Homosexuals kicked out of bar for kissing

[Ifreann]

It doesn't matter. Most of the globe agrees based on many studies that were conducted that homosexuality is indeed a healthy deviation of sexual orientation. This invalidates any and all of your confirmation-bias arguments and 'but but i'm right' arguments.

What most of the globe agrees on is irrelevant to me. What I care about is what actually is and what should be as intended. Basically I care about the truth not what the world thinks is the truth out of sociological brainwashing. What the world agrees upon may invalidate my views through your periscope but it certainly does not through mine.

Did you know that dictionary definitions aren't some objective truth, but descriptions of how words are used and their generally agreed upon meanings?

[Neutraligon]

What most of the globe agrees on is irrelevant to me. What I care about is what actually is and what should be as intended. Basically I care about the truth not what the world thinks is the truth out of sociological brainwashing. What the world agrees upon may invalidate my views through your periscope but it certainly does not through mine.

Did you know that dictionary definitions aren't some objective truth, but descriptions of how words are used and their generally agreed upon meanings?

Also, words have different meaning depending on the field being discussed. For instance the word theory when used colloquially vs in science. Considering this is a discussion on psychology, the appropriate definition would be the one use by psychology. The Mirriam Webster definition seems useless to me. By that definition having red hair, being left handed, being atheist, Hindu or any religion but Christianity and Muslim, etc would all be disorders.

[Tyska]

Do you need evidence to understand the term 'sexual orientation disorder'?
Let me give you the relevant Goggle definitions of all three individual words.

Not every abnormal or unusual behavior is a disorder.

Anyway this is a silly discussion. So what if it's a disorder? What does that actually mean?

Let's assume momentarily, and purely for the sake of argument that being gay is a disorder. (I am bisexual, so I can engage this without being suspected of homophobia).

Is it morally acceptable, or legal, to discriminate against people with disorders? No, there are laws like the Americans With Disabilities Act. You can only discriminate against disabled people if it's somehow relevant (Say, blind people can't fly planes). So even if we assumed momentarily that homosexuality is a disorder, it does not follow in any way that mistreating gays is okay.

Not every abnormal or unusual behavior is a disorder.

Correct.

Anyway this is a silly discussion. So what if it's a disorder? What does that actually mean?

Please don't make me repeat myself again...

Is it morally acceptable, or legal, to discriminate against people with disorders?

That's a new can of worms. I would get into it but I hope you understand that I have my hands full with other commentators and while I consider myself a relatively good multi-tasker I do have my limits. I tell you what, when things cool down a bit I will come back and address this issue for you.

So even if we assumed momentarily that homosexuality is a disorder, it does not follow in any way that mistreating gays is okay.

Mistreating homosexuals? Personally I don't support the mistreatment of anyone.

[Neutraligon]

Not every abnormal or unusual behavior is a disorder.

Anyway this is a silly discussion. So what if it's a disorder? What does that actually mean?

Let's assume momentarily, and purely for the sake of argument that being gay is a disorder. (I am bisexual, so I can engage this without being suspected of homophobia).

Is it morally acceptable, or legal, to discriminate against people with disorders? No, there are laws like the Americans With Disabilities Act. You can only discriminate against disabled people if it's somehow relevant (Say, blind people can't fly planes). So even if we assumed momentarily that homosexuality is a disorder, it does not follow in any way that mistreating gays is okay.

Not every abnormal or unusual behavior is a disorder.

Correct.

Anyway this is a silly discussion. So what if it's a disorder? What does that actually mean?

Please don't make me repeat myself again...

Is it morally acceptable, or legal, to discriminate against people with disorders?

That's a new can of worms. I would get into it but I hope you understand that I have my hands full with other commentators and while I consider myself a relatively good multi-tasker I do have my limits. I tell you what, when things cool down a bit I will come back and address this issue for you.

So even if we assumed momentarily that homosexuality is a disorder, it does not follow in any way that mistreating gays is okay.

Mistreating homosexuals? Personally I don't support the mistreatment of anyone.

If not every behavior that is abnormal is a disorder, why do you call homosexuality a disorder?

You claimed that homosexuality is a disorder by claiming it is unnatural, thereby saying that for something to be a disorder it cannot be natural
You claimed the definition of unnatural is :Contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal:

Thus then by that definition anything that is abnormal, including things like red hair, being left handed, having any religion other than Christianity or Islam, enjoying sky-diving, using a computer, etc would be a disorder. If not tell me how those are not disorders but homosexuality is one.

