Regarding Homosexuality

[Woodsey]

Why does no one ever take into account that homosexuality could be a "purposeful mutation" (if that's the road we're going down, not that I agree with such a description) as a natural population control?

 

[Spinozaad]

snip

You're already going wrong by calling homosexuals "them". It's not a dissimilar attitude to the Nazi's calling Jewish people "them" and...

Wow, Godwins law kicked in fast this time!

With the difference that Goodwin based the observation on conversations where the comparison wasn't apt and usually brought in for the lols, but since nobody here has countered the comparison as invalid, I'd say Goodwin will still have to sit out for a moment.

While the comparison is not necessarily invalid, it is highly suggestive. In stead of using the concept of Us v. Them, which is neutral, you opted to use the highly politicized and moralized specific example of the Nazi's. Thereby suggesting that the OP is as bad as they were.

And that is a case of poisoning the well.

DO I need to remind, that Nazis also killed homosexuals in the halocaust? jews weren't the only ones who died. They were still looked down upon in the "us vs. Them" mindset and were killed as such.

Heh. 'Halocaust'.

Nah. You don't have to remind us. But if @SpiderJerusalem had used the genocide of gays by the Nazi's, it would have been a true Godwin.

Now it's just the fallacy of 'Poisoning the well'.

 

[Xardion]

In my opinion, they should be left alone and made able to adopt. Simply because there's a crapload of orphans with NO parents.

And I really hope that people wouldn't argue me here (though I know someone would..), but homosexual parents are much better than no parents.

As for a cure, I'm going to liken it to X3 (because I'm a nerd like that, and given this website's content, hopefully this is understood). If you don't know, basically, there is a cure for being a mutant. What we view as the "Bad mutants," well, they get really pissed off, thinking it of some way to more or less genocide their 'race.' But a lot of mutants are so distraught by their 'condition' that they want the cure and seek to go get it (faced with picket lines and taunts, of course). So long story short...the "Bad mutants" get extra pissed, threaten the well-being of the world somehow (this is where my memory starts to fail me). Basically the military is forced to use the cure as a weapon instead of it being simply voluntary.

So, I could see pretty much the same thing happening if "Mutant" was replaced with "Homosexual." Some of them legitimately want the cure, some of them are vastly opposed to it, possibly to an arguably maniacal extent. And worst case scenario, people on the street get their hands on the cure and start rampaging it (in my mind, it's the psycho Christians (note: not say all christians are psycho, just a few of them...but sadly that's all it takes) because, let's face it, they seem to be the head of ignorance in cases like these. I *coughcrusadescoughcough.* Probably thinking they're helping them somehow.

Obviously there's a few holes in the metaphor, like evil homosexuals blowing up the world or something. I doubt it'll go even remotely close to that. But I'm too lazy to find another metaphor, so bear with it.

EDIT:
Hopefully this doesn't come of as some sort of anti-christian hate rant, now. I'm just trying to be realistic. Sorry if I offended anyone.

 

[Shycte]

Naah, not really. It's a sexual orientation, nothing elselv

 

[Prometherion]

I dont know why but the thread's title reminds me of the 1st few chapters of the Lord of the Rings.

 

[vanthebaron]

Hey guys, considering the amount of homosexual threads (Hah... I mean threads related to homosexuality) I wanted to ask you whether my view point here on homosexuality is wrong. Now I don't hold anything against homosexuals, to be frank I find them to be refreshing to hang around, generally intelligent and hey, I don't have to worry about them stealing any girls I wouldn't have chance with so I hope if anyone feels I am out of line here, that they will argue their point rationally instead of assuming I'm some sort of blindly-hating homophobe.

Now here's the thing, I see homosexuality as a dysfunction. The term already sounds like an immediate negative thing, however my stance isn't that homosexuals are sinners, nor that having sex with someone of the same gender (really I should have used sex twice there, but I hate repetition) is some sort of disgusting act, I simply see it as a dysfunction because it doesn't really allow for offspring. I look at it as a dysfunction in the same way as I would consider someone who's infertile to be dysfunctional down there.

