not. There is no "choice" involved for either.

What would you say if I told you I did make the choice once in my life? Would that hold more credibility for you than my friend who did? Because I've had lengthy, serious, detailed discussions with her about it to the point that I know her position on the issue inside and out.

Because reality conflicts with your religious training, you are stubbornly trying to find some way to avoid facing reality.

I have no "religious training" in this area.

I know how hard it is for you to squarely look at that reality on this point, because it does not fit with the whole "abomination" thing you Christians like to spout. But there is really no way for you to avoid the truth on this. Your diversions and false, red herring arguments are not real debate, they are just ways of avoiding the an honest discussion. An honest discussion has to start with the facts.

I do look squarely at this issue. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I haven't looked at it in depth and intellectually. You are either dismissing my position because I'm a Christian or because you disagree with me, or both.

Are "the facts" that people who are practicing homosexual behavior believe that they have no choice? What other facts are there? I am and have always been willing to have an honest discussion. But if you reject anything I say as a matter of course, there is, of course, no discussion at all -- it's simply me stating my opinion and you ridiculing it.

[gadgetlady 4]

Or they felt so strongly that it was a sin that they were willing to hide what they were from themselves and the people around them.

Very possibly. And possibly there are some people of both ilks.

[gadgetlady 4]

Well, I'd say it's as good a method of shaping our opinions as letting one denomination's interpretation of the Bible shape them.

We can all choose whatever influences we want to shape our opinions. I don't think anyone would claim that the opinions of church-goers aren't shaped by their religion. People both in and out of churches expect that. However, I do think most people wouldn't immediately posit that their opinions are shaped by a lobby. Not that it's necessarily wrong. I'm just putting it out there for thought and discussion.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

Interesting. I pay my taxes in my mortgage payment. I guess I'm confused.

Not everyone does. Some people wait to the end of the year to pay taxes. They really believe they'll have it at xmas time.

[Carlene 12]

Do you suppose these people consider themselves abnormal? Or is it just others who impose their opinions on them and call them abnormal?

I'm asking because I'm seriously wondering how anyone classifies a sexual behavior as "abnormal". Sure, we can all look at someone who engages in bestiality and say "ewwww, gross", but the real question is why do we consider it abnormal (other than we think it's gross)?

These people may not consider themselves abnormal, but they certainly understand that society does embrace their behavior. And for obvious reasons, they generally would prefer NOT to harbor these feelings.

• "Paraphilias are: sexual fantasies urges and behaviors that are considered deviant with respect to cultural norms..."
  
• "Although several of these disorders can be associated with aggression or harm, others are neither inherently violent nor aggressive"
  
• "The boundary for social as well as sexual deviance is largely determined by cultural and historical context. As such, sexual orientations once considered paraphilias (e.g., homosexuality) are now regarded as variants of normal sexuality; so too, sexual behaviors currently considered normal (e.g., masturbation) were once culturally proscribed"

(Source: Psychiatric Times)

Exhibitionism: the recurrent urge or behavior to expose one's genitals to an unsuspecting person.

Fetishism: the use of non-sexual or nonliving objects or part of a person's body to gain sexual excitement. Partialism refers to fetishes specifically involving nonsexual parts of the body.

Frotteurism: the recurrent urges or behavior of touching or rubbing against a nonconsenting person.

Pedophilia: the sexual attraction to prepubescent or peripubescent children.

Sexual Masochism: the recurrent urge or behavior of wanting to be humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer.

Sexual Sadism: the recurrent urge or behavior involving acts in which the pain or humiliation of the victim is sexually exciting.

Transvestic fetishism: a sexual attraction towards the clothing of the opposite gender.

Voyeurism: the recurrent urge or behavior to observe an unsuspecting person who is naked, disrobing or engaging in sexual activities, or may not be sexual in nature at all.

Other rarer paraphilias are grouped together under Other paraphilias not otherwise specified and include telephone scatalogia (obscene phone calls), necrophilia (corpses), partialism (exclusive focus on one part of the body), zoophilia (animals), coprophilia (feces), klismaphilia (enemas), urophilia (urine).

Interestingly, medical and science professionals used to classify homosexuality as abnormal. It wasn't too long ago that it was changed.

Actually, it was about half a century ago.