[Tyska]

And absolutely does human sexuality have some intention behind it that homosexuality does not serve. Reproduction my friend!

Evolution is non-teleological.

The fact that evolution (stated simply "those more suited to reproduce, reproduce") "rewards" reproduction does not mean it is the purpose of the human being to reproduce - any person chooses their own purpose in life. Live with it.

Sexual urges are a mechanism by which nature tries to persuade us to reproduce with another female in order to create offsprings and thus secure our genetic lineage and maximise the chances of survival of our genes.

This is the primary purpose of sex and reproduction.

Simply getting your rocks off is secondary.

Reproduction is one of our purposes in life.

[The V O I D]

Tyska, sexuality and sex aren't only for reproduction. This is seen in every species, every day on Earth. Homosexuality is natural. Non-reproductive sex is natural. You thinking otherwise does not change this, at all. Therefor, homosexuality isn't a mental illness/disorder of any kind. What's so hard to understand about that?

[Tyska]

Tyska, sex isn't just for reproduction. Nature overall has proven this. Many species commit homosexual acts for a variety of purposes. So, your argument that sexuality is only for reproduction is wrong. And if you try and say 'humans are the exception', I am going to throw something through a window.

Sex is mainly for reproduction. It is the method by which nature encourages us to 'create a new seed' so to speak.
Pleasure is the means to an end. Not the end itself. The end itself would be realising a new baby.

[Neutraligon]

Evolution is non-teleological.

The fact that evolution (stated simply "those more suited to reproduce, reproduce") "rewards" reproduction does not mean it is the purpose of the human being to reproduce - any person chooses their own purpose in life. Live with it.

Sexual urges are a mechanism by which nature tries to persuade us to reproduce with another female in order to create offsprings and thus secure our genetic lineage and maximise the chances of survival of our genes.

This is the primary purpose of sex and reproduction.

Simply getting your rocks off is secondary.

Reproduction is one of our purposes in life.

Sexual mechanisms have multiple uses in nature, including but not limited to reproduction. For instance bonobos use sex to maintain peace within the group. They are highly promiscuous, and also one of the most peaceful of the great apes (that includes us humans by the way). No, reproduction is not a purpose, well unless you want to assign that purpose to yourself. See purpose implies intent, which implies a mind, and evolution has no intent. It simply is a process. You are objectively incorrect about sex, otherwise, infertile couples would not continue to have sex.

[Gauthier]

Tyska, sexuality and sex aren't only for reproduction. This is seen in every species, every day on Earth. Homosexuality is natural. Non-reproductive sex is natural. You thinking otherwise does not change this, at all. Therefor, homosexuality isn't a mental illness/disorder of any kind. What's so hard to understand about that?

If sex was meant to be for teproductive purposes then it would be painful and fatal like with insects, where the male either gets devoured, paralyzed as food for the eggs or gets its internal organs ripped out along with the tool.

[Neutraligon]

Tyska, sexuality and sex aren't only for reproduction. This is seen in every species, every day on Earth. Homosexuality is natural. Non-reproductive sex is natural. You thinking otherwise does not change this, at all. Therefor, homosexuality isn't a mental illness/disorder of any kind. What's so hard to understand about that?

If sex was meant to be for teproductive purposes then it would be painful and fatal like with insects, where the male either gets devoured, paralyzed as food for the eggs or gets its internal organs ripped out along with the tool.

Also, we would not have sex unless there is a high possibility of having a kid. Funny things about sex, there tends to be a rather limited period of time in which women have a high chance of getting pregnant, and yet most people have sex even when women are unlikely to get pregnant. Further post-menopausal women, and infertile couples also have sex, making is unlikely that sex is solely, or even mainly about reproduction.

[The V O I D]

Tyska, sex isn't just for reproduction. Nature overall has proven this. Many species commit homosexual acts for a variety of purposes. So, your argument that sexuality is only for reproduction is wrong. And if you try and say 'humans are the exception', I am going to throw something through a window.

Sex is mainly for reproduction. It is the method by which nature encourages us to 'create a new seed' so to speak.
Pleasure is the means to an end. Not the end itself. The end itself would be realising a new baby.

