Suppose homosexuality could be reversed.

[Lazarus]

In Freudian psychology.

This right here. We pretty much accept that everything Freud said is a load of nonsense these days. Incest results in deformed children - it's not just the "sexual fetish" as Freud would put it, more the results that are the concern of society. Same sort of deal with Necrophilia. We don't care about the sexual fetish - but that corpse has to come from somewhere. There's also to note that Necrophilia can present some unique health problems that you wouldn't get form any other kind of intercourse.

Coprophiles, urophiles, masochists and sadists all have the right to be happy, yes. I don't see what the point of bringing them in is, because society generally doesn't care about what they do.

[Zyzyfer]

Incest results in deformed children'....

While incest can increase the probability of recessive genes due to increased homozygosity (these are not usually deformities)-this does however results is decreased fitness of a population. Similarly, I've already establish homosexuals having decreased fitness in my earlier posts. Furthermore, the risk of an 'deformed offspring' only exists if there is a gene that puts the offspring at risk (such risks also exist in the heterosexual population, yet we do not ban/stop heterosexual couples in the 'high risk' category from having children!?). It has also been shown however, that over time; in smaller populations, incestual relationships may result in genetically healthier offspring. This is because natural selection works against deleterious inherited traits- over time with isolation such as a 'population bottleneck', recessive alleles that produce harmful characteristics are bred out of the population- Island species for example are very inbred. Therefore, it follows that if you think incest is 'bad', you must think homosexuality is 'bad'. Lastly, [as a offside point], what happens if the incestuous relationship does not produce any children? is this OK then?

Coprophiles, urophiles, masochists and sadists all have the right to be happy, yes. I don't see what the point of bringing them in is, because society generally doesn't care about what they do.

My point proven, that is, if you think paraphilia is 'good', then you probably think homosexuality is 'good'.

[Lazarus]

My point proven, that is, if you think paraphilia is 'good', then you probably think homosexuality is 'good'.

I wouldn't suggest it's all "good" there are certainly things that outright disturb me, but as long as nobody is being harmed (against their will) in any form, I wouldn't object to it.

[frozenprince]

If two consenting adults want to have sex with brooms then that is their right, and while I personally might find it odd I honestly don't give a damn about what people do in the bedroom. Homosexuality harms NOBODY.

[DimeBagHo]

There's no accounting for taste. Having weird taste in any matter, and acting on that, is not morally wrong in itself. Lots of people have have an 'ick' reaction to certain types of sexual behaviour, but that 'ick' reaction shouldn't carry any more, or less, weight than the 'yum' reaction of people who enjoy the behaviour in question. If you want to show that it's immoral you should be able to point to some objective factor like harm to others.

[frozenprince]

There's no accounting for taste. Having weird taste in any matter, and acting on that, is not morally wrong in itself. Lots of people have have an 'ick' reaction to certain types of sexual behaviour, but that 'ick' reaction shouldn't carry any more, or less, weight than the 'yum' reaction of people who enjoy the behaviour in question. If you want to show that it's immoral you should be able to point to some objective factor like harm to others.

I have found that when it comes to these things that objective reasoning goes out the window.

Homosexuality harms nobody, the only reason homosexuality can cause harm is due to someone attacking someone for being a homosexual. I know this for a fact.

[Zyzyfer]

There's no accounting for taste. Having weird taste in any matter, and acting on that, is not morally wrong in itself. Lots of people have have an 'ick' reaction to certain types of sexual behaviour, but that 'ick' reaction shouldn't carry any more, or less, weight than the 'yum' reaction of people who enjoy the behaviour in question. If you want to show that it's immoral you should be able to point to some objective factor like harm to others.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...7#post11372367

Post #102 (see above link).

I'd also further argue that they are in fact hurting other people (at least emotionally/psychologically). As a parent, as a brother... if my children, siblings participated in such acts as paraphilia and/or homosexuality I would be hurt psychologically/emotionally.

[Lazarus]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...7#post11372367

Post #102 (see above link).

I'd also further argue that they are in fact hurting other people (at least emotionally/psychologically). As a parent, as a brother... if my children, siblings participated in such acts as paraphilia and/or homosexuality I would be hurt psychologically/emotionally.

Well you would be wrong if you argued that. The issue there is your inability to deal with their life decision, not who their sexual partners are. Think of it like smoking. It's perfectly fine, as long as you keep it in the designated areas. If you're too emotionally frail to handle your child/friend/family member being homosexual that's entirely something for you to deal with on your own, in your own time. You can't go blaming anyone else.

The particular post you're responding to also has nothing to do with evolutionary fitness. While that's a factor for discussion, it has already really taken its course, and as an objective factor on its own does not make something immoral or wrong. I currently have no responsibility to perpetuate the species. Neither does anyone else. The fact that it is, from a purely evolutionary stand point, negative doesn't make it immoral or bad either. Unless you plan on lumping people who have predispositions to heart disease, mental deficiencies, and pretty much every other genetic disease in the same pile (immoral, or bad, or wrong). It only makes it a negative trait in the eyes of evolution, but pretty much nowhere else.

[Mr. Scott]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...7#post11372367

Post #102 (see above link).

