Is Homosexuality a Disorder?

[Selaphiel]

Mouth --> eating, drinking and (in humans) speech

Anus --> defecation

Vagina --> accommodates penis and enables reproduction

Only an insane perverted sodomite would find any of that ridiculous.

Way to ignore the entire argument.

It is problematic that you argue out of the false starting point of design. It is problematic because it assumes that the functions of an organism are determined from some imagined starting point, that they exist in a vacuum, without considering the environment. Biology also describes biological mechanisms that are appropriated for new purposes in new environments. A prime example being the flagellum of bacteria, which is an organelle that likely developed by appropriating a secretory and transport system found in bacteria. Ergo, the function of the type III secretory and transport system was appropriated into a new function in some bacterial cells because it was advantageous in their environments.

This means that there is little reason why the use of human (and other species) organs and anatomical structures could not be appropriated as a means of expressing forms of sexuality that serve a societal function in that species, and thus helps perpetuate the species qua population.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Of course, you operate out of a ridiculous design paradigm. Scientifically literate people operate out of a paradigm of natural selection and adaptation. I have little interest in arguing about biological function with someone who fails to grasp middle school biology.
It is highly unlikely that homosexuality is a disorder if it is prevalent across so many species. It suggests that it serves some societal function in social species.If it does, then it serves a function in the perpetuation of species.




If we look at it in the Spiritual sense alone, homosexuality is a mere CHOSEN lust of the flesh that God deemed: an abomination in the Old Testament and it continues to be a sin of immoral lust in the New Testament.

Who cares about any "Social advantages or acceptance" of homosexuality, when God sees it as a sin of the flesh.

 

[musterion]

If we look at it in the Spiritual sense alone, homosexuality is a mere CHOSEN lust of the flesh that God deemed: an abomination in the Old Testament and it continues to be a sin of immoral lust in the New Testament.

Who cares about any "Social advantages or acceptance" of homosexuality, when God sees it as a sin of the flesh.

Yep. It's chosen and God condemns it as such.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Whatever unnatural acts heterosexuals decide to engage is totally besides the point. People fly, people scuba dive, people race at 200mph, all unnatural acts as well, but people who do them are not mentally disordered.

This thread is about "Is Homosexuality a Disorder?". A disorder is a thing of the MIND, and same-sex ATTRACTION is a thing of the mind. Yes, it is a disorder.

This is really simple: The most base instinct in ANY species is to procreate and perpetuate the species. Therefore, if you have an aversion to intercourse with the opposite sex, then the normal main instinct that you should have is skewed and disordered. If someone actually has an aversion to intercourse with the opposite sex, that is disordered: it is diametrically opposed to the most core instinct we have.

......Which is an overly simplistic understanding of how perpetuation of species actually occurs......

LOL. What a moron. We are talking about human beings McFly, not another species. A man and a woman have sex. Of course, perhaps I should consider that you're such a loser that you might not know that.

 

[musterion]

Way to ignore the entire argument.

Shut up, fool. I don't need to read one more word from someone who says the anus is just another kind of vagina, and that simply pointing out the obvious differences is "ridiculous."

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Shut up, fool. I don't need to read one more word from someone who says the anus is just another kind of vagina.

Maybe he said that because he came from an anus.

 

[Selaphiel]

If we look at it in the Spiritual sense alone, homosexuality is a mere CHOSEN lust of the flesh that God deemed: an abomination in the Old Testament and it continues to be a sin of immoral lust in the New Testament.

Who cares about any "Social advantages or acceptance" of homosexuality, when God sees it as a sin of the flesh.

God sees it that way or was it Paul?

A discussion of that would require an in-depth look at antiquity's understanding of sexuality. Paul is pretty much conveying a common consensus of antiquity, there is nothing original about it. Most likely just a moral judgment on his part based on what he thought was good knowledge. Problem is that antiquity's condemnation of homosexuality is: 1) Highly selective. The main problem is not gender polarity which is the case in modern condemnation of sexuality, it rather the polarity of active and passive sexual roles. It is being passive and thus effeminate that is the problem in antiquity. Being the active part is more or less unproblematic. 2) This rests on an understanding of sexuality based on ancient Greek biology, which is rather ridiculous in light of the far better understanding of the matter that we have today.

Calling it a spiritual sin is not an argument unless you can demonstrate it actually being damaging or disorderly in any way. A biblical understanding of sin is linked to function, order and disorder. That is primary. Their condemnation of homosexuality is understandable given their primitive understanding of biology and human sexuality. Given our more informed understanding today, it no longer makes much sense to understand it as sin given the actual meaning sin has in the scriptures.

Reading the Bible does not excuse you from having actual arguments. It must be approached with a critical attitude as everything else.

 

[musterion]

Going to simplify this as much as can be simplified but it still won't be low enough for Syphiel.

Vagina → babies

Anus → poop

Now watch the pervetard STILL argue against it...

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

God sees it that way or was it Paul?

