Response To Four Myths on Homosexuality

Already posted some of this in my gallery, but since Stash Writer is more writer friendly, I thought I would upload the rest of it in journal form. The bold text is my response while the italics belong to MadKingFroggy Everything has been kept the same although I did take the time to make grammatical corrections for both of our responses.

***

Before I dive into things, I first want to thank TheArtFrog for sharing their work with me as well as the friendly submission requests to the group. As you may see in this upload, we may not agree that much on issues like LGBT, but I still have the upmost respect for this person for the polite discourse we have shared. We need more respectable users like TheArtFrog who can agree to disagree respectfully, without resorting to hate. I recommend you check out this users profile and Philosophy group listed here.

da-philosophers.deviantart.com…

It is an amazing place to dive into philosophical issues without having to worry over judgmental feelings and hostility.

And with that, I begin my discourse of “4 Myths about Homosexuality.”

*****

MYTH 1: HOMOSEXUALITY IS A CHOICE

"If that's true, then so is heterosexuality."

"People who are gay cannot help being gay. Whether it is caused from birth or is developed is irrelevant. The fact remains that it is beyond the gay person's control. It is not something they can choose."

"If a person is not free to make a choice then they logically cannot be held responsible for the consequences of the 'choice' they are forced into. Therefore it cannot be 'wrong' of them to be gay."

***

You need to specify what you mean “Being gay.” If it is orientation you are referring to, then I would agree. This is not something people have any control over, as you said.

However, if you mean caving in to your sexual desires, then I would strongly disagree. There are many people, myself included who never have acted out our sexuality. The arousal is there, but ultimately people have control over where their private parts go.

*****

"Ridiculous things like conversion therapy can be psychologically harmful and so called "successful" converts simply repress their self, and later go on to commit suicide because of it."

*****

I am not sure where you are getting this “information” from, but regardless, there is no way for this to be true. I have met people both online and in person who attest to having lost through therapy their homosexual orientation and are doing extremely well.

As for myself, this has not been the case and I am sure there are many that have also sought such “help” only to be disappointed. This is hardly a case for such a person to commit suicide. If they do resort to such a horrible actions, I think it may very well be possible that other forms of mental illness may be at play such as depression.

On a personal note, I believe it should be up to the person to decide what counsel they seek regarding sexuality. If a person wishes to live the life of a “homosexual,” they should be free to seek counsel from someone who will help them become comfortable in their choice of lifestyle. However, were a person with a homosexual orientation to desire marriage to the opposite sex, he/she should also have the right to seek counsel to help them acclimate to a heterosexual marriage.

This is where I take issue with LGBT claiming to represent “all with a homosexual orientation.” If this were true, they would support those holding different convictions on the, desiring something different for their lives.

*****

"MYTH 2: HOMOSEXUALITY IS HARMFUL"

"So far, the death and injury toll for being harmed by other's homosexuality or their own is... none.
Merely having a different sexuality does not bring harm to gay people, nor to others."

"The reason the life expectancy for gay people is so low is because in many backwards third world countries, being gay is an executable crime, and in first world countries, ignorant a**holes spout and practice homophobia.
The stigma society places on gay people is the problem, not being gay itself."

******

Indeed, it is horrible people are executed in third world countries for engaging in homosexual behavior. However, this is not the case in the west yet still those engaging in homosexuality die in larger numbers due to diseases aids having a twenty year less lifespan.

www.lifesitenews.com/news/yet-…

Still, no one should be bullied for living a homosexual lifestyle, but many studies have proven there is a definite correlation between aids and homosexuality.

****

"Being gay is not a mental illness. Is heterosexuality a mental disorder? No. Neither is being gay. It is a sexuality. Just because it's different, doesn't magically mean it's a disorder."

***

I beg to differ here, but regardless, whether it is a disorder or not, should by no means interfere with one’s sexual freedom.

Heterosexuality is indeed the norm and natural. This is proven in our biology as well as the history of the human species and most animals. From a biological standpoint, the main purpose of sexuality is reproduction. This does not mean that people cannot feel attracted to objects, animals, children, or even the same sex. It can take little to nothing to feel an arousal, but this does not make the behavior biologically “normal.”

*****

"Also, this bullshit about being gay causing cancer simply isn't true. Cancer can be stimulated by increased stress levels over a long period of time, caused by... oh I don't know... people telling you horrible lies like that your perfectly natural sexuality is somehow scum of the earth and harmful. :/ Again, clearly homophobia and stigma is the cause, not being gay itself."

"And whether or not if AIDs is a common disease in homosexuals, that is a health related issue of the spread of a disease, not actually one caused by homosexuality, but by bacteria and viruses."

