Can the government compel you to provide someone a service against your will?

[Vuk]

Vuk - Do you believe that sexual attraction is a conscious choice? If you needed to be attracted to men for some reason, could you will it to happen? I'm not talking about the ability to maintain an erection throughout a sex act, but the attraction - two very different things.

We are hard wired to be attracted to adults of the opposite sex and same species. Anything else is either the result of an unhealthy hormone imbalance or a person being trained to be stimulated by something. Whether that was being raped as a child, being preyed upon when depressed and associating good feelings with the sex act, or whatever.
It is also something that can be untrained.

One could play the same game by replacing gays with blacks. Countless studies indicate that STD infection, and particularly HIV/AIDS, is a uniquely African American problem in the US. The black identifier correlates more strongly with STD infection than the gay one. Using the same dishonest cherry picking of data, a case could easily be made that black sex in America is inherently unhealthy and should be discouraged. Of course, that would be just as ridiculous as the argument your sources put forth.

The reason these STDs are so common among black people is because gay relationships are extremely common and an enormous amount of America's black population is poor and does not practice safe or clean sex. Add needles onto that and you get the current situation. It doesn't mean being black is the problem, but that behaviors common amongst the black community are the problem.


As far as your sources, they are all biased and almost all based on survey data. The problem with that is that for all you know these men were reporting falsely in order to combat stereotypes about their sexuality. It is social science, and not science. Also, it is at odds with older data collected on the same subject, so even if the person conducting the research did not fabricate it and most of the respondents reported truthfully, that is still a recent development in the gay community, and for most of our country's history that was not true.

Whether the majority of them have tons of sex partners or not, and whether the majority of them have sex in bathrooms or homes, does it really matter? Sodomy is still extremely unhealthy (whether practiced by straights or gays), and much more likely to be practiced by gays than straights. In fact, unlike straight people who can engage in normal sexual intercourse, gay people's only options is sodomy (whether oral or anal, which are both extremely unhealthy).

You are right that majority of the scientific (university educated) community is on your side, because it is the politically correct thing to believe and they are heavily indoctrinated in Uni. I'll remind you though that at times the scientific community came down on the side of eugenics and many other messed up beliefs and practices. That doesn't make it right, nor does it mean that it is a settled issue because currently the scientific community reaches a partial consensus.

When it really gets down to it there is no way to objectively know 100% either way, and we make the choices based on our morals. We both look at the same data and draw different conclusion.

Let's just agree to disagree, as I really don't have the time to keep contributing to this thread anyway.

[Beskar]

We are hard wired to be attracted to adults of the opposite sex and same species. Anything else is either the result of an unhealthy hormone imbalance or a person being trained to be stimulated by something. Whether that was being raped as a child, being preyed upon when depressed and associating good feelings with the sex act, or whatever.
It is also something that can be untrained.

That is incorrect. I said in this post the reality.

[Vuk]

Sorry, but I disagree. I think that we can be trained to hump anything, but are only naturally attracted to adult members of the same species and opposite sex.

[Goofball]

Sorry, but I disagree. I think that we can be trained to hump anything, but are only naturally attracted to adult members of the same species and opposite sex.

Hmmm. Well, if you think it, it must be true. Science be damned. To quote an earlier post where you were responding to a statement that homosexuality is not a choice:

Of course you know this for a fact because you are a god who knows everything, right?

For this entire discussion you have dodged every issue, responding only with religious dogma and personal prejudice. But what's funny is that I'm pretty sure if Jesus were to come back, today, right now, and tell you in person that you actually have it wrong: homosexuality is not a choice, you would instantly convert to Islam because at least Mohammad hasn't gone soft on "teh gay."

[Vuk]

Hmmm. Well, if you think it, it must be true. Science be damned. To quote an earlier post where you were responding to a statement that homosexuality is not a choice:For this entire discussion you have dodged every issue, responding only with religious dogma and personal prejudice. But what's funny is that I'm pretty sure if Jesus were to come back, today, right now, and tell you in person that you actually have it wrong: homosexuality is not a choice, you would instantly convert to Islam because at least Mohammad hasn't gone soft on "teh gay."

Nice taking out of context there Goofball. The truth is that the sciences is not conclusive and no one knows for 100% sure right now (despite some convincing themselves otherwise).
The difference between my statement and his is that he stated it as a fact, not an opinion, whereas I clearly stated my opinion as such "Sorry, but I disagree. I think that".


Personal prejudice? Well, I am not alone there in this thread. lol After all, I am the one who discards and refuses to look at the other guy's sources because I know they are wrong because they disagree with me. I am the one insulting people and calling them stupid, uneducated, etc because I disagree with them?

Like I said, let's agree to disagree. I got no beef with gays. (pun intended) I just think that sodomy is unhealthy and homosexual relationships not emotionally healthy. I also think BDSM relationship where a husband makes his wife boy before him, or a wife whips her husband, etc. are not emotionally healthy. It doesn't mean I got anything against the people who choose that type of relationship.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sorry, but I disagree. I think that we can be trained to hump anything, but are only naturally attracted to adult members of the same species and opposite sex.

Actually - Vuk is not completely off here - there's enough evidence that sexuality is malleable to at least support his claim that people can conditioned.

See Ancient Sparta.

[HopAlongBunny]

Nature supports damn near anything you want it to.
To oft ignored is the friendly Bonobo.

http://www.psmag.com/science/bonobos...ur-past-59956/

[Vuk]

I think this nebulous concept of "Nature" is the problem. Everything is natural. If you try to arbitrate "natural" based on your human perspective, you're working from a flawed angle and you're not going to get anywhere.

If you think gay sex is sinful and against God, just say so. That argument is at least coming from a place of intellectual honesty.