No. Not true at all. If that were true, in nature we'd only see heterosexual sex in every single species. You're blatantly ignoring nature in favor of your views.

[Tyska]

Google's define function proved good enough to get my point across.

At no point have I lied. Be careful not to misinterpret my words.


Correct.
And absolutely does human sexuality have some intention behind it that homosexuality does not serve. Reproduction my friend!



You are imagining these 'appeals'. Whether intentionally or unintentionally I don't know.

And yet you are failing to use the word correctly given that we are discussing psychology. Sex is also a tool for relationship building, look at bonobos. Oh and, ever heard of the gay uncle hypothesis. The idea is that having a segment of the population that is non reproducing actually assists in other people reproducing because they can help with child care while having none of their own, or focus on tings like gathering food building things etc. Actually no you very specifically called it unnatural as if that is a bad thing. That is very much an appeal to nature.

Correct. We are discussing an aspect of psychology. But I fail to see any term I used incorrectly.

Sex is also a tool for relationship building indeed.
And no. I did not hear of the gay uncle hypothesis before.
Yes. I did call it unnatural. But I'm afraid you are assuming that I see it as a bad thing.

Finally I repeat it is not an appeal to nature. Homosexuality is unnatural per definition.

[Dazchan]

Evolution is non-teleological.

The fact that evolution (stated simply "those more suited to reproduce, reproduce") "rewards" reproduction does not mean it is the purpose of the human being to reproduce - any person chooses their own purpose in life. Live with it.

Sexual urges are a mechanism by which nature tries to persuade us to reproduce with another female in order to create offsprings^{[citation needed]} and thus secure our genetic lineage and maximise the chances of survival of our genes.

This is the primary purpose of sex and reproduction. ^{[citation needed]}

Simply getting your rocks off is secondary^{[citation needed]}.

Reproduction is one of our purposes in life.

Fixed, although I suspect I'm wasting my time.

[Tyska]

Well technically a case could be made that they are the same thing.

Gay conversion is no more harmful than putting gingers in concentration camps? Heard it here folks.

I was relating your notion of 'gay conversion therapy' with the notion of 'rehabilitation centres' concerning exclusively homosexuals. Gingers were not part of my meaning at all when I said: 'Well technically a case could be made that they are the same thing.'

[Neutraligon]

And yet you are failing to use the word correctly given that we are discussing psychology. Sex is also a tool for relationship building, look at bonobos. Oh and, ever heard of the gay uncle hypothesis. The idea is that having a segment of the population that is non reproducing actually assists in other people reproducing because they can help with child care while having none of their own, or focus on tings like gathering food building things etc. Actually no you very specifically called it unnatural as if that is a bad thing. That is very much an appeal to nature.

Correct. We are discussing an aspect of psychology. But I fail to see any term I used incorrectly.

Sex is also a tool for relationship building indeed.
And no. I did not hear of the gay uncle hypothesis before.
Yes. I did call it unnatural. But I'm afraid you are assuming that I see it as a bad thing.

Finally I repeat it is not an appeal to nature. Homosexuality is unnatural per definition.

Simple, because you are not using the term as used by psychologists, thus you are using the wrong definition.
Sex is a tool for relationship building even when procreation is impossible.
So is living in houses, using computers, being right handed, etc. Your definition of unnatural is useless.

[The V O I D]

And yet you are failing to use the word correctly given that we are discussing psychology. Sex is also a tool for relationship building, look at bonobos. Oh and, ever heard of the gay uncle hypothesis. The idea is that having a segment of the population that is non reproducing actually assists in other people reproducing because they can help with child care while having none of their own, or focus on tings like gathering food building things etc. Actually no you very specifically called it unnatural as if that is a bad thing. That is very much an appeal to nature.

Correct. We are discussing an aspect of psychology. But I fail to see any term I used incorrectly.

Sex is also a tool for relationship building indeed.
And no. I did not hear of the gay uncle hypothesis before.
Yes. I did call it unnatural. But I'm afraid you are assuming that I see it as a bad thing.

Finally I repeat it is not an appeal to nature. Homosexuality is unnatural per definition.

IF YOU INSISTED ON USING DICTIONARIES:

nat·u·ral
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

HOMOSEXUALITY EXISTS AND WAS NOT MADE OR CAUSED BY HUMANKIND. IT IS EXISTENT AND CAUSED BY NATURE.

YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID.