To explain the reason I'm asking this, me and a friend, who's in my opinion a bit overzealous with his opinion and sometimes a bit to quick to read between the lines so he doesn't get what comes before or after it, had a conversation that went along the lines of if homosexuality had a cure, should it be used, and yada yada. Now in my perspective, a gay man/woman (or whatever lies in between) is disadvantaged because they will never really be able to have kids with the person they love, at least not in the same way most heterosexual people would (I understand you can now chuck the sperm and egg together and into a serogate mother for some nice results, but that costs money and well... In my perspective you're simply putting your child towards the same kind of situation). For this reason I explained that I think it should be used by parents, he got angry and basically rage quit the conversation. (Note that we were talking in person, so it was kinda funny to see)

So... What do you think?
Am I out of line saying it, and why do you think that?

If you don't think I'm out of line, why? Is this like calling for genocide?

Whatever your opinion on the matter, I'd like to hear it.

(Chances are I'm gonna end up arguing both sides of the fence here, so regardless of what your standpoint is, hopefully we'll be able to have a nice civil debate about it. Also please quote me if you expect a response)

oh fun time for me.
1) its natural, ever animal species has homosexual beings in their group.
2) (personal view) homosexuality=natural population control. if homosexual's cant "mate", that can't produce offspring, this means less mouths to feed. this may come across as homophobic but remember I'M PART OF THE LGBT
3) its unnatural for our building to cover the skyline, does that make that wrong (some people may say yes)
4) judging by sexuality not personal morals or how they treat people

 

[jjofearth]

snip

You're already going wrong by calling homosexuals "them". It's not a dissimilar attitude to the Nazi's calling Jewish people "them."

People who make stupid posts like this one, I hate them.

Do explain how my post is stupid. Or are you content with just making a vague statement about the invalidity of an argument you don't agree with?

Nazi mentality, or any other derogatory mentality for that matter, was built upon creating a wall of "us vs. them" and labeling a group of people of different faith as an inferior race. Homosexuality has been without fail labeled in modern society as a defect of either the mind or the body, with fundamentalists, bigots and even the Church going as far as creating that sub-group of humans called "homosexuals" as if they were a race or something so different from people that such a continuous labeling is necessary.

Every discussion you read and hear begins with or contains portions like, "now, I like them/ I understand them / I know some of them". It's backwards and in my opinion (and probably not out of minds of some fundamentalists), not far from just branding a star on the sleeves of every person of different sexual orientation on the planet.

I've explained my stance now twice, I'd be very curious to see what you have to say, if you have anything worthwhile at all.

Christ, one post in and Godwin's Law has been invoked already? I'm surprised this even goes on for another three pages.




(NB: This is not me arguing against homosexuality. I have many homosexual friends, all of whom are fabulous. This post may cause pointless knee-jerk rage, brain injury, death, or a mild itching sensation. Batteries not included. Terms and conditions apply)

 

[Falseprophet]

It's not a dysfunction. Homosexuality has existed among human society since recorded history, and probably before if its prevalence among other animals is any indication, and since we still have GLBT people today, clearly it is not a negatively selected trait. Much like, say eye colour doesn't seem to affect selection, neither does homosexuality.

There are a couple of hypotheses as to why homosexuality exists. The most convincing to me: it's related to the human (or mammalian) sex drive overall. See, the human brain comes pre-programmed with the "software" to be either male or female. In utero, we all start out female, then about half of us become male, and the proper software is activated. But it's thought this isn't a perfect process. I'm not a biologist, so I won't get into a load of science I only understand superficially, but the suggestion is having an attraction for the same sex comes from the same mechanism that allows most humans to have an attraction for the opposite sex. So trying to mess with that could potentially eliminate all human sexual attraction.

As an aside, I know a lesbian couple who (with the help of a gay male donor) are more fertile than most of my straight friends. So more anecdotal evidence sexual orientation doesn't have to interfere with procreation.

 

[mr_rubino]

Hey guys, considering the ammount of homosexual threads (Hah... I mean threads related to homosexuality) I wanted to ask you whether my view point here on homosexuality is wrong. Now I don't hold anything against homosexuals, to be frank I find them to be refreshing to hang around, generally intelligent and hey, I don't have to worry about them stealing any girls I wouldn't have chance with so I hope if anyone feels I am out of line here, that they will argue their point rationally instead of assuming I'm some sort of blindly-hating homophobe.

