Homosexuality

[winth]

kiasimom:

How do you view homosexuality?


Do you discriminate your friends if they have a different sex inclination?

What will you do if you find out your spouse is bisexual?

Actually... I'm very against it.
My ex-boss was a gay but I didn't realise it. Then, I was still happily working and just felt that he behaved alittle differently and looks very well-built and clean shaven for a guy. I have never had friends who are homosexual, so I still lived in that 'perfect ideal' world with just pure males and pure females. The question on homosexuality was very far away from me.

That's why I guess I'm very 'blind' to realise such differences until things are spelt clear to me.

I had a shock of my life when my colleague revealed that to me. She even brought me out for a cuppa just to calm me down. And then, I never dared to talk to him normally.

Then another thing hit me! My another colleague was a lesbian, I didn't realise it too until she told me. I almost :faint:

[WeiHan]

3Boys:

WeiHan,

I'm afraid you do not get my point. I do not dispute that biology can pre-dispose, which is the main point you are making. I do dispute that we have no wilful choice in the matter, or that we cannot seek to influence, or that the influence will be invariably damaging.

As for your contention about 'no studies showing upbringing will affect sexual orientation', absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence. What if I were to pose the question the other way, have there been any studies conclusively proving that upbringing and societal norms DO NOT have any effect on sexual orientation of young adults? Are there any such? I have not seen, to my knowledge.

It is recognised that most behavioural traits are multifactorial in nature, a combination of propensity (i,e brain structure/neurochemistry) and environmental influences. In some cases the tendencies are overwhleming and environmental factors hold no sway, in some cases they are less so and upbringing can make a difference. Why should this be ANY different?

3boys. There has been abundance of wilful effort to change homosexual people straight especially among some conservative religious groups. But as the example that I have provided, i.e. ex-gay ministries, so far, it is a total sham and there has been zero case of success to show-case by them but many cases of psychological damage.

There has been studies trying to show that wilful influence can change a person sexual orientation but the conclusion is that they cannot find. That means there is no evidence. In fact, the failure of ex-gay ministries, is a strong proof that sexual orientation cannot be changed with wilful influence. What science is trying to prove is more than what you understand, it is pointing to the fact that it is not just a biological basis, but it is a deep seated trait of a person. Nothing is 100% conclusive in real life. you go to work everyday but always assume that your house will still be there when you return in the evening. You don't , for example, call back and check out first before you return back home, correct? When you keep trying to prove something, but evidences kept popping out showing the reverse of what you believe, then you have to seriously consider revising your stand.

Homosexuality is not a behaviorial trait. It is not a behaviour! It is deeply seated innate feeling which dictates how and who they fall in love with. Like what I have said, if you claim upbringing can influence sexual orientation, wouldn't it be an anti-thesis that in our straight-laced world where everything is stacked against being homosexual, most homosexual people would have turned straight. The family of many homosexual and their upbringing is no different from the norm.

[WeiHan]

3Boys:

However, it does not preclude me from making a value judgement for myself about certain issues, and hold it for my children and family. There is an assault on traditional values and views on gender roles and family, and I am quite clear to myself which side of the line I stand on.

How does it affects traditional families? That is what I am always curious to ask when this line is uttered. How does other people choice to form family unit with partner of the same sex adversely affect traditional families? On the contrary, prejudicial views escially that which convert into active politically effort do affect the life of a group of people significantly.

[WeiHan]

winth:

Actually... I'm very against it.

My ex-boss was a gay but I didn't realise it. Then, I was still happily working and just felt that he behaved alittle differently and looks very well-built and clean shaven for a guy. I have never had friends who are homosexual, so I still lived in that 'perfect ideal' world with just pure males and pure females. The question on homosexuality was very far away from me.

That's why I guess I'm very 'blind' to realise such differences until things are spelt clear to me.

I had a shock of my life when my colleague revealed that to me. She even brought me out for a cuppa just to calm me down. And then, I never dared to talk to him normally.

Then another thing hit me! My another colleague was a lesbian, I didn't realise it too until she told me. I almost :faint:

You see. The tell the whole world except you. Now you should know why.