They are very interesting to know and to talk to. And they're not often hugely vocal because, as you can imagine, if they went from homosexual to heterosexual it's usually because they felt there was some sin in homosexuality, so they therefore don't broadcast it.

That surprises me. I thought fundamentalists were all about witnessing and sharing their conversion experiences. I've seen lots of them talk about how they used to drink and do drugs and even prostitute themselves, but none who claim to have been cured of homosexuality.

As to why they're fundamentalists, not all of them are, but my guess is something about the strength of their faith assisted them in combatting what they saw to be sin.

What I said was, why is it that no one else, except fundamentalists, ever meets these people? Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians.....why haven't any of them ever met a reformed homosexual? I think that's strange. It's like Big Foot. There is one small group who claims to have seen him and every time there is a new "sighting", it's one of those people who already believes - never a neutral bystander or a previous non-believer.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

We can all choose whatever influences we want to shape our opinions. I don't think anyone would claim that the opinions of church-goers aren't shaped by their religion. People both in and out of churches expect that. However, I do think most people wouldn't immediately posit that their opinions are shaped by a lobby. Not that it's necessarily wrong. I'm just putting it out there for thought and discussion.

I'd have a bit more respect for those church-goers if they would read their own good book (cover to cover repeatedly) vs. having someone else dumb it down for them.

[anonemouse 1]

Gadget, have you ever heard of the Kinsey scale? I think it is fairly accurate, IMO. Here is the scale:

Rating - Description

0 - Exclusively heterosexual

1 - Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual

2 - Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual

3 - Equally heterosexual and homosexual

4 - Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual

5 - Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual

6 - Exclusively homosexual

IMO, I think that anyone who says that they were "cured of homosexuality" probably didn't rate higher than 1 or 2. In other words, the majority of the time, they were attracted to the opposite sex anyway, so there wasn't much to give up. I highly doubt that anyone who was predominantly homosexual were ever really "cured" of their sexuality. Like I said earlier, you can get off with just about anyone, but that doesn't mean you are truly attracted to them. You can't change that. I won't suddenly find really ripped guys attractive, no matter how much I try.

[Carlene 12]

The good thing about Tennessee is that while we do have a high sales tax, we don't have a property tax at all.

How are your public schools funded? The lion's share of my property taxes go to the local ISD.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

No, I am absolutely not interested in investing in foreclosed property. I owned rental property at one time. I hated doing evictions.

Actually, the state does the evictions before you buy the deed.

[gadgetlady 4]

I personally feel that "abnormal sexual behavior" is anything where one or both partners are not able to legally say "yes". That includes incest, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, etc.

But Carlene's class included:

Transvestites, transsexuals, various fetishes, pedophiles, necrophilia, bestiality

plus some others she couldn't remember. So in your opinion, the transvestites, transsexuals, and various fetishes wouldn't be abnormal sexual behavior, but her opinion (or the professor's opinion, or the medical communities' opinion, or the person who wrote the textbook's opinion, or . . . you get the point), those ARE abnormal sexual behaviors.

Do you see my point? It's all about who's doing the defining.

To say that homosexuality not being classified as "abnormal" anymore is simply a function of our society becomeing more PC is a cop-out, IMO.

Have you ever read the history, the succession of events? I'm not challenging you here; I'm just curious.

To me, it is because our society is becoming more educated and more accepting of people that aren't necessarily in the "main stream". If we sat around and said that the knowledge we had in the past is good enough for the future, our society would never get anywhere. Black people would still be thought to be anatomically and physiologically different from white people and doctors would still practice blood-letting and would still think that drilling holes in people's heads would cure them of all sorts of evils.

Do you think there are things that are just plain wrong that we don't accept now but society will accept in the future? I'm not talking about weird things like blood-letting, and I'm not talking about physiological things, like whether the pigment in ones' skin affects ones' humanity, but things like infanticide or euthanasia for which the person being euthanized doesn't consent?

[gadgetlady 4]

I'm off to bed. I hope all of you won't take that to mean that I suddenly agree with you or have nothing left to say :-)

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

I'm off to bed. I hope all of you won't take that to mean that I suddenly agree with you or have nothing left to say :-)

No worries, I never thought you had anything to say to begin with.

:) :)