Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

underbear1 · Apr 2, 2006, 12:09 am

JESUS, save me from your followers.

Nino123 · Apr 2, 2006, 11:54 am

I believe that homoxesuality is caused by the body's inadequacy to produce sufficient sexual hormones. The fact that homosexual people are so judged and discriminated by the society is caused by the lack of education and self esteem on those who don't understand the concept of life.

bob60292 · Oct 12, 2006, 11:42 pm

The mind is a very strange thing. There is noone with any high university degree that truthfully understands it. Reading through all these posts is like being on a merry-go-round. I read books to understand the topic, the Hebrew and Greek scriptures included, explanations by clergy both OK-pro and Hellfire-con. I've interviewed individuals of all persuasions, including mental health professionals, and even prayed for an explanation.
You're all very interesting in this forum; but if no one has said it yet; there is no truthful explanation. Many think they know, but no one does.
Maybe we'll all learn these things at the pearly gates; but neither God nor man is giving us the answer now.

**Jack** · Oct 13, 2006, 12:46 am

Ummm, yeah...so?
Should we all just go home now?
Do we have to stop discussing unknowables?
You'd be surprised. Just being able to talk with a few sensible people about what you think about homosexuality is a big relief to some of us. It's nice to not have to avoid the subject all the time.

underbear1 · Oct 13, 2006, 02:36 am

While the exact mechanism which determines sexual orientation isn't confirmed yet, (perhaps 8 genes are involved in this complicated trait, and in vitro hormones may play some role as well), the VAST majority of scientists state orientaion is established by the age of three, and is unalterable. This removes the idiotic contentions that anyone CHOOSES their orientation, and it also denies the claims of those brutal and damaging "ex-gay" ministries who claim they change people's orientation.
They might make celibate gays, but they don't make heterosexuals, those men are still attracted to men and always will be.

JohnMK · Oct 13, 2006, 03:08 am

Quote:

Quote by: Nino123

I believe that homoxesuality is caused by the body's inadequacy to produce sufficient sexual hormones. The fact that homosexual people are so judged and discriminated by the society is caused by the lack of education and self esteem on those who don't understand the concept of life.

Your first sentence is not true. Homosexuals generally have the same amount of hormones (testosterone, etc.) as heterosexuals. The rest of your post however I can't help but agree with.

bob60292 · Oct 13, 2006, 07:39 am

Quote:

Quote by: Isherwood

Ummm, yeah...so?
Should we all just go home now?
Do we have to stop discussing unknowables?
You'd be surprised. Just being able to talk with a few sensible people about what you think about homosexuality is a big relief to some of us. It's nice to not have to avoid the subject all the time.

No problem. That wasn't the point. Enjoy

Acebass · Oct 13, 2006, 08:38 am

Why are we still so worried about what consenting adults do in their bedrooms? It makes no sense to me!...

Blinky Bill · Oct 19, 2006, 01:04 am

Quote:

Quote by: Osborn F Enready

it is a process that probably takes place in the birth canal, while being delivered, due to hormones produced by the mother during delivery.

So would that mean that there are no gay people who were born via C-section?

Are there any gay 'C-sectioners' on this forum who can attest otherwise?

underbear1 · Oct 19, 2006, 01:09 am

Hormones are passing through the placenta all through pregnancy, the birth canal has nothing to do with the issue.

Matts · Oct 19, 2006, 03:09 am

I am not even going to try to answer the question proposed in the initial post of this thread. Let me instead propose another question: what difference would it make, in terms of ethics, if homosexuality were a choice? Many people who are bisexual, while unable to choose either an exclusively heterosexual or an exclusively homosexual preference, have in practice gone from heterosexual relationships to homosexual relationships and sometimes back again, and some of them even from homosexual relationships to heterosexual relationships and sometimes back again. Does the fact that they, unlike exclusive homosexuals, are in a position to prefer heterosexual relationships over homosexual relationships (but choose not to) somehow make their homosexual relationships less ethically sound than those of exclusively homosexual people?

