Homosexuality

[Darkgoosey666]

-

 

[JayDee106]

couples if they were a. quiet and b. not able to adopt or opt for IVF.

Firstly, there is no evidence to suggest homosexual couples cannot take care of a child the same way heterosexual couples can. To say that "it will turn the child gay" is the reason is absolutely moronic as in todays society, and grab on for something because this will be a shocker, your sexuality does not matter. In the 21st century, on the planet Earth housing at least 7 billion people your sexuality does not matter.

Secondly, I do consider "treatments" to be invasive. You're attempting to force someone to change their identity because you do not consider it "right". This is only a few steps away from saying that listening to music or watching a movie is "detrimental" because it impedes your ultimate goal, reproduction. The more you spend doing something else the less likely you are to fuck and pass on your genes. As such, human being should all be housed in huge buildings in which they will fuck each day and transmit their genes.

You're assigning a goal to the individual, reproduction, but fail to account for something you yourself stated, free will. You stated that homosexuality is a mental illness and then you said it was a choice. This makes absolutely no sense. You're stating that something you cannot choose, mental illness, is a choice, homosexuality.

Hell, whether homosexuality or not is a choice does not matter. We are different individuals with INDIVIDUAL GOALS. The moment you can choose whether or not you want to pass your genes or not is the moment your ultimate goal as a species as ended(reproduction, aka passing on your genes) and your ultimate goal as an individual has started. What is that goal? I don't know. Each human has a different "ultimate" goal and this "ultimate" goal tends to change from time to time.

The fact of the matter remains. We think, we have free will and therefor you cannot think of US the same way you think of a lion.

Firstly, I said if it was not a choice, like the context at that time was, then it is a mental illness.
Secondly, believe what ever you want to believe, just don't expect others to value that belief.
Have a nice life.

Wow. After everything you have said, all the points made and your beliefs vigorously defended... you cannot even have the common decency to accept his points, or respond to them in an appropriate manner?
I honestly thought that this was a discussion. But, as soon as a person with very good points that disagree with your opinions, you just give that? "Have a nice life"? "don't expect others to value that belief"? You this whole time have been spewing points that very few people agree on, and we have accepted them and tried to respond to them in the best way we could. Yet you have just tried to end this, with the bad light on him, because of his beliefs?

Incredible.

Thank you AndyFromMonday, all your points were very well put together, and much better than I could ever do!!

 

[Hashime]

It does 4 things:
Makes you unable to have a child with your partner
Makes you deviant to the general population
Alienates you in some way from a very large number of people (religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism though personal beliefs will change that number)
Makes you more likely to contract aids or an STI.
+others
Now, If you make that informed choice, I cannot hope to dissuade you, but again there will be consequences you must accept to live with.

Sorry, no. None of those points are derived from logic or science.

1. The planet is overpopulated anyway. Besides of which, the ability to have children or not is not grounds for declaring a mental disorder.

2. And? If you are not a WASP then you are, quite likely, a deviant to the general population of America and most other Western countries. Not grounds for a mental disorder.

3. And? See the above two points. I'm not sure you know what a mental disorder actually is.

4. Anal sex is not gay exclusive, nor is it the only means by which to contract AIDS or other STIs. Moreover, STIs are not gay exclusive. Anyone can get them in any manner of ways. Seriously though, are you a relic of the 80s? Can we please get over the whole "AIDS is a gay disease" mentality, because it is ignorant as fuck. And again, putting yourself at risk for these things is not necessarily grounds for declaring a mental disorder.

5. Such as?

None of these points are derived from any science and the fact that you attempt to portray them as such is disingenuous, as the very best. No reputable mental heath service in the world now classifies being gay as a mental disorder, so you most certainly do not have science on your side.

If you're going to argue here, at least be honest about it.

I did not claim it was a gay disease, I only noted that was a higher statistical chance of contracting one in the gay population.
sorry have to go.

 

[Valksy]

I always that gay marrige was legal in the UK, oh well.

Its just attraction, no big deal.

The rights granted by civil partnership are identical in every way to "marriage". The only difference is that, legally speaking, you cannot call it marriage. It's bullshit semantics, but the rights still stand.