I think it is 'against God' in the same way eating pork is: it is harmful for you so God told you not to do it. I also think that my observations and the science I have read mostly supports that. When I said natural, I mean following the genetic programing of a healthy, average human being with balanced hormones. Pardon me, but I don't think you can fairly say that I have been 'intellectually dishonest' in this conversation.

[Vuk]

Speaking of unscientific, macroevolution has never been observed or proven possible. It doesn't even qualify as a theory. You say that we evolved into that way and can evolve another way, but I say we were created that way. Neither of us can prove it and both of us rely on some measure of faith, even if we believe that the science supports our beliefs. That is why by the end of the day I think the best we can do is agree to disagree.
And if it is all about evolution, 'gay' societies would go extinct anyway, so I doubt evolution is intended to go in that way.

[Montmorency]

Speaking of unscientific, macroevolution has never been observed or proven possible.

Hoo boy. What exactly do you think "macroevolution" is?

And if it is all about evolution, 'gay' societies would go extinct anyway, so I doubt evolution is intended to go in that way.

How's that?

[Rhyfelwyr]

As PVC said, although Vuk is an easy target for the usual highbrow mocking, he has some valid points that people seem unwilling to acknowledge.

Firstly, the notion that sexuality is purely genetic is demonstrably false - you need only look at the American prison system to see this. Or ancient Sparta, or the Ottoman Empire, or certain practices in Afghanistan and Central Asia, or tourist abuses in Thailand, etc.

I also think it is significant that in each of these examples, homosexual practices flourish as a result of an artificial situation. In all of these examples, there is either a deprivation of more typical expressions of sexuality, a power imbalance between the two partners, a cultural glorification of sodomy, etc...

All this evidence flies in the face of the standard modern attempts to attribute sexuality purely to genetics. It may be more accurate to view is a social phenomena, rather than a product of individual genetics/choice.

I think this nebulous concept of "Nature" is the problem. Everything is natural. If you try to arbitrate "natural" based on your human perspective, you're working from a flawed angle and you're not going to get anywhere.

I think a case could be made that while all social norms are natural in the sense that they come from society, which is in itself a natural expression of human relations as a social species; a human being can, as a member of society, engage in behaviour which might not be a true expression of his own inherent humanity as an individual.

So while homosexuality might in the grander scheme of things be natural as a social phenomena; in the more immediate sense it is less natural to the individual who engages in it.

[Montmorency]

a human being can, as a member of society, engage in behaviour which might not be a true expression of his own inherent humanity as an individual.

What exactly does that mean and how does one assess it?

in the more immediate sense it is less natural to the individual who engages in it.

See above.

An individual is as an individual does. There is no inner core of self that reflects 'who one really is' underneath some sort of social trimming.

[Papewaio]

Humans are mammals.

Most but not all mammals give birth to live young. A tiny minority lay eggs.

The ability to give birth relies on the fetus staying attached inside. This means the placenta which attaches to your belly button needs to stay attached to the womb wall.

The ability to attach the placenta is based on genetic code. Some birth defects will stop attachment. The successful ones use a particular set of DNA codes.

This code has been found to derive from a virus. As it turns out viruses love to get inside your body and subvert your factories (cells) to produce more viruses. Sometimes in the process of subversion their own code gets stuck inside. Most of the time for no effect, sometimes fatal consequences or a mutation of some sort.

For mammals it appears the code for placental attachment is based on a retrovirus.

So unless you are an egg laying mammal you need a particular virus derived mutation to have any chance of carrying a fetus to term.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../403785a0.html

Those with a better understanding of biology can simplify and correct my summary.

In short there are plenty of examples of mutations within not just the fossil record but the DNA one.

[Rhyfelwyr]

What exactly does that mean and how does one assess it?

See above.

An individual is as an individual does. There is no inner core of self that reflects 'who one really is' underneath some sort of social trimming.

I disagree with the bit in bold, since I think we are born with certain predispositions that show our true, inherent humanity. Indeed, your side of the argument seems to argue that sexuality is a purely genetic predisposition, so I'm not quite sure why you are contesting the fact now.

However, while we have these internal predispositions, the external pressure of society can lead an individual to be untrue to their own humanity, whether by force, conditioning, or necessity.

As for your query as to how we assess what is natural, I would suggest looking to the original conditions in which humanity developed and the behaviours displayed in those times; and contrast that with how these behaviours changed when the individual became increasingly defined by the abstract creation that is society.

What would your response be to all those examples of sexuality being down to social (and particularly artificial) conditioning?

[PanzerJaeger]

As PVC said, although Vuk is an easy target for the usual highbrow mocking, he has some valid points that people seem unwilling to acknowledge.

Firstly, the notion that sexuality is purely genetic is demonstrably false - you need only look at the American prison system to see this. Or ancient Sparta, or the Ottoman Empire, or certain practices in Afghanistan and Central Asia, or tourist abuses in Thailand, etc.

I also think it is significant that in each of these examples, homosexual practices flourish as a result of an artificial situation. In all of these examples, there is either a deprivation of more typical expressions of sexuality, a power imbalance between the two partners, a cultural glorification of sodomy, etc...

I think you are confusing attraction and the ability to use sex as a means to an end. Lots of people have sex with people they are not particularly attracted to for any number of reasons. Gay men have sex (and children) with women all the time to maintain their cover and straight men have sex with other men in prison to establish hierarchy, gain protection, and/or regain a lost sense of intimacy. Deep down, however, those gay men will always fantasize about other men, and those prisoners will return to women as soon as they are released.

This is a point that I was trying to make to Vuk. There is a big difference between who we are attracted to and who we choose to have sex with. That's where social and situational constraints come into play.