Homosexuals Anonymous

Offering Guidance, Fellowship & Care

Blog

How Can You Compare Homosexuality with Alcoholism or Pedophilia?

Posted on June 14, 2014 at 9:30 AM

First: There is no thing as “homosexuality”. Some people do have same-sex attractions – for whatever reason! – but, that does not give them an extra identity nor special rights.

Second: If you are so secure and stable in “being gay” or in supporting people who self-identify as such, why do you have a problem with that? Usually people who compare same-sex attractions to alcoholism or pedophilia do not do that to put people down, but to point out the absurdity of certain arguments if you pick up their logic and show the results thereof.

Some examples:

If you argue that it is alright if two consenting adults have sex, why stop at two people of the same sex? Why not two brothers (or sisters)? Why not an adult and a minor if the parents agree? Why limit it to a species? Why does it even have to be a living object? And if you say all these examples are nonsense, based on what do you think so?

If love is all that matters, you could just as well bring up the examples mentioned above. Or enlarge the sum of the elements: Why limit it to two people? Why to people of the same species? And on and on. You think that is discriminating? Based on what? All I try to do is show you where that kind of logic might lead you to. Once the door is open, it will be close to being impossible to shut it again.

Over and over we hear that “being gay” is okay and even “natural” because people are born that way. Aside the fact that so far there is not the slightest prove for that claim, let’s just say – for the sake of the argument – that this is correct. Now many other things are or could be traced back to one or more genes that – along with environmental factors – make it easier for people to act that way. So what? To my knowledge certain forms of criminal behavior or alcoholism can have genetic causes as well. Does that make it “morally acceptable” or even “natural” to become alcoholic or to commit crimes? How about if they find a “pedophile gene” tomorrow? Would that make it alright if adults have sex with children? Would it be “pedophobia” to say no? Fact is that a single gene – or even a combination of genes – is not enough per se to “make you something”. A lot of other factors – like environmental ones – have to contribute to that as well. Other than that epigenetics has taught us meanwhile that along with the environment it is our thinking and acting pattern that can decide whether or not certain genes start “working” and to what degree. It also works the other way around: The way we think and act changes our brain synapses that connect the neurons and transmit signals in the brain – and with them the structure of the brain itself, to a point where even genes are influenced (like whether or not they are being activated or even built – or if new genes come into existence that can be passed on to the next generation then).

Sometimes we are being told that all we do is cause people with unwanted same-sex attractions to have behavioral changes. We do not really “make them straight”. It’s all an attitude in the way they act.

Let’s assume it is like that (and for the record: We do a lot more than that). And let’s pick up the example of an alcoholic to demonstrate how absurd such an argument is: If an alcoholic stops to drink alcohol, he changes his behavior. Is that all? No way. This behavioral change will have major influences on his professional life, his family life, his emotional and spiritual life, his relationships, his physical and mental health and on and on. How much more if you address underlying needs, emotions, hurts, family backgrounds, identity issues, faith questions, etc. like we do it.

So yes, sometimes we use comparisons. Not to “put people with same-sex attractions on the same level as for example alcoholics” (as if being alcoholic were an insult! That would be discriminating as well!), but to demonstrate something. Not so long ago people would have been insulted if someone compared them to “gays”. Understand? We are being called much worse things at times and/or compared or put at the same level with radicals, extremists, maybe even Nazis and what not. And there is no logic explanation to justify that.

So we will keep on using such comparisons at times if it is necessary to clarify things.

Robert

"Homophobie"?

Posted on

Ich habe selbst gleichgeschlechtliche Neigungen und finde es höchst befremdlich, andere zwingen zu wollen, Positionen der Schwulenbewegung für gut zu heißen bzw. sie in eine radikale Ecke zu stellen, wenn sie dies nicht tun.

Mit einer Schwulenfreundlichkeit auf Basis eines dominanten Zeitgeistes kann ich nichts anfangen. Dieses ganze "Leben und leben lassen" wirkt völlig aufgesetzt auf mich. Lass jemand mal wirklich wütend werden oder lass die Zeiten wieder richtig schlecht werden, dann ist diese "Akzeptanz" von Schwulen wieder schnell vergessen.

Ich finde es absolut in Ordnung, wenn jemand - aus welchen Gründen auch immer - einen schwulen Lebensstil oder gleichgeschlechtlichen Sex ablehnt. Das ist sein gutes Recht!

Menschen müssen einander nicht gern haben oder sympathisch finden, wohl aber mit Respekt begegnen. Das heißt nicht, dass sie gutheißen müssen, was die andere tut, aber sie müssen diesem Menschen mit Würde, Respekt, Anstand und Freundlichkeit begegnen.

Was man dabei nicht tun kann, ist Menschen in Gruppen zu teilen und für bestimmte Gruppen (etwa die "Schwulen") besondere Rechte einzufordern oder gar andere als schlechte Menschen abzustempeln ("homophob"), die deren Positionen und Lebensentwürfe aus rationalen, religiösen oder sonstigen Gründen nicht für gut heißen.

Jeder Mensch hat das Recht auf eine andere Meinung und ich kann gut damit leben. Meinungsfreiheit geht in beide Richtungen!