And being as gay as a treeful of monkeys on nitrous oxide myself, I am perfectly happy with any and all GLBTQ folk =D

What does the Q stand for?

I have heard that it is either "Queer" or "Questioning". To be honest, we do seem to love our acronyms and even I find it hard to keep up =D

 

[vociferocity]

People are people, I am discussing the philosophy of homosexuality from the perspective of it as an idea. If you cannot separate emotions from logical (hopefully) discussion I apologize.
Remember, if the argument, any argument or situation makes you uncomfortable it real life or here no one will judge you for leaving.

Wait a minute here, we are NOT discussing the philosophy of homosexuality from the perspective of it as an idea. AS I've said before, since the mid 90s we've learnt from science and testing that it ISN'T purely a thought. This is something which is physical in SOME people (not all) and in other ways is purely acceptable of humans to be even "for fun".

You're either trying to troll or are a very troubled boy.

All of my arguments are from a purely scientific (or attempted to be from) perspective. Arguing with emotion leads to too many mistakes, and an inflexible perspective. In this situation I have chosen the perspective that being gay can be a choice, after reading and personal experience. It is my opinion however and should be taken as such. This is a discussion forum after all. It seems many are personally offended by this, and should again remember they can leave.

look, even if it was a choice, what the hell right do you have to tell people what they can or cannot choose? fuck it, okay. I'll play along: I am gay, I chose to be gay, I do not think that choice means I have a mental illness.

Let's discuss why you think it does.

It does 4 things:
Makes you unable to have a child with your partner
Makes you deviant to the general population
Alienates you in some way from a very large number of people (religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism though personal beliefs will change that number)
Makes you more likely to contract aids or an STI.
+others
Now, If you make that informed choice, I cannot hope to dissuade you, but again there will be consequences you must accept to live with.

alright.
1) if I am fertile, I can get a sperm donor. If my partner is, she can. If neither of us are, or want that, we could adopt. heaven knows there's far too many unwanted children and orphans needing good parents. this is the same kind of thing I would face if I remained single, however, or if I was straight up infertile with a male partner, which is an important fact imo.

2) okay, so let's start by looking up a definition of "deviant" "deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation:" is the first one I came across.

right....so you're saying that basically by being a minority, I'm .... being....a minority? is that seriously what you're saying here?

I'm going to assume you're really going for the implicit definition here, that I'd be a specifically icky minority, the kind people super dislike. look, I'm not going to disagree that there are people who think gays and lesbians and bisexuals should GTFO. I mean, clearly there are! those "nine out of ten gay teens have been bullied" stats definitely aren't saying "gay people are totally accepted by everyone! because we're not. that's a fact, a difficult and actually quite fucking painful, thanks, fact that some of us have to face up to.

the thing is...if I'm bullied, it's not my fault for being bullied. if there are people saying "I will bully the next lesbian I see" and I walk past, it's still not my fault. if they have a fucking sign saying "all lesbians in the general vicinity will be bullied ASAP", it's still not my fucking fault for being bullied. it is their fault for being bullies.

this holds especially true when we get rid of our bullshit "I'm choosing to be a lesbian" discussion here, but it is still true when I have chosen it.

if two adults, or two teenagers, or two toddlers are engaging in consensual sexual practices, or even just holding hands, or even if one teenager is just walking down the street minding her own business while also being a lesbian - it isn't harming the "general population". it harms nobody. it has, get this, nothing to do with you. if "lesbian" meant "lady who burns houses down for fun and also murders toddlers and bathes in their blood, hey you hashime, I'm coming for your toddler next", I don't think being hateful would be that much of an issue lmfao. the thing is, it doesn't. it means "lady who likes to get with other ladies, which has nothing to do with you unless you happen to be a hot sexy lesbian/bisexual lady because hey, call me", which means when you're being hateful, you're being disgusting. you're being prejudiced and bigoted and an all-round asshole, which means it isn't the lesbian's fault for being discriminated against.

so yes, perhaps being gay would make me "deviant to the general population". pretty sure the "general population" will just have to fucking deal with it, though.