*****

If it were true that levels of stress increase cancer levels wouldn’t we see these same kind of dramatic results under those living with other forms of stress?

The fact that aids is spread higher among homosexuals, surely is not coincidental and while stress levels may sometimes stimulate cancer, it cannot account for the staggering statistics of those engaging in homosexual behavior living 20 years less than those engaging in heterosexuality.

***

"And contrary to popular belief, being gay has no little to effect on population whatsoever. There have always been gay people proportional to the total population, and since gay people haven't given birth, the birth rate only counts those people who are giving birth. A birth rate is only representational of those who actually give birth. Therefore gays don't even affect it in the slightest!"

****

No argument to be made here.

*****

"Being gay harms no-one. That is not an opinion. It's an objective, observable and provable fact."

"Simply put, there's no harm in one's sexuality. That's as ridiculous as claiming that one's skin colour is harmful or one's finger length is harmful."

*****

Again, you need to specify what you mean by “being gay.” The problem I find with the LGBT ideology is they equate sexuality as the same thing as biological features. A person cannot choose their ethnicity, or the “length of their finger.” While a person cannot choose what arouses them, they can definitely choose whether or not they act on it. Were we to always act out our arousals, all men would probably be rapists.

******

"MYTH 3: HOMOSEXUALIRY IS AS BAD AS PEDOPHILIA"

"No. That is utterly ignorant drivel."

"First of all homosexuality is a sexuality, and pedophilia is a paraphilia. Sexuality doesn't equal paraphilia."

"Secondly, consenting partners of the same sex having safe sex harms no-one. It doesn't psychologically or physically damage anyone."

"An adult having sex with a child that isn't able to give proper consent, and isn't even biologically ready for it, is very harmful both psychologically and physically to the child."

"Kid molesting creeps can be heterosexual and they can be homosexual, so sexuality isn't the cause of it.
Therefore, homosexuality isn't equatable pedophilia."

****

I’m really glad you brought up this point, artfrog, because I completely agree. The key word here that you use is CONSENT, and this is why I oppose the legalization of pedophilia, while defending the legalization of homosexuality.

I once watched a documentary on Netflix about pedophilia. It was called “The Paedophile Next Door.” Very interesting and I highly recommend it. What stood out to me the most was whenever they interviewed a man whose orientation had been set towards children since entering his twenties. All the while knowing this, he educated himself on the subject and choose to abstain from his orientation instead seeking heterosexual relationships.

Although pedophilia is not the same as homosexuality as it’s consensual, it still shows that we indeed have a choice on whether we choose to act out our orientations or not.

"MYTH 4; HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN"

"A sin is something bad. There's nothing bad about homosexuality. Homosexuality is not harmful to anyone, and the only harm that occurs is caused by the stigma society brings upon gays and the hate from homophobes, not from being gay itself."

"If your God wants to judge people for something they cannot control, then he's in the wrong, not the gays. And to all you homophobic Christians out there, it says in the Bible, "judge not". Follow your own advice."

"Before you go around trying to force religion on others, actually show some testable evidence for His existence first, otherwise you can shut up about your immoral imaginary friend. Religion is not based on reality or evidence, therefore it has no place when it comes to our laws and morals. Religious beliefs do not come before people's basic human rights."

****

Sin is a religious concept. As far as “control,” this again goes back to what do you mean by “being gay?” If you are referring to orientation, you’re right we do not. However, if you were referring to acting out our arousals, we absolutely have control. Also the right to practice your religion is a very important human right, so much so this was written into our constitution. So long as it does not interfere with the freedoms of others, religions have the perfect right to take their own stance on the subject of sexuality.

The rest of this segment dives into the atheistic/theistic debate over the existence of the God of the Bible, and is something I do not care to derail the current topic over, at the moment. The Christian Bible does indeed condemn homosexuality on many occasions, especially in Paul’s teachings concerning sexuality. However, this goes back to whether you believe in the God of the Bible or do not. It’s a matter of faith. If you do not believe, you certainly have no reason to place any stock in what Biblical scripture says.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts, TheArtFrog

THE ART FROG'S RESPONSE TO ME

"You need to specify what you mean “Being gay.” If it is orientation you are referring to, then I would agree. This is not something people have any control over as you said.

However, if you mean caving in to your sexual desires, then I would strongly disagree. There are many people, myself included who never have acted out our sexuality. The arousal is there, but ultimately people have control over where their private parts go."

Repressing those desires isn't healthy. There's nothing wrong with sexual desires so long as they are done privately and with consenting adults. This old stigma brought on from centuries of religious rule really needs to fade. 