I'd also further argue that they are in fact hurting other people (at least emotionally/psychologically). As a parent, as a brother... if my children, siblings participated in such acts as paraphilia and/or homosexuality I would be hurt psychologically/emotionally.

My god. We're not talking from an evolutionary standpoint. We aren't some creator trying to see which genes are fit and which are "good" for the population and which genes are "bad". Seriously, it's like talking to a robot that can't understand emotion and ethics.

How is homosexuality psychologically harming? Please explain.

[frozenprince]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...7#post11372367

Post #102 (see above link).

I'd also further argue that they are in fact hurting other people (at least emotionally/psychologically). As a parent, as a brother... if my children, siblings participated in such acts as paraphilia and/or homosexuality I would be hurt psychologically/emotionally.

Nobody is trying to argue that passing on genetics and having children are the factors in what makes this "good" or "bad" other than you. This is a discussion about, IF there was the option to change your childs orientation, would you take it? Its about the social osterisation more than any BS argument about a homosexual being more or less moral.

And so you can't acept the fact that someone in your family has a different orientation than you would like, just because you can't find a way to accept who they are doesn't meen they are hurting anybody. In fact YOU are hurting them more than anything. How do you think your brother/sister/cousin feels when you tell them that you find them to be lesser than you? And instead of accepting them you out and out reject them as "bad"? Your own innability to deal with that emotionally isn't a valid argument against why it is or isn't "good" or "bad".

I know for a fact that when a family rejects you for your sexuality it can scar you emotionally and psychologically for the rest of your life. So you attempting to use that as a basis for your argument isn't going to fly.

[DimeBagHo]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...7#post11372367

Post #102 (see above link).

I'd also further argue that they are in fact hurting other people (at least emotionally/psychologically). As a parent, as a brother... if my children, siblings participated in such acts as paraphilia and/or homosexuality I would be hurt psychologically/emotionally.

I don't think the evolutionary angle gets you very far. Why should we care about evolutionary fitness as such? I care about whether my children have children, and do well in life generally, and evolution is probably the reason I care about those things. But that just makes it inconvenient for me if my kids don't want to have kids, it doesn't make their lack of interest immoral.

As for emotional harm, or making other people unhappy, I don't think that is a completely silly point. A lot of rules about public behaviour are designed to prevent the discomfort of others. But there are limits to how far you can get with that. First, it doesn't work as well when you are talking about what people do in the privacy of their own homes; in that case the onus is on others to mind their own business. Second, the argument can quite easily be turned around. People who make a great fuss about what other people get up to are a nuisance, and annoy the hell out of everyone else. That's why tolerance is a civic virtue. The tolerant are much easier to live with.

[Rolling Thunder]

I consider a boy who wants to be a girl to be gay.

Well, we've just established your problem here: you're ignorant of the scientific reality.

[Nikitn]

The more interesting question is: why would there exist a "gay-gene"? One'd think that evolutionary pressure would work pretty hard against homosexuality.. Maybe it has some decent side-effects? Or maybe it's just the result of a common mutation?

[trance]

Well, we've just established your problem here: you're ignorant of the scientific reality.

A boy who wants to be a girl or the opposite is suffering from the identity disorder known as transsexualism. It's a serious condition that should be treated just like any other maladaptive psychological condition and of course not by state sanctioned mutilation. Homosexuality is a paraphilia, nothing less, nothing more. Once again there's no serious evidence for any genetical basis for homosexuality, and why would there be? It's a fiction made up by two societal factions, one with an undue faith in hereditary factors and one with the ambition of justifying and naturalizing homosexuality. No objectivity or science to be found behind this notion dear ladies and gentlemen.

Paraphilias are by definition deviating from the normality, that's why they are defined as is. I cannot see the logic behind making any other argument, nor can I see why it would be valid to demonize paraphilias either, unless they put others or self in harms way. This is also why sadism and masochism should never be normalized in any conceivable way.

[SLN445]

The more interesting question is: why would there exist a "gay-gene"? One'd think that evolutionary pressure would work pretty hard against homosexuality.. Maybe it has some decent side-effects? Or maybe it's just the result of a common mutation?

Well there is the Theory that the "Gene" while potentialy causing an Attraction to same sex in males when found in women causes an increase in attraction to men resulting in a higher chance of offspring. The increase in children from the Females of a family offputs the lower chances of children caused my a Gay male in that family line.
A Gene that achieves the opposite would of course be found in Females whome are Gay.

I think i didnt bugger up that explanation like i did the last time i tried to explain I tried to get information about it but the name used for this theory ment something else when i typed it in wiki.

[Future Filmmaker]

@OP

Absolutely not. I would not change such a gene, because the gene that is currently thought to be linked to homosexuality does not dictate a 100% chance of becoming one. Just that it is a higher likelihood. That gene may have other benefits that we don't know about yet.

Now, if we are talking about the genes that we pass down that are linked to health problems both physical and psychology, I would definitely change that, but something as primitive as possible sexual orientation? I could care less if my son or daughter turned out to be gay. I'm somewhat bisexual myself, so I have no personal bias about it. But if I do have a gay child, I'm going to make sure that they have an otherwise normal attitude and not go out of there way to act childishly feminine if a gay son or immaturely masculine if a gay daughter. Those stereotypical types annoy me.