3) honestly this is just the same as the last complaint. if we're just talking specific religions here, there are a gazillion things someone can do to "alienate" them from another religion. hell, even practicing one religion can get someone from another religion's back up.

4) there is such a thing as safe sex, and I hope everyone here at escapist is practicing it! but no seriously, while lesbians are just as "at risk" as heterosexual ladies re: regular STIs, I'm pretty sure (this site [http://www.avert.org/lesbians-safe-sex.htm] seems to agree with me) that there's a low risk for HIV, which is nice to hear.

basically your points seem ill-considered and poorly thought out. I mean, consequences I must accept to live with? fffffffff.

anyway, let's say your amazing grasp on how life works dissuades me from making this choice (which, by the way, it wouldn't have. you're terrible at this kind of discussion! where are the scientific studies that say I have a terrible mental illness?). now what? should I go to a gay correctional facility, even though several official sources deem those sorts of places absolutely terrible? (okay, what they've actually said is that they "create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish." source [http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/press/pressreleasearchives/2009/statement.aspx] aaaand another source [http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/policy/ex-gay.pdf])

--oh wait hang on, I was just glancing through that second link, and look what I found right at the top.

"For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that
homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure."

wow, how about that. sorry to cut your whole "homosexuality is a mental illness" argument in the bud there, mate, but it looks like literally nobody agrees with you.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Firstly, I said if it was not a choice, like the context at that time was, then it is a mental illness.
Secondly, believe what ever you want to believe, just don't expect others to value that belief.
Have a nice life.

I've already explained how thinking of human beings as a species instead as of individuals is an incorrect form of thinking as it assumes that we still are an entire population with a single goal in mind and that is reproduction. We are INDIVIDUALS, with INDIVIDUAL goals. We no longer follow A NORM that is imposed by us due to our inability to think and have free will. We HAVE free will and therefore analyzing a human being based on an rule we bypassed is an incorrect form of thinking.

Like I've said before, you fail to account for that. You're trying to put humans in the same thinking group as an animal. You CANNOT DO THAT. We ARE NOT like animals. WE HAVE BROKEN FREE of our hardwiring. We can CONTROL our urges. We can CONTROL our goals. We are no longer bound to reproduce. We can choose to reproduce but WE can choose NOT TO. We are to complex to be put in the same category as animals. This is why you cannot categorize homosexuality as a mental illness until we as a species revert back to our basic instincts. If this happens, however, we won't be here debating it. We'd ignore it and focus on fucking as much as possible.

 

[JayDee106]

I have heard that it is either "Queer" or "Questioning". To be honest, we do seem to love our acronyms and even I find it hard to keep up =D

Yeah, I thought it was always Questioning, because Bi-curious would add another B and screw up with the acronym haha

 

[Chewster]

It does 4 things:
Makes you unable to have a child with your partner
Makes you deviant to the general population
Alienates you in some way from a very large number of people (religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism though personal beliefs will change that number)
Makes you more likely to contract aids or an STI.
+others
Now, If you make that informed choice, I cannot hope to dissuade you, but again there will be consequences you must accept to live with.

Sorry, no. None of those points are derived from logic or science.

1. The planet is overpopulated anyway. Besides of which, the ability to have children or not is not grounds for declaring a mental disorder.

2. And? If you are not a WASP then you are, quite likely, a deviant to the general population of America and most other Western countries. Not grounds for a mental disorder.

3. And? See the above two points. I'm not sure you know what a mental disorder actually is.

4. Anal sex is not gay exclusive, nor is it the only means by which to contract AIDS or other STIs. Moreover, STIs are not gay exclusive. Anyone can get them in any manner of ways. Seriously though, are you a relic of the 80s? Can we please get over the whole "AIDS is a gay disease" mentality, because it is ignorant as fuck. And again, putting yourself at risk for these things is not necessarily grounds for declaring a mental disorder.

5. Such as?

None of these points are derived from any science and the fact that you attempt to portray them as such is disingenuous, as the very best. No reputable mental heath service in the world now classifies being gay as a mental disorder, so you most certainly do not have science on your side.

If you're going to argue here, at least be honest about it.

