Regarding Homosexuality

[Kurokami]

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)

 

[Valkyrie101]

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?

 

[Tanis]

I think you're wrong, most mainstream scientists think you're wrong.

And every time you have sex because you enjoy it, you're just as bad as 'them', as your reasoning goes.

And every time you eat food because it tastes good, you're just as bad as 'them', as your reasoning goes.

 

[Nouw]

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.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation that is not dysfunctional, it's not the end of the world and certainly not something new that just popped up thanks to media trends that are more reminiscent to the exploitation of blacks in the early 1900's in pop-culture. It's just as normal and a human condition as preferring brunettes over blondes.

Labeling people that go for another gender as different, putting them into the group of "those" and stripping away human rights from folks at the same time, all the while spreading the idea of a dysfunction in evolution is sick and, frankly, a leap backwards in civilization.

There are enough heterosexuals to reproduce in this world that we're already over the amount of people that the planet can sustain, so I wouldn't worry about that either.

My bad, you're right. You can start by calling them their real name.

 

[Treefingers]

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?

Try "people"?

Or how about just evolving past the subject that we even have to bring that up as some kind of a question that who should have basic human rights like being able to live without being under scrutiny for simply because you don't have the same sexual preference as others.

Oh don't be so pretentious. He wasn't trying to other anybody. It's a perfectly reasonable term to use.

 

[Biosophilogical]

-la snip-

You are entirely correct ... assuming that you consider having children to be a worthy 'function'. However, seeing as there are heterosexuals that don't want kids, you could also all heterosexuality a 'dysfunction' in terms of them. So really, you have to first choose whether you think having kids is a good or bad function, and then you have to think about whether, sociologically speaking, having a sexual attraction to members of the opposite sex is necessary for reproduction. I mean, if you live in a society where sex and marriage and what-not isn't about who you want to have sex with, but rather who you wish to mother/father your children, then sexual orientation becomes entirely irrelevant, as having kids is the motivation behind sex, not the other way around. Alternatively, in our society, having sex with people of the opposite gender is not necessary for children. Then of course there is the train of thought that having children isn't desirable at a given time, at which point, desiring to have sex with members of the same sex would mean you don't have kids, and that could apply to current society, where you may wish to avoid children for the sake of your future, or ancient society, where you would not be able to support a child and they would die anyway.

 

[Nouw]

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?

Try "people"?

Or how about just evolving past the subject that we even have to bring that up as some kind of a question that who should have basic human rights like being able to live without being under scrutiny for simply because you don't have the same sexual preference as others.

Oh don't be so pretentious. He wasn't trying to other anybody. It's a perfectly reasonable term to use.

But in that case he could have easily said homosexuals. I made a whole paragraph about the use of pronouns but realized it did seem a bit discriminative.

 

[Blunderman]

In biology, it's a deviation. Technically, it can't be a dysfunction since you're still able to procreate, admittedly not with the person you love, but that's not relevant. It'd be the same as saying that people who simply don't want children are dysfunctional.

More importantly, why do people still talk about this? They're homosexuals, so what, who gives a damn? I'd love to get an answer to this.

 

[Nouw]

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.

Well I blame Society and the Media and Culture for making it like that. You see sexual acts between a man and a woman every day so that could forge into: anything other than a man and a woman is wrong and sometimes, you could be worried that your view point is wrong.

Just like calling people black is called racist somehow. Is it racist to call someone white? Once again, Media and Society and Culture. (Well to be fair you can't say shit about that unless you are black. Although I am Asian so I could understand it a bit more.)

Notice the edit in my post? Well at least he isn't homophobic, just confused a bit I guess.

 

[khiliani]

i am reluctant to enter into this seeing as the "nazi clause" was triggered in the second post, ie: once a comparason to the nazis is used in an argument there is nowhere else for it to go.

none the less, i can see the logic behind the OP's opinion, but i feel that that is a prehaps archaic point of view. sex in modern times has little to do with reproduction, no matter how much the catholic church claims otherwise. also a lot of hetrosexual coupkes are infertile, so you can not say that relative to each other, homosexual couples are somehow disadvantaged

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

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!

OT: I think you're wrong. It isn't dysfunctional, it isn't a choice. It is who the person is. Homosexuals are completely capable of taking care of business as nature intended but they aren't interested in that. It is not a condition that can be cured or should be investigated...

My point is...

More importantly, why do people still talk about this? They're homosexuals, so what, who gives a damn? I'd love to get an answer to this.

Yeah, that. They are who they are. Why do we need to dissect that?

 

[Spinozaad]

There is nothing wrong

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.

No. Your opinion is not wrong. If you practice what you say, you're not doing anything right wrong. I'd say you're doing better than the idiots who played the Nazi-card immediately.

Because, you know, we all think in terms of 'us' versus 'them'. This is not inherently bad. This is how the human mind/society works.

I too think of homosexuals (or, excuse me, "people with a sexual orientation for the same gender") as 'them'. Doesn't mean I'm going to gas and burn them.

If you accept and tolerate other opinions and different interests and ideals in society, than it's You Da Man, Dawg. The idea that everyone has to 'respect' everyone, and that the way the Gaymancipation is fought should be supported by progressives is absolutely retarded.