*sigh* Bracing for impact.

Now here's the thing, I see homosexuality as a disfunction.

Considering not reading any further.

The term already sounds like an immediate negative thing, however my stance isn't that homosexuals are sinners, nor that having sex with someone of the same gender (really I should have used sex twice there, but I hate repetition) is some sort of disgusting act, I simply see it as a disfunction because it doesn't really allow for offspring.

Run-on-run-on-run-on-run-on-run-on-Totally-first-person-to-say-this-Get-to-the-point-instead-of-layering-the-post-with-fluff.

I look at it as a disfunction in the same way as I would consider someone who's infertile to be disfunctional down there.

Aaaand scene. Thank you and good night.
"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

(Chances are I'm gonna end up arguing both sides of the fence here, so regardless of what your standpoint is, hopefully we'll be able to have a nice civil debate about it. Also please quote me if you expect a response)

"I have an opinion and want everyone to know so, and I will argue both sides."
Don't. It makes you seem like you just wanted a hundred-post thread. And that simply can't be true.

EDIT: Ok, since he only came back once to completely fail at replying, and will likely never come back, as he is laughing at us too hard, I shall clarify:

I actually did read the whole post, and found it not worth a reply. Indeed, the "Totally-first-person-to-say-this" was a dig at the whole post:

"Oh gee! You're saying gayosexuality is dysfunctional because you can't have kids, and as we all know, humans are a primitive species whose only function is to reproduce. This is totally new and not just a regurgitation of the same misinterpreted-middle-school-biology foolishness we have gotten from so many supposed-grown men and women a thousand times before."
And then we get into the whole "gay penguin" topic which the totally-not-phobes-cuz-science never actually answer because it blows the nuts off their argument.

Seriously, as if this discussion had anywhere to go before the Godwin bomb was dropped in the second post. I fully support its use when there is clearly no attempt to create an intelligent discussion.

 

[JanatUrlich]

Wait, so you've never used any form of contraception?

 

[Angryman101]

snip

While it is certainly not an emotional or mental defect, which are key to the other goals in today's society, I do think it is, strictly speaking, a biological disorder. An organism that does not have the capability to pass on it's genes has, by definition, some kind of disorder. I, like the OP, have absolutely nothing against the gays, but this, to me, is a biological defect. As being homosexual isn't a choice like not having children or being celibate is a choice, it's not the same. You're hard-wired to enjoy the same sex, and are not attracted to the sex that can father/mother your children and therefore pass on your genes. It is some sort of biological impairment, if not a disorder or a defect. A mutation that does not benefit the organism's biological drive to pass on it's genes. That sounds a bit better, actually. Again, I don't mean to be harmful or anything, I'm just using logic and being a realist.

The logical choice biologically isn't always for every individual to pass on its genes. The species as a whole needs to continue on, but not any individual's line of genetics. Overpopulation can be detrimental so by having a percentage of people instinctively not doing anything to have children (ie having sex with the same gender), it can help prevent it. Also it supplies adults without children who can help raise other children without parents by adopting them.

Plenty of other species exhibit homosexual tendencies, so if it were evolutionarily disadvantageous you'd think it would have become less common. What is beneficial to the species as a whole cannot be considered a biological impairment.

Just as all males of certain species aren't alphas of their group and mate less often and more opportunistically, some don't bother trying to mate at all. But life still goes on.

1. It's an unhelpful genetic mutation for the individual organism; this has nothing to do with the species. It may be helpful to keep populations down in some cases, but the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming: overpopulation occurs all the time in numerous species, including those that exhibit homosexual tendencies, and they don't suddenly display an upswing in the numbers of homosexual individual organisms. And, yes, the inherent biological drive inherent in all organisms is to Un: Pass on their genes and Dos: Survive long enough to pass on their genes. Organisms are basically just suits used by DNA in order to survive long enough to replicate and be passed on to the next generation. When the ability to satiate this drive is impaired, it is unhelpful to the individual organism.
2. The example you used is not very good. The alphas secure mates and are more likely to reproduce because they have helpful genes. This doesn't mean that the population is going to fall; it just means that there are less males fathering offspring. The alpha passes on his genes through more females, and just as many offspring are conceived as there would be if all males had been participating.