I did not claim it was a gay disease, I only noted that was a higher statistical chance of contracting one in the gay population.
sorry have to go.

You'll still have to explain the leap that took you from that point to mental illness, because it is a big one.

And leaving? So soon? After we all poked holes in your airtight scientific logic?

Shame. Better luck next time though.

 

[Valksy]

I do not believe that one "is" gay, I see it as a mental illness or deviation that must be treated or worked out in therapy. )

I was born gay and have been out for about half my life now. I do not wish to change, I do not need to be treated and in all my years in the GLBTQ community, from student organisations onwards, I have not met a person who wants to be "treated". Being gay is as much a part of me as my blue eyes and the colour of my hair.

Happily, your belief is worth about as much as your "research". But then we all know that 97.57889893759735% of statistics are just made up.

Have you ever tried not being gay, I mean really tried? Attempting to understand why your thoughts are different from normal, trying to understand why you are choosing to go against the most basic instinct of continuing your genetic line? It might take time and effort, but If you do not try to change your situation, or understand what is different you cannot really say you are gay, only that the most convenient definition of yourself is gay. If after that your views have not change so be it.

Because being with a man makes as much sense to me as being with a dog (sorry blokes, I don't mean to infer that you are animals. just...ewww...no..I find the notion has a profound sense of wrongness to me). And these are not my "views", this is my sexual orientation. Whatever gender YOU may be I very much doubt that you would consider trying one of your own. Now while I concede that many GLBTQ people might go through a process in life, where they are questioning themselves. I never needed to, every instinct in me says "women" and I am completely and utterly happy with that.

Bollocks to genetic legacy. If I wanted a baby I would have one, it isn't rocket science you know. I have known plenty of women who tried to live "normal" lives, even got married and had families and in the end they found that they had to be true to themselves. That living a lie was desperately harmful to them and actually a thing that some of them found very wrong for their husband, someone that they probably liked.

You infer choice. My experiences in life tell me that that is also bollocks.

And what is so wrong with being "different"? Differences are what makes people so darned interesting. Screw this need to all be the same to make society feel warm and cosy. So long as people on a sexual relationship are consenting adults then what they do is their business and people who aren't involved need to keep their nose out.

 

[EeveeElectro]

No problem. It certainly isn't for me, just the thought of being with another man is weird for me... But I have no problem with gay people.

'She's a lesbian? oooh, I better stay away from her, she probably fancies me.'

*This isn't her view by the way, for anyone who didn't see this post.
It's just an example of one of the major things that annoys me about homophobia.
It's pathetic really, just because someone is gay doesn't mean they're attracted to every member of the same sex, just like straight people aren't attracted to every member of the opposite sex. And what are they so afraid of anyway? It's unlikely that that person will rape someone they find attractive, gay or not. Certainly there would be gay rapists, but the odds on that would be less than meeting a straight rapist.
It just really irritates me. It's illogical, and insulting. Not to mention really stupid.

I thought at first you said, "this is her view.." I was about to kick off haha. I misread it, my apologies.

And yeah, I usually tell them that they don't fancy every single person they meet, gay people are absolutely no different. Thankfully people are a lot more mature now.

 

[Disaster Button]

I always that gay marrige was legal in the UK, oh well.

Its just attraction, no big deal.

The rights granted by civil partnership are identical in every way to "marriage". The only difference is that, legally speaking, you cannot call it marriage. It's bullshit semantics, but the rights still stand.

And being as gay as a treeful of monkeys on nitrous oxide myself, I am perfectly happy with any and all GLBTQ folk =D

What does the Q stand for?

I have heard that it is either "Queer" or "Questioning". To be honest, we do seem to love our acronyms and even I find it hard to keep up =D

I think "Questioning" suits better, plus its kinda nice that it includes them so that they have a place too.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

The Q clearly stand for "Quarktastic".

 

[Vampire cat]

Unless they live in a swamp or is in denial, no one in modern society has anything against homosexuals, or very few anyway. Gay-jokes still get tossed around like snowballs in winter, and I think people should stop that and indeed any jokes based on soemthing that a person CANNOT change themselves. If it's cause a person smells funny, why not? They can fix that. They can't, however, fix their curly hair or love for hairy bums.