Sorry, it's just starting to get me a wee bit angry that you're too goddamn stubborn.

[Tyska]

What most of the globe agrees on is irrelevant to me. What I care about is what actually is and what should be as intended. Basically I care about the truth not what the world thinks is the truth out of sociological brainwashing. What the world agrees upon may invalidate my views through your periscope but it certainly does not through mine.

What I read is: "I am not letting my worldview be shattered so I choose my confirmation bias arguments. Also, the facts and truth of matters aren't a concern to me, only what I perceive as facts and truth. Let's just ignore the fact homosexuality is natural and occurs in nature every single day throughout every species for nonreproductive purposes, and how sex isn't just for reproduction."

And that is not a good opinion to have when trying to debate something.

Whenever you decide to stop running around in circles we can finally move on. When you are ready and if you are ever ready you will embrace the truth. Unfortunately that happens rarely on this planet especially nowadays.

[Neutraligon]

What I read is: "I am not letting my worldview be shattered so I choose my confirmation bias arguments. Also, the facts and truth of matters aren't a concern to me, only what I perceive as facts and truth. Let's just ignore the fact homosexuality is natural and occurs in nature every single day throughout every species for nonreproductive purposes, and how sex isn't just for reproduction."

And that is not a good opinion to have when trying to debate something.

Whenever you decide to stop running around in circles we can finally move on. When you are ready and if you are ever ready you will embrace the truth. Unfortunately that happens rarely on this planet especially nowadays.

Whenever you are going to realize that when used when discussing psychology, you should use the definition set out by psychologists, you will eventually embrace the truth.

[Farnhamia]

What I read is: "I am not letting my worldview be shattered so I choose my confirmation bias arguments. Also, the facts and truth of matters aren't a concern to me, only what I perceive as facts and truth. Let's just ignore the fact homosexuality is natural and occurs in nature every single day throughout every species for nonreproductive purposes, and how sex isn't just for reproduction."

And that is not a good opinion to have when trying to debate something.

Whenever you decide to stop running around in circles we can finally move on. When you are ready and if you are ever ready you will embrace the truth. Unfortunately that happens rarely on this planet especially nowadays.

Or you can all go back to the topic, which is about a specific incident and its possible implications for the civil rights of LBGT people. Want to talk about the nature of homosexuality itself? Try starting a new thread.

[The Rich Port]

This is making me rethink my position on family owned businesses.

[Gauthier]

This is making me rethink my position on family owned businesses.

The real owner had nothing to do with it, just some douchebag friend of his who passed himself off as the manager.

[Neutraligon]

This is making me rethink my position on family owned businesses.

The real owner had nothing to do with it, just some douchebag friend of his who passed himself off as the manager.

I wonder if that person is still considered a friend.

[The Rich Port]

This is making me rethink my position on family owned businesses.

The real owner had nothing to do with it, just some douchebag friend of his who passed himself off as the manager.

This isn't the only case of a family owned business being run by bigots.

Hobby Lobby, the dummies who didn't want to photograph a wedding...

[Tyska]

What most of the globe agrees on is irrelevant to me. What I care about is what actually is and what should be as intended. Basically I care about the truth not what the world thinks is the truth out of sociological brainwashing. What the world agrees upon may invalidate my views through your periscope but it certainly does not through mine.

Since you clearly are not paying attention to the truth, clearly you do not care about the truth.

Fact: A large number of animals have homosexuals within them
Fact: Animals use sex for things other than procreation, look at the bonobo, one of out closest relatives
Fact: Homosexuality is found in nature
Fact: Homosexuality does not fulfill the psychological definition of disorder. You should be using that definition because we are currently discussion psychology

I call ditto on the first three facts.
But not on the fourth.
I couldn't care less about the mainstream psychological definition of 'disorder'. Just because it is a popular line of thought does not mean it is not terribly misguided as a definition.
I go strictly by etymological definitions. They are the real definitions of words.

So I digress again. I am paying absolute attention to the truth. But no psychologist or any other person for that matter is going to tell me what is truth. I am perfectly capable of uncovering and understand the truth myself.

[Farnhamia]

You should all go back to the topic, which is about a specific incident and its possible implications for the civil rights of LBGT people. Want to talk about the nature of homosexuality itself? Try starting a new thread. Apparently my last warning on this didn't make an impression, so let's lock the thread for a while.