This inane debate about the Cause appears to be one of those manufactured issues people turn to when they want to make ethics seem more complex than it needs to be in order to cover up the fact that, when it comes to the crunch, they don't have a rationally acceptable argument (in this case against consensual homosexuality). It is my contention that we do not need a separate ethics for sexuality (a "sexual ethics," an ethics of sexuality apart from general ethics) but need to apply the same ethics to all social behaviour. The only rationally justifiable ethics is based on the principle of individual autonomy, the idea that a person should be in charge of their own destiny insofar as this does not infringe upon another individual's right to freedom and happiness.

Dumping spent nuclear fuel into the environment is a choice but it is not an immoral practice by virtue of being voluntary, it is immoral because it is reckless negligence of the well-being of the organic world (and of other humans). Homosexuality as such (internal level) is not a choice, even for bisexuals, but homosexuality as social practice (external level) is. The fact that a homosexual relationship, unlike homosexual desire, is a choice does not make it immoral; the only thing that would make it unethical is some objective harm to other people or the environment. "Infringement of our deepest values as Christian Americans" is not objective harm but a subjective and definitional issue (read: attitude problem).

In other words, we need to do away with the perennial nail-biting about the Cause as a pseudo-issue of "sexual ethics" and see what is really central to an ethical sexual life: the same as to any other area of social behaviour. The "choice vs. inborn trait" debate, in addition to oversimplifying the question, is a bluff, an attempt to turn our minds to a sphere of contention which is ethically irrelevant. This debate is being spinned eternally in order to cover up for the embarrassing truth that mutually consensual homosexuality is not an infringement of anyone's basic rights, or of anything else under the sun for that matter. Same-sex desire as such is not what conservatives like to refer to as a "lifestyle choice," but the only rational reaction to such a claim is not "it is not so" but rather "it is not so but so what if it were?"

underbear1 · Oct 19, 2006, 10:06 am

Use of bisexuals sexual orientation and the fact they at some points of their life might fit a catagory straight or gay, and by that deciding sexual orientation is chosen is ridiculous. Bisexuals like gays and straights have their orientation to BOTH sexes set at age three too. If you can't say three year olds have the knowledge, or experience to make such a decision at that age, you have to define sexual orientation not a choice, therefore intrinsic to each person.

View Poll Results: Is homosexuality...
A conscious descision?	5	20.83%
Wired into a homosexual from birth and impossible to change?	14	58.33%
other (please explain)	5	20.83%
Voters: 24. You may not vote

Oct 13, 2006, 12:46 am	#64 (permalink) (top)
Jack formerly Isherwood Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 13,364	Ummm, yeah...so? Should we all just go home now? Do we have to stop discussing unknowables? You'd be surprised. Just being able to talk with a few sensible people about what you think about homosexuality is a big relief to some of us. It's nice to not have to avoid the subject all the time. The Forum Rules Radical Atheist Heathen Queer Let's agree to respect each others views, no matter how wrong yours may be. (Ashleigh Brilliant)

Oct 13, 2006, 08:38 am	#68 (permalink) (top)
Acebass Necromancer Location: Louisville Ky Posts: 95	Why are we still so worried about what consenting adults do in their bedrooms? It makes no sense to me!... Liberal!..nuff said!