Me? I'm mostly attracted to women, but since I'm dating a guy that means I'm bi-sexual then =3.

u sound pretty cool but i would say that the people who passed me most of my gay jokes were queens, they would call each other names when there was an opportunity for instance, " you complete pussy fag u cant even open that jar"- at first i found this challenging but then it kinda settled on me that maybe humans can through comedy if all are consensual, work through some of the prejudices that have been laid at our own feet, i get goth jokes off my friends and gay jokes despite the fact i have been with my gf for 9 years, but tbf these jokes from friends or other people probably to help them feel more comfortable, i think its what we do when there are barriers of race or style of sexuality, comedy is a leveller. i have an irish friend for instance and i am british, potato famine jokes are rife along with remarks about tea and crumpets and empires, when were all level and no one means any harm then i think jokes can be a good thing for providing a common ground, there are always more similarities between humans than differences, the differences are an amalgamation of choice and cosmetics or superficial, ie skin colour.

WE ARE ALL MEMBERS OF THE SAME SPECIES our collective differences are less important to me than our similarities.
right im off to bash some queers then fuck them in the asshole types are beyond me however.

And I agree with all of this, why wouldn't I? I too joke around with my friends and it's all in good fun, I'm talking about he really mean and nasty jokes =3. I cannot imagine being with friends that can't take a joke, that would be annoying. Of course, you'll usually know your friends boundaries and take care not to cross them.

 

[Dys]

I'm pretty sure all the major religions are against homosexuality, so it's therefore stupid to have a homosexual marriage.

Although I am heterosexual and non-religious (an I don't have any major problems with either of them), I do like information. So here is some information relevant to the topic.

"The Episcopal Church affirmed at the 1976 General Convention that homosexuals are "children of God" who deserve acceptance and pastoral care from the church. It also called for homosexual persons to have equal protection under the law. This was reaffirmed in 1982."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_Church_%28United_States%29#Homosexuality

oh, I don't mean all religions, just Islam, Judaism, catholicism etc. The major ones.

 

[firemark]

As for the act, I believe it is wrong and unnatural.

I'm sorry to be abrupt but you're wrong... again. Assuming we use the most common definition of natural, being used to describe something that occurs in nature.
People have been linking the proof that homosexuality and as a result homosexual intercourse occurs in many creatures without any form of human intervention.

I did not mention choice once in my statement for a reason. As for things found in nature there are two headed snakes that doesn't make them the norm. Concerning my use of the word "natural" I meant it in relation to the sexual acts. The act of coitus between a man and a woman, excluding the use of preventative measures, will result in a baby. This may not occur all the time due to abnormalities such as sterilization etc. but it is the initially expected result. However, two men or two women having sex does not result in reproduction.

Sex is not just for pleasure, it has a purpose. The purpose is for a species to reproduce and continue. Admit it, without sex between a male and a female a species would die out. Don't throw in vitro fertilization into the mix because it is not "natural" by the overly inclusive definition. So your claim that it is not choice means that survival of the fittest cannot hold true here. Society is then in fact devolving, which fits with the concept of entropy and that the world will eventually succumb to complete chaos.

Look, my head exists in nature and so does a rock, but it wouldn't be natural for me to sit here all day and bang my head against it. But it appears I'm doing that already.

As for the act, I believe it is wrong and unnatural.

*BZZZZT*

Can we leave our toys at home next time?

 

[awmperry]

Personally? I'm slightly uncomfortable with homosexuality. I don't know why, really. But the important thing is that I'm firmly convinced that, uncomfortable or not, there's nothing wrong about it. If a man prefers other men, what right do I have to condemn that?

So yeah. I don't have a problem interacting with gay people - hell, I married a bisexual woman - I just would rather not be privy to any "intimate details". And you know what? That seems to suit people just fine (except fanfic authors, for some reason, who seem to insist on pairing male characters together even if they've never shown any inclination that way).

I have a big problem with things like Pride parades, though - partly because I don't think it's any of my business which way someone swings, partly because it sends the wrong message ("We're just like everyone else, but we have to have a parade to show how normal we are" seems silly), and partly because I'd be arrested if I tried to organise a Straight Pride parade. People should be proud of who they are - so why say some people can be prouder than others?