, I do think it is, strictly speaking, a biological disorder. An organism that does not have the capability to pass on it's genes has, by definition, some kind of disorder.

But homosexuals CAN have children, they just choose not to due to being attracted to the same sex.

Homosexuals don't CHOOSE anything. Just like I cannot be aroused by a male, gays cannot be aroused by a female, and copulation cannot occur. Sure, in some instances with alcohol something can happen, but for the most part, it is not very likely.

snip

You're being too politically correct and literal. I use them and they whenever I'm talking about blacks, latinos, gays, women, other white people, or asians. It's used when you want to talk about a group separate from yourself. He didn't mean it to be harmful, and pointing it out is just confusing the issue; ESPECIALLY when comparing his vernacular to the Nazis'.

Backreading is not a sin.

Also, calling someone (and when discussing their sexuality, it is about the person entirely) as dysfunctional does strike me as insulting and narrow minded.

But again, backread, my point on that literal discussion has been gone over quite a few times.

I can't be arsed to read through your numerous long-winded posts to settle an internet dispute, I'm a busy man.
And I don't really give a shit whether or not it strikes you as anything. That's what it is, though I now prefer the term disadvantageous genetic mutation (it sounds better). This is purely from a REALIST BIOLOGICAL VIEW; you can dress it up however you want it, but logically speaking, that is what homosexuality is. I agree that we've moved passed such basic biological drives into more abstract, human-centric goals and that there is nothing really wrong morally, emotionally, or mentally with the gays. Kind of like how there isn't anything wrong with white people or asians, even though the structure of their bodies and color of their skin are the results of genetic mutations. They're just able to pass on their genes, if they're straight.

 

[The_Echo]

Them is used instead of a name because it is a more effective way of writing. You're over-reacting. Calling a group of people could be seen as racist or discriminative but it is not in this case. Imagine having to say it's proper name every day instead of it or that or this or there and etc.
"Hey want to hang out with them?"
"Hey want to hang out with homosexuals?"
I know it is very ambiguous.

"Hey, you wanna hang out with blacks/Jews/Muslims/Japs?"

The fact that people even have to ask about mundane stuff like sexual orientation or wonder about whether or not it's a dysfunction or label it something (you don't go ask your friend if he or she wants to hang out with heterosexuals, do you?) is backwards. That's all.

... What? How are we meant to not label it something? What the hell are we meant to call it, then? Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think you thought that one through very well.

Why do we have to label things like that? As I said at the top of the page:

I think, for me, the argument here is why is it even necessary to make a distinction of "I have gay friends..." and having a hope (admittedly brought out in a angry-ranty-overtly-passionate way) that we could just move on and say "I have friends that want to meet you" and have the whole sexuality thing not even be an issue or something worth bringing up.

The fact that people here (and most places) need some kind of a label for sexually different people is absurd, because we've gotten over, in most cases, of having to state that label for others of different color or belief.

These "labels" are what most people would call descriptions. Yes, we don't go around saying "Oh, I'm going to hang out with my black friends." However, I'm sure nobody goes around saying the same regarding homosexuals, unless it fit into the context. "Homosexual" isn't a label. It's a word to denote the sexuality involving attraction to those of the same sex. Stop being so sensitive about it. Jesus.

 

[Vryyk]

My opinion is that the government has no right to interfere with the rights of two consenting adults' rights to do as they please as long as they do not interfere with the rights of any individual to do the same. Think how many major conflicts and wars could have been avoided. Governments should HAVE to follow that rule, individuals SHOULD.

 

[ExaltedK9]

snip

You're already going wrong by calling homosexuals "them". It's not a dissimilar attitude to the Nazi's calling Jewish people "them" and labeling others as somehow a different breed and not a part of the same people.

You got a better pronoun?

Seriously. Way to jump the over-sensetive gun.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Hey guys, considering the ammount of homosexual threads (Hah... I mean threads related to homosexuality) I wanted to ask you whether my view point here on homosexuality is wrong. Now I don't hold anything against homosexuals, to be frank I find them to be refreshing to hang around, generally intelligent and hey, I don't have to worry about them stealing any girls I wouldn't have chance with so I hope if anyone feels I am out of line here, that they will argue their point rationally instead of assuming I'm some sort of blindly-hating homophobe.