Oct 19, 2006, 03:09 am	#71 (permalink) (top)
Matts Wood elf Location: Finland Posts: 60	I am not even going to try to answer the question proposed in the initial post of this thread. Let me instead propose another question: what difference would it make, in terms of ethics, if homosexuality were a choice? Many people who are bisexual, while unable to choose either an exclusively heterosexual or an exclusively homosexual preference, have in practice gone from heterosexual relationships to homosexual relationships and sometimes back again, and some of them even from homosexual relationships to heterosexual relationships and sometimes back again. Does the fact that they, unlike exclusive homosexuals, are in a position to prefer heterosexual relationships over homosexual relationships (but choose not to) somehow make their homosexual relationships less ethically sound than those of exclusively homosexual people? This inane debate about the Cause appears to be one of those manufactured issues people turn to when they want to make ethics seem more complex than it needs to be in order to cover up the fact that, when it comes to the crunch, they don't have a rationally acceptable argument (in this case against consensual homosexuality). It is my contention that we do not need a separate ethics for sexuality (a "sexual ethics," an ethics of sexuality apart from general ethics) but need to apply the same ethics to all social behaviour. The only rationally justifiable ethics is based on the principle of individual autonomy, the idea that a person should be in charge of their own destiny insofar as this does not infringe upon another individual's right to freedom and happiness. Dumping spent nuclear fuel into the environment is a choice but it is not an immoral practice by virtue of being voluntary, it is immoral because it is reckless negligence of the well-being of the organic world (and of other humans). Homosexuality as such (internal level) is not a choice, even for bisexuals, but homosexuality as social practice (external level) is. The fact that a homosexual relationship, unlike homosexual desire, is a choice does not make it immoral; the only thing that would make it unethical is some objective harm to other people or the environment. "Infringement of our deepest values as Christian Americans" is not objective harm but a subjective and definitional issue (read: attitude problem). In other words, we need to do away with the perennial nail-biting about the Cause as a pseudo-issue of "sexual ethics" and see what is really central to an ethical sexual life: the same as to any other area of social behaviour. The "choice vs. inborn trait" debate, in addition to oversimplifying the question, is a bluff, an attempt to turn our minds to a sphere of contention which is ethically irrelevant. This debate is being spinned eternally in order to cover up for the embarrassing truth that mutually consensual homosexuality is not an infringement of anyone's basic rights, or of anything else under the sun for that matter. Same-sex desire as such is not what conservatives like to refer to as a "lifestyle choice," but the only rational reaction to such a claim is not "it is not so" but rather "it is not so but so what if it were?" Matts Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live. Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

Apr 2, 2006, 12:09 am	#61 (permalink) (top)
underbear1 BANNED Posts: 2,630	JESUS, save me from your followers.

Apr 2, 2006, 11:54 am	#62 (permalink) (top)
Nino123 Sedimentary Rock Posts: 3	I believe that homoxesuality is caused by the body's inadequacy to produce sufficient sexual hormones. The fact that homosexual people are so judged and discriminated by the society is caused by the lack of education and self esteem on those who don't understand the concept of life.

Oct 12, 2006, 11:42 pm	#63 (permalink) (top)
bob60292 Igneous Magma Location: South Florida Posts: 235	The mind is a very strange thing. There is noone with any high university degree that truthfully understands it. Reading through all these posts is like being on a merry-go-round. I read books to understand the topic, the Hebrew and Greek scriptures included, explanations by clergy both OK-pro and Hellfire-con. I've interviewed individuals of all persuasions, including mental health professionals, and even prayed for an explanation. You're all very interesting in this forum; but if no one has said it yet; there is no truthful explanation. Many think they know, but no one does. Maybe we'll all learn these things at the pearly gates; but neither God nor man is giving us the answer now.

Oct 13, 2006, 02:36 am	#65 (permalink) (top)
underbear1 BANNED Posts: 2,630	While the exact mechanism which determines sexual orientation isn't confirmed yet, (perhaps 8 genes are involved in this complicated trait, and in vitro hormones may play some role as well), the VAST majority of scientists state orientaion is established by the age of three, and is unalterable. This removes the idiotic contentions that anyone CHOOSES their orientation, and it also denies the claims of those brutal and damaging "ex-gay" ministries who claim they change people's orientation. They might make celibate gays, but they don't make heterosexuals, those men are still attracted to men and always will be.

Oct 19, 2006, 01:09 am	#70 (permalink) (top)
underbear1 BANNED Posts: 2,630	Hormones are passing through the placenta all through pregnancy, the birth canal has nothing to do with the issue.

Oct 19, 2006, 10:06 am	#72 (permalink) (top)
underbear1 BANNED Posts: 2,630	Use of bisexuals sexual orientation and the fact they at some points of their life might fit a catagory straight or gay, and by that deciding sexual orientation is chosen is ridiculous. Bisexuals like gays and straights have their orientation to BOTH sexes set at age three too. If you can't say three year olds have the knowledge, or experience to make such a decision at that age, you have to define sexual orientation not a choice, therefore intrinsic to each person.