A discussion of that would require an in-depth look at antiquity's understanding of sexuality. Paul is pretty much conveying a common consensus of antiquity, there is nothing original about it. Most likely just a moral judgment on his part based on what he thought was good knowledge. Problem is that antiquity's condemnation of homosexuality is: 1) Highly selective. The main problem is not gender polarity which is the case in modern condemnation of sexuality, it rather the polarity of active and passive sexual roles. It is being passive and thus effeminate that is the problem in antiquity. Being the active part is more or less unproblematic. 2) This rests on an understanding of sexuality based on ancient Greek biology, which is rather ridiculous in light of the far better understanding of the matter that we have today.

Calling it a spiritual sin is not an argument unless you can demonstrate it actually being damaging or disorderly in any way. A biblical understanding of sin is linked to function, order and disorder. That is primary. Their condemnation of homosexuality is understandable given their primitive understanding of biology and human sexuality. Given our more informed understanding today, it no longer makes much sense to understand it as sin given the actual meaning sin has in the scriptures.

Reading the Bible does not excuse you from having actual arguments. It must be approached with a critical attitude as everything else.

:rotfl:

 

[Selaphiel]

Shut up, fool. I don't need to read one more word from someone who says the anus is just another kind of vagina, and that simply pointing out the obvious differences is "ridiculous."

No, you aren't exactly famous for being able to engage in actual arguments. So that is understandable. Feel free to actual engage with the argument instead of name-calling if you ever decide not to act like an overgrown 7 year old though.

LOL. What a moron. We are talking about human beings McFly, not another species. A man and a woman have sex. Of course, perhaps I should consider that you're such a loser that you might not know that.

You made an argument based on function in species in general:

This is really simple: The most base instinct in ANY species is to procreate and perpetuate the species.

That is a simplistic to the point of being a false understanding of how the perpetuation of species works. For reasons, see the post where I answered you. Not that you will, I doubt that you have the capacity to engage in anything else than what essentially amounts to the blurting out of mindless opinions that supports your already existing prejudices.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Sela, pardon me for laughing at your nonsense. I don't have a lot of patience with posters who THINK they're smarter than they actually are.

 

[Selaphiel]

Going to simplify this as much as can be simplified but it still won't be low enough for Syphiel.

Vagina --► babies

Anus --► poop

Now watch the pervetard STILL argue against it...

Repeating an argument does not make it better, even if a lot of fundamentalists seems to think so.

I have explained why this simplistic understanding of biology is insufficient. Feel free to deal with the actual argument whenever you feel you are ready.

:rotfl:

Good counter-argument. You must have graduated summa *** laude.

 

[musterion]

No, you aren't exactly famous for being able to engage in actual arguments.

Anatomy and physiology is the argument, pervert, and they are irrefutable.

Vagina → babies

Anus → poop

See? Irrefutable.

Neither mouth nor anus are alternative vaginas, no matter how badly you wish to make it so.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Repeating an argument does not make it better, even if a lot of fundamentalists seems to think so.......

Simple fact: Same-sex attraction is a disorder. Deal with it. All your faux intellectualism can't change that.

By the way, that's not a religious or fundamentalist fact, that is a medical fact.

 

[Selaphiel]

Sela, pardon me for laughing at your nonsense. I don't have a lot of patience with posters who THINK they're smarter than they actually are.

Oh no, are you going to hurt my feelings now? :chuckle:

My self-esteem certainly does not rest on your evaluation of me.

 

[musterion]

Oh no, are you going to hurt my feelings now? :chuckle:

My self-esteem certainly does not rest on your evaluation of me.

It's not what Gros or I think of you that should concern you. Your love and defense of sodomy is proof you are godless.

 

[Selaphiel]

Anatomy and physiology is the argument, pervert, and they are irrefutable.

I have already explained why this is nonsense, and you have given no coherent reply to it. It is interesting that you think adding ",pervert," to the argument makes it stronger though, quite telling of your grasp of logic.

Simple fact: Same-sex attraction is a disorder. Deal with it. All your faux intellectualism can't change that.

Then why do you have to rely on a false understanding of biology? Feel free to present an argument for why this is a simple fact. Your previous argument was legendarily bad.

 

[musterion]

Anus is for pooping, not for sex.

Refute that, Syphilis.

 

[Selaphiel]

It's not what Gros or I think of you that should concern you. Your love and defense of sodomy is proof you are godless.

"Your love and defense of sodomy is proof you are godless, according to us." is what you are really saying.

I don't care about your theology or what you value as sound and godly. I think you bunch are a reprehensible lot most of the time, enemies of what is good and constant perpetuators of falsehoods and ignorance.

Being deemed godly by you is like being praised by a fool.

Luckily, you bunch is ultimately a meaningless minority. You are losing all your battles. You are vocal and aggressive, but that tends to be the case of very small dogs. Large dogs rarely see the need.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

"Your love and defense of sodomy is proof you are godless, according to us." is what you are really saying.

I don't care about your theology or what you value as sound and godly. I think you bunch are a reprehensible lot most of the time, enemies of what is good and constant perpetuators of falsehoods and ignorance.

Being deemed godly by you is like being praised by a fool.

Why do you keep talking about religion? It has nothing to do with this, not to mention the fact that you are obviously a moron on that subject as well as this one.