Now here's the thing, I see homosexuality as a disfunction. The term already sounds like an immediate negative thing, however my stance isn't that homosexuals are sinners, nor that having sex with someone of the same gender (really I should have used sex twice there, but I hate repetition) is some sort of disgusting act, I simply see it as a disfunction because it doesn't really allow for offspring. I look at it as a disfunction in the same way as I would consider someone who's infertile to be disfunctional down there.

To explain the reason I'm asking this, me and a friend, who's in my opinion a bit overzealous with his opinion and sometimes a bit to quick to read between the lines so he doesn't get what comes before or after it, had a conversation that went along the lines of if homosexuality had a cure, should it be used, and yada yada. Now in my perspective, a gay man/woman (or whatever lies in between) is disadvantaged because they will never really be able to have kids with the person they love, atleast not in the same way most heterosexual people would (I understand you can now chuck the sperm and egg together and into a serogate mother for some nice results, but that costs money and well... In my perspective you're simply putting your child towards the same kind of situation). For this reason I explained that I think it should be used by parents, he got angry and basically rage quit the conversation. (Note that we were talking in person, so it was kinda funny to see)

So... What do you think?
Am I out of line saying it, and why do you think that?

If you don't think I'm out of line, why? Is this like calling for genocide?

Whatever your opinion on the matter, I'd like to hear it.

(Chances are I'm gonna end up arguing both sides of the fence here, so regardless of what your standpoint is, hopefully we'll be able to have a nice civil debate about it. Also please quote me if you expect a response)

mmm.... you;re no wrong. Is is definately a social devience (in the same way tattoos, street racing, and alot of the other stuff we see as cool or normal are based of the definition of social divience in my college sociology book). However you can judge them just becuase they cant have kids. I know plenty of couples where i lived before going to college who didnt want kids, but were perfectly able to breed (that sounds weird to say it like that). Some people just dont like kids. Some people acknowledge they arent good with kids, or arent in a good place to have kids and never are at a point in there life so they decide to not have a child and doom (not a bad thing, just the best word for the context) it to a life they live. Thats alot of preference, especially in american (where i am) society where kids are costly, and having two or more can bankrupt you unless you are substantially well off and/or the kdis make good on return investments (yes, i did just make a child no more worthwhile then a car or house or stock).

So no, you're not wrong, cause its your opinion and you're free to have it. And at least you didnt say you openly hate them, though admittedly saying they're nice to hang with cause they dont steal your girls is kinda dick-ish and bigoted. However, to view them as a dysfunction (the same way you would view a mentally handicapped or physically handicapped) is wrong (not that you should view mental/phys handicapped people as dysfunctional in the first place) simply on the basis that they cant have kids, when people who can have kids but just not to are excluded. maybe you're one of those people who believes it is every couple's duty to bear at least one child, but i dont think thats the greatest idea.

But then again, thats my opinion. I never found anyhting wrong with being homosexual (either gay or lesbian), so i could care less what they do. they're people, they're human beings, and they have rights, they shouldnt be discriminated against or viewed wrongly just because some 2-4k year old book says so.

 

[TeeBs]

The worlds overpopulated, and would be a better place if more people were homosexual.

 

[EqualNOpposite]

There's nothing to suggest homosexuality is a disorder.

I don't think OP means medically. Your logic inversion does make sense, but I think it also proves the silliness of trying to base the whole debate on 'functionality'. The number of things a civilized human does that don't jive with natural instinct towards food, shelter, and baby making would fill a library.

We talk about dysfunction. What's function? What's the norm?

 

[astrav1]

These are my thoughts exactly. When you think about it, it is a dysfunction. Although when you think about all the homosexuals in the world maybe it's evolutions way of helping curb our overpopulation, in which case it is a much better alternative to the invisible hand.

 

[jjofearth]

snip

Oh Christ, three pages and another person that can't backread. Way to go, here's a dunces cap, you win for today! At the risk of not contributing by saying that you, Jjofearth, are not contributing, I think it's worth it.

Oh Christ, four pages in and another person who has a completely valid point and utterly shot me down. Way to go, here's my apologies, I fail for today! At the risk of making myself look like a complete idiot by saying that I'm a complete idiot, I think it's worth it.

...sorry.