------------

"I am not sure where you are getting this “information” from, but regardless there is no way for this to be true. I have met people both online and in person who attest to having lost through therapy their homosexual orientation and are doing extremely well."

The simple fact is that there are plenty of gays who have been through conversion therapy and it has f*cked them up psychologically. I've met a few who have told me about electric shock torture and other brutal means of forced "conversion therapy".
Also, there are articles and sites that show that it's bad too:

www.hrc.org/resources/the-lies…
www.livescience.com/50453-why-…
psmag.com/conversion-therapy-i…

--------

"As for myself, this has not been the case and I am sure there are many that have also sought such “help” only to be disappointed. This is hardly a case for such a person to commit suicide. If they do resort to such a horrible actions, I think it may very well be possible that other forms of mental illness may be at play such as depression."

On a personal note, I believe it should be up to the person to decide what counsel they seek regarding sexuality. If a person wishes to live the life of a “homosexual,” they should be free to seek counsel from someone who will help them become comfortable in their choice. However, were a person with a homosexual orientation to desire marriage to the opposite sex, he/she should also have the right to seek counsel to help them acclimate to a heterosexual marriage. 

This is where I take issue with LGBT claiming to represent “all with a homosexual orientation.” If this were true, they would support those holding different convictions on the matter desiring something different for their lives."

I actually agree somewhat. If someone seeks therapy or counselling and gives their consent to go through with it, they should be allowed to avail of it. But really we should be counselling them into accepting that they are gay, rather than trying to force them to be someone they're not, which rarely works if ever.

---------

"Indeed, it is horrible people are executed in third world countries for engaging in homosexual behavior. However, this is not the case in the west yet still those engaging in homosexuality die in larger numbers due to diseases aids having a twenty year less lifespan."

www.lifesitenews.com/news/yet-…

"Still, no one should be bullied for living a homosexual lifestyle, but many studies have proven there is a definite correlation between aids and homosexuality."

(This is one such instance where you have done the "gays are bad because of X" thing.) AIDS is a health issue. Being born gay does not cause it. It doesn't magically appear within gay people. Like any STD it is a disease you catch. And heterosexual people get it too, so that is really an irrelevant point to make, seeing as it's specifically a health issue. Otherwise that's like me saying that being a woman is bad because they have higher instances of breast cancer. 

---------

"I beg to differ here, but regardless, whether it is a disorder or not, should by no means interfere with one’s sexual freedom."

"Heterosexuality is indeed the norm and natural. This is proven in our biology as well as the history of humans and most animals. From a biological standpoint, the main purpose of sexuality is reproduction. This does not mean that people cannot feel attracted to objects, animals, children, or even the same sex. It can take little to nothing to feel an arousal, but this does not make the behavior biologically “normal.”"

Just because something's natural or the norm, doesn't mean that everything that isn't natural is wrong.

"If it were true that levels of stress increase cancer levels wouldn’t we see these same kind of dramatic results under those living with other forms of stress?"

"The fact that aids is spread higher among homosexuals, surely is not coincidental and while stress levels may sometimes stimulate cancer, it cannot account for the staggering statistics of those engaging in homosexual behavior living 20 years less than those engaging in heterosexuality."

Again, it's a health issue, not an issue directly caused by homosexuality. If homosexuality wasn't so stigmatised, I'd be curious to see if that 20 year lifespan gap closes. You don't want to undervalue the problem of stress in relation to cancer, and gay people often experience a lot more stress due to the stigma in society.

------------

"Again, you need to specify what you mean by “being gay.” The problem I find with the LGBT ideology is they equate sexuality as the same thing as biological features. A person cannot choose their ethnicity, or the “length of their finger.” While a person cannot choose what arouses them, they can definitely choose whether or not they act on it. Were we to always act out our arousals, all men would probably be rapists."

Being gay, for clarification means both the love and the lust elements of it. If heterosexual people can have sex, there is absolutely no excuse

----------

"I’m really glad you brought up this point, artfrog because I completely agree. The key word here that you use is CONSENT, and this is why I oppose the legalization of pedophilia, while defending the legalization of homosexuality."

We agree, and I'm glad you can defend the legalisation of homosexuality. Some people aren't nearly as rational or kind.

---------

"Sin is a religious concept. As far as “control,” this again goes back to what do you mean by “being gay?” If you are referring to orientation, you’re right we do not. However, if you were referring to acting out our arousals, we absolutely have control. Also the right to practice your religion is very important human right, so much so this was written into our constitution. So long as it does not interfere with the freedoms of others, religions have the perfect right to take their own stance on the subject of sexuality."