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Don't throw in vitro fertilization into the mix because it is not "natural

Before I attempt to debate you I'd like to ask a question: What does it mean for something to be natural?

 

[fletch_talon]

As for things found in nature there are two headed snakes that doesn't make them the norm.

It does however occur naturally. Cancer isn't 'normal' neither is Down's Syndrome, are sufferers of these diseases "wrong and unnatural"?
Or, if the fact that such diseases are beyond their control, are piercing's and tattoos "Wrong"? Unnatural? Sure. Wrong? I don't see why. (Personally I'm not a fan of tattoos and piercings, but like homosexual coitus I don't have to engage in it and it doesn't negatively affect me. In fact it doesn't affect any non-consenting adult.)

Concerning my use of the word "natural" I meant it in relation to the sexual acts. The act of coitus between a man and a woman, excluding the use of preventative measures, will result in a baby. This may not occur all the time due to abnormalities such as sterilization etc. but it is the initially expected result. However, two men or two women having sex does not result in reproduction.

Brilliant observation. Naturally hetero sex results in a baby and homo sex does not. So when an incidence of homosexual sex results in a baby feel free to call it unnatural.
Are impotent couples not permitted to have sex? Is protected sex harmful and wrong?

Sex is not just for pleasure, it has a purpose. The purpose is for a species to reproduce and continue.

Sex is not just for reproducing, it has another function. It also serves as a recreational activity which is beneficial for one's health and relationship, it relieves stress and provides a level of intimacy in a relationship that nothing else can.
Sex is one of the greatest pleasures in life and for you to claim that it should only be enjoyed by those willing to have children is selfish and petty.

Admit it, without sex between a male and a female a species would die out.

And as we all know, the homosexual's ultimate goal is to wipe out the human race. And it'll be so easy to do because the first step towards becoming homosexual is accepting homosexuals.

OH NO, I can feel the disease, crawling through my veins! Soon, they'll have us all, the entire world will be gay!

Oh wait, except, most people aren't gay and have no intention of being so. And the only way for it to spread from gay people is if they bore children (assuming its hereditary) which they can't (I'm against homosexual couples using surrogates, there's enough children in adoption if they must have a child).

So your claim that it is not choice means that survival of the fittest cannot hold true here. Society is then in fact devolving, which fits with the concept of entropy and that the world will eventually succumb to complete chaos.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read this as "let the sick/diseased/mentally and physically disabled fend for themselves and die". Or did you forget that this is essentially the meaning of survival of the fittest? It also refers to the fact that the "weak" are less likely to reproduce, which is already the case.

Look, my head exists in nature and so does a rock, but it wouldn't be natural for me to sit here all day and bang my head against it. But it appears I'm doing that already.

You could have the urge to bang your head which could be natural (probably some form of mental illness). That's about where the comparison ends though. There is no victim, nor harm, in consensual homosexual sex. When homosexuals start sticking their cocks in pencil sharpeners then that argument may stand.

Can we leave our toys at home next time?

Depends. Can we stop saying how evil and vile sexual acts are just because they don't match what is considered normal? Can we stop discriminating against homosexuals for engaging in said sexual acts, despite their complete lack of influence on anyone's lives but their own?

No? Didn't think so, I'll go grab my buzzer then.

 

[Guestyman]

Just an off topic comment, but am I the only one who finds it hilarious that because of his homophobic comment on page 3 and the title of this thread, now whenever jimmybobjr tries to post elsewhere, it says at the bottom of his post "User was put on probation for: Homosexuality."

Cruel irony/karmariffic much?

 

[Wereduck]

Just an off topic comment, but am I the only one who finds it hilarious that because of his homophobic comment on page 3 and the title of this thread, now whenever jimmybobjr tries to post elsewhere, it says at the bottom of his post "User was put on probation for: Homosexuality."

Cruel irony/karmariffic much?

Karmariffic indeed! Sadly the formatting of the probation flag makes it obvious that the poster isn't on probation for homosexual acts.