Actually, 3-5% of population of every cultures are gays. That is the number that people are getting closer as we understand more. So, from now on, the world should not be \"perfect\" for you, every 100 people that you come in contact with, you can expect 3-5 gays at least.

[3Boys]

WeiHan:

3boys. There has been abundance of wilful effort to change homosexual people straight especially among some conservative religious groups. But as the example that I have provided, i.e. ex-gay ministries, so far, it is a total sham and there has been zero case of success to show-case by them but many cases of psychological damage.


There has been studies trying to show that wilful influence can change a person sexual orientation but the conclusion is that they cannot find. That means there is no evidence. In fact, the failure of ex-gay ministries, is a strong proof that sexual orientation cannot be changed with wilful influence. What science is trying to prove is more than what you understand, it is pointing to the fact that it is not just a biological basis, but it is a deep seated trait of a person. Nothing is 100% conclusive in real life. you go to work everyday but always assume that your house will still be there when you return in the evening. You don't , for example, call back and check out first before you return back home, correct? When you keep trying to prove something, but evidences kept popping out showing the reverse of what you believe, then you have to seriously consider revising your stand.

Homosexuality is not a behaviorial trait. It is not a behaviour! It is deeply seated innate feeling which dictates how and who they fall in love with. Like what I have said, if you claim upbringing can influence sexual orientation, wouldn't it be an anti-thesis that in our straight-laced world where everything is stacked against being homosexual, most homosexual people would have turned straight. The family of many homosexual and their upbringing is no different from the norm.

Ain't talking about converting adult homosexuals to straight my friend, I am not sure that works either. That is the straw man you keep setting up to knock down, but it is a straw man and not what I am trying to say. You say that the failure of the ex-gay ministry is strong proof that wilful change cannot occur. Well, it is not, it is strong proof that the ex-gay ministry has failed in adults who are strong in their homosexual tendencies. It says nothing about influencing the young, or those on the borderline.

You will see that I am nuanced in my position, I have 3 sets of scenarios, which I believe is more meaningful, when we understand that the human condition is a continuum and not black and white. I'd really like to see how you define the difference between a behavioural trait, and a 'deep-seated' innateness. You flip-flop on this, first by linking it to the anatomical/physiological, and when I bring up the example of other behavioural conditions that ALSO have markers that can be elucidated, you know insist (not prove, by the way), that this is somehow different.

The most puzzling statement you make, considering the context of this discussion, is \"What science is trying to prove is more than what you understand, it is pointing to the fact that it is not just a biological basis, but it is a deep seated trait of a person. \" :?

Have you not been spent the last 5 posts trying to establish a biological basis for this trait, and now you are saying it is a trait separate from a biology?

[3Boys]

insider:

3Boys:

but what's the relevance in this context?

The relevance / irrelevance is in the eyes of the beholder...

Thanks for the explanation. By this beholder, Ps Rony's utterings are extremist, are not reflective of many parents concerns about homosexuality and have no bearing on this discussion, which is the point I believe you are trying to make.

[WeiHan]

3Boys:

Ain't talking about converting adult homosexuals to straight my friend, I am not sure that works either. That is the straw man you keep setting up to knock down, but it is a straw man and not what I am trying to say. You say that the failure of the ex-gay ministry is strong proof that wilful change cannot occur. Well, it is not, it is strong proof that the ex-gay ministry has failed in adults who are strong in their homosexual tendencies. It says nothing about influencing the young, or those on the borderline.


You will see that I am nuanced in my position, I have 3 sets of scenarios, which I believe is more meaningful, when we understand that the human condition is a continuum and not black and white. I'd really like to see how you define the difference between a behavioural trait, and a 'deep-seated' innateness. You flip-flop on this, first by linking it to the anatomical/physiological, and when I bring up the example of other behavioural conditions that ALSO have markers that can be elucidated, you know insist (not prove, by the way), that this is somehow different.

The most puzzling statement you make, considering the context of this discussion, is \"What science is trying to prove is more than what you understand, it is pointing to the fact that it is not just a biological basis, but it is a deep seated trait of a person. \" :?