"The rest of this segment dives into the atheistic/theistic debate over the existence of the God of the Bible, and is something I do not care to derail the current topic over, at the moment. The Christian Bible does indeed condemn homosexuality on many occasions, especially in Paul’s teachings concerning sexuality. However, this goes back to whether you believe in the God of the Bible or do not. It’s a matter of faith. If you do not believe, you certainly have no reason to place any stock in what Biblical scripture says."

The Bible has no reason to be trusted as a source of any sort of morality, especially seeing as there are some pretty immoral teachings in parts of it. (I mean no offence by that btw). Faith is belief without evidence, and really shouldn't be used in establishing morality.
Really, as well, no-one should be forced against their will to live by the rules of another person's religion.

And thanks again for your polite conversation!


My 2ND RESPONSE TO ARTFROG


Repressing those desires isn't healthy. There's nothing wrong with sexual desires so long as they are done privately and with consenting adults. This old stigma brought on from centuries of religious rule really needs to fade.

Surely even you repress your sexual desires at time. If not we would all be guilty of cheating on our spouses as well as rape. Repressing has nothing to do with religion. It is a matter of not wishing to harm others. (Which consensual homosexuality does not do)

"The simple fact is that there are plenty of gays who have been through conversion therapy and it has f*cked them up psychologically. I've met a few who have told me about electric shock torture and other brutal means of forced "conversion therapy".

"Also, there are articles and sites that show that it's bad too:"

Someone would have to be pretty messed up in the head to put themselves through shock treatment in this day in age.
I know they used to do that for every kind of mental illness in the past as well as lobotomies, but our understanding of the mind was pretty primitive at the time. For someone to put themselves through shock treatment in the present day with our current knowledge, would really have issues to believe the delusion that shock treatment will make them “better.”

"I actually agree somewhat. If someone seeks therapy or counselling and gives their consent to go through with it, they should be allowed to avail of it. But really we should be counselling them into accepting that they are gay, rather than trying to force them to be someone they're not, which rarely works if ever."

You say that you agree and they should have the right to their counsel of choice which I really respect. However, again not everyone may not want a homosexual relationship despite their orientation. If that’s the case, they need to have options should they disagree with the LGBT philosophy like I and many others do. LGBT should have no right to force their sexual views on others and more than a religious.

"(This is one such instance where you have done the "gays are bad because of X" thing.) AIDS is a health issue. Being born gay does not cause it. It doesn't magically appear within gay people. Like any STD it is a disease you catch. And heterosexual people get it too, so that is really an irrelevant point to make, seeing as it's specifically a health issue. Otherwise that's like me saying that being a woman is bad because they have higher instances of breast cancer."

With all due respect, this is where I feel you are adding to what I am saying, placing a different spin. I never stated “gays were bad because of aids” or anything of that sort. I made no moral judgments on the actions and character of "gays." Yes, "gays" die in larger numbers of aids which should be disturbing with any social/racial group. Aids is also a large epidemic in Africa, however, you would have to be a cold hearted bigot to claim “they are experiencing this disease because they are bad people.” That said, I do think it would be good for Africans to increase awareness of the problem and seek ways to reduce the spread of the disease. I would say the same for those living a homosexual lifestyle. Ignorance is the worst thing you can do regarding something as devastating as a disease.

"Just because something's natural or the norm, doesn't mean that everything that isn't natural is wrong."

You seem to be changing your argument here and getting off track. I don’t think you’re doing it deceptively or intentionally or anything, but here is what I mean.

EXAMPLE

"Being gay is not a mental illness. Is heterosexuality a mental disorder? No. Neither is being gay. It is a sexuality. Just because it's different, doesn't magically mean it's a disorder."

Your original argument stated that gay is not an abnormality or in your own words a “mental disorder” any more than “heterosexuality” is a “disorder.”

After which I respond by stating that heterosexuality is the natural sexuality due to it’s purpose in reproduction.

Heterosexuality is indeed the norm and natural. This is proven in our biology as well as the history of humans and most animals.

After I make this statement, you appear to concede that heterosexuality is “natural” and “the norm” but go on to say just because this is so, “not everything that isn’t natural is wrong,” completely straying from the original argument of heterosexuality being biologically normal.

I would also encourage you to reread the rest of my statements in my response as I never made a moral argument against homosexuality here or anywhere else.  

"Again, it's a health issue, not an issue directly caused by homosexuality. If homosexuality wasn't so stigmatised, I'd be curious to see if that 20 year lifespan gap closes. You don't want to undervalue the problem of stress in relation to cancer, and gay people often experience a lot more stress due to the stigma in society."