Have you not been spent the last 5 posts trying to establish a biological basis for this trait, and now you are saying it is a trait separate from a biology?

3boys. Thankyou for clarification. But when we talk about sexual orientation, don't we always refer to adults or at least young adults whose sexuality is at the dawn of awakening? When you mean young, I thought you mean primary school children which I cannot accept bcos they have no sexual attraction yet and therefore have excluded. And do not tell me about effeminate behaviours in boys and butchy behaviours in girls, that does not equate with sexual orientation. I know some effeminated men who are completely straight and can only enjoy sex with women.

I do not understand what you meant by behaviourial traits. A person is homosexual not bcos he/she already has sex with people of the same sex. It is define by his innate attraction to people of the same sex. Even his/her behaviour can be completely straight, he/she is still gay.

[Eagle-Ladybird]

3boys, WeiHan and others,


I enjoyed the healthy debate going in this forum, and the cool/level headedness maintain throughout. The highest level of mutual respect exhibited in replies, are well appreciated, especially in a such hot topic in today’s world.

Let me inject some comments, quoting from the book written by Dr James Dobson, titled "Bringing Up Boys". In it, ther’s a whole chapter devoted to what he called "Origin of Homosexuality". Honestly I don’t read widely on this topic, in fact none. But yet I find Dr Dodson’s chapter appealing. Here some excerpts from the book :

- Homosexuality is not typically "chosen". Instead, the bewildered children and adolescene find themselves dealing with something they don’t even understand;

- There is no evidence to indicate that homosexuality is inherited. There no respected geneticists in the world today who claim to have found a so-called "gay gene" or other indicatiors of genetic transmission (what he’s trying to say is, there’s no such thing as "born that way"). This is not to say that there may not be some kind of biological predisposition or an inherited temperament that makes one vulnerable to environmental influences;

- Psychologist George Rekers says there is considerable evidence that change of sexual orientation is possible - with or without psychiatric intervention;

- Dr Dobson highly recommends the reading of the book entitled "Preventing Homosexuality : A Parent’s Guide" written by clinical psychologist Joseph Nicolosi, of whom he believed to be the foremost authority on the prevention and treatment of homosexuality today;

At this juncture, Dr Dobson seems to sgguest that upbringing and environmental factors play a large part in the crucila growing years (which I believe is also what’s being expressed by 3Boys).

He then continued to list downsigns of pre-homosexuality which are easy to recognize, and the signs come early in the child’s life - mostly corss-gender behaviour. He also claimed thta there’s a high correlation between feminine behaviour in boyhood and adult homosexuality. But he has this to offer "The most important message I can offer to you is that there is no such thing as a "gay child" or a "gay teen", but left untreated, studies show these boys have a 75% chance of becoming homosexual or bisexual.

Treat the baove as part I - short and sweet, Dr Dobson, given all his research in this topic, is of the view that we must guard our young souls against going down the path of homosexuality, and it is "treatable" at the young age, even up to teens.

He continued to then prescribed what should be done . . . which will be Part II

Thanks for reading.

[corneyAmber]

insider:

At least three of quite prominent people in the early childhood industry are lesbians and gay. I still see them working diligently for the welfare of the industry as a whole (benefiting children) and I would classify them as more respectable people than some 'straight' ones...

Sex orientation should not affect their working ability. There are many professionals who are gay. The only objection is the influence they exert. If they use their professional capacity to influence gullible kids, then it is wrong. For example, these early childhood professionals, as long as they don't do sex education for children, I am certain of their competency for their job. Sex education cannot be their competency because they are practising something deem as unnatural and it is by choice.

[corneyAmber]

WeiHan:

How does it affects traditional families? That is what I am always curious to ask when this line is uttered. How does other people choice to form family unit with partner of the same sex adversely affect traditional families? On the contrary, prejudicial views escially that which convert into active politically effort do affect the life of a group of people significantly.

WeiHan...you may have missed the thread on families only wanting single child. Even traditional families with single child get \"bashed\" for not having more kids due to selfishness and not contributing to the society, you think gays union will be spared for not reproducing at all? :lol: Of course every group will have an impact on society. It's only how much and that depends on the strength of the group.