I feel as though you are generalizing with broad statements. While stress may indeed increase cancer risk, this still does not rule out the possibility of other factors being at play. People living as homosexuals in western culture is far less stressful and experience far less hate than living in areas of poverty and unrest like the middle east. Here in the states, we have “gay” heroes in media, entertainment, as well as support groups on campus. It is also illegal to discriminate against “gays” in the work place.

"Being gay, for clarification means both the love and the lust elements of it. If heterosexual people can have sex, there is absolutely no excuse."

“Gay” as an identity did not exist as an identity until the LGBT movement created it. And a person definitely has a choice on whom they choose to “love” and “lust” after.

Going back to our first point, can you expect me to believe you engage in sex any time you feel aroused?

Now just to clarify once again, I do NOT equate pedophilia with homosexuality as one is consensual while the other is not. That said I still think there is a good parallel to be made here as far as a person not being defined by their orientation. Remember when I referred to the man whose orientation was towards children, but made a moral decision not to entertain or act on it. Do you think he still deserves the title of a “pedophile?” I do not and while me abstaining from homosexual behavior is not the same as abstaining from an action which is abusive and illegal, the principle is still the same.

Sorry I’m not following what you mean by “there is absolutely no excuse.” “No excuse” for what?

"We agree, and I'm glad you can defend the legalisation of homosexuality. Some people aren't nearly as rational or kind."

Indeed we do, friend.

"The Bible has no reason to be trusted as a source of any sort of morality, especially seeing as there are some pretty immoral teachings in parts of it. (I mean no offence by that btw). Faith is belief without evidence, and really shouldn't be used in establishing morality."

"Really, as well, no-one should be forced against their will to live by the rules of another person's religion."

Half agree and half disagree with this point. Again, I don’t really care to get into a religious debate, but I find the very notion of “sin” and “morality” to be religious in nature. But like I said, that’s a topic for another time. What I really agree with is your statement that “no one should be forced against their will to live by the rules of another person’s religion.” I personally would also include LGBT as a philosophical view.

No problem, friend. 

I’m sure neither one of us has changed our minds regarding this subject but if nothing else, hopefully we both helped in introducing the other to a new perspective.

ART FROG'S 2nd RESPONSE TO ME

I do not agree with much of what you've said. Control and repression are two different things. Control is healthy, repression is not.

You've seemed not to get the fact that just because something is either natural or unnatural is irrelevant. It doesn't make it right nor wrong.

Homosexuality has existed for millennia. There are accounts of ancient Greek people being gay, and renaissance painters. Only recently have we given it a true name, but really that doesn't mean it didn't exist before.

Also, to clarify, I meant that there is no excuse for banning homosexuality.

"I could go on... but neither has changed our minds. But if anything else, this debate... the opinions and views we've voiced, will help others reading these comments to see both sides of the argument for and against."

MY THIRD REPLY TO ARTFROG

I do not agree with much of what you have to say either.

Like you said, Repression and control are not the same thing.

Repression is actually the subconscious restraint of thoughts and memories so actually, the word "repression" you continue to use does not fit at all with what we're talking about. A person with a homosexual orientation is completely aware of their sex drive. Controlling  whether you engage in sexual intercourse with someone is the power held by everyone.

I agree, it is irrelevant. I have not made any moral claims within any of my statements. My only argument is for the right for one to be able to do whatever they want with their sexuality. LGBT makes it seem all one sided, that everyone holds the same ideology as them or wishes to live the same lifestyle.

You seem to have a problem when it comes to incorrectly reading statements and getting off track.

“Gay” as an identity DID NOT EXIST AS AN IDENTITY until the LGBT movement created it."

I did not say homosexuality did not exist. Homosexuality was practiced in the Roman Empire as well. Homosexual relationships were actually considered to be "more pure" than heterosexual relationships with women. I'm sure it goes as far back as the origin of the human race.

"Also, to clarify, I meant that there is no excuse for banning homosexuality."

When did I say that homosexuality should be banned?

"I could go on... but neither has changed our minds. But if anything else, this debate... the opinions and views we've voiced, will help others reading these comments to see both sides of the argument for and against."

Yeah, we could both go on indefinitely I'm pretty sure. We demonstrated the ability to hold an intelligent, civil conversation on this matter. I hope we inspire others to do the same with our example.

END OF DEBATE

The debate ended with me and Artfrog calling for a cease fire, feeling we had both sufficiently represented our positions.

Special thanks to my pal, MadKingFroggy for doing this.

comments.deviantart.com/4/4069…